U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Ninth Edition, Latest Revision November 2015
Executive Summary
Chapters and Appendices
November 2015 Publication of Revision 07.2015
The November 2015 publication of Revision 07.2015 substantively revises MPEP §§ 2131.03, 2144.05, 2161, 2161.01, 2163, and 2181, and Appendix II. The PDF copies of MPEP Chapters 600, 700, 800, 1200, and FPC have also been re-dated to “November 2015” due to minor form paragraph revisions in these documents.
October 2015 Publication of Revision 07.2015
The October 2015 publication of Revision 07.2015 includes the following changes:
Substantive revisions to all Chapters of the MPEP except Chapters 1200, 1400, 1600, 1900, 2000, and 2300 (see the Summary of Changes Editor Note below for minor changes made to Chapters 1200, 1400, and 2300); the addition of Chapter 2900 entitled "International Design Applications" and Chapter FPC entitled "Form Paragraphs Consolidated"; and updates to the Table of Contents, Introduction, Subject Matter Index, and all Appendices except Appendix I and Appendix P.
The revised chapters and appendices incorporate changes to the laws, rules, and practice necessitated by, or made as a result of, the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA), Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (Dec. 18, 2012). The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague Agreement) as set forth in Title I of the PLTIA is effective as of May 13, 2015; the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) Implementation as set forth in Title II of the PLTIA is effective as of December 18, 2013. Editor Notes have been added to or revised in sections having limited applicability as a result of such changes.
Significant changes resulting from implementation of the Hague Agreement include the addition of Chapter 2900 (International Design Applications) and the revision of Chapter 1500 (Design Patents). In addition, Chapter 200 was revised to incorporate changes to priority and benefit claims made in the Hague Agreement implementation rulemaking. Conforming revisions were made in additional chapters.
Significant changes resulting from implementation of the PLT include revision of Chapter 600 to reflect changes to requirements for an application filing date (including filings without drawings or claims (for non-design applications)) and to provide for reference filings; and the addition in Chapter 200 of information relating to the provisions for the restoration of priority to foreign applications and domestic benefit of provisional applications where the later-filed application is filed more than 12 months after the relied upon application but within the 2 month grace period. Conforming revisions were made in additional chapters. Throughout the MPEP, revisions were also made to eliminate material pertaining to an "unavoidable delay"
Rev. 07.2015, November 20151
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
basis for revival, and to indicate a two month period for reply will be set in most instances where the Office previously set a one month or 30 day period for reply.
Chapters 800, 900, 1000, 1300, 1700, 1800, 2400, and 2500, which were not revised in the original Ninth Edition, 11.2013 (March 2014), also incorporate changes to the laws, rules, and practice necessitated by, or made as a result of, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284.
Chapters 500, 600, 1800, and 2400 were revised to reflect current practices pertaining to EFS-Web filings. Conforming revisions were made in additional chapters.
Chapter 900 was revised for changes necessitated by the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, a bilateral classification system jointly developed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO). Conforming revisions were made in additional chapters.
Chapter 2700 was revised to update the discussion of patent term adjustment (PTA) provisions in view of recent rules changes and court decisions.
All revised chapters and Appendix R incorporate any changes necessitated by the nine patent-related final rule notices published between October 21, 2013 and May 19, 2015.
Summary of Effective Dates
MPEP Chapters
Sections that have been substantively revised in this revision (published October 2015 and November 2015) have a revision indicator of [R-07.2015] meaning that the section has been updated as of July 2015.
MPEP Appendices
App II (List of Decisions Cited) includes the decisions cited in this Revision of the Manual.
Appendix L (Patent Laws) and Appendix R (Patent Rules) include the laws and rules as in force effective May 19, 2015.
Appendix T is as in force effective July 1, 2015.
Appendix AI is as in force effective July 1, 2015.
Robert A. Clarke, Editor Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
2Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Summary of Changes to MPEP Chapters
[Editor Note: For MPEP chapters 1200, 1400, and 2300 (which are not substantively revised in the Ninth Edition, Revision 07.2015 of the MPEP), as a result of the publication process, the form paragraphs reproduced in these chapters have been updated and may include substantive changes. A future revision will revise sections of these chapters as necessary for consistency with the form paragraph changes.
In addition, in MPEP § 1202, corrected "September 16, 2102" to "September 16, 2012" following the reproduction of 35 U.S.C. 6, and in MPEP § 1214.06, corrected spelling of "Notice of Abandonment." In chapter 1400, added missing title text to prior versions of 37 CFR 1.175, 1.324, and 1.78 in MPEP §§ 1414.02, 1481.02, subsection II, and 1481.03, subsection II.C, respectively, inserted inadvertently omitted form paragraph in MPEP § 1401, and deleted form paragraph 14.29.01 from MPEP § 1490.]
For the substantively revised chapters, particular attention is called to the changes in the following sections:
ALL REVISED CHAPTERS:
—PLTIA: The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (Dec. 18, 2012)
Editor Note: Acronyms and
—Hague Agreement: The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (see also 37 CFR 1.9(l))
Short Form References
—Hague Article: An Article under the Hague Agreement (see also 37 CFR 1.9(l)) —Hague implementation rule: Changes to Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs, 80 FR 17918 (April 2, 2015) —Hague Rule: A Regulation set forth in the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement (see also 37 CFR 1.9(m)) —PLT: Patent Law Treaty —PLT Article: An Article under the PLT —PLT implementation rule: Changes to Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368 (October 21, 2013) —PLT Rule: A Regulation under the Patent Law Treaty —For most time periods for reply previously set at one month, the time periods for reply have been revised to two months as a result of policy changes in the implementation of
Passim
the PLT. See the discussions in the PLT implementation rule regarding PLT Article 11 (78 FR at 62371) and various PLT Rules concerning noncompliance notifications ( id. at 62373). —Replaced "Express Mail" with "Priority Mail Express®" and "date in" with "date accepted" in light of the United States Postal Service (USPS) renaming Express Mail®
Passim
to Priority Mail Express® on July 28, 2013 and the final rule Renaming of Express Mail® to Priority Mail Express®, 79 FR 63036 (Oct. 22, 2014) to make corresponding nomenclature changes in the patent regulations. —Made minor nonsubstantive changes for consistency in style (e.g., "website" rather than "web site," "email" rather than "e-mail," removing "http://" from website addresses
Passim
that include "www."), and capitalization (e.g., "Internet," "intranet," "Web," "federal") unless otherwise used in treaty, statutory, or regulatory text. —Website addresses have been updated as necessary.Passim —Updated the following business unit names where necessary: Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Office of Initial Patent Examination
Passim
to Office of Patent Application Processing; Office of PCT Legal Administration to
Rev. 07.2015, November 20153
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
International Patent Legal Administration; and Office of Patent Publication to Office of Data Management. —Corrected or updated cross-references to sections within the MPEP chapters as necessary.
Passim
—Deleted as unnecessary Editor Notes concerning previously unrevised chapters. Revised section Editor Notes as necessary to account for the ability to file applications under 35 U.S.C. 385 (international design applications).
Passim
4Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 100:
—Updated 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) and 37 CFR 1.14 to reflect changes resulting from the PTLIA and its implementation. Clarified that official papers are accepted only at the Customer Service Window, except for certain papers that have been specifically exempted from the central delivery policy.
101
—Revised to update 37 CFR 1.14. Added information pertaining to access to an international design application maintained by the Office in its capacity as a designated office (37 CFR 1.1003) or as an office of indirect filing (37 CFR 1.1002).
102
—Revised to update 37 CFR 1.14 throughout the section.103 —In subsection I, clarified that all patent applications filed after June 30, 2003, are available in public PAIR upon publishing or patenting. —In subsection II, deleted "U.S. Patent" from the subsection title and added explanation that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 390, the publication by the International Bureau of an international design application designating the United States under the Hague Agreement is deemed to be a publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). —In subsection III, added cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.14(j) for access to international design applications. Added explanation that if an abandoned application is identified in a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), access to the abandoned application is available under 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv). Also added explanation that if a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) claims the benefit of, or incorporates by reference, an unpublished pending application, a copy of the application may be provided in accordance with 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(v) or (vi). Form PTO/SB/68 updated. —In subsection V, added reference to petitions for access in derivation proceedings. —In subsection VI, added references to benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) and to publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). Revised to limited "35 U.S.C. 365" to "35 U.S.C. 365(c)" in the context of benefit claims. —In subsection VIII, added references to access to applications involved in derivation proceedings and 37 CFR 42.3. Also added cross-reference to MPEP Chapter 2300. —Subsection III revised to indicate that petitions for access in special circumstances are filed under 37 CFR 1.14(i).
104
—Updated the name of the International Patent Legal Administration.110 —Added explanation that international design applications filed under the Hague Agreement in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are reviewed for the purposes of issuance of a foreign filing license.
115
—Updated 37 CFR 5.1 and 5.3. Revised the title of subsection IV to include international design applications, and added reference to a Secrecy Order applied to an international design application.
120
—Updated 37 CFR 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15. Added references to registrations of industrial designs in the context of foreign filing licenses. Revised to indicate that either the filing receipt or other official notice will indicate if a foreign filing license is granted.
140
—In subsection II, added a cross-reference to MPEP § 1002.02(b).
Rev. 07.2015, November 20155
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
CHAPTER 200:
Updated cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 for consistency with the reorganization of these rules resulting from the PLTIA and its implementation.
Passim
—Updated 35 U.S.C. 171 in accordance with the PLTIA.201 —Updated 35 U.S.C. 111 in accordance with the provisions of the PLTIA. Corrected the text of pre-PLT (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 111 and added explanation that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111 requirements
201.01
substantially correspond to those of pre-PLT (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 111, but do not include conforming amendments with regard to the oath or declaration provisions and other miscellaneous provisions of the AIA. Updated 37 CFR 1.9 to revise paragraph (a) and add paragraphs (l)-(n) for consistency with the Hague implementation rule. —Subsection I revised to provide an explanation of notable changes to the filing date requirements of nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) as a result of the PLTIA. Subsection I also revised to indicate that for applications not filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, MPEP Chapters 1800 and 2900 provide details regarding international applications (PCT) and international design applications, respectively. Deleted paragraph directed to domestic national applications as redundant to information in the first paragraph of the subsection. —In subsection II, updated definition of "national application" in accordance with 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1). Deleted references to applications filed before September 16, 2012 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.9 because 37 CFR 1.9 as revised in the Hague implementation rule is applicable to all applications irrespective of filing date. Subsection II further revised to specify that utility and plant patent applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, without a claim, are governed by the notification practice set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(f). —New subsection III added to discuss international design applications designating the United States. Subsection III includes the text of 35 U.S.C. 385 and 37 CFR 1.9(a) and (l)-(n), provides an overview of Title I of the PLTIA, which implemented the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (HagueAgreement), and provides a cross-reference to new MPEP Chapter 2900 for information regarding international design applications. —Revised text for consistency with 37 CFR 1.9 as amended in the Hague implementation rule.201.02 —Subsection I title revised to "Provisional Application Filed On or After December 18, 2013." Subsection I revised to update 35 U.S.C. 111 and provide an Editor Note as to its applicability,
201.04
to limit reproduction of 37 CFR 1.9 to paragraph (b), and to update 37 CFR 1.53 and provide an Editor Note as to its applicability. Subsection I further revised to provide a discussion of requisite parts of a provisional application in order to be accorded a filing date for applications filed on or after December 18, 2013. —Subsection II title revised to "Provisional Application Filed Before December 18, 2013." Subsection II revised to reflect that 35 U.S.C. 111 and 37 CFR 1.53 as set forth therein are the (pre-PLT) versions and to add Editor Notes as to their applicability. —Subsection III revised to add discussion regarding the possibility of restoring a provisional application for purposes of supporting the benefit claim of a subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78. —Subsection III further revised to provide that a request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must be accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i); the filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a nonprovisional application and the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f), if appropriate, are also required. For provisional applications filed before December 18, 2013, if the inventor's oath or declaration was not filed with the provisional application, it must be submitted with the request for conversion. —Added 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2) and revised section text for consistency with the rule. Added discussion of Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 86 USPQ2d 1001
201.06
6Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(Fed. Cir. 2008) which held that the protection afforded by 35 U.S.C. 121 only applies to divisional applications, and does not apply to continuation-in-part applications. —Revised to specify that divisional applications must be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), with the exception of design applications (but not international design applications) which may also be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). Further revised to indicate that a divisional application must claim the benefit of the prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), and added a cross-references to 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq. for the conditions for receiving the benefit of the filing date of a prior application. —Updated form paragraph 2.01 to clarify information pertaining to divisional applications. Pertaining to introductory text and subsection I. In General:201.06(c) —Preceding subsection I, inserted 37 CFR 1.53(b) as revised in the Hague implementation rule, and provided Editor Notes as to the applicability of the current and pre-PLT versions of that rule. Moved reproduction of 37 CFR 1.63(b) to subsection II. —Subsection I revised to add that a nonprovisional international design application is not an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). —Subsection I revised to add text explaining that the filing date for applications (excluding design applications) filed on or after December 18, 2013, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. Also added explanation that an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) after December 18, 2013, may be filed by reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. Added cross-reference to MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III for additional information. —Deleted text pertaining to applications filed under former 37 CFR 1.60, and moved to subsection II information pertaining to applications containing a copy of an oath or declaration from a prior application. —For consistency with current 37 CFR 1.78, revised text to explain that a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78(e) must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m). Pertaining to subsection II. Oath/Declaration:201.06(c) —In subsection II, inserted 37 CFR 1.63(b) as revised in the Hague implementation rule, and provided Editor Notes as to the applicability of the current and pre-AIA versions of that rule. —Subsection II substantially rewritten to clarify the conditions under which a copy of an oath or declaration from a prior application may be submitted with a continuation or divisional application, or with a continuation-in-part application filed on or after September 16, 2012. Information related to the content of an oath or declaration deleted and replaced with cross-references to MPEP §§ 602.05(a) and 602.05(b); information pertaining to paper processing was also deleted. —Added explanation that a new inventor's oath or declaration may need to be filed in a continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012, where the prior application was filed before September 16, 2012, because the inventor's oath or declaration submitted in any application filed on or after September 16, 2012, must comply with requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 in effect for such applications. Pertaining to subsection III. Specification and Drawings:201.06(c) —Subsection III updated to include 35 U.S.C. 386(c) among the list of ways to claim the benefit of a prior application. —Subsection III revised to specify that if a continuation or divisional application as filed contains subject matter that would have been new matter in the prior application, the applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part. Text further revised to limit the discussion pertaining to newly executed or supplemental oaths or declarations in continuation-in-part applications to those applications filed
Rev. 07.2015, November 20157
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
before September 16, 2012. Information pertaining to oaths or declarations in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, moved to subsection II. —Subsection III revised to specify that any utility or plant patent application, including any continuing application, that will be published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) should be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with a specification that includes any claim(s) and drawings that the applicant would like to have published. Further revised text to clarify that the only format for a preliminary amendment to the specification (other than claims) that is usable for publication is a substitute specification. Pertaining to subsection IV. Incorporation by Reference:201.06(c) —In subsection IV, revised to replace instances of "continuation or divisional" with "continuing." Updated cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.57 because the former provisions of paragraphs (a)-(f) were moved to paragraphs (b)-(h) in the PLT implementation rule. —Subsection IV updated to specify that for applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(d) for benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that was present on the filing date of the continuation or divisional application is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b). Moreover, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(4), any amendment to an international design application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(1) is effective only as to the United States and will only be acted upon after the international design application becomes a nonprovisional application. Added cross-reference to MPEP § 217 for more detailed information pertaining to incorporation by reference pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). —Subsection IV.A revised to indicate that pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(3), an amendment to add inadvertently omitted material must be by way of a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(e). (Prior to the PLT implementation rule, such a petition was to be submitted under 37 CFR 1.57.) —Subsection IV.B revised to indicate that if an application is entitled to a filing but the Office identified omitted item(s) in a Notice of Omitted Item(s), applicant must respond to the notice by filing an appropriate amendment. Pertaining to subsections V - XII:201.06(c) —Subsection V title renamed to "Inventorship in a Continuing Application." Revised to replace instances of "continuation or divisional" with "continuing." —Subsection V.B revised to indicate that reflect "pre-AIA" 37 CFR 1.63 is applicable to applications filed prior to September 16, 2012. —Subsection VI.A (formerly subsection VI.1) updated to add references to 37 CFR 1.1021(d) and 35 U.S.C. 386(c). —Subsection VI.B (formerly subsection VI.2) renamed "Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 Issues." —Subsection IX revised to delete reference to 37 CFR 1.171. —Subsection XI revised to delete reference to 37 CFR 1.63(d). —Subsection XII revised to specify that if the examiner determines that a continuation or divisional application as filed contains subject matter that would have been new matter in the prior application, the applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or redesignate the application as a continuation-in-part. Pertaining to introductory text and subsections I. CPA Practice has been Eliminated as to Utility and Plant Applications and V. Forms:
201.06(d)
Updated 37 CFR 1.53(d). —In subsection I, replaced the reference to form paragraph 8.27 with a reference to form paragraph 8.04.
8Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Subsection V revised to delete reference to Form PTO/SB/29A, "For Design Applications Only: Receipt For Facsimile Transmitted CPA" and update the website address for accessing the CPA Form. Pertaining to subsection II. Filing and Initial Processing of CPAs for Design Applications201.06(d) —Revised to update 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1)(ii) and text throughout the subsection for consistency with the Hague implementation rule. Specifically, a continuation or divisional (but not a continuation-in-part) application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b), except for the inventor's oath or declaration if the CPA is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(i) (i.e., an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor). —Subsection II.A further revised to explain that although the previously filed oath or declaration (if any) will be considered to be the oath or declaration of the CPA, for continuing applications (including CPAs) filed on or after September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 as revised effective September 16, 2012. —Subsection II.E further revised to clarify that pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) is applicable to a CPA filed prior to September 16, 2012, governing the filing of assignment papers. —Subsection II.F revised to provide information pertaining to filing CPA requests via EFS-Web. —Subsection II.G revised to indicate that for CPAs filed on or after September 16, 2012, if the prior application does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration, the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) is required (unless the inventor's oath or declaration is being filed with the CPA). —Subsection II.K revised to delete reference to the handling of paper application files. Pertaining to subsection III. Examination of CPAs:201.06(d) —Subsection III.A revised to indicate that where the non-continued prosecution application originally assigned an application number itself claims the benefit of a prior application or applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 386(c), 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2) continues to require that the non-continued prosecution application originally assigned the application number contain a reference to any such prior application(s). —Subsection III.A revised to indicate that where an applicant in an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) seeks to claim the benefit of a CPA under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 121 (as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part), 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2) requires a reference to the CPA by application number in an application data sheet or, for applications filed before September 16, 2012, in the first sentence of the specification. Revised to clarify that 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4) provides that "[t]he identification of an application by application number under this section is the identification of every application assigned that application number necessary for a specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every such application assigned that application number." —Subsection III.C revised to clarify that an election in reply to a restriction requirement made in the prior application carries over to the CPA under certain conditions. —Added 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2) and revised section text for consistency with the rule.201.07 —Revised to specify that continuation applications must be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), with the exception of design applications (but not international design applications) which may also be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). Further revised to indicate that a divisional application must claim the benefit of the prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), and added a cross-references to 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq. for the conditions for receiving the benefit of the filing date of a prior application. —Revised to replace reference to the "applicant" with "inventorship" consistent with the AIA. Revised to emphasize that a continuation must not include anything that would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application.
Rev. 07.2015, November 20159
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised to clarify that the Office, not the primary examiner, will establish the right to further examination when new claim sets are filed in a continuation before the termination of proceedings in an earlier nonprovisional application. —Revised to indicate that a continuation or divisional application may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior nonprovisional application is a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b), except for the inventor's oath or declaration if the CPA is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor. —Revised to indicate that benefit may additionally be claimed under 35 U.S.C. 386(c), and to delete parenthetical reference to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
201.08
—Subsection I revised to delete "substitute" from the list of applications that may claim benefit to a prior application. Revised to clarify that the identifying data of all prior applications for
202
which benefits are claimed should be reviewed by the examiner to ensure that the data is accurate and provided in an application data sheet for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, or provided in either the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012. —Subsection I revised to indicate that if benefit claim information is incorrect due to applicant error, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate. Further revised to indicate that a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim may also be required. —Subsection II revised to add that a petition for an unintentionally delayed claim for priority may also be required in instances where the oath or declaration or the application data sheet is erroneous with regard to foreign priority claims. —Deleted.202.01 -
202.04 —Revised to indicate that an application's status as an "allowed" application continues from the date of the notice of allowance until it issues as a patent, is withdrawn from issue in accordance
203.04
with 37 CFR 1.313, or becomes abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee and any required publication fee. —Subsection I revised to update website address for the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
203.08
—Revised to add reference to benefit and priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 386. Revised to indicate that title I of the PLTIA became effective May 13, 2015, along with corresponding revisions to the rules.
210
—Subsection I revised to indicate that it presents an overview of the substantive changes to 37 CFR 1.78 resulting from implementation of the AIA and the PLTIA. Revised to reflect that benefit of an earlier-filed application may be under 35 U.S.C. 365(c), or 386(c). Subsection I title and text revised to replace "domestic" with "national." —Subsection I updated to explain that in implementing the PLTIA, the Office reorganized and revised 37 CFR 1.78 effective May 13, 2015. All versions of 37 CFR 1.78 in effect prior to May 13, 2015, have been consolidated in the current version of 37 CFR 1.78, for which a summary of the provisions is provided. Updated to reflect that 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6) set forth provisions that are only applicable to nonprovisional applications filed on or after March 16, 2013 that claim the benefit of the filing date of a provisional or nonprovisional application filed prior to March 16, 2013. —Subsection II updated to explain that implementation of the PLTIA impacted priority claims and 37 CFR 1.55.
10Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Subsection II revised to delete the limited applicability of 35 U.S.C. 365(a) and (b) based on filing date. Revised to indicate that for all applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) to the prior application must be presented in the application data sheet. Revised to explain that in implementing the PLTIA, the Office reorganized and revised 37 CFR 1.55 effective May 13, 2015. All versions of 37 CFR 1.55 in effect prior to May 13, 2015, have been consolidated in the current version of 37 CFR 1.55, for which a summary of the provisions is provided. —Subsection III revised to indicate that Title I of the PLTIA amended the definition of effective filing date in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) to provide for priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) and benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c). Further revised to indicate that in implementing the first inventor to file provision of the AIA, the Office added a statement requirement to 37 CFR 1.55(k) and 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6) for transition applications. The requirement for a statement under these provisions does not apply to nonprovisional international design applications. —Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 for consistency with the PLTIA. Updated 37 CFR 1.78 in accordance with the Hague implementation rule and added references to benefit claims
211
under 35 U.S.C. 386(c). Revised to note that nonprovisional international design applications are excluded from the statement requirement under 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6). —Subsection I revised to note that if the prior-filed application is an international design application designating the United States, the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023.
211.01
—Subsection I further revised to delete the parenthetical regarding the time period under 37 CFR 1.53(g) and to add a cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2). Updated form paragraph 2.40. —Subsection III revised to indicate that nonprovisional international design applications are excluded from the transition provisions of 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6). —Revised to add new subsection heading "I. In General" to previous text. Subsection I revised to include discussion of restoration of benefits in accordance with the PLTIA and to add applicable cross-references for additional information.
211.01(a)
—Subsection I further revised to explain that as an alternative to claiming benefit to a provisional application that was filed in a language other than English, applicant may delete the benefit claim to the provisional application from the Application Data Sheet (ADS) or, for applications filed before September 16, 2012, from the ADS or the first sentence(s) of the specification, as appropriate. —Added to subsection I a discussion of restoration of priority benefit when a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a provisional application via an intermediate copending application, and an indication that design applications may not claim the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). —Added new subsection "II. Restoring the Benefit of a Provisional Application." Subsection II explains that effective December 18, 2013, title II of the PLTIA provides for restoration of the right to claim benefit of a provisional application filed after the expiration of the twelve-month period in 35 U.S.C. 119(e). —Subsection II further explains that as a result of the implementation of title I of the PLTIA, 37 CFR 1.78(a) and (b) were amended effective May 13, 2015, to provide that a petition to restore the right of priority filed on or after May 13, 2015, must be filed in the subsequent application and that the subsequent application is the application required to be filed within the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1)(i). —Subsection II discusses the requirements for filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b). Added form paragraph 2.11.01, relocated from MPEP § 211.01(b), subsection I. —Subsection I revised to add 35 U.S.C. 386(c) among the laws under which a later-filed application may claim the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application.
211.01(b)
Rev. 07.2015, November 201511
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Subsection I revised to add reference to MOAEC, Inc. v. MusicIP Corp., 568 F. Supp. 2d 978 (W.D. Wis. 2008) wherein the district court interpreted "before" to mean "not later than" and allowed a continuation application filed the same day that the parent patent issued to have the benefit of the filing date of the parent application, followed by "But see Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp.,Civil Action No. 12-259-RGA (D.Del. Feb. 11, 2015)." —In subsection I, updated form paragraph 2.11; form paragraph 2.11.01 deleted and relocated to MPEP § 211.01(a), subsection II. —Subsection II revised to indicate that a nonprovisional application that directly claims the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) must be filed within 12 months from the filing date of the provisional application, unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored (in which case the nonprovisional application must be filed within 14 months). Added cross-references to 37 CFR 1.78(b) and MPEP § 211.01(a), subsection II. —Revised quotation of 35 U.S.C. 371(d) in accordance with amendments made in the PLTIA.211.01(c) —New section added directed to claiming the benefit of an international design application designating the United States.
211.01(d)
—Subsection I revised to indicate Office preference for the use of an application data sheet, rather than making specific reference to a prior application in the first sentence(s) of the specification for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012.
211.02
—Subsection I revised to incorporate discussion of international design applications designating the United States. Revised to update cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.57. —Subsection I revised to replace instances of "surcharge" with "petition fee," and to replace 37 CFR 1.17(t) with 37 CFR 1.17(m). Updated form paragraph 2.15. —Subsection II revised to indicate that except for benefit claims to the prior application in a continued prosecution application (CPA), benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c) must identify the prior application by application number, by international application number and international filing date, or by international registration number and international filing date under 37 CFR 1.1023, and indicate the relationship between the applications. Further revised to add specific instructions for international design applications regarding reference to prior nonprovisional applications, and to indicate that a request for a CPA is not available for international design applications. —Subsection III revised to add cross-reference to MPEP § 2920.05(e) for benefit information specific to international design applications. —Revised to replace instances of "surcharge" with "petition fee" and to delete a reference to printing the PALM bib-data sheet.
211.02(a)
—Revised to update description of 37 CFR 1.78 to include international applications and international design applications.
211.03
—Updated to state that if the application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the benefit claim of the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) must be made during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application. Updated the guidance regarding making a benefit claim for nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371. —Revised to add that if the application is a design application, the claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed application must be submitted during the pendency of the later-filed application. —Revised to replace "surcharge" with "petition fee" and to replace 37 CFR 1.17(t) with 37 CFR 1.17(m). —Updated form paragraph 2.39.
12Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Revised to replace of "surcharge" with "petition fee" and to replace 37 CFR 1.17(t) with 37 CFR 1.17(m). Revised to update all cross-references to 37 CFR 1.78 in accordance with the Hague implementation rule.
211.04
—Revised to add that effective May 13, 2015, 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) was amended to make the procedures under 37 CFR 1.78(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim applicable to design applications where the benefit claim was not submitted during the pendency of the design application. Thus, a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e) may be filed along with a request for certificate of correction after patent grant. —Revised to delete that the petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim must be submitted during the pendency of the nonprovisional application. Revised to add that if a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c) or (e) is required in an international application that was not filed with the United States Receiving Office and is not a nonprovisional application, then the petition may be filed in the earliest nonprovisional application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the international application and will be treated as having been filed in the international application. Revised to add cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.78(i). —Revised to emphasize that a continuation application must not include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application. Updated form paragraphs.
211.05
—Updated 35 U.S.C. 119 and 37 CFR 1.55 in accordance with the PLTIA and the Hague implementation rule, and revised text for consistency therewith. Revised to add references to
213
restoration of the right of priority and to priority claims in nonprovisional international design applications. —Updated form paragraph 2.18, and deleted final paragraph of section as no longer necessary. —In the introductory text, deleted reference to "another treaty between the United States and some Latin American countries" and deleted paragraphs specific to Taiwan and Thailand.
213.01
—In subsection I, updated the table of states with respect to which the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) has been recognized based on their status as party to the PCT or Paris Convention or as members of the WTO. Added website address for accessing the most current version of the table. —Subsection II revised to update 35 U.S.C. 365 in accordance with PLTIA. —Added new subsection III. Right of Priority Based Upon an International Design Application to provide an overview of the subject and a cross-reference to newly-added MPEP § 2920.05(d) for additional information. Former subsection III redesignated as subsection IV. —Subsection IV (formerly subsection III) revised to explain that under the Paris Convention, the right of priority may be based on an application for a patent or for the registration of a utility model or an industrial design. Corrected title of "The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs." —Subsection I revised to add discussion of formal requirements relating to claiming foreign priority in international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 and international design applications designating the United States.
213.02
—Subsection I revised to specify that for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for priority must be presented in an application data sheet, and that for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the claim for priority must appear in the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. —Subsection I further revised to add a cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.57(a) and MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III, regarding filing by reference to a previously filed application. Updated cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.57. —Subsection III revised to change cross-reference of 37 CFR 1.55(j) to 37 CFR 1.55(k) and to explain that nonprovisional international design applications are excluded from the transition provision of 37 CFR 1.55(k), as such applications can only be filed on or after May 13, 2015.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201513
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Introductory text revised to include a discussion of restoration of priority and to include a discussion of Hague Agreement Rule 4(4) relating to the last day for taking an action or paying a fee.
213.03
—In subsection II, revised the date in provided example so that it would not be impacted by restoration of the right of priority. —Add new subsection III. Restoring the Right of Priority to explain that the PLTIA provides for restoration of the right of priority under certain conditions, and to explain the requirements of a petition 37 CFR 1.55(c) for such restoration. —Section rewritten in its entirety to update 37 CFR 1.55(g) and the requirements for filing a proper priority claim and certified copy of the foreign application.
213.04
—Revised to update cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.55.213.05 —Revised to update 37 CFR 1.55 and cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.55, and to add PCT Rule 4.10 Priority Claim. Further revised to indicate that there are limited exceptions to the
213.06
time limits set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT regarding priority claims and filing the certified copy of the foreign application, and added cross-references to MPEP §§ 214.02 and 215.02. —New section added to discuss of provisions for claiming priority and filing a certified copy in a nonprovisional international design application in accordance with the Hague Agreement.
213.07
—Updated to indicate that implementation of the PLTIA resulted in changes to the procedural requirements relating to claims for priority to an earlier-filed foreign application and to the submission of a certified copy of the priority document as set forth in 37 CFR 1.55.
214
—Revised to add a parenthetical distinguishing between the time period for filing a claim for foreign priority in design patents from utility patents. —Revised to indicate that where the requirements for perfecting priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) have not been met before the issuance of patent, 37 CFR 1.55(g) and MPEP § 216.01 should be consulted for an explanation of when the deficiencies are correctable by a certificate of correction or reissue. Deleted discussion of Brenner v. State of Israel. —Revised to delete 37 CFR 1.55(c). Updated 37 CFR 1.55(d) and added discussion of its provisions. Updated cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.55.
214.01
—Revised to add discussion of priority claims in design applications, and to explain that a claim for priority may be made at any time during the pendency of the application. Added cross-reference to MPEP §§ 1504.10 and 2920.05(d) added for additional information pertaining to priority claims in design applications. —Revised to limit discussion of priority claims in an application data sheet to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). —Updated 37 CFR 1.55(e) and related discussion with respect to unintentionally delayed priority claims in accordance with the Hague implementation rule. Added explanation that 37 CFR 1.55(g)
214.02
allows the priority claim and the certified copy required under 37 CFR 1.55 to be filed pursuant to a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) even if the application is not pending (e.g., a patented application). —Revised to indicate that prior to May 13, 2015, there were no procedures for accepting an unintentionally delayed priority claim in a design application, but that effective May 13, 2015, such procedures were established. Added cross-reference to MPEP § 216.01. —Updated form paragraphs for consistency with 37 CFR 1.55.214.03 —In subsection III, revised to include caveat regarding priority not having been restored under PCT Rule 26 bis.3 or 37 CFR 1.55(c). Form paragraph 2.23 revised to include information pertaining to petitions under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority.
14Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Subsection V revised to update the protocol to follow when the claim for foreign priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date of payment of the issue fee but prior to the date of grant of the patent and to add cross-reference to MPEP § 216.01. —Revised to correct cross-reference from MPEP § 215.01(a) to MPEP § 215.01.214.04 —Subsection I revised to indicate that an application data sheet may be used for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012 to identify the certified copy of the foreign priority application.
215
—Subsection III revised to insert 37 CFR 1.55(h) and update form paragraph 2.20. —Subsection IV revised to update procedures for correcting the priority claim when the foreign priority document does not correspond with the application identified in the priority claim and for adding a priority claim when the priority claim is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55. Updated form paragraph 2.22. —Subsection V revised to update the protocol to follow when the claim for foreign priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date of payment of the issue fee but prior to the date of grant of the patent, and to add cross-reference to MPEP § 216.01. —Updated website address for information concerning the priority document exchange program and corrected the reference to 37 CFR 1.323.
215.01
—Updated 37 CFR 1.55(f) and the discussion thereof in accordance with Hague implementation rule. In particular, text revised to indicate that the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) only
215.02
applies to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after March 16,2013, and to indicate that 37 CFR 1.55(f)(2) sets forth the time period for filing a certified copy of the foreign application for international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. —Revised to explain that the time period requirement in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) or (f)(2) does not apply in three circumstances, namely those set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(h)(certified copy filed in parent or related application), 37 CFR 1.55(i)(foreign intellectual property priority document exchange participant), or (j)(interim copy of foreign application filed). —Updated 37 CFR 1.55(i)(formerly 37 CFR 1.55(h)) and cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.55. Revised description of timeliness requirement to indicate that the time period is set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1).
215.02(a)
—Updated 37 CFR 1.55(j)(formerly 37 CFR 1.55(i)) and cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.55. Added indication of the time period for providing an interim copy of the foreign
215.02(b)
application in an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. Revised to indicate that a certified copy of the foreign application must still be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e), (f), or (g) as appropriate. Revised document description to be used when filing interim copies via EFS-Web. —Replaced paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.55 previously reproduced herein with 37 CFR 1.55(g), and revised text for consistency with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.55(g) as amended in the Hague
215.03
implementation rule. Deleted references to a processing fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i), and added brief discussion of petitions under 37 CFR 1.55(e), (f), or (g). —Revised to indicate that an application data sheet may be used for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012 to identify the foreign application to which priority is claimed. Revised to
216
indicate that for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C.111(a) and international applications, entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the examiner should ensure that the claim for foreign priority is timely. Updated form paragraph 2.19. —Revised discussion specific to applications filed before September 16, 2012, for consistency with 37 CFR 1.55(n). Revised text to clarify that if the nonprovisional application and the certified copy of the foreign application do not name the same inventor or do not have at least one joint inventor in common, the priority date should be refused until the inconsistency is resolved. —Revised to clarify circumstances under which a United Kingdom "complete specification" is treated as a different application than the United Kingdom "provisional specification."
Rev. 07.2015, November 201515
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Section title revised to "Perfecting Claim for Priority Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) After Issuance of a Patent."
216.01
—Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and add 37 CFR 1.55(e)-(g) pertaining to delayed priority claims and delayed submission of the certified copy of the priority document. Added text explaining that the failure to perfect a claim to foreign priority prior to issuance of the patent may be cured via a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 , provided the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 are met, or by filing a reissue application. —Moved discussion of Brenner v. State of Israel to subsection II and discussion of In re Van Esdonk to subsection I. —Added subsection I. Perfecting Priority Claim Via Certificate of Correction to explain that 37 CFR 1.55(g) eliminates the need in many instances to file a reissue application in order to perfect a claim for foreign priority, and to provide specific examples pertaining to 37 CFR 1.55(e) - (g) and 37 CFR 1.55(h). —Added subsection II. Perfecting Priority Claim Via Reissue to explain that in circumstances where a claim to foreign priority benefits cannot be perfected via a certificate of correction because the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) or (f) had not been satisfied in the patented application, or its parent, prior to issuance, and the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 are not met, the claim to foreign priority benefits can be perfected only by way of a reissue application. —Revised to update 37 CFR 1.57(b)(formerly 37 CFR 1.57(a)) and to update cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.57.
217
—Subsection I revised to indicate that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.57(b) are applicable to inadvertently omitted from an application that claims priority to, or the benefit, a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international, or international design application. —Revised subsection II.F to indicate that pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(3), an amendment to add inadvertently omitted material must be by way of a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(e). Added subsection II.H directed to amendments to an international design application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(1). —In subsection III, Example 3, replaced "the effective date of 37 CFR 1.57(a)" with "September 21, 2004" for clarification. —In subsection IV, updated form paragraph 6.19.02.
16Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 300:
—Updated 35 U.S.C. 261 to reflect revisions made in the PLT.301 —Updated 37 CFR 3.1 for consistency with the Hague implementation rule, adding international design applications designating the U.S. to the definition of "application" for the purposes of 37 CFR Part 3. —Revised the last paragraph of the section to add applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 385 to the list of applications wherein an assignment may contain the statements required to be made in an oath or declaration. —Updated 37 CFR 3.11 and the corresponding text in the section to specify that "other documents" that may be recorded at the discretion of the Director are documents "relating to interests in patent applications and patents."
302
—Revised the second paragraph of the section by deleting the reference to the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act). —Updated 37 CFR 3.21 for consistency with the Hague implementation rule adding the manner in which an international design application must be identified in an assignment.
302.03
—Updated 37 CFR 3.31(h) for consistency with the PLT implementation rule, which provides that the assignment cover sheet required by 37 CFR 3.28 will be satisfied by certain Patent Law Treaty model forms.
302.07
—Updated 37 CFR 1.4 for consistency with the PLT implementation rule, which specifies how electronically submitted correspondence must be signed and the certifications made by submission of signed correspondence.
302.10
—Revised last paragraph by adding an exception to when substitute or continuation-in-part applications require the recordation of a new assignment if they are to be issued to an assignee,
306
i.e., if the substitute or continuation-in-part application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the assignee is the original applicant therein. —Revised to add that the recordation of a new assignment is not required in an application that both claims the benefit of a provisional application and adds matter not in common with the
306.01
provisional application if the application claiming the benefit is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the assignee is the original applicant therein. —Updated 37 CFR 1.46 for consistency with the Hague implementation rule.308 —Revised Editor Note in 37 CFR 1.46 to include a reference to 35 U.S.C. 385 and a reference to "pre-Hague" 37 CFR 1.46. —Revised to add cross-reference to MPEP § 1701 for additional restrictions on Office employees.309 —Revised last paragraph to change the references to "prior copending" or "earlier" applications to "related" applications. Deleted cross-references to 37 CFR 1.78(a) and MPEP § 211 et seq. and specified the relevant paragraph of 37 CFR 1.77, i.e. 37 CFR 1.77(b)(1) - (3).
310
—Revised title by deleting first occurrence of "Other."313 —Revised text for consistency with 35 U.S.C. 261 and 37 CFR 3.11. Revised to replace the specific indication of where documents will be recorded (i.e., the Assignment Division) with "the Office." —Further revised to specify that in addition to documents that constitute a transfer or change of title, other documents relating to interests in patents or applications will generally be recorded. Added explanation that documents not accepted for recording include attorney's liens against patents or patent applications, citing to In re Refusal of Assignment Branch to Record Attorney's Lien, 8 USPQ2d 1446 (Comm'r Pat. 1988). Revised third paragraph, second sentence, by changing "Office" to "purported assignee" to correct an error. —Added cross-references to MPEP § 512 and MPEP § 513.317.02
Rev. 07.2015, November 201517
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised by deleting "due to a typographical error" in first sentence of first paragraph because the discovery of an improperly recorded assignment or name change is not limited to typographical errors.
323.01(c)
—Revised to clarify by adding the explanation that petitions to correct, modify, or expunge an assignment record "will not result in the removal of a document from the assignment records."
323.01(d)
Further revised by adding an indication that assignment records are recognized as distinct from application file records. —Added the following explanation at the end of the section: "A redacted version of the 'expunged' document must be recorded and will appear in the assignment records instead of the 'expunged' document upon the granting of the petition. An additional assignment of the 'correct' document may be recorded in addition to the redacted version where the redacted version is incomplete or the original document was not correct." —Revised Editor Notes under (pre-AIA) 37 CFR 3.71 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73 to include references to 35 U.S.C. 385. In subsection VII, changed "37 CFR 1.131" to "37 CFR 1.131(a)."
324
—Revised Editor Notes under 37 CFR 3.71 and 37 CFR 3.73 to include references to 35 U.S.C. 385. Revised "37 CFR 1.46(c)" to read "37 CFR 1.46(c)(2)" throughout section. Revised third
325
paragraph to indicate that the owner or assignee "can consent" (rather than "consents") to the filing of a reissue application. In subsection VII, changed "37 CFR 1.131" to "37 CFR 1.131(a)."
18Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 400:
—In subsection I, added cross-reference to MPEP § 601.03(a) explaining change of correspondence address in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, and MPEP § 601.03(b) for change of correspondence address in applications filed before September 16, 2012.
402
—Added cross-references to MPEP § 1807 for representation in international applications (PCT) and MPEP § 2911 for representation in international design applications.
402.01
—Updated 37 CFR 1.32. In subsection II, added reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c) in the context of powers of attorney in prior national applications to which benefit is claimed.
402.02(a)
—In subsection III, deleted information pertaining to applications filed before September 16, 2012, and added a link to forms available on the USPTO website. —In subsection III, deleted information pertaining to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, and added reference to forms PTO/SB/80 and PTO/SB/81.
402.02(b)
—Updated 37 CFR 11.18.402.03 —Deleted form PTO/SB/83 and replaced with form PTO/AIA/83.402.06 —Updated Form PTO/SB/80.402.07 —Updated 37 CFR 1.33.403.01(a) —Updated Form PTO/SB/84.405 —Revised section title to read "Interviews With Patent Practitioner of Record." Revised text to indicate an examiner may contact the patent practitioner of record in the application (in accordance with MPEP § 502.03) to suggest a telephonic, personal, or video conference interview.
408
—Replaced indication that a patent practitioner not of record should not be given information relative to the application by telephone with a cross-reference to MPEP §§ 101 -104 for information regarding access to application information by persons other than a patent practitioner of record. —Deleted reference to practitioners having offices or representatives in the Washington area. —At the end of subsection II, added cross-reference to MPEP § 1702.409.03(d) —Updated 37 CFR 1.46.409.05 —Updated 37 CFR 1.4. Provided additional guidance on certifications before the Office consistent with 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and (5) and 37 CFR 11.18(b). Revised to change cross-reference from
410
37 CFR 1.137(b) to 37 CFR 1.137(a) because the unintentional delay standard has been relocated to 37 CFR 1.137(a).
Rev. 07.2015, November 201519
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
CHAPTER 500:
—Updated 37 CFR 1.1 and 1.4. Revised subsection I to include reference to requests for supplemental examination.
501
—Updated 37 CFR 1.5 and 1.6. Revised to indicate that papers filed in association with a supplemental examination proceeding should identify the patent number and the supplement examination request control number.
502
—Updated 37 CFR 1.6. Revised to indicate that correspondence in international design applications and requests for supplemental examination may not be submitted via facsimile.
502.01
—Updated 37 CFR 1.4. Revised to indicate that a graphic representation of a handwritten signature as provided for in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) or S-signatures as provided for in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) will be accepted when submitted via the Office electronic filing system.
502.02
—Revised to incorporate changes associated with Change to Internet Usage Policy to Permit Oral Authorization for Video Conferencing Tools by Patent Examiners, 80 FR 23787 (April 29, 2015).
502.03
—Section rewritten in its entirety to parallel the organizational structure of the April 2011 Legal Framework for EFS-Web (available at
502.05
www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/legal-framework-efs-web-06april11), and to reflect the current abilities and requirements of the Office Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web). —Subsection I is directed to the Legal Framework for EFS-Web, and subsection II provides additional information. Subsections I.A – I.G correspond to sections A – G of the April 2011 Legal Framework; subsections I.H – I.N reorganize sections H – J of the April 2011 Legal Framework and add additional information. Subsection II references the USPTO website for additional information on EFS-Web and PAIR. Pertaining to subsection I, following is a summary of the major differences between MPEP § 502.05, subsection I and the April 2011 Legal Framework.
502.05
—I.A. General Information on EFS-Web - revised to provide updated general information on web-based documents such as ePetitions and eTerminal Disclaimers submitted via EFS-Web. —I.B. Legal and Document Policies - revised to update the listing of applications and documents that are permitted to be filed via EFS-Web to provide for international design applications, supplemental examination requests, third-party preissuance submissions, citation of prior art and written statements in patent files, and web-based documents such as ePetitions and eTerminal Disclaimers. Clarified that registered users may not file follow-on documents in applications, reexamination proceedings, or supplemental examination proceedings, unless the practitioner is of record or acting in a representative capacity. Added listing of papers which may be filed and processed electronically by registered users, including: request for withdrawal as attorney or agent; ePetition for Revival of an Application for Patent Abandoned Unintentionally Under 37 CFR 1.137(b); Petition to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313; Petition for revival of an application under 37 CFR 1.137; eTerminal Disclaimers for nonprovisional utility applications under 37 CFR 1.321; and Petition to correct assignee after payment of Issue Fee under 37 CFR 3.81(b). —I.C. Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and Date of Receipt - revised to clarify that the EFS-Web system records as the date of receipt of documents the local time and date in Alexandria, Virginia. —I.D. Proper Usage of EFS-Web - revised to clarify that providing an incorrect application number and confirmation number when filing a follow on document will result in the follow on document being entered in the wrong application. —I. E. Security and Authentication - revised to clarify that a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate holder has thirty (30) days to update changes to information in the certificate of action form and may only use his or her certificate to attempt to access applications which the certificate holder is authorized to access.
20Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—I.F. Signature Policy - revised to reflect changes to 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3) which permit the use of a graphic representation of a handwritten signature as provided for in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) or of an S-signature as provided for in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2). —I.G. Submission of Pre-Grant (Eighteen-Month) Publication Requests via EFS-Web - revised to update form numbers. —I.H. Submission of Supplemental Examination Requests via EFS-Web – subsection added to provide that supplemental examination requests may be submitted via EFS-Web. Information in April 2011 Legal Framework section H moved to subsection I.K. —I.I. Filing of Third-party Preissuance Submissions and Citation of Prior Art and Written Statements in Patent Files Filed via EFS-Web – new subsection added to provide that third-party preissuance submissions and citation of prior art and written statements in patent files may be submitted via EFS-Web. Information in April 2011 Legal Framework section I moved to subsections I.K and I.L. —I.J. Submission of Interim Copies of Foreign Priority Documents via EFS-Web – new subsection added to provide that interim copies of foreign priority documents may be submitted via EFS-Web. Information in April 2011 Legal Framework section J moved to subsection I.M. —I.K. Submission of Photographs and Drawings via EFS-Web – subsection I.K includes information in April 2011 Legal Framework section I pertaining to the submission of drawings and photographs via EFS-Web and further revised to provide for international design applications, supplemental examination proceeding and to clarify that a petition under 37 CFR 1.84 to accept color drawings does not apply to design applications. —I.L. Text Files and File Limits – subsection I.L includes information in April 2011 Legal Framework section I pertaining to the submission of text files and file limits via EFS-Web and is further revised to address file limits for international design applications. —I.M. International Applications (PCT) and Associated Documents – subsection I.M includes information in April 2011 Legal Framework section J pertaining to the submission of international applications (PCT) and documents therefor via EFS-Web and is further revised to indicate that color drawings are not permitted in PCT international applications. —I.N. International Design Applications and Associated Documents – new subsection added to include information concerning the filing of international design applications and associated documents via EFS-Web. —Updated 37 CFR 1.54. Revised to indicate that the Office includes the application's confirmation number on the cover sheet accompanying Office actions and on filing receipts. Also revised to indicate
503
a nonprovisional application filed on or after December 18, 2013 may receive a filing date when filed with or without claims. —Updated 37 CFR 1.6.505 —Updated 37 CFR 1.53. Revised to distinguish between the statutory requirements for a nonprovisional utility application and a design application to have a filing date granted. Revised to update information concerning the processing of incomplete applications.
506
—Revised to distinguish between the requirements associated with the accordance of a filing date for nonprovisional utility and design applications.
506.02
—Replaced 37 CFR 1.52(d)(1) with 37 CFR 1.52(d).507 —Revised to indicate that applications are scanned and loaded into the Image File Wrapper system upon filing.
508
—Removed reference to patent lapses.508.04 —Updated 37 CFR 1.23.509 —Updated 37 CFR 1.25. Added explanation that fees in an international design application may be charged to a deposit account.
509.01
—Revised to indicate that, once small entity status is established, fee payments may be made without regard to change in status until the payment of the issue fee is due or a maintenance fee is due.
509.02
Rev. 07.2015, November 201521
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Updated 37 CFR 1.27 and 1.4. Removed reference to former versions of USPTO forms being acceptable. Revised subsection IV to include circumstances in which payment of the individual designation fee in an international design application would qualify as an assertion of small entity status.
509.03
—Revised to indicate that a micro entity fee may be available in ex parte reexamination proceedings filed under 37 CFR 1.510 only when the request is filed by the patent owner.
509.04
—Updated 37 CFR 1.29.509.04(f) —Revised to add reference to the USPTO access control procedures which may affect visitors to the USPTO campus.
510
—Updated 37 CFR 1.10; removed reference to former Express Mail service of the USPS.511 —Updated 37 CFR 1.8. Removed reference to paper processing instructions.512 —Removed references to prior Express Mail service from the USPS. Updated 37 CFR 1.6 and 1.10. Removed reference to Nitto Chemical Industry. Co., Ltd. v. Comer, 39 USPQ2d 1778 (D.D.C. 1994).
513
22Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 600:
—Removed alternative citations to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except in form paragraph text.Passim —Updated cross-references to paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.57 because the former provisions of paragraphs (a) - (f) were moved to paragraphs (b) - (h) in the PLT implementation rule, and new paragraph (a) pertaining to reference filing was added. —Deleted or modified the discussion of filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.57(a)(3) for consistency with the PLT implementation rule; pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(3), an amendment to add inadvertently omitted subject matter from a priority or benefit application must be by way of a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(e) accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f). Updated all forms. —Added current 35 U.S.C. 111 as amended by the PLTIA. Designated the version of 35 U.S.C. 111 in effect prior to the PLTIA as "pre-PLT (AIA)" and added an Editor Note to state
601
its applicability to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 but prior to December 18, 2013. Also added explanation that the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111 requirements substantially correspond to those of pre-PLT (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 111, but do not include conforming amendments with regard to the oath or declaration provisions and other miscellaneous provisions of the AIA. —Updated 37 CFR 1.51. —In subsection I, in the first paragraph, added "which is governed by 37 CFR 1.41" after "naming of the inventors" for clarification. —In subsection II, in the first paragraph, in light of the changes to 35 U.S.C. 111(a), clarified that an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) requires claims before examination. —In subsection III, added or updated cross-references to portions of the MPEP that discuss continuation applications, commencement and entry into national stage of international applications, international design applications, and supplemental examination. —Added current 37 CFR 1.53 as amended in the PLT implementation rule. Designated the version of 37 CFR 1.53 in effect prior to the PLTIA as "pre-PLT (AIA)," added an Editor
601.01
Note to state its applicability to applications filed prior to December 18, 2013. Also added an Editor Note to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53 to discuss the applicability of certain paragraphs to applications filed before September 16, 2012. —Modified text to explain that the filing date requirements for applications, other than design applications, filed on or after December 18, 2013 have changed in that claims and drawings are no longer required to receive a filing date. Pertaining to subsection I. Application Filing Requirements:601.01(a) —In subsection I, added text to explain the filing date requirements for nonprovisional applications filed on or after December 18, 2013. For example, except for design applications, the filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is the date on which a specification is received in the Office. Modified text to clarify that applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 are subject to pre-PLT filing date requirements, and therefore are required to include a description, at least one claim, and any necessary drawings to receive a filing date. —In subsection I, added text to state that for design continued prosecution applications (which are not available for international design applications) filed on or after September 16, 2012 an inventor's oath or declaration is not required if the prior application contains an application data sheet with the name, residence, and mailing address for each inventor, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1)(ii) as revised in the interim rule Changes to Continued Prosecution Application Practice, 79 FR 12384 (March 5, 2014)(adopted as final, 79 FR 68121 (November 14, 2014)). Revised text to include benefit claims to international design applications under 35 U.S.C. 386(c).
Rev. 07.2015, November 201523
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
Pertaining to subsection II. Completion of Nonprovisional Application Under 35 U.S.C. 111 Subsequent to Filing:
601.01(a)
—Added new subsection II.A that discusses the completion of nonprovisional applications, except for design applications, which are filed on or after December 18, 2013. —Redesignated former subsection II.A as II.B, and modified the Editor Note to update applicability information. —Added text to subsection II.B to explain that 37 CFR 1.53(f) was further revised, effective December 18, 2013, to require that the inventor's oath or declaration or substitute statement must be filed no later than the date the issue fee is paid. Deleted the parenthetical discussing the use of the inventor's oath or declaration from a prior application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in view of the 2014 CPA rulemaking. —In subsection II.B, revised discussion of 37 CFR 1.53(f) for consistency with the PLT implementation rule. Also added text to clarify that if applicant fails to properly reply to a "Notice Requiring Inventor's Oath or Declaration" before or with payment of the issue fee, then the application will be regarded as abandoned. —Redesignated former subsection II.B as II.C, and modified the Editor Note to update applicability information. Pertaining to subsection III. Application Under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Filed By Reference:601.01(a) —Added new subsection III to discuss filing an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) by reference to another application. Includes 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and (c), and 37 CFR 1.57(a), as revised by the PLTIA and PLT implementation rule, respectively. —Subsection III provides a detailed explanation of reference filing requirements. As provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application under certain conditions. —Added text to explain the filing date requirements for provisional applications filed on or after December 18, 2013. For example, the filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) is the date on which a specification is received in the Office.
601.01(b)
—In subsection I, added that a provisional application is not entitled to claim priority or benefit to a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 386.
601.01(c)
—In subsection II, added an Editor Note to explain the limited applicability of certain paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.53 to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, and revised the text of 37 CFR 1.53(c) as amended by the PLT implementation rule. Added text to clarify the requirements for converting a provisional application into a nonprovisional application in light of filing date requirement changes. —Modified text to clarify the filing date requirements of an application in light of the PLT implementation rule.
601.01(d)
—In subsection I, in the last paragraph, revised text to reflect that provisional application files are held in the Office's Image File Wrapper (IFW) system and will be automatically abandoned at the end of the pendency period. —In subsection II, paragraph (B), clarified that an application is not entitled to a filing date if the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to December 18, 2013 or is a design application and omitted a specification. —Revised title of subsection III to read "Application Forwarded to Examiner." Added text to explain the filing date requirements for design applications and for applications other than design applications filed on or after December 18, 2013. Also revised text to include international design applications as applications for which benefit can be claimed under 37 CFR 1.78.
24Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Added an Editor Note to limit applicability of this section to nonprovisional applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 or to design applications. Similarly, modified text to clarify the applicability of the guidance provided in this section.
601.01(e)
—Added a sentence to clarify that for nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, there is no need to request conversion to a provisional application because such applications do not require presentation of at least one claim to obtain a filing date. —Added an Editor Note to limit applicability of this section to nonprovisional applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 or to design applications. Similarly, modified text to clarify
601.01(f)
the applicability of the guidance provided in this section. Also, revised text to include an international design application as an application for which benefit can be claimed under 37 CFR 1.78. —Modified text to clarify the different filing date requirements in regard to submitting drawings. Drawings if necessary as provided for in 35 U.S.C. 113 are required upon filing
601.01(g)
for applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 and for design applications. For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, except for design applications, drawings are not required to receive a filing date. —In subsection I, revised text to include an international design application as an application for which benefit can be claimed under 37 CFR 1.78. Also, deleted text that reflected discontinued paper processing and inserted text that reflects electronic processing and storage of files. In the last paragraph, clarified when correction is required if, in applications filed with drawings with several views, the specification is not consistent with the drawings as labelled. —Added "of attorney" after "power" in first paragraph in order to provide proper nomenclature.601.02 —Changed "would be" to "is" to improve grammar in the paragraph starting with "The submission of a daytime …."
601.03(a)
—Changed "would be" to "is" to improve grammar in the paragraph starting with "The submission of a daytime …" and corrected several other errors in grammar.
601.03(b)
—Added "a nonprovisional international design application" to the list of applications in which an application data sheet may be submitted.
601.05
—Updated 37 CFR 1.76 and the discussion thereof for consistency with the Hague implementation rule. Added text to the Editor Note to explain that the changes to 37 CFR
601.05(a)
1.76(b)(3) are only applicable to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013. —In subsection I, added a new paragraph to discuss application data sheet (ADS) requirements for reference filing under 37 CFR 1.57(a). Also, added an explanation regarding the requirements of 37 CFR 1.46(b) if an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or a nonprovisional international design application, is applied for by a person other than the inventor under 37 CFR 1.46(a). —In subsection II, revised the title to include "or information otherwise of record" and revised text to clarify that a corrected or updated ADS is required even if an ADS was not previously filed. Also, revised text to clarify that in an ADS, identification of information that is being changed is not required for an ADS included with the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 and that any change to inventorship, foreign priority, and domestic benefit must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.48, 37 CFR 1.55, and 37 CFR 1.78, respectively. Also, modified text to state that a corrected ADS should be filed with a request for a corrected filing receipt unless accompanied by a request to take some other action and to further clarify how changes should be indicated on a corrected ADS.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201525
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—In subsection III, added 37 CFR 1.64 to the listing of "37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67" to accurately reflect the language in the current version of 37 CFR 1.76. Added text to explain that 37 CFR 1.76(d)(2) provides that information in the application data sheet will also govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at any time in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form or certain Patent Law Treaty Model Forms. Also, at the end of the first example, added "with underlining for inserts and strike-through or brackets for text removed." Added cross-references to MPEP §§ 602.01(c) et seq. and 605.01, subsection II. —In subsection IV, added several paragraphs to discuss newly added provisions of 37 CFR 1.76(f) and (g) that permit use of Patent Law Treaty Model International Forms as appropriate or the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form in lieu of an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 to provide certain information. —Updated 37 CFR 1.76 for consistency with the PLT implementation rule and added an Editor Note to clarify its applicability.
601.05(b)
—In subsection I, clarified that the applicant's suggested classification and TC assignment may be provided but the Office no longer uses such information. Also, deleted the paragraph about providing classification information for provisional applications because the Office does not use such information. —In subsection III, added text to explain that information in the application data sheet will also govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at any time in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form or certain Patent Law Treaty Model Forms in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76(d)(2). Deleted text that discussed correction of a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor's name because it is does not reflect current Office policy. Added text to state that if an inventor's name is incorrect, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) is required as is explained in MPEP§ 602.01(c)(2). —Added a new subsection heading "IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION" in order to mirror the structure in MPEP § 601.05(a). In subsection IV, added text to refer to MPEP § 601.05(a) for a discussion of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.76(f) and (g). —Revised subsection I to update 37 CFR 1.41 and add text to explain the provisions of new 37 CFR 1.41(f).
602.01
—Updated 35 U.S.C. 115(g)(1) and 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1).602.01(a) —In subsection I.A, added a paragraph explaining that 37 CFR 1.1021(d)(3) provides an alternative to the requirement in 37 CFR 1.63(b) to identify an inventor for nonprovisional international design applications. —In subsection I.A, revised text of the first paragraph to clarify when inventorship is set in an application.
602.01(c)
—In the Editor Note, changed "applications" to "requests" to more accurately state the applicability of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48 as to requests filed before September 16, 2012. Inserted
602.01(c)(1)
the current version of 37 CFR 1.48 which reflects the provisions in effect as amended by the AIA implementation rule packages. Deleted the sentence "A request filed on or after September 16, 2012 under 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (d) will generally correct inventorship in the application in which it is filed" because it was duplicative of other text in the section. —In subsection I, added a sentence to the end of the second paragraph to explain that the ADS must identify information being changed with underlining and strike-through or brackets, as appropriate. —In subsection III, added the parenthetical "(in addition to the processing fee)" after 37 CFR 1.17(d). —In subsection IV, added a sentence indicating that when an inventor is being added, applicants should file a corrected ADS or new cover sheet providing the residence of all inventors.
26Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In the Editor Note, deleted "in an application" to more accurately state the applicability of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48 as to requests filed before September 16, 2012.
602.01(c)(2)
—Revised text to clarify the procedures for correcting inventorship by adding a parenthetical after "desired order" and adding the clause "[i]n addition to the corrected application data sheet," to the beginning of the last sentence. —In the Editor Note, delete two instances of "in an application" and inserted "requests for" to more accurately state the applicability of current 37 CFR 1.48 as to requests filed on or
602.01(c)(3)
after September 16, 2012. Inserted "pre-AIA" before certain regulations (e.g., 37 CFR 1.48 and 37 CFR 1.63) to clarify which version of the regulation is being discussed. —In subsection II, added the phrase "but prior to September 16, 2012" in Example A. In subsection III.E, updated form paragraphs 2.13 and 2.14.01. —Revised the section title to "Office Finds the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Defective" in order to clarify that this section is limited to policies and procedures when the Office finds
602.03
an error. In the first paragraph, added "for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 following "condition for allowance" to clarify that delayed filing of an inventor's oath or declaration until allowance is limited to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. —Added an Editor Note to 37 CFR 1.66 to state its applicability only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 363 on or after September 16, 2012.
602.04
—Deleted the first paragraph as duplicative of the Editor Note.602.05(a) —Deleted the first paragraph as duplicative of the Editor Note.602.05(b) —In subsection III, deleted the one of the repetitious phrase "in an application filed" in the last paragraph.
602.08(a)
—In subsection I added a cross-reference to MPEP § 402.03 for a further discussion of signature requirements. Clarified the fourth paragraph by revising the text to indicate it is
602.08(b)
improper for an applicant to sign an oath or declaration which is not attached to or does not identify "the application (e.g., a specification and drawings) to which it is directed." Added a sentence to refer to 37 CFR 1.1021(d) and 1.1067 for nonprovisional international design applications. Inserted "pre-AIA" prior to "35 U.S.C. 102(e)" to clarify that the citation is to the provision in effect on March 15, 2013. —In subsection III.A, in the last sentence of the second paragraph added "along with a petition under 37 CFR 1.182" after "certificate of correction." In subsection III.B, added a sentence to clarify that the corrected ADS must identify the information being changed. —Added items (C) and (D) and relettered the remaining items in order to be consistent with 37 CFR 1.5(a).
602.08(c)
—Inserted 35 U.S.C. 116 as amended by the AIA, and added "(pre-AIA)" to the version of 35 U.S.C. 116 in effect prior to September 16, 2012.
602.09
—In subsection II, added "(pre-AIA)" in the title of 37 CFR 1.67 to clarify that it is the version in effect for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012.
603
—Added text regarding inventorship requirements for international design applications.604 —In subsection I, added an Editor Note and updated 37 CFR 1.46(b) and (c) to reflect changes made in the Hague implementation rule. At the end of the last paragraph, added two sentences
605.01
to state that the corrected ADS must identify the information being changed and the effect of changing the name of the applicant recorded pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 16(1)(ii). —In subsection II, in the first paragraph, added "in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2)." —Added "(pre-AIA)" in the title of 37 CFR 1.41 and 1.45 to clarify that they are the versions in effect for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012.
605.02
Rev. 07.2015, November 201527
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Deleted "a formal" and inserted "an" prior to "examiner's amendment" for proper current nomenclature. Inserted a cross reference to MPEP § 1302.04(a) regarding an examiner's amendment that changes the title of invention.
606.01
—In subsection I, added "For international design applications under 35 U.S.C. 385, see 37 CFR 1.1031 for the required fees."
607
—In subsection II, added text in the first paragraph to clearly explain the Office's procedure for counting pages of preliminary amendments submitted on the filing date, and to indicate that the Office will not count the sheets of paper making up any English translation of a non-English language specification if submitted with the application on filing. —In subsection III, added a paragraph to explain the application of excess claim fees for nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) without claims. —Deleted the phrase "Jumbo Application" in form paragraph 6.31 and the discussion thereof because the Office no longer characterizes applications as "jumbo."
608.01
—In subsection I, updated 37 CFR 1.52 and 1.58. Inserted a reference to and website address for the EFS-Web Legal Framework. —In subsection V, added text and cross-references to MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III, pertaining to reference filing. Added "via EFS-Web" to the recommended ways to file original application papers. —In subsection VI, modified language for consistency with 37 CFR 1.58(a) as revised by the PLT implementation rule. —Added "(e.g., not required)" after "preferable" to clarify that the order of arrangement of the specification elements is not a requirement. Also, added "in compliance with 37 CFR
608.01(a)
1.76" after "application date sheet" in the fifth paragraph of text. Updated form paragraphs 6.01 and 6.02. —Updated 37 CFR 1.72 regarding the requirements (e.g., a recommended word limit) for an abstract.
608.01(b)
—In subsection I.A, clarified language that a reader should be able to quickly determine the nature and gist of the invention and what is new from a cursory inspection of the abstract. In subsection I.B, deleted redundant sentences regarding compounds or compositions in chemical patents. Revised subsection I.C for consistency with 37 CFR 1.72 regarding the recommended word limit for an abstract. In subsection I.D, deleted the phrase "with any necessary editing and revision on allowance of the application" and inserted a new sentence to discuss the same with a reference to MPEP § 1302.04. After the third sample in subsection I.E, added subsection heading "F. Form Paragraphs." In subsection I.F, updated form paragraphs 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, and 6.16.01. —Added "(but is not required to)" after "may" to clarify that the suggested elements in the background of the invention are not required.
608.01(c)
—In first paragraph, deleted redundant text indicating that stereotyped general statements should not be in the brief summary of invention.
608.01(d)
—Added text to limit applicability of the citation of MPEP § 601.01(f) to applications, other than design applications, filed prior to December 18, 2013. Similarly, modified text to clarify
608.01(f)
the applicability of the guidance provided in MPEP § 601.01(g). Updated 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and (y) as amended by the Hague implementation rule. —Revised section title to "Claims Present on the Application Filing Date." In the first paragraph, "original claims" was replaced with "claims present on the filing date of the application." Second paragraph revised for consistency with current nomenclature.
608.01(l)
—In form paragraph 6.18.01, added a reference to 37 CFR 1.75(h).608.01(m) —Corrected 35 U.S.C. 112(e) by inserting missing heading. In subsection I.E, deleted "when granting the filing date" after "Office of Patent Application Processing." In subsection I.G.1,
608.01(n)
28Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
added the phrase "or submitted in response to an OPAP notice requiring claims" to clarify the procedure when the application is not filed with claims. —In the second paragraph, changed "original claims" to "claims present on the filing date of the application" for clarity because claims are no longer required to be present on the filing
608.01(o)
date. In the first sentence of the third paragraph, added the phrase "including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing" for clarity. —In subsection I, updated 37 CFR 1.57 for consistency with the Hague implementation rule. Revised text to reflect the addition of 37 CFR 1.57 in 2004, and to discuss changes that
608.01(p)
occurred in 2013, i.e., the addition of a reference filing provision in 37 CFR 1.57(a) and relocation of the subject matter of former paragraph (a) to paragraph (b) of 37 CFR 1.57. Also added a paragraph that briefly discusses reference filing and refers to MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III. —Updated form paragraph 6.28.02, examiner note 2.608.01(q) —Section title revised to read "Marks Used in Commerce and Trade Names." Added 15 U.S.C. 1127 and revised text to address trade names and marks as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1127
608.01(v)
(e.g., changed "product" to "product, service, or organization"). Form paragraph 6.20 was similarly revised to address marks and trade names. —In the last paragraph of subsection II, revised to include "and reply" after "complaint letter" to clarify that both the letter and the reply should be forwarded to the DCPEP. —Updated 37 CFR 1.81(a) as amended by the PLT implementation rule and inserted an Editor Note to state the applicability of paragraph (a). Inserted 37 CFR 1.81(a) (pre-PLT) as in effective prior to December 18, 2013.
608.02
—Revised title of subsection I and inserted new subsection I.A to discuss the filing date requirements regarding drawings for applications filed on or after December 18, 2013. Subsection I.B, directed to applications filed prior to December 18, 2013, contains the former text of subsection I, further modified to clarify when pre-PLT law and policy applies. The last paragraph of subsection I.B was further revised to state that a sequence listing or table should not be included in both the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification in accordance with 37 CFR 1.58(a) and 1.83(a). —In subsection III, text revised to state whether pre-PLT law and policy applies or post-PLT law and policy applies. —In subsection IV, modified text to clarify that the lack of a drawing is treated as an informality and a filing date will be accorded. Deleted citations to 37 CFR 1.83 as its provisions do not apply when the drawing is missing. Clarified language regarding when the examiner may require a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). —In subsection V, updated 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and (y) as amended by the Hague implementation rule. Inserted cross-reference to MPEP § 608.02(b) for information pertaining to the acceptability of drawings. Deleted text regarding the acceptability of good quality copies or facsimile copies and added a reference to international design reproductions and 37 CFR 1.1026. Added text to limit applicability of the citation of MPEP § 601.01(f) to design applications or applications filed prior to December 18, 2013. Similarly modified text to clarify the applicability of the guidance provided in MPEP § 601.01(g). —In subsection VII, inserted 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1). Added text in subsection VII.A pertaining to black and white drawings, including a reference to MPEP § 608.02(c) for more information. Original text is located in new subsection VII.B, further modified to clarify when black and white photographs and grayscale drawings are acceptable in utility and design applications. Deleted text regarding the requirements of photographic paper or mounted on Bristol Board. —In subsection VIII, updated 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) as amended by the Hague implementation rule. Added text to state the required quality of the drawings. Also, revised text and FP 6.24.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 201529
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
to state that one set of color drawings or color photographs is required if submitted via the Office electronic filing system, but three sets of color drawings or color photographs are required if not submitted via the Office electronic filing system. Text was also revised to state that color photographs or drawings will be stored in SCORE and a black and white copy will be stored in the IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet. Text and FP 6.24.01 were revised to limit the requirement for a petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and (b)(2) to utility applications. Added a cross-reference to MPEP § 608.02(c). —In subsection IX, inserted a new paragraph to discuss that design applications should not generally use graphic symbols and that color drawings are permitted in design applications. Added cross references to MPEP §§ 1503.02 and 608.02. Revised the last paragraph to be limited to utility applications. —Added a citation to MPEP § 601.01(g) in reference to procedures when an application is missing drawings. Clarified text to indicate that OPAP will send a notice if drawings are
608.02(a)
unacceptable for purposes of publication and will not release applications to the technology centers until acceptable drawings are filed. —Updated 37 CFR 1.85(c) as amended by the Hague implementation rule. In subsection III, added an alternative citation to 37 CFR 1.1026 for the standard to which drawings must comply.
608.02(b)
—Added discussion of the processing and storage of drawings (including black and white line drawings, grayscale and color drawings, and black and white and color photographs)
608.02(c)
filed in various types of applications (e.g., utility applications under 35 U.S.C. 111, international applications, international design applications) or reexamination proceedings. —Updated 37 CFR 1.83(a) as amended by the PLT implementation rule.608.02(d) —In the first sentence, changed "see to it" to "ensure."608.02(e) —Updated 37 CFR 1.85(c) and 1.121(d) for consistency with the Hague implementation rule.608.02(p) —Revised text in the fourth paragraph to delete "(with no extensions of time permitted)" because current policy permits extensions of time for some notices.
608.02(z)
—In the second to last paragraph and in form paragraph 6.48, change "one month" to "two months" in light of policy changes in the implementation of the PLT.
608.03(a)
—In the first paragraph, changed "original claims" to "claims present on the filing date of the application" for clarity because claims are no longer required to be present on the filing
608.04
date. Added a cross-reference to MPEP § 211.05 for new matter in continuation or divisional applications. —Revised section title to read "Matter Not Present in Specification, Claims, or Drawings on the Application Filing Date." Revised the first sentence by adding "present on the filing date
608.04(a)
of the application" and deleting "original" for clarity because claims and drawings are no longer required to be present on the filing date. —Added 37 CFR 1.52(a)(5) and updated 37 CFR 1.52(e) as amended by the PLT implementation rule. Revised to clarify text for consistency with 37 CFR 1.52(e).
608.05
—In subsection I, added a citation to 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and to form paragraphs 6.61.02 and 6.71.02. In subsection I.A, revised text to correspond to 37 CFR 1.52(e), and to state that if a sequence listing text file submitted via EFS-Web on the application filing date complies with 37 CFR 1.824(a)(2)-(6) and applicant has not filed a sequence listing in a PDF file (or on paper) on the same day, the text file will serve as both the paper copy and the computer readable form. Also, revised text to explain that submission of the sequence listing in a PDF file on the application filing date is not recommended. Added a cross-reference to MPEP § 2422.05. In subsection I.B, changed the citation to 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e) to 37 CFR 1.824(a)(2)-(6) and (b). In subsection I.C, added "text" prior to "file types" in the first sentence.
30Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In subsection II, deleted the sentence "CD-R discs must be finalize so that they are closed to further writing to the CD-R" because this requirement was removed from 37 CFR 1.52(e). Revised text to clarify the reason incorporation by reference is required. Also modified text to state that an amendment to the material on the compact disc must be done by submitting a replacement compact disc or by filing the material as text file(s) via EFS-Web. Revised form paragraphs 6.61.02 and 6.71.02. —Revised text throughout the section to indicate that as an alternative to submission on a compact disc, a computer program listing appendix may be submitted in an ASCII text file via EFS-Web.
608.05(a)
—Subsection I is further revised to state that copies of publicly available program listings are available via Public PAIR, or may be purchased from the Office on paper or compact disc. —In subsection II, revised form paragraphs 6.64.01 and 6.64.02 to discuss submission of the computer program listing via EFS-Web as a text file; form paragraph 6.64.03 has been deleted as redundant. —Subsection III revised to state that the computer program listing appendix submitted electronically via EFS-Web in ASCII text or on a compact disc will be identified in the patent. Deleted text that reflected the discontinued practice of identifying the appendix on the front page of the patent and that reflected paper processing (e.g., placing a label on the file wrapper). Revised text to state that the specification entry "should" appear at the beginning of the specification to be consistent with 37 CFR 1.77. —Revised to indicate that submission of large tables via EFS-Web as text file(s) is permitted and is preferred. Deleted the last sentence in the first paragraph regarding the requirement to finalize CD-Rs because this requirement was removed from 37 CFR 1.52(e).
608.05(b)
—Added indication that a single table contained on fifty pages or less may be submitted as part of the specification in PDF (if filed via EFS-Web), and that landscape oriented tables should not be filed via EFS-Web. —Form paragraphs 6.63.01 and 6.63.02 revised to discuss submission of tables via EFS-Web as text files. —Added cross-reference to new MPEP § 2422.03(a) which discusses in detail submission of sequence listings as ASCII text files via EFS-Web.
608.05(c)
—Updated 37 CFR 1.97(b)(3)-(5) as amended by the Hague implementation rule. In the first sentence of the second paragraph of text, deleted "filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)" because the duty to submit material information applies to all nonprovisional applications.
609
—In the chart in item (A), updated row (1) to add a provision concerning the time for filing information disclosure statements for international design applications as set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(b)(5).
609.01
—Added new subsection title "I. Consideration of Prior Art Cited in a Parent International Application" prior to existing text. Designated prior subheading as subsection II. IDS in
609.02
Continued Examinations or Continuing Applications. In subsection II.A.2, added "(other than an international application; see subsection I, above)" in the first paragraph and added "and the timing requirements of 37 CFR 1.97" at the end of the second paragraph for clarification. —In subsection I, added a cross-reference to MPEP § 707.05(e) for more information on citing to publications and electronic documents in the second to last paragraph.
609.04(a)
—In the introductory text and in subsection I, added information to reflect a new provision in 37 CFR 1.97(b)(5) concerning the time for filing information disclosure statements for international design applications.
609.04(b)
Rev. 07.2015, November 201531
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Deleted redundant text "and any citations considered will have the examiner's initials adjacent thereto (or the bottom of each page … examiner's electronic initials)" in the third paragraph.
609.05(b)
—Revised "EFS" to "EFS-Web" in multiple locations. Modified text by deleting "signing, and dating" after "initialing" or "signed, and dated" after "initialed" to make text consistent
609.07
with current procedures. Also, deleted text that referred to discontinued paper processing steps. Revised the penultimate paragraph to state that "Applicants and registered practitioners are permitted to sign portions of an EFS-Web submission, including an IDS, with an electronic signature" and deleted the reference to a 2003 version of EFS system. —Revised to delete the reference to a prior version of eDAN and to deleted the entire text regarding electronic annotation and signature as such practice covered in detail elsewhere in
609.08
MPEP § 609 et seq. Also deleted the last sentence of the first paragraph regarding IDSs annotated by hand because most IDSs are annotated electronically. Inserted a cross-reference to MPEP § 609.04(b).
32Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 700:
—Corrected reproduced 35 U.S.C. 103 (both AIA and pre-AIA) by removing "of this title."Passim —Updated 35 U.S.C. 100(i)(1)(B).701 —Added discussion of changes to filing date requirements made pursuant to the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA).
702
—Updated form paragraphs 7.01 and 7.02 to provide a two-month period for reply.702.01 —Updated 37 CFR 1.105(a)(1).704.10 —Updated discussion of 37 CFR 1.105(a)(1) to address the identification of applications filed before June 8, 1995 and the requirement that they be kept in confidence by the Office
704.11(a)
per 35 U.S.C. 122(a). References to form paragraphs 7.104.02.fti and 7.104.02.aia changed to reference form paragraph 7.104.02. —Updated form paragraph 7.95 to provide a two-month period for reply.704.12(c) —Added Form Paragraph 7.104.02 for use in requiring information from the applicant regarding rescission of a statement under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78.
704.14(a)
—Clarified the procedure where primary examiners from requested and requesting Technology Centers (TCs) agree that a Patentability Report from the requested TC is necessary. Deleted reference to the IFW Manual.
705.01
—Deleted indication that the Patentability Report is not given a paper number, and deleted reference to IFW Manual.
705.01(a)
—Deleted reference to IFW Manual.705.01(e) —Updated 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2).706.02 —In subsection II, added discussion of machine translations, translation resources and conditions for making an Office action final, including a supporting citation to In re Orbital Technologies Corporation. Also moved the cross reference to MPEP § 706.07(a) and added a cross reference to MPEP § 706.07(b) regarding final actions. —In subsection IV, added reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c). —Revised to add form paragraphs 7.03.aia and 7.03.fti, as well as an introductory sentence.706.02(a) —In subsections II and III, inserted "pre-AIPA" before "35 U.S.C. 102(e)" to indicate the version of 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in force prior to November 29, 2000. Also in subsection II, inserted "pre-AIA" with regard to 35 U.S.C. 374.
706.02(a)(2)
—Updated discussion of overcoming a prior art rejection by submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 35 U.S.C. 119(e), or by identifying a prior foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) – (d) in items (A)-(C).
706.02(b)(1)
—Updated discussion of overcoming a prior art rejection by submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 35 U.S.C. 119(e), or by submitting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) – (d).
706.02(b)(2)
—Added an indication that, effective December 18, 2013, the PLTIA provides for restoration of the right to claim benefit of a provisional application filed after the expiration of the twelve-month period in 35 U.S.C. 119(e). Included a cross-reference to MPEP § 213.03, subsection III for more information. —Revised section text and Examiner Notes in the form paragraphs to state that a 2-month time period should be given for any reply to a requirement for information.
706.02(c)
—In subsection I, added reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c). In subsection II, corrected date to March 15, 2013 immediately preceding the examples, and added benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) or 386(c) to Example 1.
706.02(f)(1)
Rev. 07.2015, November 201533
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—In subsection I, revised the title and notes in the form paragraphs to refer to common assignee, common applicant or at least one common joint inventor. In form paragraph
706.02(f)(2)
7.15.01.aia, note 3 further revised to clarify the conditions under which 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied. —Revised to rearrange the order of presentation of the form paragraphs. Revised several form paragraphs to make minor editorial changes and to clarify the applicability information in the notes.
706.02(i)
—As appropriate, revised form paragraphs to add references to international design applications and/or to 35 U.S.C. 386. Form paragraphs for provisional rejections revised to refer to a common assignee, a common applicant or at least one common joint inventor. —In form paragraph 7.15.fti, notes 3 and 5, added a reference to form paragraph 7.15.01.fti. In form paragraph 7.15.02.aia, note 9 was revised to indicate the applicant should be required to amend or cancel patentably indistinct claims using form paragraph 8.27.aia. In form paragraph 7.15.02.fti, note 10 was added. —In subsection II, changed "instructive as to" to "illustrative of." In subsection II, revised examples of rejection scenarios for clarity.
706.02(k)
—Added cross reference to MPEP § 717.02 et seq.706.02(l) —In subsection I, added ", or under an obligation to assign to" and inserted "pre-AIA" before the references to statutory sections.
706.02(l)(2)
—In subsection II, deleted sentence that referenced, but did not set forth, an exemplary statement. Further revised to delete the alternative of submitting the statement of common ownership in a separately labeled section. Clarified subsection II by adding an indication that "[t]he statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b)" and adding an explanation to examiners that the execution dates in assignment documents may not reflect the date a party was under an obligation to assign the claimed invention. —In subsection III, added an indication that the applicant or patent owner may, but is not required to, present evidence supporting the existence of a joint research agreement. —Revised "the applicant(s) or an attorney or agent of record" to "the applicant(s) or patent owner(s)" in the context of who should make a statement of common ownership.
706.02(l)(3)
—In subsection III, clarified that the availability of double patenting rejections is subject to the conditions discussed in MPEP § 804 et seq. —Revised to rearrange the order of presentation of the form paragraphs. Revised several form paragraphs to make minor editorial changes and to clarify the applicability information in the notes.
706.02(m)
—Revised the notes of several form paragraphs to delete the reference to Graham v. Deere and add a reference to MPEP § 2144. —As appropriate, revised form paragraphs to add references to international design applications. In addition, form paragraphs for provisional rejections and certain obviousness rejections revised to refer to a common assignee, a common applicant, or at least one common joint inventor. —Subsection II revised for consistency with MPEP § 2103, subsection III, MPEP § 2106, subsection II, and the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 FR 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014).
706.03(a)
—In subsection IV, revised form paragraphs relevant to the rejection of claims directed to nonstatutory subject matter for consistency with guidance that was provided to examiners on December 16, 2014 (see www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sme_memo_20141216.pdf). —Form paragraph 7.33.01 revised to more clearly explain the lack of enablement rejection.706.03(c)
34Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Revised form paragraph 7.34.11 which should be used when it cannot be determined from the specification whether the term "means" connotes function or structure.
706.03(d)
—Added form paragraphs 7.30.03.h, 7.30.03 and 7.30.04 related to claim interpretation and means (or step) plus function claim limitations.
706.03(e)
—Revised order of form paragraphs.706.03(u) —Added cross-reference to MPEP § 1207.03(a) for guidance in determining what constitutes a new ground of rejection.
706.07(a)
—Updated form paragraph 13.02.02 so it is no longer limited to authorizations made by telephone.
706.07(f)
—Cross-reference to the Notice of Appeal and the appeal fee updated to 37 CFR 41.20(b). Revised the flow chart and form paragraphs to set a two month period for reply to a notice of nonresponsive submission.
706.07(g)
—Updated 37 CFR 1.114(e).706.07(h) —Revised the discussion and form paragraphs to indicate the provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 do not apply to an international application that does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 371 or to an international design application. Updated the time periods for reply to two months. —Forms PTO/SB/30 and PTO-2051 were updated. —Revised the discussion of interviews suggested by the examiner whereby the application may be placed in condition for allowance.
707
—Updated the discussion of communications from the examiner with respect to 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.104. —Added "or more" to the discussion of applications that have been pending over five years.707.02 —In view of the restructuring of 35 U.S.C. 112 for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, deleted the words "first paragraph."
707.07(l)
—Updated 37 CFR 1.102(a) and 1.102(e)(1).708.01 —Updated 37 CFR 1.102(a) and 1.102(e)(1). Added an indication that advancement of examination under 37 CFR 1.102 may be sought via a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(c) or (d), or via a request for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e).
708.02
—In subsections III, IV, and V, added an indication that "any petition to make special filed under this subsection must comply with the requirements set forth in MPEP § 708.02(a)." —In subsection VI, added an indication that applications granted prioritized examination remain special until prioritized examination is terminated or until a final disposition of the application. Also added a cross-reference to MPEP § 708.02(b), subsection II. —In subsections III, VIII.D, VIII.E and IX, updated the discussion and form paragraphs to change the period for reply to two months and to indicate extensions of time under 37 CFR
708.02(a)
1.136(a) are permitted but the filing of a petition for an extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. Form paragraph examiner notes revised to indicate the provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 apply to an international application "that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371." —In subsection VIII.C, added reference to 35 U.S.C. 386(c). —Deleted form paragraphs 24.01.AE, 24.02.AE and 24.03.AE. —Revised to incorporate the changes, including updates to 37 CFR 1.102(e)(1), necessitated by the interim rule Changes to Permit Delayed Submission of Certain Requirements for
708.02(b)
Prioritized Examination, 79 FR 12386, March 5, 2014 (adopted as final, 79 FR 68124, Nov. 14, 2014). —Revised to indicate that any item submitted on the same day the request for prioritized examination is filed will be considered to have been filed with the request under 37 CFR 1.102(e).
Rev. 07.2015, November 201535
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised to indicate that a fee may be set by the USPTO to $0, and in such a case, that fee is considered to be paid and no additional payment is necessary for that fee. —Revised to remove outdated information concerning the time period for reply under the accelerated examination program. ——Updated discussion of the Patent Prosecution Highway Program (PPH) for consistency with the information available from
708.02(c)
www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/ patent-prosecution-highway-pph-fast-track. —Added information about the USPTO's participation in the Global PPH and IP5 PPH pilot programs, and updated the information about the USPTO's PPH agreements with intellectual property offices that are not yet included in the Global PPH. —In subsection I.C, added a reference to 35 U.S.C. 386.709 —Updated 35 U.S.C. 133 and 35 U.S.C. 267.710 —Revised to indicate the time period for reply under 37 CFR 1.135(c) is generally 2 months.710.01 —Updated 37 CFR 1.136.710.02 —Revised for consistency with the PLT, which entered into force with respect to the United States on December 18, 2013 and provides for a time period of at least two months for replies to most Office actions and other notices.
710.02(b)
—Revised to eliminate discussion of petitions to revive based on unavoidable delay under former 37 CFR 1.137(a)
710.02(d)
—Updated 37 CFR 1.136.710.02(e) —Deleted the discussion of "some writing that manifested an intent to obtain an extension of time," which is no longer required for the granting of a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.136(a). —Deleted reference to IFW Manual. —Subsection III revised to include a cross-reference to 35 U.S.C. 115(f) and indicate that if a Notice Requiring Inventor's Oath or Declaration (PTOL-2306) is sent with the Notice of Allowability, the required inventor's oath or declaration must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee. —Updated 37 CFR 1.7(a) and updated the citation to the Executive Order regarding federal holidays that fall on a Sunday.
710.05
—Updated 37 CFR 1.138(b).711 Updated forms PTO/AIA/24, PTO/AIA/24A and PTO/AIA/24B.711.01 —Revised form paragraph 7.98.02 to remove discussion of petitions to revive based on unavoidable delay and updated the references to 37 CFR 1.137 for petitions based on unintentional delay.
711.02
—Changed "paragraph" to "subsection" in items (F) - (H).711.02(b) —Updated 37 CFR 1.137 and the discussion of petitions to revive filed under 37 CFR 1.137 to remove the discussion of petitions to revive based on unavoidable delay and references to lapsed patents.
711.03(c)
—In subsection II, included a discussion of the notable changes made by the PLTIA and included newly added 35 U.S.C. 27. —In subsection II.A, removed citation to Ex parte Richardson and added new subsection II.A.1 entitled "Abandonment for Failure To Timely Submit A Copy of the Specification And Any Drawings In An Application Filed By Reference Under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a)." —Renumbered former subsection II.A.1 as subsection II.A.2, removed the discussion of Brenner v. Ebbert and In re Mills, and added a discussion of sections 202(b)(6) and 201(b)
36Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
of the PLTIA. Added a discussion of the issue fee and publication fee payable when applicant changes entity status with the filing of a petition to revive. —Added new subsection II.A.3, entitled "Abandonment for Failure To Provide Required Drawings." —Renumbered former subsection II.A.2 as subsection II.A.4, removed the requirement for the appeal brief fee from item (A), and revised item (B) to include a reference to 37 CFR 1.114(b). —Renumbered former subsection II.A.3 as subsection II.A.5 and included a cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.137(f) for the revival of an application abandoned for failure to timely provide notice of a foreign filing. —In subsections II.B through II.F, removed information relating to petitions to revive on the basis of "unavoidable" delay. In addition, in subsection II.B, updated the discussion of 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7); in subsection II.C, updated forms PTO/SB/64, PTO/SB/64a, and PTO/SB/64PCT; in subsection II.D, deleted reference to the 1887 Pratt decision and removed discussion of petitions not filed within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application; and in subsection II.F, deleted the Haines decision and changed the cross-reference to reference 35 U.S.C. 27 instead of 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7). —Revised to reference MPEP § 403 instead of MPEP § 402.711.04(c) —Subsections II and III were updated to incorporate changes described in the Federal Register Notice: Change to Internet Usage Policy To Permit Oral Authorization for Video Conferencing Tools by Patent Examiners, 80 FR 23787 (April 29, 2015).
713.01
—Changed the time period specified form paragraph 7.84 to two months.713.04 —Changed "no interview is permitted" to "interviews with examiners are not permitted."713.05 —Deleted reference to IFW Manual.713.08 —Updated 37 CFR 1.121(d). In subsection II.F, items (A), (C), and (F), changed "30 days or one month, whichever is later" to "two months."
714
—Updated pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(b). Revised form paragraph 7.84.01 to provide a two-month period for reply.
714.01(a)
—Updated cross-references in the third paragraph that formerly referenced 37 CFR 1.78(a).714.01(e) —In subsection I, inserted "(for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012)" with respect to placing a reference to a prior filed application in the first sentence(s) of the specification, corrected cross-reference to MPEP § 211 et seq., changed "one month" to "two months," deleted the phrase "so long as no new matter is included in the specification," and updated the reference to former 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1)(iii). —In subsection II, moved to the first sentence the indication that "Applicants are strongly discouraged from submitting any preliminary amendments so as to minimize the burden on the Office in processing preliminary amendments and reduce delays in processing the application." Changed "executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63" to "oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63." Deleted a discussion of the former requirement for a supplemental oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.67 if a preliminary amendment is filed that contains subject matter not included in the specification and drawings of the application. Changed "will be required to submit a supplemental oath or declaration" to "should submit a supplemental oath or declaration." —Updated text and form paragraph 7.95 to provide a period for reply of two months.714.03 —Changed "petition" to "request" and added a reference to 37 CFR 1.48(f) in each of items (F) and (G).
714.16
—Updated 37 CFR 1.131(a)(1) and (d)(2). Changed "applicant" to "applicant or patent owner" in the context of establishing a date of completion of the invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country.
715
Rev. 07.2015, November 201537
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised to provide an updated discussion of the use of declarations (or affidavits) under current 37 CFR 1.131(a) and current 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA
715.01(a)
35 U.S.C. 102(a), (e), or (f) where the rejection is based on a joint patent or published application to applicant and another. —Revised to include a requirement for an explanation of the presence of an additional inventor in the reference where the reference includes a claim reciting the subject matter relied upon in the rejection and that subject matter anticipates or would render obvious the subject matter of a claim in the application under examination. —Revised to include a cross-reference to MPEP § 715.05 and an indication that an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) cannot be used to overcome a rejection based on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication naming another inventor which claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). —In the last paragraph, changed "an applicant" to "the applicant or patent owner."715.07(c) —Added a reference to In re DeBaun with respect to an unequivocal declaration by S under 37 CFR 1.132 that he/she conceived or invented the subject matter that was disclosed but not claimed in the patent or patent application publication and relied on in the rejection.
716.10
—Revised to include a requirement for an explanation of the presence of an additional inventor in the reference where the reference includes a claim reciting the subject matter relied upon in the rejection and that subject matter anticipates or would render obvious the subject matter of a claim in the application under examination. —Revised to include a cross-reference to MPEP § 715.05 and an indication that an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) cannot be used to overcome a rejection based on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication naming another inventor which claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). —Corrected the citation to Ex parte Kroger. —Updated 37 CFR 1.130(d) and form paragraph 7.68.aia.717.01 —Revised the introductory text in item (A) to clarify that the list therein sets forth when the provision of 37 CFR 1.130(a) is not available. In item (A)(1), added "(e.g., patented,
717.01(a)(1)
described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public) following "the disclosure was made." After item (A)(2), changed "the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) or 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) to "declarations or affidavits pursuant to 37 CFR 1.130(a)." —In item (B), corrected citation to Ex parte Kroger. —Deleted the parenthetical (E) at the beginning of the paragraph following item (D) as the text therein was not intended to be part of the list. —Revised the introductory text in item (A) to clarify that the list therein sets forth when the provision of 37 CFR 1.130(b) is not available. In item (A)(1), added "(e.g., patented,
717.01(b)(1)
described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public)" following "the disclosure was made." —In subsection I, added an indication that "Anyone who has knowledge of the facts discussed in the declaration may sign a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130," and clarified text explaining
717.01(c)
it is the applicant or patent owner who may submit (i.e., file) a declaration or affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130. —In subsection I, changed "the applicant (or the applicant's representative of record)" to "the applicant (or the patent owner)" in the context of who must make the statement of common ownership.
717.02(a)
—Subsection I further revised to insert new subsections "A. Definition of Common Ownership" and "B. Evidence Required to Establish Common Ownership" and to add an
38Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
expanded discussion of common ownership for AIA applications based on the discussion of common ownership in MPEP § 706.02(l)(2). —In subsection II, deleted discussion of practice under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and added an expanded discussion of joint research agreements under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 102(c) for AIA applications based on the discussion of joint research agreements in MPEP § 706.02(l)(2). —Corrected 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii)(A) and 37 CFR 1.71(g).717.02(b) —In subsection III, first sentence, inserted "subject to the conditions discussed in MPEP § 804 et seq."
717.02(c)
—Updated form paragraph 7.20.04.aia.717.02(d) —Updated 37 CFR 1.131(d) and corrected a cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.131(c)(2).718 —Added a reference to 35 U.S.C. 386.719 —Corrected a cross-reference to MPEP § 602.08(a), inserted a cross-reference to MPEP § 601.05(a) for the formatting of corrected Application Data Sheets for patent applications
719.02
filed on or after September 16, 2012, and inserted a cross-reference to MPEP § 601.05(b) for the formatting of Supplemental Application Data Sheets for patent applications filed prior to September 16, 2012. —Updated to indicate that "[s]earches are listed in the 'SEARCHED' boxes and/or SEARCH NOTES box of the OACS Search Notes page." Revised examples throughout to reflect Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC).
719.05
—In subsection I, revised title to "'SEARCHED' Boxes Entries" and extensively revised discussion of the "searched" box entries to reflect recording searches performed under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), CPC Combination Sets, and U.S. Patent Classification (USPC) paradigms. —In subsection II: Added new subsection heading, "A. Format of Entries in the "SEARCH NOTES" Section." Replaced information type (A), limited classification search, with "Annotations associated with classification searches, as shown in the examples in subsection I above." Revised information type (B) to list "Text search performed in a particular database (where no classification search was performed)." Inserted new information type (C), "Searches made within the International Classification System (IPC)" and new information type (D) "Searches performed by the Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC)." Former information type "(C)" redesignated as information type "(E)" and former information type "(D)" divided into two new information types, "(F)" for Searches performed in electronic journals and electronic books available to examiners on their desktop through the STIC NPL website and "(I)" for Nonelectronic searches of publications in paper form. The content from former subsection II.D is now information type (G). The content from former subsection II.C is now information type (H). —Subsection III is a new subsection directed to conducting and recording the Interference Search. Former subsection III, directed to "Information Not Recorded in the Application File," has been redesignated as subsection IV. —Added the website address for accessing the August 2012 revision of the MPEP.720 —Deleted references to the IFW Manual.724.04 —Revised subsection III to add "[h]owever, if the papers are correctly matched with the application serial number given in an electronic filing via EFS-WEB, the information is not
724.05
considered to have been submitted in the incorrect application even if the identifying information in the heading of the papers is directed toward a different application."
Rev. 07.2015, November 201539
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
CHAPTER 800:
—Revised "obviousness-type double patenting" or "ODP" to "nonstatutory double patenting" or "NDP" to reflect current terminology.
Passim
—Revised to add cross-reference to MPEP § 823 for guidance on matters set forth in MPEP Chapter 800 that apply to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. Paragraph
801
added to indicate that the general principles of this chapter, with certain exceptions, apply to design applications, reissue applications, and reexamination proceedings and to provide cross-references to MPEP sections for additional information. —Revised the title of the section and the first sentence to clarify that the section is limited setting forth the basis for restriction practice.
802
—Added a cross-reference to MPEP § 804.01.803.01 —Revised to indicate that in 2007, the Office rescinded the 1996 partial waiver of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.141 et seq. with regard to restriction requirements in certain
803.04
applications claiming polynucleotide molecules. Added that for national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), polynucleotide inventions will be considered for restriction, rejoinder, and examination practice in accordance with the standards set forth in MPEP Chapter 800. Deleted text discussing the guidance provided in the Official Gazette notice regarding the1996 partial waiver. —New section added to explain policies and procedures for restriction practice in reissue applications.
803.05
—Revised text throughout the section to add "common applicant" to the situations in which double patenting rejections may be applicable.
804 (Passim)
—Modified text throughout the section to refer to both the current statutory provisions for common ownership and joint research agreement (35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c), respectively) and the prior statutory provisions as amended by the CREATE Act (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)). Pertaining to introductory text and double patenting charts:804 —In the introductory text, added a citation to Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 753 F.3d 1208, 110 USPQ2d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 2014). —In the introductory text, added preventing the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of patents claiming patentably indistinct variations of the same invention to the purposes underlying the doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting. —Added explanation that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection may be based on an anticipation analysis, an "obviousness" analysis that is similar to, but not necessarily the same as, that undertaken with regard to 35 U.S.C. 103, or equitable principles. —Revised the double patenting charts for consistency with the AIA. Specifically, the charts cover when two applications have claims to the same invention (Charts I-A) or to patently indistinct inventions (Charts I-B) and when an application and a patent have claims to the same invention (Charts II-A) or to patently indistinct inventions (Charts II-B). One set of four charts apply when the application being examined is subject to the first to invent (FTI) provisions and a second set of four charts apply when the application being examined is subject to the first inventor to file (AIA) provisions. Added text to explain the revisions to the charts, including certain possible rejections that the charts do not address. Pertaining to subsection I. Instances Where Double Patenting Issue Can be Raised:804 —In subsection I.A, added a citation to In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 106 USPQ2d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2013), which indicates that complete identity of ownership or inventive entities is not required in order for nonstatutory double patenting rejection to apply.
40Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In subsection I.B, second paragraph, deleted "unless that 'provisional' double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in at least one of the applications" and inserted "except as noted below" in its place. In subsections I.B.1 and I.B.2, added "Provisional" to the subsection title and completely rewrote the text to set forth procedures that are consistent with current practice as set forth in MPEP § 1490. —In subsection I.D, first paragraph, added "same" before "issue" in the last sentence for clarification. Pertaining to subsection II. Requirements of a Double Patenting Rejection (Including Provisional Rejections):
804
—In subsection II, second paragraph, deleted "substantively" before "the same" in the first sentence for clarification. Revised the list of determinations to be made with regard to the proper basis for a double patenting rejection to reorder the items and to added "nonstatutory" before "double patenting rejection" in the context of determining whether a rejection is prohibited by the third sentence of 35 U.S.C. 121. Added citation to AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014). —In subsection II.A, revised the examiner notes in form paragraphs 8.31 and 8.32, to conform with current terminology and to clarify guidance for applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law and for applications being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. —In subsection II.B, at the end of the first paragraph, added preventing the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of patents claiming patentably indistinct variations of the same invention as a public policy basis for nonstatutory double patenting rejections. Deleted subsection heading "1. Obviousness Type" and rewrote text previously thereunder in new subsections II.B.1 and II.B.2. The text in former subsection II.B.2 —Added new subsection II.B.1, entitled "Anticipation Analysis," to explain when an anticipation analysis should be used to explain the basis for a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The added text specifically discusses policies in regard to species and sub-genus claims. Added citation to AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014) to support the statement that an obviousness analysis is required if one of ordinary skill in the art is not able to at once envisage the invention claimed within the scope of the genus claims of the conflicting application or patent. —Redesignated former subsection II.B.1 as subsection II.B.2. Obviousness Analysis. Revised to explain issues to be considered when determining the propriety of a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on an obviousness analysis. Clarified text to explain that the specification of the applied patent or copending application may be used to interpret the applied claims, even though the specification is not prior art. Added citations to Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 349 F.3d at 1378 n.1, 68 USPQ2d at 1869 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and In re Basell Poliolefine, 547 F.3d 1371, 1379, 89 USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008) to support the statement that the nonstatutory double patenting analysis is similar to, but not necessarily the same as, the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. —Added new subsection II.B.2(a), entitled "Construing the claim using the reference patent or application disclosure." Revised the former text discussing use of the reference disclosure to clarify the proper use of the specification for claim construction. Included supporting citations to Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 86 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC , 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Specifically, added new text to clarify procedures and help to avoid improper reliance on the disclosure of a reference patent or copending
Rev. 07.2015, November 201541
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
application. In addition, the result in In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968) is discussed to avoid improper application of double patenting rejections based on Schneller. —Relocated the text of former subsection II.B.1(a) to subsection II.B.2(b) One-Way Test for Distinctness. Revised text to use "distinctness" in place of "obviousness" to emphasize that a double patenting analysis is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. In the first paragraph, deleted text drawn to "obvious-type" double patenting and anticipation from the last two sentences. In the second paragraph, added references to In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 106 USPQ2d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the third paragraph, changed "an unjustified timewise extension rationale" to "equitable principles" to conform with current terminology. Moved form paragraphs 8.33 to 8.37 from former subsection II.B.2(b) to this subsection. Revised form paragraph 8.33 to improve clarity and revised the examiner notes in form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.37 to conform with current terminology and to clarify policies under the first to invent law and first inventor to file law. —Relocated the text of former subsection II.B.1(b) to added subsection II.B.2(c) Two-Way Test for Distinctness. In the first paragraph, added a citation to In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 106 USPQ2d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2013) to support that the Office must solely be responsible for delays to be entitled to a two-way test for distinctness. In the second paragraph, clarified the procedures in making a two-way distinctness determination and changed "the fundamental reason … by a patent" with "equitable principles" to conform with current terminology. Added a new paragraph that discusses the unusual facts of In re Braat. In the last paragraph, changed "an unjustified timewise extension rationale" to "equitable principles" to conform with current terminology. Form paragraphs 8.33 to 8.47 were moved to current subsection II.B.2(b). —Redesignated former subsection II.B.2 as subsection II.B.3. Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection Based on Equitable Principles. In the first paragraph, revised text to clarify that double patenting rejections based on equitable principles are intended to prevent unjustified timewise extension of patent rights, no matter how the extension is brought about. Added a supporting citation to Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and a new paragraph discussing that decision. Made conforming changes through the subsection by referring to "equitable principles" rather than "unjustified timewise extension of patent rights rationale" as the basis for such nonstatutory double patenting rejections. Revised the examiner notes in form paragraphs 8.38 and to 8.39, to conform with current terminology and to clarify guidance for applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law and for applications being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. —Redesignated former subsection II.B.3 as subsection II.B.4. Revised text to use "distinctness" in place of "obviousness" to emphasize that double patenting analysis is different from obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. In the second paragraph, clarified text regarding double patenting in a design-utility situation. Deleted "But see Carman Indus. (J. Nies, concurring)." Pertaining to subsection III. Contrast Between Double Patenting Rejection and Rejections Based on Prior Art:
804
—In subsection III, changed the citation of "35 U.S.C. 103(a)" to "35 U.S.C. 102 or 103" and "obviousness analysis" to "anticipation or obviousness analysis" because double patenting may be evaluated either an anticipation or obviousness analysis. In the first paragraph, added a quotation from In re Bartfeld. —In the second paragraph, replaced the citation to the In re Bowers CCPA decision with a citation to In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
42Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In the third paragraph, added "even though it may overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection" at the end of the first sentence to clarify that this paragraph is limited to nonstatutory double patenting, and replaced the citation of In re Fong with a citation to In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Added a citation to Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008) for an example of the purpose of a terminal disclaimer. Pertaining to subsection IV. Double Patenting Rejections and Prior Art Exclusion under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c):
804
—Added new subsection IV, which contains modified text from former subsection III. Added "pre-AIA" before statutory citations to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 for clarification. Deleted the clause "and for reexamination proceedings in which the patent under reexamination was granted on or after December 10, 2004" as unnecessary. Added cross-references to MPEP § 706.02(l) and the charts in this section. Pertaining to subsection V. Double Patenting Rejections and Prior Art Exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c):
804
—Added new subsection V, which contains new text to briefly discuss policies regarding double patenting rejections and the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c). Pertaining to subsection VI. Double Patenting Rejections Once a Joint Research Agreement is Established:
804
—Added new subsection VI, which contains modified text from the last paragraph of former subsection III. Text was revised to clarify that this subsection (pertaining to joint research agreements) applies to both pre-AIA and AIA law and to clarify whether the statutory citations are to pre-AIA or AIA law. Also, minor clarifying changes to the text were made. —Revised text to clarify that the prohibition under 35 U.S.C. 121 applies to nonstatutory double patenting and does not apply to statutory double patenting. In the first paragraph, added
804.01
discussion of, and citation to, Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 86 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Added text that discusses the court's interpretation of the double patenting prohibition in Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and Applied Materials Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials, 98 F.3d 1563, 40 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1996). —In the third paragraph, added "independent or distinct inventions, such as" after "restriction between" in the first sentence for clarification. In item (A), clarified the language by moving qualifying phrases to a different location in the same sentence. In item (B), clarified the first sentence by changing "different applications or patents" to "application under examination and claims of the other application/patent." —In item (C), clarified the language by adding "requirement was withdrawn because the" after "restriction" in the first sentence and deleting the second sentence. In item (D), added a new second sentence to emphasize that the prohibition against double patenting rejections to apply to national stage applications. In item (E), added "in its entirety, or in part" after "withdrawn" in the first sentence and changed "third sentence" to "[double patenting]" in the second sentence for clarification. Added new text to explain the effect of withdrawing a restriction requirement and to add a supporting quote from In re Ziegler. —In item (F), added text to state that the 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition against double patenting is not applicable to statutory double patenting with supporting citations to Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1984); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). In item (G), clarified the text in the last sentence that if any process claims are rejoined, the restriction requirement should be withdrawn in accordance with 37 CFR 1.141(b) and MPEP § 821.04.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201543
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Added new item (H) to explain that continuation-in-part (CIP) applications do not qualify for the 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition against double patenting, including a supporting citation to Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 1362, 86 USPQ2d 1001,
1007-08 (Fed. Cir. 2008). —Rewrote the first sentence of the last paragraph to improve clarify by relocating qualifying phrases. —Modified the citation of "37 CFR 1.131" to "37 CFR 1.131(a)" and revised text to clarify that a terminal disclaimer can obviate a "nonstatutory" double patenting rejection.
804.02
—In subsection II, added text to state that 35 U.S.C. 101 prevents two patents from issuing on the same invention and added supporting citations to Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1984); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). Revised the cross-reference to "35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a)" to "35 U.S.C. 102 or 103" to include both pre-AIA and AIA versions of the statutes. —Added a new paragraph to discuss the consonance requirement, including supporting citations to Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and Applied Materials Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials, 98 F.3d 1563, 40 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1996). —In subsection IV, corrected "application date" to read "expiration date" in the first sentence. Also, changed "rejection" to "judicially created double patenting" in the last sentence of the second paragraph to make the quoted language consistent with the current text of 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3). Changed "ownership" to "separate enforcement" in the first sentence of the last paragraph to make the language consistent with 37 CFR 1.321(d). —In subsection VI, added citations to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), where appropriate. In the first paragraph, added a citation to 35 U.S.C. 156 following 35 U.S.C. 154(b) to clarify that certain patent term adjustments and extensions effect the patent term. Also added explanation that in certain situations copending applications will have the same effective filing date and may potentially have the same patent term. In the second paragraph, changed "extension" to "adjustment" to make the terminology consistent with 35 U.S.C. 154(b), and added text to explain the interplay between terminal disclaimers and patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b). Also added explanation that 37 CFR 1.321(d) limits enforcement of the patent to only when the patent and the reference application or patent are not separately enforced, and that a terminal disclaimer is only effective in the application in which it is filed. In the third paragraph, updated the citation to a 1997 Official Gazette notice with more complete identifying information and added a supporting citation to AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Added a new fourth paragraph to subsection VI indicating that a terminal disclaimer may be withdrawn if the conflicting claims are cancelled or shown to be patentably distinct from the reference claims. —Added 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and (c). Revised the title of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) to indicate that it is the pre-AIA version. Replaced former 37 CFR 1.78(c) with current 37 CFR 1.78(g)
804.03
and replaced former 37 CFR 1.130 with current 37 CFR 1.131(c) to provide the regulatory sections relevant to the discussion in the this MPEP section. Revised text to clarify that a terminal disclaimer can obviate a "nonstatutory" double patenting rejection. —Modified text to refer to both the current statutory provisions for common ownership and joint research agreement (35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c), respectively) and the prior statutory provisions as amended by the CREATE Act (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)) and other conforming changes (e.g., updating form paragraph references and using "effective filing date" instead of "when the invention was made").
44Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In subsection I, deleted the reference to Public Law 108-453. Also updated cross-references to other MPEP sections that contain more information on common ownership and joint research agreements. —In subsection II.A, added text from MPEP § 706.02(l)(2) to define common ownership and added cross-references to MPEP 717.02(a) and (b) for more information on the prior art exception based on common ownership. In subsection II.B, added text at the end to discuss the differences between the joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and pre-AIA 103(c). In subsection II.C, added "may be made final" to the end of the last sentence. —In subsection III, clarified text in the second paragraph to conform with current terminology. —In subsection IV, updated all form paragraphs to conform with current terminology. —In the first paragraph, added "nonstatutory" before "double patenting" for clarification and deleted "or continuing" because the 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition against double patenting is only applicable to divisional applications.
804.04
—Added new paragraphs to further explain the 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition against double patenting, including support citations to Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Applied Materials Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials, 98 F.3d 1563, 40 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991). —Changed "void" to "invalid" to be consistent with current terminology in the last sentence.805 —Revised section title and modified text to refer to both the current statutory provisions for common ownership and joint research agreement (35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c),
806.04(i)
respectively) and the prior statutory provisions as amended by the CREATE Act (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)). Made minor clarification changes to the first sentence. —Updated the cross-reference from MPEP § 818.03(d) to MPEP § 818.01(d).809.03 —Changed the period for reply from "1-month (not less than 30 days)" to "2 months." Deleted "or election" after "restriction" for clarification. Deleted the clause "When preparing … the
810
restriction requirement" and inserted text to more fully explain making a restriction requirement final. —In the second paragraph, made clarifying changes that the examiner must consider whether there is a serious burden before requiring a restriction of claims previous examined on the merits.
811
—Revised the order of the text and made minor revisions thereto for clarity. References to "documentation" and "the next Office action" reflect updates to use current terminology.
812.01
—In subsection I, added "if necessary" after "mentioned" for clarification and added cross-references to form paragraphs 8.01 and 8.02. In subsection III, added "linked" before "invention" for clarification.
814
—Revised the text in the paragraph following form paragraph 8.11 for clarification. Added new subitem (v) under item (C)(2) regarding the process of making and process of using.
817
—Updated form paragraph 8.21 and revised text to indicate that only form paragraph 8.21 must be used at the conclusion of all restriction requirements. Deleted form paragraphs 8.21.01-8.21.03. Added form paragraphs 8.27.aia and 8.28.aia. —Deleted text of section except for the first sentence, and added "by applicant" following "designation" in the first sentence for clarification. Added a new paragraph to discuss when
818
two or more independent and distinct inventions are presented, and to discuss the restriction process. Added text from former MPEP § 818.01. In addition, added a sentence about inventions elected by original presentation with a cross-reference to MPEP § 818.02(a). —Revised section title to "Election in reply to a restriction requirement," and added text from former section MPEP § 818.03, modified for clarity.
818.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 201545
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Added two new paragraphs to state the requirements for traversing a restriction requirement and to explain that where a rejection or objection is included with a restriction requirement, applicant must respond to all rejections and objections in addition to the restriction requirement. —New section added that contains modified text from former MPEP § 818.03(a). In the first paragraph, text was modified by adding "for restriction" after "requirement" in the first sentence
818.01(a)
and deleting all text after "37 CFR 1.111(b)." In the second paragraph, text was modified by changing the cross-reference from MPEP § 818.03(b) to MPEP § 818.01(b) and adding "if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction" at the end of the last sentence. —New section added that contains modified text from former MPEP § 818.03(b). In the second paragraph, text was revised to add "other than those containing only an election of
818.01(b)
species" after "restriction" and to refer to form paragraph 8.21 instead of 8.22. Deleted form paragraph 8.22. Added a paragraph that for election of species, form paragraph 8.01 or 8.02 should be used. —New section added that contains modified text from former MPEP §§ 818.03(a) and 818.03(c). Added text explaining that a traversal must point out all errors in order to preserve
818.01(c)
petition rights, and that the petition may be deferred until after final action but no later than the filing date of a notice of appeal. —New section added that contains modified text from former MPEP § 818.03(d). Text from former MPEP § 818.03(d) was revised to combine the text into a single paragraph and to
818.01(d)
clarify that regardless of the presence of a linking claim, a proper traverse must include a written statement of the reasons for traverse, including distinctly and specifically pointing out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. —Text is revised by changing "expressly" to "by explicitly or expressly identifying the elected invention or" and by adding a cross-reference to MPEP § 818.02(d).
818.02
—Section title is modified by adding "Election" at the beginning. In the first paragraph, text is revised by changing "an action is given, they are treated as original claims" to "the earlier
818.02(a)
of the mailing of a first restriction requirement or the mailing of a first Office action on the merits, those claims, along with ones presented upon filing the application, will be considered as originally presented claims." A cross reference to MPEP chapter 1400 is added for reissue applications. —Section title is modified by adding "; Linking Claims Only – No Election of Invention" and by adding text indicating that where only linking claims are first presented and prosecuted in
818.02(b)
an application in which no election of a single linked invention has been made, and applicant later presents claims to two or more linked, independent or distinct inventions, the examiner may require applicant to elect a single invention. —Section title revised by adding "Election." Added "independent or distinct" prior to "inventions," deleted "(which may be species or various types of related inventions)," and made minor changes to clarify the text.
818.02(c)
—New section added to explain that when applicant's reply to a restriction requirement does not expressly state the invention elected, but cancels claims to all but one invention, the remaining invention is deemed to be the elected invention.
818.02(d)
—Sections removed and reserved; text previously therein was modified and moved to MPEP § 818.01 et seq. as discussed above.
818.03 et seq.
—In the first paragraph, minor changes to text made for clarification and to add a cross-reference to MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection IV.B.
819
—In the second paragraph, reorganized the order which the information is presented and qualified the discussion of continued prosecution applications as limited to design applications (but not international design applications).
46Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Delete text regarding interference and allowable genus claims. Added a new paragraph stating that an applicant, as a matter of right, may not shift from claiming one invention to another but an examiner is not precluded from permitting a shift. —Deleted the second paragraph and moved the citation of In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 169 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1971) to the end of the final paragraph.
821
—Minor clarifying changes are made to the first paragraph. Text surrounding form paragraphs 8.25 and 8.05 rearranged and clarified to explain that if a restriction requirement is made final,
821.01
the claims to the nonelected invention should be clearly indicated as being withdrawn from consideration. —Deleted form paragraph 8.24 and text that indicated a complete reply to a final rejection must include cancellation of claims nonelected with traverse or other appropriate action because even after final rejection, the withdrawn claims to the non-elected invention might properly be rejoined. Deleted the second to last paragraph that states that the failure to cancel claims drawn to the nonelected invention in a reply to a final action that otherwise places the application in condition for allowance will be taken as an authorization to cancel claims not eligible for rejoinder or to take appropriate action. —In the last paragraph, clarified that "not later than appeal" means on or before the date of notice of appeal is filed and added a cross-reference to MPEP § 1204. —In the first paragraph, revised text to clarify that where the initial requirement is not traversed (either expressly or by virtue of an incomplete reply), the examiner should take appropriate
821.02
action, including determining whether the restriction requirement should be withdrawn in whole or in part. Also added a cross-reference to MPEP § 821.04. Added a sentence indicating when form paragraph 8.07 should be used. —Added explanation that even if an election was made without traverse, claims directed to nonelected species and nonelected inventions that are eligible for rejoinder should be rejoined; if not rejoined, such claims may only be cancelled by examiner's amendment when the cancellation is expressly authorized by applicant. —In the first paragraph, deleted the cross reference to MPEP § 818.01 and made minor clarification changes. Revised form paragraph 8.26 to provide a two month time period for
821.03
reply, and to add an examiner note indicating that the form paragraph should not be used for an application filed on or after August 25, 2006 that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or other provisions under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d). —Revised form paragraphs 8.03 and 8.47 to provide a two month time period for reply.821.04(a) —Revised section title to "Claims to Inventions That Are Not Patentably Distinct in Plural Applications of Same Applicant or Assignee."
822
—Replaced former 37 CFR 1.78(b) with current 37 CFR 1.78(f), which relates to the treatment of applications containing patentably indistinct claims, and updated form paragraph 8.29 to cite to 37 CFR 1.78(f). Added brief discussion of appropriate rejections that should be made when claims in two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee are patentably indistinct. —Added cross-references to MPEP §§ 804.01 and 1490 for additional information pertaining to provisional double patenting rejections. —Section deleted in its entirety. See MPEP § 822 for information pertaining to the treatment of applications containing patentably indistinct claims.
822.01
—Revised to explain that the analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of
823
invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis), however the guidance set forth in MPEP Chapter 800
Rev. 07.2015, November 201547
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
with regard to other substantive and procedural generally applies to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371.
48Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 900:
—Revised to add "pre-AIA" to references to 35 U.S.C. 102(a), 35 U.S.C. 102(e), 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1), 35 U.S.C. 104, 35 U.S.C. 135(a), 35 U.S.C. 135(b), and 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(C).
Passim
Revised to replace references to "35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph" with "35 U.S.C. 112(a)" and "35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph" with "35 U.S.C. 112(b)." —Revised to indicate that matter canceled from the application file wrapper of a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication is publicly available, e.g., for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as of the patent or publication date, respectively.
901.01
—New section added regarding ordering patented and abandoned provisional and nonprovisional application files. Revises information previously in MPEP § 905.03 for consistency with current practices.
901.01(a)
—Revised to include discussion of relevant AIA provisions under 35 U.S.C. 102.901.02 —Revised to include information regarding the non-publication of international design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 382. Revised to include discussion of use of U.S. patent application publications under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.
901.03
—Revised to add cross-reference to MPEP § 2154.901.04 —Revised to delete previous subsection I, Placement of Foreign Patent Equivalents in the Search Files; renumbered the remaining subsections.
901.05
—Revised to update information regarding Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) commercial database offerings including Derwent World Patents Index, International Patent Documentation Center, and Chemical Abstract Service. Information regarding the STIC microfilm collection updated. —Revised to delete the alphabetical lists of the foreign language names of the months and of the names and abbreviations for the United States of America.
901.05(a)
—Revised to provide updated guidance on utilizing STIC to obtain copies of foreign patent documents.
901.05(c)
—Revised to update information about using STIC Translations Service Center to obtain human (written) or machine translations of non-patent literature and foreign patent
901.05(d)
documents, and to include a link to the STIC's listing of machine translation tools. Added cross-reference to MPEP § 706.02 relating to the use of machine translations where possible in the early phases of examination. —Revised to update information regarding the location of main STIC and the STIC-Electronic Information Centers (STIC-EICs), which are found in each of the Technology Centers.
901.06(a)
—Revised to update information regarding STIC collections, including books (electronic and print), periodicals, and special collections. Also revised to update information regarding locating materials in the STIC online catalog, and receiving loaned books from STIC. —Revised to update information on STIC services, including performing online searches using commercial databases, foreign patent document retrieval, document translation, and interlibrary loans. —Revised to add reference to a database that includes information on U.S. Alien Property Custodian bibliographic data.
901.06(c)
—Revised to specify that requests for statutory invention registration filed on or after March 16, 2013, will not be processed in light of the repeal of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 157.
901.06(d)
—Section rewritten in its entirety, and previous information pertaining to arrangement of art in technology centers deleted.
901.07
Rev. 07.2015, November 201549
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Section title revised to "Patent Family Information" and text rewritten to include information previously in MPEP § 905.06 regarding accessing patent family information. Additionally updated to include information about the Common Citation Document website accessible through the Patent Examiner's Toolkit. —Section removed and reserved.901.08 —Revised to include information regarding classification systems. Revised to indicate that U.S. Patent Classification (USPC) System will become a static searchable database after December 31, 2014.
902
—Section title revised to "Classification Manual for the U.S. Patent Classification System," and text revised to indicate that the classification manual for the U.S. Patent Classification
902.01
System will no longer be updated after December 31, 2014. Removed reference to bimonthly Manual updates and portable document format (.pdf) archiving on CD-ROM. —Revised section title to pertain to class and subclass definitions in the USPC.902.02 —Revised section title to pertain to definition notes in the USPC.902.02(a) —Revised to indicate that a majority of U.S. Patents and U.S. Patent Application Publications published after December 31, 2014, will no longer receive a designated U.S. patent classification.
902.03
—Revised to replace "IPC8" with "IPC."902.03(b) —Section removed and reserved.902.03(c) —Section removed and reserved.902.03(d) —Deleted.902.04 —Deleted.902.04(a) —Revised section title to pertain to classification in the USPC.903 —Section removed and reserved.903.02(a) —Revised section title to pertain to scope of a class in the USPC.903.02(b) —Deleted.903.02(c) —Revised to provide information about the Foreign Patents Service Center, which assists examiners in foreign patent data retrieval, patent family searches and document retrieval services for non-patent literature in the STIC collections.
903.03
—Revised section title to pertain to classifying applications for publication as a patent application publication in the USPC.
903.04
—Revised to delete reference to subclasses being regularly populated with documents from the EPO and JPO databases.
903.06
—Revised to reflect the current practice of electronic processing.903.07 —Deleted.903.07(b) —Revised to delete form paragraph 5.03 and the indication that applicants may be advised of expected application transfers by use of the form paragraph.
903.08
—Revised to delete indication that the SPE or a designee reviews each application to determine whether it belongs in the art unit.
903.08(a)
—Deleted outdated information regarding classification and assignment of applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
903.08(c)
—In subsection II, deleted any distinction between the treatment of PCT, docketed, and undocketed applications in the context of application transfers.
903.08(d)
—Subsection III revised to delete references to eDAN messaging, to change "PALM EXPO" to "Patent File Wrapper (PFW)," and to delete the phrase "examinable in another TC" from identification of the controlling claim for the purposes of the application transfer request
50Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
form. Subsection III further revised to delete information regarding handling of PCT applications and other special applications throughout the transfer process. —Revised the list setting forth how an application will be assigned by deleting reference to reclassification of entire classes from item (E), deleting former item (H) and redesignating former items (I-M) as items (H-L).
903.08(e)
—Subsection I retitled "Routing of Applications Transferred Between TCs" and revised to remove references to undocketed applications and eDAN messaging. Replaced "PALM EXPO" with "Patent File Wrapper (PFW)." —Subsection II retitled "Patent File Wrapper"; references to PALM EXPO transfer inquiry function and routing sheet deleted. —Section removed and reserved; moved information to new MPEP § 906.903.09 —Section removed and reserved; moved information to new MPEP § 907.903.09(a) —Revised to update discussion of a second search of the prior art following the first Office action.
904
—Revised to replace references to Information Technology Resource Person (ITPR) and Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) with Electronic Information Center.
904.02
—Revised to include classified searching in the Cooperative Patent Classification system.904.02(a) —Updated to reflect that an NPL search may be performed by the examiner or by using a STIC-EIC searcher.
904.02(b)
—Revised to update guidance on the use of the Internet as an examination search tool.904.02(c) —Revised to include general introduction of the cooperative patent classification (CPC) system.
905
—Revised to include explanation of the classification scheme for CPC, including specifics about each element of the classification symbol.
905.01
—New section added to explain that the title associated with CPC symbols defines the scope of the subject matter covered by that symbol.
905.01(a)
—New section added to explain references within CPC titles.905.01(a)(1) —New section added to explain significance of notes following a CPC class, subclass, main group or subgroup title.
905.01(a)(2)
—New section added to explain presence of warnings found within CPC schemes.905.01(a)(3) —New section added to explain guidance headings found in CPC schemes.905.01(a)(4) —Revised to explain CPC definitions.905.02 —Rewritten to provide guidance on classification rules in the CPC classification system. Information regarding ordering patented and abandoned provisional and nonprovisional application files relocated to new MPEP § 901.01(a).
905.03
—New section added containing information on the CPC database, which maintains technical information regarding the patent family documents for each patent included and associated CPC classification symbols.
905.03(a)
—New section added providing guidance on what subject matter to classify in the CPC classification scheme.
905.03(b)
—New section added providing guidance on searching using CPC combination sets.905.03(c) —Deleted. Content formerly in MPEP § 905.06 moved to MPEP § 901.07.905.04 - 905.06 —New section added containing updated information previously found in MPEP § 903.09 regarding the International Patent Classification system. Information pertaining to update of the Concordance was deleted.
906
Rev. 07.2015, November 201551
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—New section added containing information previously found in MPEP § 903.09(a) regarding the Locarno International Classification system. Content revised to indicate that international design applications include a Locarno international classification designation.
907
52Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 1000:
—Updated 35 U.S.C. 2 and 3.1001 —Revised to add material emphasizing the distinction between appealable matters and petitionable matters.
1001.01
—Added 37 CFR 1.4(c) and updated 37 CFR 1.181 – 1.183.1002 —Revised to list four elements that should be included in a petition. —Revised to include a paragraph directed to the requirement of 37 CFR 1.4(c) for a separate paper/petition for each distinct subject, inquiry or order to avoid confusion and delay in answering the petition. Added an indication that many prior petitioners have benefitted by delaying the filing of petitions under 37 CFR 1.182 or 1.183 until after they receive a decision on a petition seeking supervisory review under 37 CFR 1.181. —Deleted a reference to 37 CFR 1.644. —Added form paragraph 10.30. —Revised to delete the last paragraph of the section, which was directed to notations made on the "Contents" of paper application file wrappers.
1002.01
—Revised to include a reference to MPEP § 1002.02(p).1002.02 —Revised the first paragraph to delete reference to petitions decided by PCT Legal Administration, to update the Mail Stop for applications for patent term extension under 35
1002.02(b)
U.S.C. 156, and to add the Mail Stop for petitions for retroactive foreign filing license under 37 CFR 5.25. —In item 1, removed reference to petitions to revive based on unavoidable delay. In item 4, changed 37 CFR "1.55(c)" to "1.55(e)" and MPEP § "201.14(a)" to "214.02." Added item 5 directed to petitions to restore the right of priority under 37 CFR 1.55(c). Added item 6 directed to petitions for the late filing of priority papers under 37 CFR 1.55(f). Renumbered former item 5 as item 7, changed "priority" to "benefit," changed 37 CFR "1.78(a)(3) and (a)(6)" to "1.78(c) and (e)," and changed MPEP § "201.11" to "211.04." Added item 8 directed to petitions to restore a domestic benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78(b) or (e). —Renumbered former items 6-8 as 9-11, respectively. In former item 7 (renumbered as item 10), added "subsection I" after "MPEP § 711." In former item 8 (renumbered as item 11), deleted "assignments and" and added ", for example, issuance of a patent in the name of an assignee under 37 CFR 3.81" after "provided for." Deleted former item 9. Renumbered former items 10-21 as 12-23, respectively. In former item 10 (renumbered as item 12), added "or agent of record" after "attorney" and "and in applications pending in a Technology Center" after "Policy." In former item 12 (renumbered as item 14), changed "[r]equests by the examiner to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for reconsideration of a decision" to "[r]equests from the examiner for the rehearing of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board." In former item 14 (renumbered as item 16), added "an unintentionally" before "delayed payment." In former item 15 (renumbered as item 17), added "or Central Reexamination Unit Director" after "Technology Center Director." —In former item 18 (renumbered as item 20), deleted "unavoidable or" and the reference to 35 U.S.C. 133. In former item 19 (renumbered as item 21), added "(or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.14)" after "37 CFR 1.14." Renumbered former items 20 and 21 as items 22 and 23. Deleted former item 22. Renumbered former item 23 as item 24 and revised it to read "[a]pplications relating to Hatch-Waxman patent term extension, 37 CFR 1.710 - 1.791 and petitions relating to Hatch-Waxman patent term extension, 37 CFR 1.182 or 1.183." In former item 24 (renumbered as item 25), added "for original applications, other than designs, filed on or after June 8, 1995 and before May 29, 2000, MPEP § 2720." In former item 25 (renumbered as item 26), added a cross-reference to MPEP § 2734, subsection I. In former item 26, (renumbered as item 27),
Rev. 07.2015, November 201553
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
added a cross-reference to MPEP § 2734, subsection II. In former item 27 (renumbered as item 28), deleted references to former 37 CFR 1.60 and former 37 CFR 1.62. Added item 32, "[p]etitions, or requests at the initiative of the USPTO by someone other than a Technology Center Director, to withdraw patent applications from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(a) before payment of the issue fee." In former item 32 (renumbered as item 33), added "subsection II" after "MPEP § 1308." In former item 33 (renumbered as item 34), added a cross-reference to MPEP § 1308, subsection I.B. In former item 34 (renumbered as item 35), added "or assignment information." —Added new items 36-48. Item 42, directed to petitions for retroactive foreign filing license, was formerly item 7 of MPEP § 1002.02(c)(1). Item 48, directed to the return of papers containing discourteous remarks, was formerly item 3 of MPEP § 1003. —In item 2, revised the language addressing lack of unity in international applications to refer to "protests following a holding of lack of unity of invention by the USPTO in its
1002.02(c)
capacity as International Searching Authority ( 37 CFR 1.477 and MPEP § 1850 ) or International Preliminary Examining Authority (37 CFR 1.489 and MPEP § 1875.02)." —In item 3, deleted former sub-items (b) and (e) and relabeled sub-items (c), (d), and (f)-(j) as b-h, respectively. In former sub-item (d) (relabeled as sub-item c), changed 37 CFR "1.131" to 37 CFR "1.131(a)" and deleted references to 37 CFR 1.608 and MPEP § 2308 -§ 2308.02. In former sub-item (h) (relabeled as sub-item f), added a cross-reference to MPEP § 714.01(e). In former sub-item (j) (relabeled as sub-item h), MPEP § "704.11" was changed to "704.14(c)." —Items 5 and 9 were deleted and items 6-8 and 10-21 were renumbered as 5-19, respectively. In former item 7 (renumbered as item 6), "[p]etitions under 37 CFR 1.193(a) relating to the form of the appeal" was changed to "[p]etitions under 37 CFR 41.40 to request review of the primary examiner's failure to designate a rejection in the examiner's answer as a new ground of rejection, MPEP § 1207.03(b)." In former item 8 (renumbered as item 7), MPEP § "1206" was changed to "1205.01." In former item 11 (renumbered as item 9), a cross-reference to MPEP § 1205.01 was added. In former item 12 (renumbered as item 10), 37 CFR "1.515" was changed to 37 CFR "1.515(c)." In former item 13 (renumbered as item 11), "pending in the Technology Center" was deleted. In former item 16 (renumbered as item 14), a cross-reference to MPEP § 1204.03 was added. In former item 18 (renumbered as item 16), "where the application is before the Technology Center" was added after "37 CFR 1.313(a)." In former item 19 (renumbered as item 17), ", subsection II" was added after "MPEP § 1308." In former item 20 (renumbered as item 18), a cross-reference to MPEP § 608.03 was added. In former item 21 (renumbered as item 19), a cross-reference to MPEP § 608.03(a) was added. Former item 22 was deleted. —In item 1, a reference to MPEP § 710 was added. In item 2, a reference to MPEP § 709, subsection II was added. The text formerly between items 2 and 3 was deleted. In item 3, 37 CFR "5.12(a)" was changed to "5.12(b)."
1002.02(c)(1)
—Former item 7 is now item 42 of MPEP § 1002.02(b). The item was revised to include a reference to subsection II of MPEP § 140. Former items 8-14 were renumbered as 7-13, respectively. In former item 9 (renumbered as item 8), the cross-reference to MPEP § 1109 was deleted and "as in effect on March 15, 2013" was added. In former item 10 (renumbered as item 9), a cross-reference to MPEP § 150 was added. In former item 11 (renumbered as item 10), a cross-reference to MPEP § 150 was added. In former item 12 (renumbered as item 11), a cross-reference to MPEP § 140 was added. —Item 2 was changed from "[p]etitions to make biotechnology applications special where applicant is a small entity, MPEP § 708.02, item XII." to "[r]equest for a certificate of statement of availability of deposit, MPEP § 2410.02."
1002.02(c)(2)
54Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In the section title, "and Requests" was added after "Petitions." In the preamble, before "requests," "petitions and" was deleted. Items 1 and 2 were deleted. The item number for item 3 was deleted.
1002.02(c)(3)
—New section added directed to petitions decided by the Director of the Central Reexamination Unit.
1002.02(c)(4)
—In item 2, MPEP § "1208.01" was changed to MPEP § "1207.04." In item 4, a cross-reference to MPEP § 1480 was added. In item 5, MPEP § "1481" was changed to MPEP § "1481.02."
1002.02(d)
—In item 6, a cross-reference to MPEP § 714.01(e) was added. In item 7, 37 CFR "1.603" was changed to "41.202" and MPEP § "2303" was changed to "2304.04 et seq." In item 9, a cross-reference to MPEP § 608.02, subsection VIII was added. In item 10, MPEP § "1211" was changed to "1211.01." —Section removed and reserved. The content was moved to MPEP § 1004, item 20.1002.02(e) —The first paragraph was revised to indicate that the Chief Administrative Patent Judge is authorized to delegate authority to decide any of the petitions or matters listed to the Deputy
1002.02(f)
Chief Administrative Patent Judge, to a Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, a Lead Administrative Patent Judge, or to an Administrative Patent Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. —Items 1 and 2 were added and former items 1-5 were renumbered as 3-7, respectively. Former item 1(renumbered as item 3) was revised to provide for "[d]esignation of members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to, on written appeal, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents, review appeals of ex parte reexaminations, conduct derivation proceedings, conduct inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews, initially and on request for reconsideration. 35 U.S.C. 6." —Former item 2 (renumbered as item 4) was revised to remove the reference to "37 CFR 1.610(a)" and to include after "interference," "including the determination of priority and patentability of invention. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 6." —Former item 3 (renumbered as item 5) was revised to refer to the review of appeals of inter partes reexaminations. In former item 4 (renumbered as item 6), former sub-items a, c, e, f, g, and h were deleted. Sub-items b and d were relabeled as sub-items e and f, respectively. New sub-items a-d, g, and h were added. Former item 5 (renumbered as item 7) was revised to refer to "pre-AIA" 35 U.S.C. 135(c) throughout. Sub-item a was revised to refer to 37 CFR 41.205(b) rather than 37 CFR 1.666(c) and sub-item b was revised to refer to 37 CFR 41.205(d) rather than 37 CFR 1.666(b). —Former items 1-5 were deleted and replaced by new items 1-5.1002.02(g) —Former text was deleted and replaced by items 1-7.1002.02(j) —In item 2, 37 CFR "1.304(a)(3)" was changed to "90.3(c)" and 37 CFR "2.145(d)" was changed to "2.145(e)." In item 3, 37 CFR "10.2(c)" was changed to "11.2(d)" and the phrase
1002.02(k)(1)
"regarding enrollment or recognition" was added at the end of the item. Former item 4 was renumbered as item 5 and a new item 4 directed to petitions under 37 CFR 11.2(e) was added. In former item 4 (renumbered as item 5), 37 CFR "10.155" was changed to "11.55" and 37 CFR "10.156" was changed to "11.56(c)." —In item 2, "Petitions requesting review" was changed to "Administrative appeals." A new item 3 was added directed to "[c]ertain uncontested decisions involving the Office of Enrollment and Discipline."
1002.02(k)(2)
—In item 1, a cross-reference to MPEP § 1481 was added. In item 3, MPEP § "1481" was changed to "1481.02."
1002.02(l)
—In the section title, "the Office of" was added before "Enrollment and Discipline." Item 1 was revised to change "relating to registration" to "regarding enrollment or recognition under
1002.02(m)
Rev. 07.2015, November 201555
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
37 CFR 11.2(c)." Item 2 was revised to change 37 CFR "10.9" to "11.9." Former items 3 and 4 were deleted and former items 5 and 6 were renumbered as 3 and 4, respectively. In former item 5 (renumbered as item 3), 37 CFR "10.160" was changed to "11.60." In former item 6 (renumbered as item 4), 37 CFR "10.170" was changed to "11.3." New item 5, directed to a "[p]etition to withdraw a Rule to Show Cause under 37 CFR 11.11(b)," was added. —Revised text to eliminate item numbers and references to interferences and to specify that the Deputy Director of the USPTO has been delegated the authority to decide petitions to the
1002.02(o)
Director of the USPTO from actions taken by the PTAB for matters not otherwise delegated to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, the Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge, a Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, or administrative patent judge(s). —Revised by replacing throughout the section, including in the section title, "PCT Legal Administrator" with "Director of International Patent Legal Administration." Revised item 8 to delete reference to petitions under 37 CFR 1.137 based on unavoidable delay.
1002.02(p)
—Former items 9 and 16 were deleted. Former items 10-14 were renumbered as 9-13, respectively. In former item 10 (renumbered as item 9), "pre-AIA" was added before "37 CFR 1.47" and before "37 CFR 1.42." New items 14-16 were added. Former items 15 and 17 were renumbered as 17 and 19, respectively. New items 18, 20 and 21 were added. —New item 1 was added. Former items 1-5 were renumbered as 2-6, respectively. Former item 6 was deleted. New item 8 was added.
1002.02(q)
—Item 3 was changed from "[r]equests to issue patent in name of the assignee after payment of the issue fee, 37 CFR 3.81(b), MPEP § 307" to "[r]equests for republication of an application, 37 CFR 1.221(a), MPEP § 1130." Item 4 was deleted.
1002.02(r)
—Revised section title by deleting "by the Special Program Examiners." Revised the section to be directed to petitions to make patent applications special under the accelerated program
1002.02(s)
set forth in MPEP § 708.02(a). Sub-items (a)-(k) were deleted and new sub-items a-d were added. Sub-item (l) was relabeled as sub-item e. Former item 2 was deleted from this section and added to item 12 of MPEP § 1002.02(b)). —In item 1, relabeled sub-items i-iii as a-c, respectively. In item 2, revised to replace "on the 'Contents' of the file wrapper" with "in the file wrapper" and to delete references to MPEP
1003
§ 201.14(c) and § 604.04(a). Item 3 was deleted from this section and added as new item 48 in MPEP § 1002.02(b). Former items 4-18 were renumbered as 3-17, respectively. —Former item 6 (renumbered as item 5) was revised to be directed to actions which hold claims unpatentable on grounds of rejection that would also be application to corresponding claims in a patent. In former item 7 (renumbered item 6), the cross-reference to MPEP § 2303 was deleted. In former item 9 (renumbered as item 8), MPEP § "2305.04" was changed to "2304.02." In former item 10 (renumbered as item 9), MPEP § "1208" was changed to "1207.02." In former item 11 (renumbered as item 10), MPEP § "2303" was changed to "2302." In former item 13 (renumbered as item 12), MPEP § "2305" was changed to "2304.04." In former item 14 (renumbered as item 13), "Office of Petitions" was changed to "Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy." In former item 16 (renumbered as item 15), a cross-reference to MPEP § 1308.01 was added. In former item 17 (renumbered item 16), sub-items i-ii were relabeled as a-b, respectively. In former item 18 (renumbered as item 17), MPEP § "1208" was changed to "1207.01." Former item 19 was deleted. —This section has been revised to include a number of actions (for example, allowances, examiner's amendments, Quayle actions, actions on amendments submitted after final rejection,
1004
and actions reopening prosecution) that previously were listed in MPEP § 1005 and require the attention of a primary examiner. The actions listed in this section have been numbered as 1-24 and the actions relating to interference practice were moved to the end of the list (now items 21-24). Item 10 was revised slightly from the language of item 10 in MPEP §
56Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
1005 because approval by the supervisory patent examiner is required unless the amendment is directed merely to formal matters or the cancellation of claims (see MPEP §§ 714.16 and 1002.02(d)). Item 13 (decision on affidavits or declarations) was updated to specifically mention affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130(a), 1.130(b), 1.131(a), 1.131(c), and 1.132. Item 14 was revised from the language of item 14 of MPEP § 1005 because it is the Technology Center Director (and not the primary examiner), who can grant second or subsequent suspensions (see MPEP § 1003). —Item 20 (moved from former MPEP § 1002.02(e)) regarding decisions on requests filed under 37 CFR 1.48 has been revised to include "filed prior to September 16, 2012" because requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 are decided by the Director of the Office Patent Application Processing (see MPEP § 1002.02(q), item 1). —Introductory paragraph revised to change "the signature of the primary examiner" to "the signature of a primary examiner, Technology Center Director, or practice specialist."
1005
—The actions listed in this section have been numbered as 1-21 and the actions relating to interference practice were moved to the end of the list as items 19-21. In item 7, the citation for examiner's answers on appeal was changed from MPEP § "1208" to MPEP § "1207." Item 13 (actions based on affidavit or declaration evidence) was updated to specifically mention affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130(a), 1.130(b), 1.131(a), 1.131(c), and 1.132. Item 15 regarding reissue applications was revised to include "e.g.," before "decisions on reissue oath or declaration."
Rev. 07.2015, November 201557
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
CHAPTER 1100:
—Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iv) for consistency with conforming amendments made in the AIA. Updated 37 CFR 1.211(b), which added international design applications under
1120
35 U.S.C. chapter 38 to the list of applications that will not be published. Subsection I revised to indicate that the Office will not publish "international design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 385" under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). —In subsection I, added subordinate subsection headings A and B.1121 —Subsection III revised to replace "37 CFR 1.137(b)" with "37 CFR 1.137(a)" because the relevant subject matter was moved to 37 CFR 1.137(a) in the PLT implementation rule.
1122
—Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for consistency with the PLTIA.1123 —Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for consistency with the PLTIA. Added subsection headings I and II.
1124
—In subsection II, updated 37 CFR 1.137 and revised text of subsection for consistency with the revised rule, which no longer provides for petitions to revive abandoned applications on the basis of unavoidable delay. —Updated 37 CFR 1.14 for consistency with changes to the rule made as a result of the PLTIA.1128 —Subsection I revised to indicate that if a published patent application is pending and is not maintained in the IFW system, the paper application file itself will not be available to the public for inspection and that only copies of the application file may be obtained pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iii). A cross-reference to MPEP § 103 was also added. —Subsection III was removed and information pertaining to physical access to published applications is now in subsection I. —Renumbered subsection IV as subsection III. Revised subsection to indicate that status information may also be provided when an application is referred to by its application number in an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or in a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. —Added subsection headings I and II.1130 —Revised to remove Editor Note concerning the effective date of certain AIA provisions.1134.01 —Updated 37 CFR 1.290(f) to replace the reference to "37 CFR 1.17(p)" with "37 CFR 1.17(o)." —Updated form PTO/SB/429 in subsection II.A.1. Revised subsection II.F.2 to explain that a resubmission of a third party submission after receipt of a notice of non-compliance must be complete as the Office will not accept amendments to a noncompliant submission. —Revised text to explicitly state that to be complete, the appropriate fee must accompany any resubmission made in response to a notification of non-compliance. Clarified that to satisfy the fee requirement for a resubmission after a finding of non-compliance where the proper fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.290(f), or a proper fee exemption statement under 37 CFR 1.290(g), accompanied the non-compliant submission, the third party may request that the Office apply the previously-paid fee or fee exemption statement to the resubmission. Added statement that "The determination of whether the fee requirement for a resubmission is satisfied will be made at the sole discretion of the Office." —Revised subsections V and VI to replace references to a notification "of non-compliance" with references to a notification "to the third party regarding its third-party submission."
58Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 1300:
—Revised to remove recommendation that examiners require applicants to limit the disclosure to be confined to and in harmony with the claims; deleted associated form paragraphs 13.07 and 13.08.
1302.01
—Revised to delete language stating that an examiner's amendment is required for changing the order of the claims, and to remove paper processing references. —Revised for consistency with 37 CFR 1.72 to specify that the title of an application may not exceed 500 words in length. —Updated Notice of Allowability form PTOL-37.1302.03 —Revised to delete "formal" when preceding "examiner's amendment," and to delete instructions pertaining to "informal" examiner's amendment" practices, as these practices are not available
1302.04
in electronic processing. Revised to provide updated guidance on when an examiner may make changes to the specification, or any other paper filed in the application, without an examiner's amendment approved by applicant. —Revised to indicate that for continuing applications, a reference to a parent application in the first sentence(s) of the specification is no longer required when the reference appears in an Application Data Sheet. Added reference to benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c). Added explanation that if applicant has included a reference to the parent application in the specification, the examiner should review the statement and the application data sheet for accuracy. Further revised to provide updated guidance as to when an ADS is required for benefit claims. —Revised text and form paragraphs 13.02.01 and 13.02.02 to remove references to specific interview types. —Revised to update the role of the Office of Patent Quality Assurance upon discovery of any informality in the application suitable for correction by examiner's amendment. —Section removed and reserved.1302.04(b) —Deleted "formal" preceding "examiner's amendment."1302.04(g) —Revised to replace "Publishing Division" with "Office of Data Management" and to replace "non-extendable period" with "time period."
1302.05
—Deleted.1302.05(a) —Updated cross-references to sections of MPEP Chapter 200.1302.06 —Updated Issue Classification sheet.1302.09 —Revised to add reference to benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c), and to remove references to paper processing instructions. —Revised to add cross-references to MPEP §§ 905 through 907.1302.10 —Revised to indicate that the Office Action Correspondence System (OACS) automatically populates the Issue Classification sheet with the Cooperative Patent Classification symbols applied to a family of documents, and as such it is possible that not all classification symbols shown on the Issue Classification Sheet have been searched by the examiner. —Section removed as unnecessary and reserved.1302.11 —Revised to remove reference to paper processing, and to add reference to derivation proceedings.
1302.12
—Revised to reflect electronic signatures by examiners.1302.13 —Revised to delete information specific to paper processing. Subsection V revised to include derivation among the proceedings considered by the Board.
1302.14
—Updated 37 CFR 1.311. Revised to note that the publication fee was reset to $0.00 effective January 1, 2014.
1303
Rev. 07.2015, November 201559
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised to update the Notice ofAllowance and Fee(s) Due form (PTOL-85) and the discussion thereof. Note that page 3 of the form indicates that the Office no longer provides a patent term adjustment calculation with the Notice of Allowance. —Revised to add processing instructions associated with applications filed after September 16, 2012, which are in condition for allowance but do not include an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or a substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64. —Revised to state that if an amendment received after allowance contains claims copied from a patent to provoke an interference, see MPEP Chapter 2300.
1303.01
—Revised to delete limitation of text to Image File Wrapper applications.1303.02 —Revised to replace cross-reference reference to MPEP § 409.01(f) with cross-references to MPEP §§ 409.01(a) and (b).
1303.03
—Revised to delete indication that an examiner may make an examiner's amendment correcting obvious errors after a Notice of Allowance is mailed.
1305
—Revised to indicate that once the patent has been granted, the Office can take no action concerning it, except as provided in 35 U.S.C. 135, 35 U.S.C. 251 through 256, 35 U.S.C. 302 through 307, 35 U.S.C. 311 through 319, and 35 U.S.C. 321 through 329. —Revised to reflect fee reductions for micro entities. Revised to remove reference to unavoidable delays in making issue fee payments.
1306
—Revised to remove paper processing instructions.1306.01 —Revised to remove prior instructions for ordering of allowed application paper files.1306.03 —Revised to update 37 CFR 1.313(b) and associated text in subsection II to reflect that derivation proceedings are a reason the Office may withdraw an application from issue.
1308
—In subsection I.B, added references to filing an ePetition via EFS-Web to withdraw an application from issue. Subsection I.B further revised to indicate that once a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1) or (c)(2) has been granted, the application will be withdrawn from issue, the applicant's submission(s) will be entered, and the application forwarded to the examiner for consideration of the submission and further action. —Subsection II revised to replace discussion of paper processing with current electronic processing procedures. —New subsection III added to provide guidance for handling of applications withdrawn from issue which contain an examiner's amendment. —Revised to reflect that a case may be withdrawn from issue due to a new grounds of rejection.1308.01 —Revised to replace discussion of paper processing with current electronic processing procedures. —Revised section title and text to add reference to withdrawal from issue for derivations purposes.
1308.02
—Updated business unit names.1308.03 —Revised to reflect current electronic processing procedures.1309 —Revised section title to "'Printer Rush' Cases." Revised text to reflect current electronic processing procedures.
1309.02
60Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 1500:
—Updated 35 U.S.C. 171. Revised to add references to international design applications as provided for in 35 U.S.C. chapter 38 as a result of the PLTIA. Added cross-reference to MPEP
1501
Chapter 2900 for additional information concerning international design applications. Also added explanation that certain statutory provisions in 35 U.S.C. chapter 38 provide for the applicability of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 to international design applications, and accordingly many of the practices set forth in MPEP Chapter 1500, such as those pertaining to examination in MPEP § 1504, are applicable to international design applications that designate the United States. —Revised to delete form paragraphs previously reproduced herein; form paragraphs relating to statutory subject matter are set forth in MPEP § 1504.01.
1502
—Revised to indicate that the term of a design patent is 15 years for applications filed on or after May 13, 2015 and 14 years for applications filed prior to May 13, 2015.
1502.01
—Revised to indicate that an international design application designating various countries may be filed for design applications under the Hague Agreement. —Revised to remove prior references to the effective date of changes to continued prosecution applications in design applications. —Revised section title and text to indicate that this section is directed to design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16.
1503
—Revised to update 37 CFR 1.154 and to limit the applicability of form paragraph 15.05 to design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16.
1503.01
—Subsection I revised to indicate that the title may contribute to defining the scope of the claim, and to delete text pertaining to objecting to the title when it does not correspond to the claim. —Subsection I further revised to indicate that the practice set forth in this section regarding the title of the design is generally applicable to international design applications designating the United States. Updated form paragraph 15.05.01. —In subsection II, item (A)(4), replaced "environmental use" with "intended use." Subsection II further revised to add form paragraph 15.61.01. —Subsection III revised to indicate that the form and content of the claim in an international design application is set forth in 37 CFR 1.1025 and mirrors 37 CFR 1.153. Revised form paragraphs 15.62 and 15.63 to include reference to 37 CFR 1.1025. —Revised form paragraph 15.05.03 for clarity.1503.02 —Subsection I revised to remove the indication that the basis for an objection pertaining to sectional views is 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. —Subsection II revised to delete form paragraph 15.49 pertaining to surface shading. —In subsection III, revised form paragraphs pertaining to the use of broken lines, and deleted form paragraph 15.50.03. —Subsection V revised for consistency with 37 CFR 1.84(a) as amended in the Hague implementation rule to indicate that color drawings are permitted in design applications, and that one set of color drawings is required if submitted via the Office electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings are required if not submitted via the Office electronic filing system. Deleted references to petitions to accept color drawings in design applications and revised form paragraphs pertaining to color drawings or photographs. —Added cross-reference to MPEP § 401 and updated form paragraph 15.66 with regard to how to obtain a list of registered patent practitioners.
1504
—Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 171.1504.01 —Revised form paragraph 15.07.01 and inserted form paragraphs 15.42 and 15.43.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201561
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised subsection I.B to remove certain references to 37 CFR 1.71, 1.84, and 1.152-1.154 where the provisions discussed are also applicable to international design applications, and added cross-references to rules specific to international design applications where appropriate.
1504.01(a)
—Subsection II revised to add citation of In re Jung, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011).1504.01(c) —Subsection V revised to add cross-reference to MPEP § 716.03(b) and to add a citation to, and discussion of, In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) regarding submission of evidence of commercial success. —Subsection V further revised to indicate that the requirement that the design was created for the 'purpose of ornamenting' must be met with appropriate evidence concerning visibility for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 171 to be overcome if the design would be hidden during its end use and to cite In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1990). —Revised to change form paragraph cross-reference to "15.09.01".1504.01(e) —Revised to delete text of 35 U.S.C. 172.1504.02 —Revised to remove discussion of In re Bartlett with regard to the standard for determining novelty. —Revised to include references to Door Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc., 256 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001), International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Egyptian Goddess Inc. v. Swissa Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ( en banc), Richardson v. Stanley Works Inc., 93 USPQ2d 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and Amini Innovation
Corp. v. Anthony California Inc., 439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) with regard to the "ordinary observer" test for anticipation. Further revised to expand discussion of In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447 (CCPA 1956). —Revised to clarify that registration of a design abroad is considered to be equivalent to patenting for priority purposes under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) and for prior art purposes pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d), whether or not the foreign grant is published. —Revised form paragraphs. —Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 103, and to indicate that any reference to 35 U.S.C. 103 is equally applicable to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), unless otherwise noted.
1504.03
—Added form paragraph 15.19.02.aia and revised examiner note 8 of form paragraph 15.19.02.fti to reference benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 368(c). —Revised subsection I.D to add citation to MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, 110 USPQ2d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Crocs Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 93 USPQ2d 1777 (Fed. Cir. 2010). —Revised subsection II.A.2 title to read "Nonanalogous Art." —In subsection III, revised numerous form paragraphs related to obviousness rejections. —Revised to delete reproduction of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.1504.04 —Revised form paragraph 15.20.02 to indicate that it is applicable only to design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 and to delete the suggestion that applicant submit large, clear informal drawings in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112. Also revised form paragraph 15.21.01. —Revised to correctly state that the issue of whether a search and examination of an entire application can be made without a serious burden to the examiner does not apply to design applications.
1504.05
—Subsection III revised to clarify that clear admission on the record by the applicant, on its own, that the embodiments are not patentably distinct (as noted in MPEP § 809.02(a)) will not overcome a requirement for restriction if the embodiments do not have overall appearances that are basically the same as each other.
62Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In subsection III, revised guidance as to the handling of applications which are in condition for allowance except for the presence of withdrawn claims so as to be consistent with MPEP § 821.01. —Revised to indicate that indicate that a double patenting rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 171 is a "statutory" double patenting rejection.
1504.06
—Revised the discussion of nonstatutory double patenting for consistency with MPEP § 804. —Revised to specify the conditions under which a double patenting rejection would be appropriate for consistency with MPEP § 804. Further revised to add citation to MPEP § 1490 for situations when a provisional double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application. —In subsection II, added explanation that a double patenting rejection also serves public policy when it prevents the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees. —Subsection II revised to indicate that a nonstatutory double patenting rejection "may only be necessary" (rather than "should only be given") if the reference patent issued less than a year before the filing date of the application, and to clarify that a terminal disclaimer may obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. —Subsection II further revised to replace "obviousness-type" double patenting with "nonstatutory" double patenting, and to replace "one-way obviousness" with "one-way distinctness" for consistency with MPEP § 804 and current terminology. Conforming revisions made to the form paragraphs. —Updated 35 U.S.C. 172. Revised text to indicate that for design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, a claim for priority may be made to an international design application pursuant to the PLTIA.
1504.10
—Revised to add text explaining that under certain conditions, a right of priority to a foreign application may be restored if the U.S. design application is filed within two months of the expiration of the six-month period specified in 35 U.S.C. 172. —Revised form paragraphs 15.01, 15.01.01, 15.02, 15.03 for consistency with 37 CFR 1.55 as set forth in the Hague implementation rules. —Updated 35 U.S.C. 120. Revised text for consistency with 37 CFR 1.78(d) as amended in the Hague implementation rule to add a more detailed description of the requirements for a proper benefit claim.
1504.20
—Revised to add a discussion of how to delete or change a benefit claim, the impact of changing the relationship of an application from a continuation or divisional application to a continuation-in-part application, and the definition of a continuation-in-part application. Added an explanation of when a continuation-in-part application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application. Deleted reference to applications filed prior to September 21, 2004. —Revised form paragraphs related to continuation-in-part applications, and added new form paragraph 15.74.01. —Revised discussion of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)/172. —Revised to add citation of Racing Strollers Inc. v. TRI Industries Inc., 878 F.2d 1418, 11 USPQ2d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahukar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and with regard to benefit claims in the design application-utility application context. Deleted citation of In re Chu. —Revised to update 37 CFR 1.155 and discussion thereof to indicate that expedited examination is available for international design applications designating the United States that have been published pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10(3).
1504.30
—Revised to update procedures for filing a request for expedited processing in a design application or international design application designating the United States, and to set forth
Rev. 07.2015, November 201563
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
recommended practices to facilitate processing of a request. Added instructions for filing requests for expedited examination via EFS-Web. —Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 173 in accordance with the PLTIA.1505 —Revised subsection II to indicate that the examiner will not object to a copyright notice as extraneous when it is limited in print size from 1/8 to ¼ inch and placed within "sight" of the drawing immediately below the figure representing the copyright material.
1512
64Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 1700:
—Revised to indicate that Office personnel are only permitted to express an opinion on the validity or patentability of any claim of a patent to the extent necessary to carry out an examination of a
1701
reissue application of the patent, a supplemental examination proceeding or reexamination proceeding to reexamine the patent, an interference or derivation proceeding involving the patent, or an inter partes or post-grant review of the patent. —Revised section title to read "Restrictions on Current and Former Office Employees Regarding Patent Matters." Added text of 35 U.S.C. 4 and updated 37 CFR 11.10. Added paragraph discussing
1702
the inventor's oath or declaration when an Office employee is named as an inventor in a patent application. —Revised to update the description of The Official Gazette – Patents (eOG:P), including the website address, information on the various pages of the eOG:P, and the information provided for each patent
1703
issued on the eOG:P publication date. Revised to delete reference to the availability of paper copies of the Official Gazette, as the Official Gazette is now only available in electronic form. —Revised to delete reference to bar code readers as means to enter transactions into PALM (Patent Application Locating and Monitoring) System. Also revised to replace "accelerated" with "expedited" to be consistent with PALM examiner docket reports.
1704
—Revised to delete Form PTO-1472 Examiner's Case Action Worksheet and references thereto. Revised to provide update of how the Examiner's Time and Activity Report is generated, and to
1705
delete references to an examiner "count" and instead utilize "credit," consistent with the current examiner production system. —Added subsection numbers to the subsection titles. Updated list of items for which the examiner will receive a disposal credit to further include institution of a derivation proceeding. —Section removed and reserved.1711 —Revised to reflect current practice for forwarding Board decisions to the examiner.1720 —Revised to change the term preceding "Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy" from "Associate" to "Deputy," and to change the term following "Deputy Commissioner" from "for Patents" to "for Patent Operations."
1721
—In subsection II.B, updated information pertaining to the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC). In subsection II.B.1(e), updated information pertaining to Assignments on the Web (AOTW). Added
1730
new subsection II.B.1(f) directed to the Global Patent Network and its utility for providing English language translations of a large subset of Chinese patent documents created by machine translation technology. In subsection II.B.2(a), added cross-reference to the EFS-Web Legal Framework. —In subsection III, updated the PCT Help Desk hours. —In subsection IV, updated information pertaining to the location of the main library of the Scientific and Technical Information Center. —In subsection V, limited the discussion of the list of attorneys and agents registered to practice before the Office to providing the website where the list is available. —In subsection VI.A, updated contact information for the Application Assistance Unit. In subsection VI.E, updated information pertaining to acquiring copies of patent documents from the Office of Public Records' Patent and Trademark Copy Fulfillment Branch. In subsection VI.F, added cross-reference to relevant information found in MPEP § 2570. In subsection VI.G, provided updated contact information for Assignment Recordation Services regarding filing assignments or other documents affecting title. In subsection VI.H, updated information pertaining to petitions administered by the Office of Petitions. In subsection VI.I, updated information regarding downloading the PatentIn software program or using PatentIn. Added cross-reference to relevant information found in MPEP § 2430.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201565
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
CHAPTER 1800:
—Deleted phrase "international applications filed on or after January 1, 2004" at each occurrence.
Passim
—Revised subsection I to change "designates or elects" to "designates."1801 —Revised subsection II to change "earlier filed national application" to "earlier-filed application" in discussion of "priority date" for timing purposes. Also changed "date of filing" to "date of receipt," and added citations to PCT Rules 14.1(c), 15.3 and 16.1(f). —Revised subsection III to add the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia), the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) (Russian Federation), the Israel Patent Office (ILPO), and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) as International Searching Authorities (ISAs) which applicants filing in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) may choose. Added cross-reference to MPEP §§ 1840.01-1840.06 for further information regarding ISA/EP, ISA/KR, ISA/AU, ISA/RU, ISA/IL, and ISA/JP. —Subsection III further revised to indicate that copies of the international search report and prior art will be "made available" (rather than "sent") to the applicant by the ISA. Added sentence to subsection III to indicate that if a Demand for Chapter II examination is not timely filed, the International Bureau communicates a copy of the written opinion established by the ISA (retitled International Preliminary Report on Patentability (Chapter I of the PCT)) to each designated Office after the expiration of 30 months from the priority date. —Subsection IV revised to indicate the applicant may request, by checking a box on Form PCT/RO/101, for the International Bureau to obtain a copy of the priority document from a digital library if the priority document is registered in a digital library and made available to the International Bureau within the prescribed time limit, as set forth in PCT Rule 17.1(b- bis) and the access code is furnished to the International Bureau. Also revised to change "prepare the certified copy" to "transmit a copy of a prior application." —Subsection IV revised to indicate that, for international applications filed before July 1, 2014, former PCT Rule 44 ter provided that the written opinion of the ISA would not be made publicly available until the expiration of 30 months from the priority date, but that, for international applications filed on or after July 1, 2014, the written opinion of the ISA and any informal comments submitted by applicant will be made available to the public as of the publication date. Also changed "International Bureau transmits copies" to "International Bureau communicates copies." —Subsection V revised to indicate that at the time of MPEP publication, only three countries had not adopted Article 22(1) as amended: Luxembourg (LU), United Republic of Tanzania (TZ) and Uganda (UG), and to indicate applicant may desire to file the Demand by 19 months from the priority date to extend the national stage entry deadline in these three countries. Also revised to indicate Luxembourg is included in the regional designation "EPO" and the United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda are included in the regional designation "ARIPO." Also revised to indicate the IB forwards any statement explaining the basis for the Article 19 amendments to the IPEA with the Demand. —Section title revised to mention Notifications of Incompatibility. Deleted discussion of a reservation under PCT Article 64(4) relating to the prior art effective date of a U.S. patent
1803
issuing from an international application. Revised the indication that the USPTO "has taken a reservation on adherence to" specified PCT rules to instead indicate the USPTO "has made a notification of incompatibility with respect to" the specified rules. —Revised to change citation regarding who can file an international application from 37 CFR 1.421-1.423 to MPEP § 1806. Deleted indication that, for purposes of designating the
1805
United States of America, the applicant(s) must be the inventor(s), and that the RO/US is located in Arlington, VA. Added indication that international applications may be filed
66Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
electronically through EFS-Web. Also revised to indicate any request to transfer the application to the International Bureau which is received after substantial processing of the international application by the RO/US has occurred may be declined. —New section added. Subsection I discusses applicants and inventors for international applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, and subsection II discusses applicants and inventors for international applications filed before September 16, 2012.
1806
—Includes information formerly in MPEP § 1820 concerning deceased inventors, and information formerly in MPEP § 1821 regarding applicants and inventors. —Revised to update PCT Rules 90.4(b) and (d). Added an indication that a Customer Number may be used in the international phase solely for purposes of viewing the international
1807
application in PAIR and added a cross-reference to new MPEP § 1809. Updated PCT Rules 90.5(b)-(d). Also updated to indicate that a separate power of attorney or copy of the general power of attorney may still be required in certain cases, e.g., where waiver could result in harm to an applicant as in the case of the removal of an applicant. —Updated to include the International Bureau as an alternative to the U.S. receiving Office when submitting a request to withdraw from representation as attorney or agent in an
1808
international application. Changed references to former 37 CFR 10.40 to instead reference 37 CFR 11.116. The requirement to notify the client of any replies that may be due and the time frame for reply was deleted. —New section added to address PAIR access to international applications.1809 —Updated 35 U.S.C. 363 and 37 CFR 1.431(b)(3)(iii), and deleted 35 U.S.C. 373. With respect to the applicability of PCT Rules 4.18 and 20.6, deleted two occurrences of "In applications filed on or after April 1, 2007."
1810
—Deleted a reference to former PCT Administrative Instructions Section 102 bis.1812 —Revised to delete the table listing the PCT Contracting States; added website addresses for updated lists of PCT Contracting States and information about regional patents that can be obtained via the PCT.
1817
—Section deleted. The content formerly in this section was moved to a new subsection VIII in MPEP § 1821.
1817.01
—Section relating to international applications filed before January 1, 2004, deleted.1817.01(a) —Section deleted. The content formerly in this section was moved new MPEP § 1828.02.1817.02 —Updated PCT Rule 4.15. Deleted discussion of the requirement for a separate signed power of attorney in international applications filed prior to January 1, 2004. Added information
1820
concerning handwritten signatures and S-signatures, and included a cross-reference to MPEP § 502.02, subsection II. Deleted discussions concerning an applicant/inventor unavailable or unwilling to sign and moved information concerning a deceased inventor to new MPEP § 1806. —This section has been reorganized into an introductory portion and subsections numbered I-VIII.
1821
—In the introductory portion, removed the discussion of PCT-EASY physical media and former PCT Administrative Instructions Section 102 bis and added a discussion of filing the PCT Request form in PCT-EASY.zip file format via EFS-Web and obtaining a reduction of the international filing fee. —In subsection II, added a cross-reference to new MPEP § 1828.02 for how to indicate the international application is a continuation or continuation-in-part of an earlier application. —In subsection V, added a cross-reference to new MPEP § 1806 for who can be applicant and moved the discussion of applicants and inventors to new MPEP § 1806. Deleted the
Rev. 07.2015, November 201567
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
indication that the check box "applicant only" must be marked where the applicant is a corporation or other legal entity. —Subsection VIII, entitled "Designation of States," is a new subsection directed to the content of former MPEP § 1817.01, "Designation of States in International Applications Having an International Filing Date On or After January 1, 2004." —Revised to update PCT Administrative Instructions Section 204.1823 —Revised to update an IB website address.1823.01 —Revised to update PCT Administrative Instructions Section 208. Added "(text)" after occurrences of "electronic form" to clarify the type of electronic form. Subsection I revised
1823.02
to explain that full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. rules will generally ensure compliance with the applicable PCT requirements, but the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 through 37 CFR 1.825 are less stringent than the requirements of WIPO Standard ST.25. Revised to include cross-references to MPEP § 2422, subsection II, MPEP § 2422.03(a), subsection IV, and MPEP § 2422.07 for information specific to filing sequence listings in international applications. Revised to include a paragraph explaining the calculation of the international filing fee for an international application filed with a sequence listing in ASCII text and/or PDF. —Deleted the text of former subsection II. Added a new subsection II directed to the requirements for submitting tables related to sequence listings in international applications. —Revised to update PCT Administrative Instructions Section 205. Removed the indication that paragraph numbers (e.g., paragraph numbers complying with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6)) are acceptable provided they are not placed in the margins.
1824
—Deleted indication that where tables cannot be presented satisfactorily in an upright position, they may be placed sideways.
1825
—Clarified that rectifications of obvious mistakes are not considered to be amendments, and that an amendment shall not go beyond the disclosure in the international application as filed. Added a cross-reference to PCT Article 34(2)(b). —Updated to indicate, if drawings are referred to in an international application but not found in the search copy file, examiners may consult with a Quality Assurance Specialist or with a PCT Special Program Examiner. —Revised to indicate the International Searching Authority establishes the abstract if the applicant fails to furnish an abstract within a time limit fixed in the invitation and to include a cross-reference to PCT Rule 38.
1826
—Also revised to indicate the applicant may propose modifications of, or comment on, the new abstract until the expiration of 1 month from the date of mailing of the international search report. —Revised to indicate for international applications filed in the RO/US after November 15, 2011, the transmittal fee includes a non-electronic filing fee portion for international applications filed in paper rather than by EFS-Web.
1827
—The reference to specific ISAs (KIPO and EPO) was replaced with broadened language that covers all of the possible ISAs.
1827.01
—Deleted reference to July 1, 1998 effective date regarding the time limit for adding or correcting a priority claim. Added a cross-reference to MPEP § 1859 for a withdrawal of a priority claim.
1828
—Added an indication that the request (Form PCT/RO/101) includes a box which can be checked to request that the receiving Office prepare the certified copy of a priority document; also added that applicant may request that the International Bureau obtain a copy of the priority application from a digital library and added a cross-reference to PCT Rule 17.1(b- bis).
68Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Revised to indicate the transmission may be delayed or prevented when no inventor common to the priority application is named in the international application. —Revised to include 37 CFR 1.452, a reference to 37 CFR 1.17(m) for the requisite fee, and an indication the RO/US may decline to forward the international application to the
1828.01
International Bureau under PCT Rule 19.4(a)(iii) if substantial processing of the international application by the RO/US has occurred. —Revised to indicate that in the United States, a right of priority that has been restored under PCT Rule 26 bis.3 during the international stage will be effective in the U.S. national stage and added a cross-reference to MPEP § 1893.03(c). Further revised to include a reference to WIPO's website for a full listing of the national offices that will not accept the restoration of the right of priority in the national stage. —Revised to clarify that, regardless of the Rule 26 bis.3 and 49 ter.1(g) status of any particular Office, the priority date will still govern all PCT time limits, including the thirty-month period for filing national stage papers and fees under 37 CFR 1.495. —Revised to remove an example of a U.S. national stage application that was not entitled to a right of priority because the earlier-filed application was filed more than a year before the international filing date of the U.S. national stage application. —Revised to remove references to the versions of 35 U.S.C. 119(a) and 365(b) that were in effect prior to December 18, 2013. —New section directed to the content of former MPEP § 1817.02, "Continuation or Continuation-in-Part Indication in the Request."
1828.02
—Revised to update a website address.1830 —Revised to remove a reference to the PCT international application transmittal letter, Form PTO-1382.
1832
—Revised to update PCT Rule 92.2(a).1834 —Revised to delete references to telegraph and teleprinter from the section title and text of the section. Added an indication that facsimile transmission may be used to submit article 34 amendments.
1834.01
—Revised to delete PCT Rule 82.2 and replaced the cross-reference to PCT Rule 82.2 with a cross-reference to PCT Rule 82 quater. Further revised to include subsection numbers in the subsection titles.
1834.02
—Revised to update the list of States for which the USPTO agreed to conduct international searches and prepare international search reports and written opinions of the International Searching Authority.
1840
—Revised subsection III to delete indication that the United States International Searching Authority is the Examining Corps of the USPTO and to add indication that the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia), the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) (Russian Federation), the Israel Patent Office (ILPO), and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) are competent to carry out the international search for international applications filed with the RO/US. Subsection III further revised to add that the choice of the ISA must be made by the applicant on filing the international application, information which was previously in MPEP §§ 1840.01 and 1840.02. —Added information to subsection III regarding the amount of the international search fee and when the fee is due. Also added that if the selected ISA considers that the international application does not comply with the requirement of unity of invention, it may invite applicants to timely pay directly to it an additional search fee for each additional invention. —Section rewritten to explain that effective January 1, 2015, the EPO no longer has any limitations concerning its competency to act as an International Searching Authority, and to
1840.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 201569
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
explain the extent to which applications containing claims relating to business methods and subject matter set forth in PCT Rule 39.1 will be searched. —Moved the indication that the choice of the ISA must be made by the applicant on filing the international application from this section to MPEP § 1840. —Moved the indication that the choice of the ISA must be made by the applicant on filing the international application as well as information regarding the search fee and unity of invention previously in this section to MPEP § 1840.
1840.02
—Revised to include indication that that copies of documents cited in the international search report by the ISA/KR will be made available to applicant on the KIPO website within three months from the mailing of the international search report and that a fee may be required for request of the cited documents after the expiration of the three month period. —Added new section directed to the Australian Patent Office as an ISA.1840.03 —Added new section directed to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) (Russian Federation) as an ISA.
1840.04
—Added new section directed to the Israel Patent Office (ILPO) as an ISA.1840.05 —Added new section directed to the Japan Patent Office (JPO) as an ISA.1840.06 —Revised to include new subsection V, entitled "Supplementary International Search (SIS)," and redesignated former subsections V and VI as VI and VII, respectively.
1842
—Revised to include an indication in subsection VII.A that at the time of publication of this Chapter, only three countries have not adopted Article 22(1) as amended: Luxembourg (LU), United Republic of Tanzania (TZ) and Uganda (UG). —Revised to indicate that Luxembourg is included in the regional designation "EPO" and that the United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda are included in the regional designation "ARIPO." —Revised to remove "[f]or international applications having an international filing date on or after January 1, 2004."
1843.04
—Revised to indicate that for international applications filed on or after July 1, 2014, the written opinion of the ISA and any informal comments submitted by the applicant are made available to the public in their original language as of the publication date.
1843.05
—Revised to remove a discussion of internal processing times in the Technology Centers and in the International Application Processing Division. —Revised to change "the relevant listings or related tables" to "the relevant listings."1844 —Revised subsection I.C to delete references to tables related to sequence listings. Subsection I.C further revised to clarify information regarding boxes 1a-1c and to add information regarding items 2-3 of Form PCT/ISA/210.
1844.01
—Revised subsection V to change "U.S. Classification" to "the patent classification as required by the ISA/US." —Revised subsection VI to include an indication that the USPTO in its capacity as the International Searching Authority makes a separate detailed search history of record in the applications and mails these search histories to applicants with the international search report. —Revised subsection VIII to delete an indication that the date of actual completion of the ISR is generated automatically by OACS. Replaced the example of Form PCT/ISA/210 with an example created using the January 2015 form. —Revised to remove "[f]or international applications having an international filing date on or after January 1, 2004."
1845
—Revised to replace "International Patent Classification and U.S. Classification" with "classifications."
1845.01
—Revised to change "electronic form" to "electronic form (text)" and "paper" to "paper/image."
70Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Revised to change "sequence listing and/or tables relating thereto" to "sequence listing" and to delete information about tables that fail to comply with the technical requirements of Annex C of the Administrative Instructions. —Revised subsection I to delete an indication that the examiner must indicate the "type of material (i.e., a sequence listing and/or tables related thereto)." Further revised subsection I to include an indication that item 5 is available for providing any additional comments. —Revised subsection II to add "Quality Assurance Specialist or PCT" prior to "Special Program Examiner." —Revised to replace the example of Form PCT/ISA/237 with an example created using the July 2014 form. —Revised to change "Form PCT/ISA/101" to "Form PCT/RO/101."1845.02 —Revised replace the example of Form PCT/ISA/220 with an example created using the January 2015 form. —Section removed and reserved.1846 - 1847 —Revised the section title and text to delete references to tables related to sequence listings.1848 —Revised to include PCT Rules 13 ter.2 and 13 ter.3 and to update PCT Administrative Instructions Sections 513(d)-(f). —Revised to remove a paragraph directed to the filing of a sequence listing and/or any tables related thereto in the RO/US on CD-R or CD-ROM. —Revised subsection V to include IPAU, Rospatent, and ILPO. Also revised subsection V to indicate the additional search fee amounts can be found in Annex D of the Applicant's Guide (www.wipo.int/pct/en/appguide).
1850
—Revised to change "Special Program Examiners" to "Quality Assurance Specialists."1851 —Revised to replace tables listing information from WIPO Standard ST.16 with an explanation of what is included in Parts 7.3.1, 7.3.2, and 7.3.3 of WIPO Standard ST.16. —Revised to remove the table listing the two-letter country codes set forth in WIPO Standard ST.3 and updated the website address for WIPO Standard ST.3. —Revised to remove an indication that upon specific request and payment of the appropriate international type search report fee in a U.S. national nonprovisional application, that an international type search report Form PCT/ISA/201 will be prepared.
1852
—Revised to include a discussion of taking into account the earlier search results from a foreign Office. —Revised to update PCT Rule 46.5 and PCT Administrative Instructions Section 205 and to remove 37 CFR 1.415.
1853
—Revised to include an enhanced discussion of amendment practice before the International Bureau under PCT Article 19. —New section added entitled "Supplementary International Searches."1856 —Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 374.1857 —Revised to change "sends copies of published international applications" to "communicates published international applications." Further revised to replace a discussion of the USPTO receiving published international applications in printed form, on CD-ROM, and in other formats with an indication that published international applications are available from WIPO's Patentscope (www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/ ). —Revised to remove former Section 805 of the PCT Administrative Instructions and the discussion of sequence listings and/or tables filed in electronic format under former Part 8 of the PCT Administrative Instructions. —Revised to include an indication that sequence listings forming part of the international application may be filed in ASCII text (.txt) format and need not be filed in paper or PDF in addition to .txt format.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201571
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised to include an updated explanation of how to view and download the sequence listing parts of the description. —Section deleted.1857.01 —Revised to update PCT Rule 90 bis.5. Further revised to replace a discussion of an applicant inventor for the United States of America who cannot be found or reached with an indication
1859
that for international applications filed prior to January 1, 2013, applicants should see the version of PCT Rule 90 bis.5 in effect at that time. —Revised to include subsection numbers I and II in the subsection headings.1860 —Revised subsection I to include an indication that the examiner shall search at least to the point of bringing the previous search up to date and added a cross-reference to PCT Rule 66.1 ter. —Subsection I also revised to include an indication that any written opinion of IP Australia, Rospatent ILPO or JPO (in addition to any written opinion of the USPTO, EPO, or KIPO as had been previously indicated), will be treated as the first written opinion of the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority. —Section deleted.1860.01 —Revised to include a website address for the agreement between the USPTO and IB.1862 —Revised to include the Patent Prosecution Highway as an example of an acceleration program for which a positive international preliminary examination report might be used as a basis.
1864
—Revised to replace a cross-reference to MPEP § 1730 with a website address for obtaining copies of Form PCT/IPEA/401. —Revised to update PCT Rule 66.8 and 37 CFR 1.485 and to delete a reference to MPEP § 1871.01.
1864.01
—Revised to include an enhanced discussion of the filing of amendments under PCT Article 34. —Revised to delete "or teleprinter address."1864.02 —Revised to delete "on or after January 1, 2004."1864.03 —Revised to include a discussion of PCT Rule 54 with respect to when the demand must be filed.
1865
—Revised to include a cross-reference to MPEP § 1842, subsection VII.A for more information about when it may be necessary to file a demand before the expiration of 19 months from the priority date. —Revised to delete the addresses for the EPO and KIPO. —Revised to change the heading "Choice of Examining Authority" to "Choice of International Preliminary Examining Authority" and to provide enhanced guidance for choosing among IPEA/US, IPEA/KR, IPEA/RU, IPEA/EP, IPEA/AU, IPEA/IL, and IPEA/JP. —Revised to add an indication that Demands filed with the USPTO should preferably be filed via EFS-Web. Further revised to include an indication that courtesy copies of the Demand should not be filed with USPTO and to delete an indication that PCT Rule 59.3 was amended July 1, 1998. —Revised to replace the example of Form PCT/IPEA/401 with an updated example created using the July 2015 form. —Section deleted.1865.01 —Section removed and reserved.1866 —Revised to delete an indication that the amount of the handling fee is set out in the schedule of fees annexed to the PCT Regulations.
1867
72Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Revised to remove the discussion of former 37 CFR 1.481(a) as it pertained to Demands filed prior to January 1, 2004. —Revised to indicate the Demand is considered as if it had been received on the actual filing date, i.e., the original date of receipt, "provided that the demand as submitted permitted the international application to be identified."
1868
—Revised to update PCT Rules 62.1 and 62.2 and to include PCT Rule 66.8.1871 —Revised to include an indication that a copy of any Article 19 amendments and accompanying documents will be provided to the IPEA by the International Bureau unless the IPEA has indicated that it has already received such a copy. —Revised the language to mention the statement referred to in PCT Article 19 and the letter required under PCT Rule 46.5(b). —Revised to indicate that when amendments are made under PCT Rule 66.8, the applicant shall be required to submit a replacement sheet for every sheet of the international application which, on account of an amendment, differs from the replaced sheet. Further revised to indicate that the replacement sheet or sheets shall be accompanied by a letter drawing attention to the differences between the replaced sheets and the replacement sheets, the basis for the amendments, and preferably explaining the reasons for the amendment. —Section deleted.1871.01 Updated to remove discussion of applications having an international filing date prior to January 1, 2004.
1874
Updated to remove discussion of applications having an international filing date prior to January 1, 2004.
1875
—Revised to include updated WIPO website address.1875.01 —Revised to clarify that with respect to an invitation to pay additional fees, the applicant may reply "directly to the International Preliminary Examining Authority issuing the invitation."
1875.02
—Revised to update PCT Administrative Instructions Section 607.1876 —Revised subsection II to change "examiner" to "International Preliminary Examining Authority."
1876.01
—Deleted subsection III, which had indicated that Form PCT/IPEA/412 must be signed by an examiner having at least partial signatory. —Revised to change two occurrences of "computer readable form" to "computer readable form (text)."
1877
—Revised to remove the note providing a cross-reference to former MPEP § 1878.01.1878 —Revised the introductory portion to include PCT Rule 66.1 ter and a discussion of top-up search procedures. Also revised to include an indication that since the IPEA/US will consider the written opinion of the ISA to be the first written opinion of the IPEA, item 1 of the cover sheet is marked accordingly and in item 2 of the cover sheet, the written opinion of the IPEA needs to be indicated as a second opinion. —Revised subsection I to update the discussion of the claims to reference "claim nos. or pages," to change "paper" to "paper/image," "electronic form" to "electronic form (text)," and to remove references to tables related to sequence listings. Also revised to include an indication that applicant's submission of a timely amendment to the claims alleged to be under Article 19 is accepted under Article 34 (not Article 19) unless the International Bureau has indicated the amendments were accepted under Article 19. Also revised to include an indication that the examiner must point out in item 4 if the amendments were not accompanied by a letter indicating the basis for the amendment in the application as filed. Also revised to add an indication that item 6 needs to be marked if the opinion is established taking into account
Rev. 07.2015, November 201573
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
the supplementary international search report(s) from the specified Supplementary International Searching Authority(ies) (SISA). —Revised subsection V to indicate the previous search should be brought up to date in all cases. Further revised to indicate that one copy of each newly cited foreign patent document and non-patent literature reference will be sent to the applicant and one copy will be retained for the application file. Further revised to change "Chapter II file" to "application file." —Section removed and reserved.1878.01 —Revised to update WIPO website address.1878.01(a) —Revised to update PCT Rule 66.8(a) and 37 CFR 1.485 and to delete PCT Rule 66.9.1878.02 —Revised to include an indication that the IPEA will consider a reply to the written opinion of the ISA if a Demand has been filed with the IPEA. —Revised the discussion of amendments to the claims, the description, and the drawings to include additional requirements with respect to the claims. More specifically, the discussion has been revised to include the requirement of PCT Rules 66.8(c) and 46.5(a) for a complete set of claims and the discussion has been revised to include the requirements set forth in PCT Rules 66.8(c) and 46.5(b) with respect to the letter accompanying the replacement sheets. —Revised to change "originally filed" to "originally filed/furnished," updated the discussion of the claims to reference "claim nos. or pages," changed "paper" to "paper/image," changed
1879
"electronic form" to "electronic form (text)," and removed references to tables related to sequence listings. —Revised to include an indication that the international preliminary examination report is otherwise known as International Preliminary Report on Patentability (Chapter II of the Patent Cooperation Treaty). —Revised to include a discussion of the requirement for a top-up search. —The first subsection heading was deleted and subsections II - X were renumbered as I - IX, resulting in subsection numbers I - VIII that correspond to Box Numbers I - VIII of Form PCT/IPEA/409. —Original subsection IV (renumbered as subsection III) was revised to include a new item (D), "no international search report has been established for the claims." —Original subsection X (renumbered as subsection IX) was revised to remove the discussion of Form PCT/IPEA/416. Further revised to move the information relating to information generated automatically by the OACS software from this subsection to a location preceding original subsection II (renumbered as subsection I), under a new heading "Form PCT/IPEA/409 Cover Sheet." —Original subsection X (renumbered as subsection IX) was further revised to include a discussion of what is required before annexes will be sent to the applicant and to the International Bureau, and what is required for annexes to be sent only to the International Bureau. —Revised to include an example of Form PCT/IPEA/416 preceding the example of Form PCT/IPEA/409, and the example of Form PCT/IPEA/409 was replaced with an updated example creating using the January 2015 form. —Revised to delete the note referencing former MPEP § 1879.01(a) for international applications filed prior to January 1, 2004.
1879.01
—Section deleted.1879.01(a) —Revised to indicate the international preliminary examination report and its annexes, if any, are transmitted to the applicant and the International Bureau using a Notification of
1879.02
Transmittal of International Preliminary Report on Patentability (Form PCT/IPEA/416). Also revised to change the requirement for Form PCT/RO/416 to be signed by a primary examiner
74Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
to a requirement for the name of the authorized officer responsible for the international preliminary report to be indicated. —Revised to add Arabic, Korean and Portuguese to the list of languages in which the written opinion and the international preliminary examination report may be established.
1879.03
—Revised to delete PCT Rule 44 ter and to update 37 CFR 1.11 and 37 CFR 1.14.1879.04 —Revised to delete language regarding withdrawal of the demand or any election where an applicant/inventor for the United States could not be found or reached after diligent effort.
1880
—Revised to delete information regarding the storage of paper records by the Office of PCT Operations.
1881
—Revised to delete the text of 37 CFR 1.9 and to provide a cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.9 after the enumeration of the three types of U.S. national applications. Further revised to delete
1893
item (C), which contained cross-references to MPEP §§ 1895.01 and 1896 for special provisions that apply when the filing of an international application is taken into account in determining the patentability or validity of any application for patent or granted patent. —Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(4), and 37 CFR 1.491. Further revised to expand the discussion of 37 CFR 1.491(b) to clarify when entry into the national
1893.01
stage occurs for applications having an international filing date before September 16, 2012 and for international applications having an international filing date on or after September 16, 2012. —Revised to update 37 CFR 1.414(c)(2). Revised to move 37 CFR 1.495 and the discussion thereof from this section to MPEP § 1893.01(a)(1).
1893.01(a)
—Revised to include 37 CFR 1.495 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.495. Also revised to replace "To begin entry into the national stage " with "To avoid abandonment of an international application
1893.01(a)(1)
as to the United States," to replace "on or before" with "not later than the expiration of," and to replace "prior to" with "not later than the." —Revised to indicate it is preferable to file the required national stage items online using the EFS-Web system. —Revised to indicate the publication of an international application by the International Bureau within 30 months from the priority date is considered to satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.495(b) for the USPTO to be furnished with a copy of the international application. —Revised to indicate that where the basic national fee has been paid and the copy of the international application (if required) has been received by expiration of 30 months from the priority date, but applicant has omitted any required item set forth in 37 CFR 1.495(c)(1), the Office will process the national stage application in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.495 in effect for that application. —Revised to explain that 37 CFR 1.495 was amended to permit postponement of the submission of the inventor's oath or declaration under certain conditions in national stage applications having an international filing date on or after September 16, 2012. —Revised to indicate that Article 19 amendments including a complete claim set in English will be entered and that Article 19 amendments filed before July 1, 2009 were not required
1893.01(a)(2)
to include a complete claim set. Further revised to include a website address where Form PTO-1390 can be found and to provide an indication that Form PTO-1390 includes a check box by which the applicant may expressly instruct the U.S. Designated/Elected Office not to enter the Article 19 amendment(s) in the United States national stage application. —Revised to include a website address where Form PTO-1390 can be found and to provide an indication that Form PTO-1390 includes a check box by which the applicant may expressly
1893.01(a)(3)
instruct the U.S. Designated/Elected Office not to enter the Article 34 amendment(s) in the United States national stage application.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201575
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised the discussion of substituting pages of the claims to discuss substituting pages "of the description or claims." —Section added to explain that for national stage applications having an international filing date on or after September 16, 2012, the applicant may be: (a) the inventor(s); (b) the legal
1893.01(b)
representative of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor; (c) the assignee; (d) the obligated assignee (i.e., a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention); or (e) a person who otherwise shows proprietary interest in the application. —Revised to add an indication that the number of sheets of description for purposes of calculating the application size fee includes sequence listings in PDF, but not sequence listings
1893.01(c)
in .txt format. Further revised to delete discussion of tables related to sequence listings. Further revised to change the reference to 37 CFR 1.495(c)(3) to instead reference 37 CFR 1.495(c)(4). —Revised to change "after completion of the 35 U.S.C. 371 requirements for entry into the national stage" to "from the date the national stage is entered as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491."
1893.01(d)
—Changed the section title from "Oath/Declaration" to "Inventor's Oath or Declaration" and revised text to include 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(4) and a discussion thereof.
1893.01(e)
—Revised to include new subsection I, entitled "National Stage Applications Having An International Filing Date On Or After September 16, 2012." —Revised to include new subsection II, entitled "National Stage Applications Having An International Filing Date Before September 16, 2012." —Revised to delete the "CORRECTION OF INVENTORSHIP" heading and to reflect updated procedures for correcting inventorship, including an indication that effective September 16, 2012, the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.48(f) may be used to correct or update the name of an inventor in a nonprovisional application. —Revised to include a discussion of filing options when EFS-Web becomes unavailable and to include the website address of the USPTO's Legal Framework for EFS-Web.
1893.02
—Revised to remove a reference to discontinued Form PTO/SB/61/PCT. —Revised to update 37 CFR 1.496. Further revised to add a cross-reference to MPEP § 1893.01(a) for the date of entry into the national stage, and to provide an indication this date is commonly referred to as the "35 U.S.C. 371(c)" date.
1893.03
—Revised to add an indication that choosing the screen prompt "U.S. National Stage Under 35 U.S.C. 371" will serve to identify the submission as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371.
1893.03(a)
—Revised to delete the reference to 1077 O.G. 13 (14 April 1987). —Revised to include a new heading, "Conflicting Instructions" and to add a discussion of 37 CFR 1.495(g) indicating that for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012, an application submission containing conflicting instructions as to treatment under 35 U.S.C. 371 or 35 U.S.C. 111(a) was to be treated under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), but that for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, such conflicting instructions will result in the application being treated as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371. —Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 363 by deleting "except as otherwise provided in section 102(e) of this title." Further revised to delete a reference to 37 CFR 1.496(a) and to provide
1893.03(b)
a description of the "371(c) date." Further revised to include a cross-reference to MPEP § 1893.01 for entry into the national stage. —Revised to include an indication that a Form PTO/DO/EO/903 in a national stage application having an international filing date prior to September 16, 2012 identifies the 371(c) date as the date of receipt of the 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4) requirements, and that a Form PTO/DO/EO/903 in a national stage application having with an international filing date on or after September 16, 2012 identifies the 371(c) date as the date of receipt of the 371(c)(1) and (c)(2) requirements.
76Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Revised to delete an indication that for most legal purposes, the filing date is the PCT international filing date and to delete the exceptions to this general rule. —Revised to include an updated discussion of patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i)(II) and to indicate that under the AIA Technical Corrections Act, the fourteen-month period in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i) for a national stage application is measured from the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. —Subsection I was updated to include a discussion of petitions to accept delayed priority claims under 37 CFR 1.55(e) and petitions for restoration of the right of priority under 37
1893.03(c)
CFR 1.55(c). Subsection I further revised to add an indication that in U.S. national stage applications it is permissible, but not required, to present the claim for priority in an application data sheet. —Subsection II was updated to include a discussion of applicant satisfying the certified copy requirement of PCT Rule 17 by requesting the International Bureau to obtain the priority document from a digital library, to include an updated cover sheet example that makes reference to PCT Rule 17.1(b- bis), and to discuss some situations when the applicant will be unable to rely on the International Bureau to forward a copy of the priority document. —Subsection II was further revised to include updated instructions to examiners regarding what to do when a certified copy of the priority document is not in the national stage application file but applicant asserts that a certified copy of the priority document was timely furnished under PCT Rule 17. The instructions were previously found in MPEP § 1896. —Subsection III was revised to change references to MPEP § 201.11 to instead reference MPEP § 211 et seq. Further revised to include a discussion of restoration of the benefit of a provisional application under 37 CFR 1.78(b). Further revised to indicate the reference to a prior filed provisional application must be in an application data sheet for national stage applications having an international filing date on or after September 16, 2012, but that requirement will be satisfied by the presentation of the claim in the PCT Request form or by the presence of the claim on the front page of the published international application. —Revised to change "lack of unity of invention requirement" to "unity of invention requirement" and to change "the claims lack unity of invention" to "the claims do not meet
1893.03(d)
the unity of invention requirement." Added a WIPO website address and mention of the Patent Examiner's Toolkit for the International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines. Changed "lack unity of invention" to "do not meet the unity of invention requirement." —Changed "forwarded" to "communicated" and revised Subsection I to indicate that "The publication may also include other items as set forth in PCT Rule 48."
1893.03(e)
—Revised subsection II to remove an indication that a sample copy of PCT/DO/EO/903 is reproduced at the end of MPEP § 1893.03(a) and to remove the indication that with respect to annexes that have been entered, the National Stage Processing Division will write in pencil on any original sheet that it was replaced by an Article 34 amendment. —Revised the discussion to address supplementary international search reports under PCT Rule 45 bis.
1893.03(g)
—Revised to update the description of a "bypass application."1895 —Revised to indicate applications that are filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and claim the benefit of the filing date of an international application which designates the United States are often
1895.01
referred to as "bypass" applications. Further revised to include an indication that the specific reference to the international application must be in an application data sheet for continuing applications having a filing date on or after September 16, 2012. Further revised to update cross-references to specific locations within 37 CFR 1.55, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP Chapter 200.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201577
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised to include references to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55(h) and (i) and to include a discussion of restoration of the right of priority under 37 CFR 1.55(c). Pertaining to revisions made in the "Chart of Some Common Differences":1896 —For the filing date of national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the chart now indicates "see 37 CFR 1.53(b)." The row directed to the date the application was "filed in the United States" for prior art purposes under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) has been deleted. —Regarding claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. (a)-(d), the information for both 111(a) and 371 applications has been updated so it is consistent with revised 37 CFR 1.55. —The row that was directed to "Reference to Application in Declaration" has been deleted. —The row that was directed to "Copendency with International Application" has been deleted. Pertaining to revisions made in subsections I-VI:1896 —Revised subsection I to indicate "except as provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c)." —Revised to delete subsection II, "Effective date as a reference," and to renumber former subsections III-V as II-IV. —Revised original subsection III (renumbered as subsection II) for consistency with revised 37 CFR 1.55 and to eliminate a discussion of the processing of paper copies of priority documents. —Revised original subsection III (renumbered as subsection II) to move to MPEP § 1893.03(c) the instructions about what to do when a certified copy of the priority document is not in the national stage application file but applicant asserts that a certified copy of the priority document was timely furnished under PCT Rule 17. —Revised original subsection IV (renumbered as subsection III) to delete "(which entered the national stage from international applications after compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371)" following "U.S. national stage applications" and to delete "(effective May 1, 1993)" after "1.499." —Original subsection VI, entitled "Reference to application in declaration," has been deleted.
78Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 2100 (November 2015):
—Revised title of subsection II to add the word "approaching" to clarify that the discussion therein pertains to prior art which teaches a range overlapping, approaching, or touching the claimed range.
2131.03
—Revised section title to read “Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.”
2144.05
—In subsection I, revised subsection title to read "Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions." Added a quotation from Titanium Metals Corp. of America to the parenthetical that discusses the decision. Added citations to, and discussions of, Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Waite, 168 F.2d 104 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72 (CCPA 1946); In re Swenson, 132 F.2d 1020 (CCPA 1942); In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329 (CCPA 1941); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931 (CCPA 1934); In re
Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920 (CCPA 1933); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. Appx. 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Gentiluomo v. Brunswick Bowling and Billiards Corp., 36 Fed. Appx. 433 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (non-precedential). —In subsection II, revised subsection title to read "Routine Optimization." —In subsection II.A, added citations to, and discussions of, Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436 (CCPA 1929); and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007). —In subsection II.B, revised subsection title to read “There is a Motivation to Optimize Result-Effective Variables,” revised the explanation of In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); deleted the citation to, and explanation of, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA); and added a citation to, and explanation of, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). —In subsection III, added subsection heading "A. Showing That the Change is Critical" at the beginning of the subsection and added subsection heading "B. Showing That the Prior Art Teaches Away" preceding the final two paragraphs of subsection III. —In subsection III.A, added citations to, and explanations of, Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916); In re Scherl; In re Becket; In re Lilienfeld; and In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674 (CCPA 1932). —In subsection II, clarified the explanation of Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 114 USPQ2d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
2161
—In subsection I, added a quotation from Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 43 USPQ2d 1398,(Fed. Cir. 1997) in a parenthetical following the case citation.
2161.01
—In subsection III, expanded the explanation of MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., 687 F.3d 1377, 103 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Also revised parenthetical describing Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 527 F.App’x 910 (Fed. Cir. 2013) to explain that the decision affirmed a grant of summary judgment of invalidity due to lack of enablement. —Revised subsection I.A to add cross-references to MPEP § 2106 for guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims directed to genes or other biomolecule sequences.
2163
—In subsection II.A, in the second paragraph, added a citation to, and explanation of, Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In subsection II.A.1, first paragraph, clarified the parenthetical describing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation. —In subsection II.A.3(a), replaced the example that followed the citation to Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 with an expanded discussion of the Enzo Biochem decision. Also revised to clarify that the antibody at issue in Noelle v. Lederman was an unknown antibody,
Rev. 07.2015, November 201579
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
and that the antigen in Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories was characterized in the prior art. —Revised to provide the full citation for Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 115 USPQ2d 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and corrected the year in the citation to Watts v. XL Systems, Inc.
2181
80Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 2100 (October 2015):
Corrected reproduced 35 U.S.C. 103 (pre-AIA) by removing "of this title."Passim —In subsection I.C, corrected the citation of Griffin v. Bertina.2103 —In subsection III.A, added discussion of and citations to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012). Deleted discussion of and citations to Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard and Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. Modified the discussion of Bilski v. Kappos to remind examiners that software and business methods are not excluded categories of subject matter. Deleted the cross-reference to MPEP § 2106.01. Modified the cross-reference to MPEP § 2107 to clarify that utility is a separate requirement from eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. —In subsection IV.A, in the third paragraph, clarified that the scope of a "means" limitation is defined by the inventor in the written description and equivalents thereof that perform the claimed function. —Revised to state that 35 U.S.C. 101 has four requirements. Added as a requirement that the inventor(s) must be the applicant in an application filed before September 16, 2012, and that
2104
the inventor or each joint inventor must be identified in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. Added cross-reference to MPEP § 2137.01 for a detailed discussion of inventorship. Further added explanation that failure to identify the inventor(s) in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 is a basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115. —Modified to include subsection headings. Revised and reorganized to set forth policies and procedures consistent with 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79
2105
FR 74618 (December 16, 2014), 1410 OG 50 (January 6, 2015) and an Office memorandum "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," signed June 25, 2014. For example, added more explanation pertaining to the holding and scope of the Chakrabarty opinion and an explanation of and citation to In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 110 USPQ2d 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2014). —Revised to set forth policies and procedures consistent with 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 FR 74618 (December 16, 2014), 1410 OG 50 (January 6, 2015)
2106
and an Office memorandum "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," signed June 25, 2014. —In subsection I, revised the list of non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories to delete "a naturally occurring organism …" and to add "data per se" with a citation to Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 USPQ2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014). —Subsection II revised to include citations to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012); and the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 FR 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014) and related materials available on the USPTO website. —In subsection II, added the subheading "Analysis of Subject Matter Eligibility" and an explanation that if a claim is directed to a judicial exception, it must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Deleted the citation to Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and deleted the analysis previously set forth in subsections II.A and II.B in their entirety. Added an explanation that the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and related
Rev. 07.2015, November 201581
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
materials provide a detailed discussion of the analysis required to determine whether a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. —In subsection III, changed "physical phenomenon" to "natural phenomenon" and "a practical application of an abstract idea" to "significantly more than an abstract idea." Additional changes made to improve readability. —Section removed and reserved.2106.01 —Revised to state that 35 U.S.C. 101 has four requirements. Added as a requirement that the inventor(s) must be the applicant in an application filed before September 16, 2012, and that
2107.01
the inventors must be identified in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. Added cross-reference to MPEP § 2137.01 for a detailed discussion of inventorship. —Added a supporting citation to In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
2111
—Added a new paragraph to clarify the differences between claim interpretation made during examination and court proceedings, including supporting citations to In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). —Revised text to clarify that the broadest reasonable interpretation must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless there is an explicit special definition) as used in the specification and drawings. —In subsection I, deleted the first two sentences of the third paragraph that discussed broadest reasonable construction and moved the references to In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d
2111.01
1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) to the first paragraph. —In subsection II, corrected a citation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to 112(f) and clarified that the structure, material or acts corresponding to the function should determine the meaning of the claim limitation. In subsection IV, revised text to clarify that applicant must set forth any special definitions "in the specification at the time of filing." Deleted the reference to In re Weiss, 989 F.2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1993). —In subsection III, deleted text following the citation to, and explanation of, Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003), except for the citation to Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Added references to In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 104 USPQ2d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260-61, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 107 USPQ2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2013). —Revised title of subsection IV to read "Applicant May Be Own Lexicographer and/or May Disavow Claim Scope." Added paragraph explaining that the only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as his own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. Included supporting references to Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Starhome GMBH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 109 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2012). —In subsection IV, added new subsection heading "A. Lexicography" and revised text therein to add a discussion of Old Town Canoe Co. v. Confluence Holdings Corp., 448 F.3d 1309, 78 USPQ2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and to clarify the explanation of Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. —In subsection IV, added new subsection "B. Disavowal" to clarify disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope and to add citations to and explanations of SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir.2001); In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
82Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004); and In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 104 USPQ2d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012). —Added new subsection V, including a flowchart to assist the examiner in proper claim interpretation decisions. —Added an explanation of, and citation to, In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 109 USPQ2d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and moved the parenthetical quoting Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., to the end of the last sentence.
2111.04
—Revised the titles of subsections I, I.A, and II to clarify that the functional relationship discussed is between printed matter and an associated product (or process).
2111.05
—In subsection III, added that a claim directed to computer readable medium storing instructions or executable code that recites an abstract idea must be evaluated under 35 U.S.C. 101. —In subsection II, added a citation to, and explanation of, In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 82 USPQ2d 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
2112
—In subsection IV, deleted the citation to, quote to, and explanation of, In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999). —Revised the title of subsection V to clarify that the burden of production shifts to the applicant when the examiner presents evidence or reasoning showing inherency, and added an additional citation to In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (CCPA 1977) in the first paragraph. —In subsection II, moved the citation to In re Spada, 911 F.2d 605 (Fed. Cir. 1990) to after the first sentence.
2112.01
—In subsection III, expanded the discussion of In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and added citations to, and explanation of, In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1969); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); In re Xiao, 462 Fed. Appx. 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and In re Bryan, 323 Fed. Appx. 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) regarding printed matter. Also, added an explanation of, and citations to, King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (2010) and In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011) pertaining to "instruction" limitations in method claims. —Revised to number the subsections "I" and "II," and in subsection II, added "obviousness" before "rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-10."
2112.02
—Revised title of subsection I to clarify that the text therein discusses inherency and functional limitations in apparatus claims. Subsection I further revised the discussion of In re Schreiber,
2114
explaining that to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. Added supporting citations to Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629,100 USPQ2d 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). —Quotation from Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. moved from subsection I to subsection II. —In subsection III, deleted the citation to In re Ruskin, 347 F.2d 843 (CCPA 1965). —In subsection IV added references to In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 84 USPQ2d 1929 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 846 F.2d 821, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 109 USPQ2d 1258 (Fed Cir. 2014); and Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 846 F.2d 821, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991). —Revised the explanation of In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1963), including adding a new paragraph describing the claimed invention. Deleted the last sentence pertaining to the application of the discussed cases to product or kit claims.
2115
—Section removed and reserved.2116 —In subsection II.A, corrected the citation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).2127
Rev. 07.2015, November 201583
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—In subsection IV, correct the quotation from footnote 4 in In re Klopfenstein at 380 F.3d, 1345, 1349. Added a citation to Diomed, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, 450 F.Supp.2d 130 (D. Mass.
2128.01
2006), wherein the court held that a video that accompanied oral presentations was not a printed publication. Moved text regarding oral presentations being prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the cross-reference to MPEP § 2125.02(e) to the last paragraph. —Replaced "Express Mail" with "Priority Mail Express®."2133 —Revised text in first two paragraphs to clarify the inventorship requirement for both AIA and pre-AIA applications. Changed cross-references to MPEP § 602.01(c) and MPEP § 706.03(a).
2137.01
—Corrected pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 by deleting "of this title."2141 —Corrected the spelling of In re Lintner.2142 and
2144 —In subsection II.A.4(a), deleted the parenthetical about Baird, and in subsection II.A.4(d), corrected the spelling of In re Lintner.
2144.08
—Updated 37 CFR 1.130(d).2155 —Removed Editor Note, added cross references to MPEP § 602.01(c) et seq. and MPEP § 706.03(a), and added text to clarify that a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) should be
2157
not made if the application is subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA and to cross-reference MPEP §§ 2159 and 2137. —Updated the website address for the Office's KSR training materials.2158 —In subsection II, added a citation to, and discussion of, Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 114 USPQ2d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
2161
—Revised the first paragraph to limit the cross-references to other MPEP sections to those necessary in the context of the subject matter of this section.
2161.01
—In subsection I, added a citation to LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 76 USPQ2d 1724 (Fed. Cir. 2005), reorganized the discussion of Ariad, and deleted the citation and discussion of In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Also, added new text at the end of subsection I to clarify that rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be made in addition to a written description rejection, and included a supporting citation to In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189,29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). —In subsection III, added citations to, and discussion of, Magsil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, 687 F.3d 1377, 103 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 527 F.App'x 910 (Fed. Cir. 2013). —In subsection I, added a citation to Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010) as additional support for the statement that the written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.
2163
—In the text preceding subsection I.A, deleted text that discussed new matter issues (such issues are discussed in more detail in subsection I.B) and deleted redundant text pertaining the question of adequate written description when a "claim limitation has been added or removed" in a new or amended claim. —In subsections I.A and II.A, deleted "strong" before presumption to more accurately reflect the supporting court citation. —In subsection II.A, added text to clarify that to make a prima facie case the examiner must point out the claim limitations that are not adequately supported and explain any other reasons the claim is not fully supported, including supporting citations to Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Technologies, 499 Fed.App'x 5 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Also added a citation to AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
84Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
as additional support for the statement that whether the written description requirement is satisfied is a question of fact. —In subsection II.A.1, added a citation to In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In subsection II.A.2, added a new last sentence to clarify that sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed. —In subsection II.A.3(a), deleted the citation to Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., and added references to Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 636 F.3d 1341, 97 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 86 USPQ2d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 53 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999); and Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 83 USPQ2d 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, added new text to clarify that when rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are made for means (or step) plus function claims based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the claimed function, a rejection for lack of adequate written description should also be made. —In subsection II.A.3(a)(i), in paragraph (C)(2), limited the example to the biotech art because the discussion therein regarding a structure-function correlation would not necessarily apply to other arts, such as some computer-related arts. Deleted citations to Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co. and In re Hayes Microcomputer Prod., Inc. Patent Litigation. In subsection II.A.3(a)(ii), added citations to and explanation of AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Deleted the statement that what constitutes a representative number is an inverse function of the skill and knowledge in the art. —In the title of subsection II.A.3(b), changed "365(c)" to "365" and added "386" to address priority/benefit claims to international design applications. —Deleted the references to Regents of the Univ. of Cal. V. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976). Added new subsections V. Original
2163.03
Claim not Sufficiently Described, and VI. Indefiniteness Rejection of a Means- (or Step-) Plus-Function Limitation. —In subsection I.B, added a citation to AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In subsection II, added a citation to Rozbicki v. Chiang, 590 Fed.App'x 990 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
2163.05
—In subsection I, added a new first paragraph discussing MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Auto. Techs. Intl, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
2164.06(a)
—In subsection II, added text to clarify that programmed steps, algorithms or procedures that the computer performs to accomplish a claimed function can be described in any way that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
2164.06(c)
—In subsection I, added discussion of In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
2173.01
—In subsection I, revised subsection title and added discussions of and citations to Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 527 U.S. __, 110 USPQ2d 1688 (2014); In re Packard, 751
2173.02
F.3d 1307, 110 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Also, added a cross reference to MPEP § 2111 et seq. —In subsection I, deleted citations to Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1212 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008); In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Exxon
Rev. 07.2015, November 201585
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
Research and Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004). —Subsection II revised to add the court's analysis in In re Packard of the particularity and distinctness requirement for claims as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Deleted citation of Orthokinetics Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc. Also deleted citation to and explanation of Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and the
discussion of the test for definiteness from the final paragraph of subsection II. —In subsection III.A, added "prima facie" before "indefinite" in the first paragraph. In subsection III.B, added citation to In re Packard in the context of making an indefiniteness rejection final and responding to indefiniteness rejections, and deleted reference to In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Subsection III.B further revised to clarify that applicants should respond to rejections by explaining that claim language would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as definite, and that examiners are encouraged to suggestion changes to the claims to improve clarity or precision. —Deleted reference to Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
2173.03
—Deleted reference to Ultimax Cement Mfg. v. CTS Cement Mfg., 587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and inserted a citation to In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA
2173.04
1970) with text explaining that a broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope if it is clearly defined. —In subsections I and II, added citations to, and discussion of, In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 110 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
2173.05(a)
—In subsection II, deleted citations to, and discussion of, Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 225 USPQ 634 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986). —In subsection I, added "[t]erms of degree are not necessarily indefinite" as the first sentence, and added citations to, and explanation of, Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper
2173.05(b)
Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Deleted the citations to Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and Exxon Research and Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 60 USPQ2d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2001). —In subsection II, moved former subsections II.A through II.E to new subsections III.A through III.E. Deleted subsection II.F and moved the discussion of Ex parte Oetiker to subsection I, the citation of Ex parte Anderson to subsection III, and the citation of Ex parte Caldwell to MPEP 2173.05(d). —Added new subsection heading III. Approximations and inserted thereunder the text of former subsections II.A through II.E. —Renumbered former subsection heading III as subsection IV and added citations to, and explanation of, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ex parte Anderson, 21 USPQ2d 1241 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991); and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014). —Added new item (E), including a citation to Ex parte Caldwell, 1906 C.D. 58 (Comm'r Pat. 1906).
2173.05(d)
—Added citation to In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) after the first sentence. Deleted citation to, and explanation of, Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
2173.05(e)
86Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Added a citation to, and discussion of, Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and changed "Keep in mind…" to read "Examiners should keep in mind…."
2173.05(g)
—In subsection I, added citation to, and discussion of, In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 110 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
2173.06
—In subsection I, deleted the citations to Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., and Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp. Revised text to state that the
2181
presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply can be overcome when the claim fails to recite sufficient definite structure to accomplish the function. Added supporting citations to Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, ___F.3d ____, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 2015 WL 3687459, at *6-7 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2001); and Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Also added text setting forth the standard to determine if the claim has a sufficiently definite meaning, with supporting citations to Williamson and Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. —In subsection I.A, second paragraph, revised the phrase "understand the term to be the name" to read "understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name." Added a discussion of Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 80 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the fifth paragraph, deleted the last two sentences, including a reference to In re Morris. In the sixth paragraph, added "or other linking word" after "word 'for'". —In subsection I.C, revised "sufficient structure" to read "sufficiently definite structure." Also added a discussion of Mass. Inst. of Tech., and a reference to Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC.
—Added new paragraph (B) indicating that if a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation in a claim is not supported by corresponding structure, material or acts in the specification disclosure,
2185
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as lacking adequate written description should be considered. Redesignated paragraphs (B) and (C) to (C) and (D), respectively.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201587
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
CHAPTER 2200:
—Revised cross-reference description to read "See MPEP Chapter 2800 for guidance on the procedures for supplemental examination proceedings, and for procedures regarding the order
2201
and first Office action mailed in any ex parte reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding." —In the penultimate paragraph, deleted the word "original" modifying "requests." —Corrected 37 CFR 1.902.2202 —In the fourth paragraph, deleted the second and third sentences discussing keeping identity confidential and modified the last sentence to clarify that it applied to persons other than reexamination requesters.
2203
—Added a new paragraph to clarify the procedures for keeping a requester's identity confidential and to mirror language in MPEP § 2214. —Revised the first paragraph to insert "generally" prior to "the length of the term of the patent," and to replace "citations" with "submissions."
2204
—Deleted the last sentence in the first paragraph because it discussed discontinued procedures. —Revised to indicate that no fee is required for a submission under 37 CFR 1.501 (rather than "a submission of citations"); submissions under 37 CFR 1.501 are no longer limited to citations under 35 U.S.C. 301.
2205
—In the paragraph before the examples, added "discarded, or closed" after "returned to the sender" to reflect current Office procedures for handling an improper submission. —Modified text regarding a submission after the date an order for reexamination is granted to state that such a submission will be stored until reexamination is concluded.
2206
—Revised to replace "citation(s)" with "submission(s)" throughout section in order to apply requirements to both prior art citations and written statement filings. —In subsection I.A.1, revised "reexamination file" to "patent file" to reflect current processing. In subsection I.A.2, deleted the example as outdated. —In subsections II.A.1 and II.A.2, revised text by adding "discarded, or closed if advertently entered into the file" as alternatives to returning the submission to sender to reflect current Office procedures for handling an improper submission. —In the second paragraph, deleted the text "It is to be understood that highlighting" and inserted "Highlighting" in the same place.
2207
—Added "and written statements under 35 U.S.C. 301" at the end of the sentence cross-referencing MPEP § 2206.
2208
—In the second paragraph, deleted the last sentence about prosecution being reopened as it reflected outdated procedures.
2209
—In the listing of the basic characteristics of ex parte reexamination, modified text in item (B) to clarify that the Office may also consider double patenting issues as discussed in MPEP § 2258 and added a parenthetical about ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257; in item (E) added a parenthetical about supplemental examination and ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257; and in item (I) added text to explain that images of non-patent literature are not viewable through Public PAIR and that such copies are available from the Office of Public Records and may be ordered online. —Added a cross reference to MPEP § 2803.02. —Added "AIA" prior to the citation to 35 U.S.C. 315 to clarify that it is the provision in effect on or after September 16, 2012.
2210
—Clarified text by moving text from the last paragraph into the middle of the first paragraph.2211
88Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Added "AIA" prior to the citation to 35 U.S.C. 315 to clarify that it is the provision in effect on or after September 16, 2012. Added cross-references to MPEP §§ 1401-1403 and §§ 2801-2803.
2212
—Deleted the third paragraph "If an attorney or agent files a request for reexamination …" because it inaccurately implied that the attorney or agent is estopped, rather than the real party in interest for the request.
2213
—In the discussion about the requirement for a copy of every patent or printed publication, added a sentence to clarify that there is a waiver for copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications.
2214
—Added "AIA" prior to the citation to 35 U.S.C. 315 to clarify that it is the provision in effect on or after September 16, 2012. —In the penultimate paragraph, deleted "since a reexamination proceeding is not an 'application'" and inserted in its place "except as provided in MPEP § 2258.02" because the current rules pertaining to foreign priority and domestic benefit require an application data sheet in some situations. —Inserted an updated version of PTO/SB/57. —Modified text to clarify that only a patent owner requester can establish micro entity status.2215 —Revised to include written statements under 37 CFR 1.501 in the reference to prior art citations by replacing "prior art citations" with "submission under 37 CFR 1.501" and similar corresponding changes. —In the first paragraph, clarified that the substantial new question of patentability must be in view of patents and printed publications cited under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 302.
2216
—Inserted "inventor" in the phrase "the first-inventor-to-file."2217 —Deleted paragraph that stated it is helpful to include copies of prior art considered during earlier prosecution as no longer necessary.
2218
—Revised text to clarify that the waiver of the copy requirement in 37 CFR 1.510(b)(3) brings the regulation in line with 37 CFR 1.98. —Added "or derivation" after "interference" to include derivation proceedings created by the AIA.
2219
—Added the phrase "of a request filed under 35 U.S.C. 302" after "requester" in the first sentence.2220 —Added the phrase "Filed under 35 U.S.C. 302" in the section title.2221 —Updated 37 CFR 1.33(c). Added text indicating that there is one power of attorney form for patent owners and another form for third party requesters. Included updated samples of both forms.
2222
—Updated sample of form PTO/SB/83.2223 —Removed the citation to 37 CFR 1.915 because inter partes reexaminations can no longer be filed.
2225
—Added the phrase "Filed under 35 U.S.C. 302" in the section title.2226 —In subsection A.2, deleted "third party" modifying requesters in two places because the policy applies to both third party and patent owner requesters.
2227
—In subsection B, revised language in two places to remove reference to a "memo" drafted by an examiner and instead state that the examiner will communicate with his or her supervisor, who will discuss the issues with a legal advisor in the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA). Clarified text that the Central Reexamination Unit will draft a Decision Vacating the Proceeding, which will be reviewed and signed by the Office of Patent Legal Administration. —Deleted sentence regarding the location of requests filed because such procedures are discontinued.
2229
—Added "filed under 35 U.S.C. 302" after "a request for reexamination" in the second sentence.2230
Rev. 07.2015, November 201589
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Deleted references to "the preprocessing area" and "reexamination preprocessing" staff as outdated.
2231
—Revised text to update instructions for searching for a reexamination proceeding in Public PAIR.
2232
—Modified text to delete outdated instructions on how to access PAIR using the Internet.2232.01 —In subsection I, added a citation to 37 CFR 1.20(c)(6) for petition fees and added text to clarify that micro entity reductions are only available for patent owners.
2233
—Deleted text, including items (A)-(G), that describes the entry of amendments because such procedures have been discontinued.
2234
—In item (A), deleted the intranet address as it is subject to change and to add "PTOWeb" as the name for the intranet site.
2235
—In item (B), deleted the phrase "while patent applications have status codes ranging from '020' to over '100'" because it no longer accurately reflects current status codes. —In item (C), text is revised to indicate that any paper patent file will be ordered and scanned into the Image File Wrapper; deleted text concerning the location of the physical files. —In item (D), clarified that the items provided are examples of reported events and added a parenthetical regarding the PALM system or the Office of Petitions tracking system. —In item (E), deleted most of the listed reports because they are no longer generated and added two new reports in addition to adding that PALM reports are provided to the CRU and appropriate Technology Centers. —Clarified that in the rare situation where a reexamination has been assigned to an assistant examiner, a primary examiner must sign all actions, conference all actions with a SPRS or manager and another examiner, and take responsibility for all actions taken.
2236
—In subsection I, clarified that the CRU Director's approval may be indicated by his or her signature at the end of the order or Office action. Added "generally" in stating that the same examiner will generally be assigned the new reexamination to allow for some flexibility for managers in assigning work load. —In subsection I, revised text to eliminate certain references to the "TC" because reissues are handled by the Central Reexamination Unit in addition to the TCs. —In subsection I, modified text to reflect electronic processing. For example, replaced the application "reaches the TC" with "is available for docketing" in step (B)(1) in subsection I. —Deleted the sentence stating SPRS should hand carry any paper patent file to the transferee because it reflects discontinued paper processing procedures.
2237
—Modified text to reflect electronic processing. For example, deleted the phrase "patent file is then forwarded to the" CRU.
2239
—Updated text to reflect that OPLA and the CRU or TC work cooperatively to determine whether the Director should order reexamination under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 303 and deleted guidance as to a "disk" containing the memorandum. —Deleted the phrase "or 37 CFR 1.915" at the end of the section because inter partes reexamination requests can no longer be filed. —Revised to reflect current policy that examiners do not typically have to request litigation search at the time of assignment of a reexamination proceeding.
2240
—In subsection II, clarified text that a second or subsequent request must be directed to the claims of the patent, as modified by any disclaimer or certificate that has issued. —Deleted the sentences that described time frames for when an examiner takes up a proceeding and when any action should be mailed in order to give supervisors more flexibility in assigning and monitoring work load.
2241
90Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Changed "previous examination" to "earlier concluded examination or review" and expanded definition to include new proceedings, such as supplemental examination and post-grant reviews by the Board. Similar changes also made to form paragraph 22.01.01.
2242
—In subsection I, second paragraph, modified text to identify the different proceedings or examinations in which the same question of patentability may have already been decided or raised. —In subsection I, clarified text that a second or subsequent request must be directed to the claims of the patent, as modified by any disclaimer or certificate that had issued. —In subsections I and II, added a sentence reading "Issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d) must be referred to the Director of the CRU." —Deleted sentence in the last paragraph pertaining to amended claims in copending proceeding because such merger policies are covered in MPEP §§ 2283-2285.
2243
—Added "under 35 U.S.C. 303(a)" after "determination" in the first sentence to distinguish from determinations made in supplemental examination.
2244
—Deleted the second paragraph which contained steps of discontinued paper processing.2245 —Deleted "original" modifying "signed copy" in the last paragraph. —In item (D), modified "prior examination" to "earlier concluded examination or review" and "the Federal Courts" to "a federal court, and was not raised to or by the Office in a pending
2246
reexamination or supplemental examination of the patent" to include new proceedings, such as supplemental examination and post-grant reviews by the Board. —In the paragraph starting with "The decision granting the request …" deleted the phrase "is made on a decision form and" because the decision is more than just a form. —Modified text to reflect electronic processing. For example, replaced the examiner's decision is "hand-carried … to the CRU support staff for processing and mailing" with "processed and mailed" in subsection I. —In subsection II, in the penultimate paragraph, changed policy of filing the opposition "by facsimile transmission" to "electronically." —In subsection III, revised text regarding prior art citations submitted after the order for reexamination to refer to prior art citations and written statements and deleted the indication that they be stored as a separate file in a physical location (because this does not account for electronic processing). —In item (A), modified "earlier examination" to "earlier concluded examination or review of the patent, or raised to or by the Office in a pending reexamination or supplemental examination of
2247
the patent" to include new proceedings, such as supplemental examination and post-grant reviews by the Board. —In example 1, replaced copy of former form PTO-471 with updated form PTO-471G. In example 2, replaced copy of former form PTO-471 with updated form PTO-471D.
2247.01
—Modified text to reflect electronic processing. For example, replaced the examiner's decision is "forwarded … to the Office of the CRU Director for decision" with "brought to the attention of the CRU Director or his/her designee for decision."
2248
—Changed the first sentence in paragraph starting with "Reassignment will be …" to "In the situation in which the examiner's determination failed to find any SNQ, reassignment will be the general rule" in order to distinguish procedures from situations in which the examiner's determination is only a partial denial of some SNQs. —Revised the last paragraph to clarify that a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 may be filed within one month of the mailing date of the order if the examiner's determination partially denies the request based on any advanced SNQ, that a decision on such a petition is final and non-appealable, and that if no timely petition is filed, the examiner's determination is final and non-appealable. Added a citation to Belkin Int'l, Inc. v. Kappos, 696 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Rev. 07.2015, November 201591
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—In the paragraph beginning with "If reexamination is ordered…," deleted the last sentence stating that extensions of time will be granted only under extraordinary circumstances because
2249
such a statement fails to account for the new no-cause extensions of time for patent owners. Inserted a cross-reference to MPEP § 2265. —Updated 37 CFR 1.52 as amended by the PLT implementation rule. In subsection I.A, added the word "single" before "brackets" to clearly distinguish this requirement from reissue amendment
2250
practice. Also added a new sentence in the second paragraph indicating that presentation of the text of the paragraph to be deleted will assist the Office in proper entry of the amendment. Also added explanation of the importance of stating the precise point where each amendment is to be made. Deleted text that discussed discontinued paper processing. —In subsection I.D, revised form paragraph 22.13 so that the examiner will enter in the proper time period for response depending on whether the request was filed by a third party requester or the patent owner. —In subsection III, deleted text that discussed discontinued paper processing. —In subsection IV, under (A)(1) and (2), added "single" before "bracketing" to clarify proper amendment practice. Under (D) and (E), at the end of the first sentence, added "including the claim number and status indicator" to clarify that all text must be underlined for a new claim. —In the last paragraph, added text to explain that the time period for filing new drawing sheets depends on whether the request was filed by a third party requester or the patent owner. Clarified
2250.01
that the last sentence addresses the situation in which new drawing sheets are not filed "in response to the Quayle action." —Updated 37 CFR 1.530(l).2250.02 —In subsection I, added a cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) and (c)(4) following the first sentence. Revised the last paragraph to apply to responses to non-final actions, added text to
2250.03
explain that the time period for filing a correction depends on whether the request was filed by a third party requester or the patent owner, and added a sentence to address responses to final actions. —Inserted "under 35 U.S.C. 304" after "ordered" in the first sentence.2253 —Updated 37 CFR 1.550 as amended by the PLT implementation rule. 37 CFR 1.550(c) was amended to provide for a no cause extension of time for patent owner requested or Director ordered examination.
2254
—In the second paragraph, added the phrase "after an examiner's determination that found the request did not raise any SNQ" and changed "will normally" to "will generally."
2255
—Changed "items of information" to "documents" because the former phrase is now used in supplemental examination and might be confusing.
2256
—Added "(B)" to the phrase "As to (B), (C) and (F) above." —Revised policies regarding the submission of prior art after a Notice of Intent to Issue ex parte Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) is mailed to reflect the Office's more recent publication procedures, i.e., the proceeding generally begins the publication (issue) cycle immediately after NIRC. To obtain entry, the submission must be accompanied by (A) a factual accounting providing a sufficient explanation of why the information submitted could not have been submitted earlier, (B) an unequivocal statement that one or more claims are unpatentable, and (C) an amendment to such claim or claims, and an explanation as to how the amendment causes such claim or claims to be patentable. These requirements are similar to the requirements to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1) and help the Office comply with the statutory mandate of special dispatch for reexaminations. —Revised to delete the statement that references will be printed on the reexamination certificate and instead state that a notice is printed on the reexamination certificate that the list of prior art documents is available via PAIR, which is in accord with current practice.
2257
92Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Added 37 CFR 1.625 as the basis to discuss ex parte reexamination procedures following a supplemental examination request.
2258
—In the first paragraph, added a sentence to indicate that double patenting issues may also be considered during reexamination. Following the first paragraph, added text to address the scope of reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257. —In subsection I, added text to clarify that the first-to-invent prior art regime may apply under the specified conditions if a benefit claim is made under reexamination to a prior application with a filing date before March 16, 2013. Deleted "in the chart" in the sentence prior to subsection I.A because no chart is presented. —In subsection I.B, added "(with respect to original subject matter)" after "insufficiency of disclosure" to clarify that issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 may be raised for new or amended subject matter. —In subsection I.C, added a citation to In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 99 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011), which held that the Office is not prohibited from performing a 35 U.S.C. 112 written description priority analysis during reexamination. —In subsection I.D, in the third paragraph, added the clause "over prior art patents or non-prior art patents" in the second sentence. Added a new fourth paragraph that states that double patenting issues may be addressed in reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257. —In subsection I.F.2, added a new last paragraph that reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257 may involve an admission by the patent owner. —In subsection I.G, first paragraph, added text regarding claim construction where there is related litigation and a federal court has made a judicial interpretation of a disputed claim term. In the first sentence of the last paragraph, added the phrase "ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304, and also during reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257" to clarify that the broadest reasonable interpretation applies to both proceedings. —In subsection II, first paragraph, added text pertaining to a determination of whether the claimed invention is entitled to a particular priority date and a citation to In re NTP, Inc. Added a new second paragraph to state that reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257 may involve any issues under 35 U.S.C. 112. —In subsection IV.A, in the second paragraph, clarified the text by replacing "a 'live' claim" with "a claim under reexamination which is." —In subsection IV.E, deleted the text and replaced with a cross-reference to MPEP § 2258.02. —In subsection IV.G, added "or derivation" after "interference" to provide for the new derivation proceedings. —In subsection IV.H, added "pre-AIA" before "35 U.S.C. 102(c)" to clarify which provision applies and deleted the clause suggesting the patent owner may file a reissue application because the clause gave an erroneous impression that reissues can always be filed to resolve issues outside the scope of reexamination. Similarly, revised form paragraph 22.03 to clarify text and to remove the suggestion to file a reissue application. —In form paragraph 22.01.01, changed "earlier examination" to "earlier concluded examination or review" and added "or has been raised to or by the Office in a pending reexamination or
2258.01
supplemental examination" to include new proceedings, such as supplemental examination and post-grant reviews by the Board. —New section added to describe procedures for correcting claims for foreign priority or domestic benefit during a reexamination proceeding.
2258.02
—Deleted the last sentence, inserted two new sentences regarding the application of claim preclusion (res judicata) to the Office in reexamination proceedings, and added references to In
2259
re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and In re Construction Equipment Company, 665 F.3d 1254, 100 USPQ2d 1922 (Fed. Cir. 2011). —Inserted "in reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304" after "issued" in the second sentence.2260
Rev. 07.2015, November 201593
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—In the first paragraph, added, in two instances, a phrase pertaining to a claim no longer subject to reexamination. Also, in the first sentence, added the phrase "undergoing reexamination" after "any claim."
2260.01
—Deleted text that described time frames for when an examiner takes up a proceeding and when any action should be mailed in order to give supervisors more flexibility in assigning and monitoring work load.
2261
—In subsection I, added a cross-reference to MPEP § 2271.01 for more detailed information on conferences.
2262
—Deleted the second paragraph and revised the first paragraph to state that a shortened statutory period of two months will generally be set and extensions of time may be requested under 37 CFR 1.550(c) with a cross-reference to MPEP § 2265.
2263
—Revised the first paragraph to clarify mailing procedures to the patent owner and to delete the statement that multiple patent owners are each mailed a copy of the Office action because such
2264
statements are inconsistent with standard Office practice of only corresponding with a single representative or a single patent owner. In addition, deleted the reference to the PALM printer because such printers are no longer used. In the second paragraph, added a sentence to describe the mailing procedures when there is more than one third party requester for a request and if any requester failed to designate a mailing address of a registered practitioner as the correspondence address. In the third paragraph, deleted reference to "additional partial patent owner." —Updated 37 CFR 1.550(c) as amended by the PLT implementation rule2265 —Added subsections I-VI. Subsection I contains former text explaining that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 are not applicable to ex parte reexamination proceedings. Subsection II explains the fees required for an extension of time. Subsection III provides general guidance on extensions of time, including the sufficient cause extension and automatic extension for patent owner requested reexaminations. Subsection IV discusses procedures for extensions of time in third party requested reexaminations. Subsection V explains extensions of time for patent owner requested and director ordered reexaminations, which have been revised to include an automatic two month extension as a result of implementation of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT). Subsection VI discusses the requirements for a showing of sufficient cause. —Renumbered former subsections I and II as subsections VII and VIII, respectively. —Renumbered subsection VII was modified to include the automatic two month extension of time for patent owner requested and director ordered reexaminations. —Updated 37 CFR 1.550 as amended by the PLT implementation rule.2266 —Revised to clarify that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 do not apply in reexamination proceedings. —Revised the last paragraph to state that patent owners cannot submit an application data sheet (ADS) except as provided in MPEP § 2258.02 because an ADS is required in certain situations in order to claim foreign priority or domestic benefit as modified by the PLT implementation rule. —In item (B), added the phrase "including any extensions of the response period pursuant to 37 CFR 1.550(c)" to modify the response period to account for the no cause extension under 37 CFR 1.550(c).
2266.01
Revised references to time periods for response for consistency with response time changes in the implementation of the PLT. —Amended form paragraph 22.14 so that the examiner will enter in the proper time period for response depending on whether the request was filed by a third party requester or the patent owner. —In the last paragraph, deleted "closing prosecution" after "an action" because ex parte reexamination does not include "an action closing prosecution." —Revised text to discuss new form PTO-2311, which provides notification of a defect in submissions filed in a patent owner requested reexamination.
2266.02
—Modified the time period for response set in the final rejection from one month to two months.
94Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Added text to clarify that form PTOL-475 is not mailed if an after-final response lacks proof of service. Instead, an advisory Office action will notify the patent owner of the lack of proof of service.
2266.03
—In subsection I, deleted text that pertains to discontinued paper processing procedures and revised text to explain that papers will be expunged from the official file by marking the papers "closed" and "non-public."
2267
—Subsection II title revised to read "Types of Papers Expunged With Approval of the Director of the USPTO or CRU/TC Director or SPRS." Revised text of subsection II to replace "returned" with "expunged" and to delete the penultimate sentence which referred to the return of papers. Clarified text in the last chart by adding "or if inadvertently entered, it will be expunged from the file." —In subsection IV, revised title to read "Papers Located in the Patent File." Deleted indication that citations by third parties are placed in the reexamination file because current processing places the citations in the patent file instead. —Added 35 U.S.C. 27, and updated 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) and 133; updated 37 CFR 1.137. Specifically, the statute and regulations were changed to only provide for revival under the
2268
unintentional standard and to provide for the extension of the 12-month period for filing a subsequent application. —In subsection I, rewrote text to state that a petition based on unavoidable delay is no longer available and to clarify that the amendments to 37 CFR 1.137 apply to any reexamination proceeding resulting from a supplemental examination proceeding filed before, on, or after December 18, 2013. —In subsection II, deleted former text and inserted text that explains the requirements for a petition to revive under the statute and regulations for consistency with the PLTIA and the PLT implementation rule. Also added an indication that questions had been raised concerning the Office's authority to revive an unintentionally abandoned application (without a showing of unavoidable delay) in certain situations, citing to Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech, 543 f.3D 657 (Fed. Cir. 2008) as an example. —In subsection III, changed the time period for submitting a reconsideration request from one month to two months, in accordance with the implementation of the PLT. Clarified that the extension of time provisions of 37 CFR 1.550(c) also apply to any reexamination proceeding ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257. —Added text to clarify that amendments submitted with a request filed under 35 U.S.C. 302, or after reexamination is ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304 or under 35 U.S.C. 257, and that are compliant with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j) are generally entered if submitted prior to a final action.
2270
—In subsection II, modified form paragraphs 22.09 and 22.10 to account for the no cause extension of time in 37 CFR 1.550(c)(3).
2271
—In subsection I, changed "manager will" to "manager may" to allow for some flexibility for managers.
2271.01
—In subsection I, changed the time period for submitting a response from one month to two months, in accordance with the implementation of the PLT. Clarified that the same time period
2272
also applies to any reexamination proceeding ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257. Added text that explains the no cause extension of time in patent owner requested and director ordered reexaminations newly provided for by 37 CFR 1.550(c) is in conformance with the minimum reply provisions of the PLT and thus additional "no cause" extensions are not available for a response to a final Office action. —In subsection II, added a reference to new form PTO-2311.
Rev. 07.2015, November 201595
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Deleted text discussing ex parte reexaminations filed before November 29, 1999 because such reexaminations are no longer pending. Deleted the word "current" before "version" in the sentences discussing 35 U.S.C. 134 as amended by Public Laws 106-113 and 107-273.
2273
—Changed the time period for extension given upon the timely filing of a first response to a final rejection from one month to two months, in accordance with the implementation of the PLT. —Added text to discuss new form PTO-2311, which provides notification of a defect in the notice of appeal filed in patent owner requested reexaminations (including reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257) or Director ordered reexaminations and clarified that form PTOL-475 is used in third party requested reexaminations. —Clarified that form PTOL-468 "may" be used to provide notification that an appeal is dismissed because notification could also be provided as part of a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate. —In subsection III, modified text to explain that the no cause extension of time in patent owner requested and Director ordered reexaminations newly provided for by 37 CFR 1.550(c) is available for filing the appeal brief. Added a cross-reference to MPEP § 2265.
2274
—In subsection IV, clarified that form PTOL-468 "may" be used to provide notification that an appeal is dismissed because notification could also be provided as part of a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate. —Deleted the sentence that stated the determination should be completed within approximately one month from the filing of the appeal brief to give flexibility to the Board in managing their work load. Modified "an appeal conference" to "a conference" because reexamination proceedings are not required to have "appeal conferences" like patent applications. —In the first paragraph, inserted a sentence to explain that there is no requirement for a pre-appeal conference but there is a requirement for a panel review of an examiner's answer in reexamination proceedings.
2275
—Deleted text discussing ex parte reexaminations filed before November 29, 1999 because such reexaminations are no longer pending. Deleted the word "current" before "version" in the sentences discussing 35 U.S.C. 141 and 145 as amended by Public Laws 106-113 and 107-273.
2279
—Added a sentence to discuss that 35 U.S.C. 141(b) was further amended by Public Law 112-29. —Modified title to add "Filed under 35 U.S.C. 302" at the end. Revised to state that the material to patentability standard set forth in 37 CFR 1.56(b) is applicable to reexamination proceedings
2280
ordered as a result of supplemental examination under 35 U.S.C. 257 and added cross-references to MPEP § 2818.01 and chapter 2000. —Revised to incorporate by reference the procedures set forth in MPEP § 713.01 to provide guidelines for conducting interviews via electronic means.
2281
—Deleted the statement that the Office of Patent Legal Administration needs to authorize anything other than an in person interview at headquarters or a satellite office. —Revised to indicate that an interview initiated by the examiner to obtain an amendment to render the reexamined claims patentable might not have the panel members participating in the interview. —Modified to clarify that only publicly available information may be discussed by the examiner when a third party requests information. Added another example regarding claim interpretation and publicly available information. —Clarified that a copy of the interview summary form PTOL-474 should be mailed to the patent owner, if not already provided with a copy. —Revised text to clarify that notice of concurrent proceedings includes notification of any supplemental examination and any review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
2282
—Amended form paragraph 22.07 to add the phrase "or reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257" at the end.
96Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In subsection II, deleted as outdated policy the sentences regarding suspending the second proceeding where the first proceeding is on appeal before a federal court and requiring the express written approval of the CRU or TC Director for suspensions.
2283
—In subsection III, clarified the guidelines given in the second paragraph. —In subsection IV, modified text to remove reference to discontinued paper processing procedures. —In subsection VII, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, changed "returning" to "expunging" and deleted the clause "but no copy of the petition will be retained by the Office" because the prior sentences already cover the procedures. Added "or subsequent thereto" after "37 CFR 1.530" in the second paragraph. —Subsection II.A clarified by adding "(e.g., within three months from the request's filing date)" in the first sentence.
2285
—In subsection II.B, deleted as no longer applicable the paragraph regarding procedures to follow if the stay of a reexamination has been removed following a reissue application examination. —In subsection V, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, changed "returning" to "expunging" and deleted the clause "but no copy of the petition will be retained by the Office" because the prior sentences already cover the procedures. —In subsection I, deleted text that described time frames for when an examiner takes up a proceeding and when any action should be mailed in order to give supervisors more flexibility in
2286
assigning and monitoring work load. Also, deleted text that stated a one month time response is set because such policy is discontinued in light of the PLT implementation. Finally, deleted case law citations to In re Vamco Machine and Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 217 USPQ 985 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Loffland Bros. Co. v. Mid-Western Energy Corp., 225 USPQ 886 (W.D. Okla. 1985); The Toro Co. v. L.R. Nelson Corp., 223 USPQ 636 (C.D. Ill. 1984); Digital Magnetic Systems, Inc. v. Ansley, 213 USPQ 290 (W.D. Okla. 1982); Raytek, Inc. v. Solfan Systems Inc., 211 USPQ 405 (N.D. Cal. 1981); and Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 211 USPQ 1114 (N.D. Texas 1981) because none of the decisions related to the Office's policy regarding reexaminations. —In subsection V, deleted "by the STIC" at the end of the first paragraph because CRU staff performs most litigation searches. —Inserted " ex parte" prior to reexamination, two occurrences, because amended 35 U.S.C. 315(d) and 325(d) do not apply to inter partes reexamination.
2286.01
—Moved references to examiner's amendments from the introductory text to subsection V. Revised to amend procedural steps referring to discontinued paper processing to be applicable to current electronic processing throughout section.
2287
—In subsection I, revised the list of items to review in the reexamination and patent files by adding "such as the certificate number, e.g., 'C1' or 'C2'" following "thereon" in item (B), and by amending item (D) to indicate that the examiners should enter the current classification in the Issue Classification boxes, cross-referencing MPEP §§ 903.07 and 902.03(e). —In subsection III, example claim 2 under reexamination, "the sintered preform is machined into a lens" was changed to "a pressure of 300-400 psi is applied during the heating steps." —In subsection V, revised "a formal examiner's amendment" to read "an examiner's amendment" for consistency with the terminology in MPEP Chapter 1300. Added indication that any examiner's amendment to the title or abstract must be authorized by the patent owner. —In subsection VI, deleted the last paragraph because the same text appears more appropriately in MPEP § 2287.01. —Corrected the rule citation from 37 CFR 1.182 to 37 CFR 1.312 in the second sentence.2287.01 —Deleted the second paragraph pertaining to a screening process performed by OPLA because such procedures have been discontinued.
2289
Rev. 07.2015, November 201597
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Clarified text by making the sentence that discussed the ordinal sequence of inter partes reexamination certificates its own paragraph. Added a paragraph to discuss certificates issued from reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257.
2290
—Deleted text that referred to "international and U.S. classification" and inserted "the current classification" in its place. —Modified "the list of prior art documents" to "the notice regarding the list of prior art documents" to more accurately reflect the current practice in which the list of documents is not printed on the certificate. —In the second item (A), added text to describe that the filing date and number of the request is preceded by "Supplemental Examination Request" if reexamination was ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257. —Updated the example certificates provided at the end of the section to reflect a certificate that does not list the prior art citations. —Modified the last paragraph to state that the Official Gazette notice will clearly indicate the type of certificate, e.g., ex parte reexamination certificate (for proceedings ordered under 35
2291
U.S.C. 304), an inter partes reexamination certificate, or an ex parte reexamination certificate from reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257. —Deleted text that stated that the proceedings are forwarded to OPLA after a NIRC is processed or for reissue review because such procedures have been discontinued.
2294
—In the second paragraph, modified the second sentence to state that the CRU technical support staff will print out a copy of the reexamination certificate and make it of record in the second
2295
reexamination file as a preliminary amendment to more accurately reflect current processing procedures. —In subsection II, added a reference to new form PTO-2311 and changed the 1 month time period to "an appropriate" time period to reflect changes in response time due to implementation of the PLT. —In subsection III, changed "Upon conclusion of the reexamination proceeding" to "After mailing of the NIRC" to more clearly reflect current procedures. —Added new forms PTOL-471D and PTOL-471G that replaced form PTOL-471, updated the title for form PTOL-475, and added new forms PTO-2311and PTO-2293.
2296
98Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 2400:
—Updated references to 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) to reflect changes made in the AIA.
Passim
—Revised the word "code" to read "symbol" in the context of the description of nucleotide bases and amino acids to improve clarity and for consistency with the tables in ST.25.
Passim
—Replaced the phrase "Sequence Listing" with the same words without quotation marks or initial capital letters (i.e., sequence listing).
Passim
—Rewritten to delete historical background pertaining to the development of the deposit rules and sequence rules. This information can be accessed in MPEP § 2401 in the MPEP Ninth
2401
Edition (March 2014)(available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/index.htm). —Revised to insert 37 CFR 1.801(defining biological information) at the beginning of the section. Replaced citation to a district court case with a citation to Enzo Biochem, Inc. v.
2402
Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(deposit may satisfy the written description requirement). —Deleted historical information pertaining to effective date of the deposit rules and added notation to see PCT Rule 13 bis and MPEP § 1823.01 for the requirements under the PCT for a reference to a deposited biological material in an international application. —Revised to delete 37 CFR 1.801. Added caution to examiners against requiring that a specific biological material be deposited where a deposit of starting material would allow the skilled artisan to make and use the claimed invention; also added an example of such a situation.
2403
—Revised to indicate that the Office will consider 2500 to be an optimum number of seeds to deposit in the normal case, rather than the minimum number to deposit.
2403.02
—Revised the "Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences" to read "the Board."2404.01 —Revised to account for acceptable non-Budapest treaty deposits. Added paragraph explaining that with regard to such deposits, in reply to a request made under 37 CFR 1.808(c), the Office will not certify that a deposit has been stated to have been made under conditions which make it available to the public as of the issue date unless the record otherwise clearly indicates that an acceptable non-Budapest Treaty deposit was made and that all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of the patent (with the possible exception of requiring the request for the deposit to be in the format specified in 37 CFR 1.808(b)). —Replaced list of International Depositary Authorities (IDAs) with a reference to the WIPO website where a list of current IDAs under the Budapest Treaty is maintained (www.wipo.int/treaties/ en/registration/budapest).
2405
—Replaced sentence indicating that the deposit rules are equally applicable in international and national stage applications filed under the PCT with the explanation that while 37 CFR
2406
1.804 permits making a deposit after the filing date of an application, in many countries the deposit must be made before the filing date. —Deleted "the first paragraph of" before 35 U.S.C. 112.2406.01 —Replaced the phrase "foreign to the United States" with "other than the United States" and replaced the phrase "is sufficient to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112" with "may be relied upon to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112."
2406.03
—Revised first paragraph to clarify that pursuant to 37 CFR 1.805(a), an applicant is required to notify the Office when it obtains information that a depository cannot furnish samples of a
2407.01
deposit referenced in a pending application, and that a replacement or supplemental deposit
Rev. 07.2015, November 201599
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
must be made if access to the deposited material is necessary to satisfy the requirements for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 112. —Revised to add a new first paragraph stating the requirement for a patent owner to notify the Office when it obtains information that a depository cannot furnish samples of a deposit
2407.02
referenced in a patent and the consequences of failing to so notify the Office and diligently replace a deposit. —Revised to explain that a replacement or supplemental deposit made in connection with a patent, whether or not made during the pendency of an application for reissue patent or a reexamination proceeding or both, will not be accepted unless a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.323 is requested which meets the terms of 37 CFR 1.805(b) and 37 CFR 1.805(c) for replacement or supplemental deposits. Also added cross-references to MPEP §§ 1411.01 and 2219. —Added text explaining that a request for a certificate of correction of a patent under 37 CFR 1.805(b) and 37 CFR 1.805(c) will not be granted where no original deposit was made before or during the pendency of the application which matured into the patent. —Revised to delete "Finally," from the first sentence.2407.06 —Revised to add cross-reference to MPEP § 2701 for an explanation of the term of a patent. Revised the final sentence to clarify that a specific statement that the deposit would be stored
2408
under agreements that would make them available beyond the enforceable life of the patent for which the deposit was made is required only where the 30-year term of deposit would terminate within the enforceable life of the patent. —Revised to explain that there is a distinction between a statement by the applicant that the deposit has been made under the Budapest Treaty and one in which the deposit has been made
2409
and accepted under the Budapest Treaty. Where a statement is merely an indication that a deposit has been made (with no indication as to whether it has been accepted), there is no assurance that the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been satisfied. —In the final paragraph, revised to add "and accepted" after "a deposit had been made" to the discussion of the conditions prescribed by the Bupdapest Treaty.
2410.01
—Revised to indicate that persons requesting a certificate of statement of availability of deposit should contact the TC 1600 Director's office and should not submit the request via the examiner
2410.02
of record. Also revised to indicate that Form BP-12, which may be used for requests pertaining to deposits made pursuant to the Budapest Treaty, is available on the WIPO website. —Added paragraph explaining that the Office will not certify whether a deposit has been made under conditions which would make it available to the public until the issuance of a U.S. Patent referencing the deposit. —Updated 37 CFR 1.809(c).2411 —Revised to clarify description of possible rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or (b) in the context of the deposit of biological materials, and added indication that a lack of written description can arise in the context of original claims.
2411.01
—Added a cross-reference to 37 CFR 1.802 which describes when a deposit of biological material is needed. —Deleted citation of two cases in which the Federal Circuit resolved best mode issues in the litigation context. —Revised to add a reference to a supplemental deposit.2411.02 —Revised to indicate that where an application is otherwise in condition for allowance except for a required deposit, the Office may notify the applicant in a notice of allowability and set a
2411.03
three month time period within which the deposit must be made in order to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under 37 CFR 1.136 (see 37 CFR 1.136(c)).
100Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Removed and reserved. Information relevant to replacement or supplemental deposits after a patent has issued is set forth in MPEP § 2407.02.
2411.04
—Rewritten to delete historical background pertaining to the development of the sequence rules. This information can be accessed in MPEP § 2420 in the MPEP Ninth Edition (March
2420
2014)(available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/index.htm). —Added cross-references to PCT Rule 5 and Rule 13 ter , and MPEP § 1823.02 and § 2422, for the requirements under the PCT for international applications that disclose nucleic acid or amino acid sequences. —Section title and text therein rewritten to set forth the definition of "sequence listing" and "CRF." Deleted previous text, which set forth background information as to the applicability date of the sequence rules, in its entirety.
2421.01
—Added explanation that for purposes of the sequence rules and the discussion in MPEP Chapter 2400, the phrase "disclose(d) (or disclosure(s) of) nucleic acid or amino acid sequences" is intended to refer to those nucleic acid or amino acid sequences that are described in the patent application by enumeration of their residues and that meet the length thresholds of 37 CFR 1.821(a). —Added explanation that the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is the official copy of the sequence listing, and may be submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web, on compact disc, as a PDF submitted via EFS-Web, or on paper. Also added cross-reference to MPEP § 2422.03 for additional information. —Added explanation that 37 CFR 1.821(e) requires that a copy of the sequence listing referred to in 37 CFR 1.821(c) must also be submitted in computer readable form (CRF) as an ASCII text file in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824 (hereinafter "CRF of the sequence listing" or "CRF"). The computer readable form may be submitted on the electronic media permitted by 37 CFR 1.824 , or may be submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web. Also added cross-reference to MPEP § 2422.04 for additional information. —Revised to clarify that the sequence rules define a set of symbols and procedures that are both mandatory and the only way that an applicant is permitted to describe information in the sequence listing.
2421.02
—Corrected description of the sequences that the sequence rules embrace (i.e., all unbranched nucleotide sequences with ten or more nucleotide bases and all unbranched, non-D amino acid sequences with four or more amino acids, provided that there are at least 10 "specifically defined" nucleotides or 4 "specifically defined" amino acids). —Revised description of initial treatment of noncompliant sequence listings in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) to reflect current procedures, i.e., OPAP will mail a
2421.03
Notice to Comply to applicant listing the requirements that have not been met and setting a two month time period within which to comply with the sequence rules, 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in abandonment of the application under 37 CFR 1.821(g). Extension of time may be obtained by filing a petition accompanied by the extension fee under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136. —Added paragraph explaining that patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, and international patent applications in which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371 on or after December 18, 2013, may be subject to reductions in patent terms adjustment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(13) if they are not in condition for examination within eight months from the filing date or date of commencement, respectively. "In condition for examination" includes compliance with 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 (see 37 CFR 1.704(f)). —Revised to indicate that inquiries regarding a specific CRF that has been processed by the Office should be directed to the Sequence Systems Service Center.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015101
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised to delete references to general changes that may occur in the future. Added indication that the Office will continue work on the preparation of a new World Intellectual Property
2421.04
Organization (WIPO) standard on the presentation of nucleotide and amino acid sequence listings using eXtensible Markup Language (XML) with the members of the Task Force on Sequence Listings created by the Committee on WIPO Standards. —Revised to add subsection title "I. Incorporation by Reference of WIPO ST.25 (1998) in 37 CFR 1.821." Subsection I revised to indicate where a copy of the 1998 version of ST.25 is available online and to explain that ST.25 was updated in December 2009.
2422
—In subsection I, added explanation that modifications not listed in WIPO Standard ST.25 (1998) Appendix 2, Tables 2 and 4, may also be represented as the corresponding unmodified base or unmodified amino acid in the sequence itself, and the modification should be described using its full chemical name in the Feature section of the sequence listing. —Revised to add subsection title "II. Filing Internationally." Updated the considerations that applicants who wish to file internationally in countries which adhere to WIPO Standard ST.25 should take into account. In particular, references to the 1998 version of the standard have been revised to correspond to the language of the 2009 update to the standard, and the explanation regarding free text in numeric identifier <223> has been clarified. —Paragraph added to subsection II to explain that requirements related to the submission of sequence listings may also differ between filing in the United States and filing internationally. For example, where an international application is filed in paper, the sequence listing part of the international application must also be provided in paper, although the search copy must be filed in electronic form, e.g. on a CD or, in the RO/US, as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web. Also, any tables filed in an international application must be an integral part of the application, i.e., cannot be submitted as a separate file in text format. —Revised section title to read "Nucleotide and/orAminoAcid Disclosures Requiring a Sequence Listing" to more accurately reflect the content of the section.
2422.01
—Added subsection title "I. Length Thresholds," and revised the text therein to correctly indicate that sequences with fewer than ten specifically defined nucleotides are specifically excluded. —Added subsection title "II. Representation of Nucleic Acids and Amino Acids" and revised the text therein to delete the discussion pertaining to the limitation of the sequence rules to L-amino acids because D-amino acids are not precluded from representation in a sequence listing and the Office encourages voluntary compliance for D-amino acids. —Subsections III - V added to relocate information previously in MPEP § 2422.03. —Subsection III explains that in general, any sequence that is disclosed and/or claimed as a sequence, i.e., as a string of particular nucleotide bases or amino acids, and that otherwise meets the length thresholds of 37 CFR 1.821(a), must be set forth in the sequence listing. —Subsection IV explains that it is generally acceptable to present a single, primary sequence in the specification and sequence listing by enumeration of its residues in accordance with the sequence rules ("primary sequence") and to discuss and/or claim variants of that primary sequence without presenting each variant as a separate sequence in the sequence listing. However, the primary sequence should be annotated in the sequence listing to reflect such variants. Added sentence to strongly recommend that any sequences appearing in the claims, or sequences that are considered essential to understanding the invention, be included in the sequence listing as a separate sequence. —Subsection V explains the requirement for a sequence identifier for each sequence set forth in the sequence listing, and the use of sequence identifiers in the specification, claims, or drawings to reference sequences set forth in the sequence listing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c) and (d).
102Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Revised first paragraph to clarify that for all applications that disclose nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definition set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a), 37 CFR
2422.02
1.821(b) requires exclusive conformance to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 through 37 CFR 1.825 with regard to the manner in which the disclosed nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences are presented and described. —Revised second paragraph to clarify when it may be appropriate to depict a sequence in a drawing figure. Deleted references to relaxing the exclusive conformance requirement for drawing figures. Clarified that when a sequence is presented in a drawing, the sequence must still be included in the sequence listing if the sequence falls within the definition set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a), and the sequence identifier ("SEQ ID NO:X") must be used, either in the drawing or in the Brief Description of the Drawings —Rewritten to set forth the manner in which a sequence listing required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.821(c) may be submitted. Subject matter previously in this section relocated to MPEP § 2422.01, subsections III - V.
2422.03
—Revised to explain that the sequence listing required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.821(c) may be submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web, on compact disc, as a PDF submitted via EFS-Web, or on paper. Also revised to clarify that the sequence listing required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is the official copy of the sequence listing, and that 37 CFR 1.821(e) requires that a copy of the sequence listing referred to in 37 CFR 1.821(c) must also be submitted in computer readable form (CRF) in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824. Further revised to explain the basic requirements for identifying ASCII text files and incorporating such files by reference in the specification. —New section added to explain that pursuant to the EFS-Web Legal Framework, applicants may submit a sequence listing under 37 CFR 1.821 as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web instead
2422.03(a)
of on compact disc, and to provide detailed information pertaining to the submission of such sequence listings. —Added subsection I to explain the implications of filing an ASCII text file sequence listing via EFS-Web in a variety of situations (e.g., on the filing date with or without a paper or PDF copy of the sequence listing, or in reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.821(g) or (h)). Includes specific note that the USPTO prefers the submission of a sequence listing in an ASCII text file via EFS-Web on the application filing date, and that submission of the sequence listing in a PDF file on the application filing date is not recommended. —Added subsection II to explain that a sequence listing submitted as a text file via EFS-Web will be excluded when determining the application size fee, whereas a sequence listing submitted as a PDF file will not be excluded. Also discusses application size fee as it relates to tables. —Added subsection III to discuss the size limit for text files submitted via EFS-Web and explain how to file an application that includes a sequence listing that is over 100 megabytes. —Added subsection IV to discuss filing sequence listings in international applications (PCT) via EFS-Web. —Subsection IV.A explains the preference for submission of the sequence listing part of the description as an ASCII text file and not as a PDF file, and discusses the international filing fee implications. —Subsection IV.B sets forth the file size and quantity limits for filing international applications via EFS-Web, and explains how to file an application that includes a sequence listing that is over 100 megabytes. —Subsection IV.C explains that tables related to a sequence listing must be an integral part of the description of the international application (PCT), and that when applicant submits tables related to a sequence listing in an international application (PCT) via EFS-Web, the tables must be in a PDF file.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015103
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised to indicate that the computer readable form required by 37 CFR 1.821(e) may be submitted on the electronic media permitted by 37 CFR 1.824 or may be submitted as an ASCII
2422.04
text file via EFS-Web. Updated information pertaining to providing published sequence data to NCBI. —Revised to add explanation that if a new application is filed via EFS-Web with a compliant ASCII text file sequence listing, and applicant has not filed a sequence listing in a PDF file, the text file will serve as both the paper copy required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) and CRF required by 37 CFR 1.821(e), eliminating any chance for discrepancies between the official copy and the CRF. —Section rewritten to clarify the procedure for requesting transfer of a computer readable form. Added text of 37 CFR 1.821(e) and explanation that the rule provides a mechanism to
2422.05
request the transfer of a CRF from an application already on file to a new application in limited circumstances. Added explanation of how applicant may be able to retrieve a copy of the sequence listing in ASCII text format in another application, and strong recommendation that applicant submit an ASCII text copy of a sequence listing in the new application rather than request a transfer to avoid possible application size fees and possible delays that may be introduced by defective transfer requests. —Deleted sample letter requesting transfer, and added indication that Form PTO/SB/93 should be used to request a transfer of a CRF under 37 CFR 1.821(e) to facilitate processing of the request. —Added subsection I to clearly set forth the requirements of a transfer request, and subsection II to describe a proper reply to a defective transfer request notice. —Revised to indicate that a statement under 37 CFR 1.821(f) that the content of the official and computer readable copies of a sequence listing are the same may be made by a registered
2422.06
practitioner, the applicant, an inventor, or the person who actually compares the sequence data on behalf of the aforementioned. —Added paragraph explaining when a statement under 37 CFR 1.821(f) is not required. —Revised to add explanation that when an amendment to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821(g) adds or amends a compact disc(s) or ASCII text file submitted via EFS-Web,
2422.07
applicant is required to update or insert in the specification an appropriate incorporation by reference statement. —Revised to indicate that the no new matter statement which must accompany submissions under 37 CFR 1.821(g) may be made by a registered practitioner, the applicant, an inventor, or the person who actually compares the sequence data on behalf of the aforementioned. —Added note that patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013, and international patent applications in which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371 on or after December 18, 2013, may be subject to reductions in patent terms adjustment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(13) if they are not in condition for examination within eight months from the filing date or date of commencement, respectively. "In condition for examination" includes compliance with 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825 (see 37 CFR 1.704(f)). —Revised to clarify the circumstances under which an applicant will be sent a notice requiring compliance with 37 CFR 1.821(b)-(f) in an international application. —In the final paragraph, deleted sentence regarding treatment of errors prior to the implementation date of the sequence rules. —Revised to delete indication that correspondence relating to the sequence rules may be hand-delivered to the Technology Center. Further revised to delete references to compact disc, floppy disk, tape, and magnetic media.
2422.09
—Revised to clarify language pertaining to the notation of modified bases or amino acids in a sequence listing. Also revised to clarify that applicants are encouraged to use the three-letter
2423.01
104Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
symbols for amino acids throughout the disclosure, instead of the one-letter symbols, for easier reading of the application and any patent issuing therefrom. —Revised to replace the final three sentences of the section with the simplified explanation that when the coding parts of a nucleotide sequence and their corresponding amino acids have
2423.02
been enumerated by their residues, those amino acids must also be set forth as a separate sequence if the amino acid sequence meets the length thresholds in 37 CFR 1.821(a). —Replaced the term "enumeration" with "numbering" for consistency with 37 CFR 1.822. Deleted background information regarding the basis for the numbering procedures.
2423.03
—Revised to rewrite the final paragraph of the section to clarify the procedures for presenting and numbering hybrid and gapped sequences. —Revised to generally explain that 37 CFR 1.823 sets forth the informational requirements for the sequence listing that must be submitted under 37 CFR 1.821(c) as part of the application.
2424.01
—Revised to specify that a CRF of a sequence listing submitted on compact disc cannot include table information, and that a sequence listing or CRF of a sequence listing is submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web cannot contain information other than the sequence listing. Added cross-reference to MPEP § 608.05(b) for information regarding submission of large tables in ASCII text format via EFS-Web or on compact disc. —Replaced the table of numeric identifiers and accompanying information with a citation to 37 CFR 1.823(b) (reproduced in MPEP § 2424) which includes the same information.
2424.02
—Revised to explain proper citation of unpublished and published PCT applications, and to indicate that questions regarding the proper citation of patent documents should be directed to staff in the Office of International Patent Cooperation.
2424.03
—Revised to update the source of the controlled vocabulary that should be used in the numeric identifiers relating to features of a given sequence in the sequence listing. —Revised to indicate that if the sequence listing required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) cannot be submitted via EFS-Web because it is larger than 100 megabytes, and it is impractical to provide
2425
the sequence listing on compact discs or other electronic media as set forth in 37 CFR 1.824 due to the size of the sequence listing, an exception via a non-fee petition to waive this provision will be considered. —Revised to add information pertaining to amending a sequence listing or CRF thereof by submission of an ASCII text tile via EFS-Web.
2426
—Revised to delete "Notice to Comply" from the title, and to delete the associated text previously in MPEP § 2427.02 in its entirety. Information relevant to a Notice to Comply is set forth in MPEP § 2421.03.
2427
—Text previously set forth in the first two paragraphs of MPEP § 2427.01 with regard to certain minor errors pertaining to compliance with the sequence rules has been relocated to this section and further revised to describe some minor errors pertaining to compliance with the sequence rules that may be discovered after examination has begun. Form paragraphs 24.01 - 24.05.01 and the associated discussion thereof previously in MPEP § 2427.01 have been deleted in their entirety. —Deleted. See the discussion of the changes to MPEP § 2427, above, for additional information.2427.01 -
2427.02 —Revised to add a significant number of helpful hints for compliance with the sequence rules, including information pertaining to filing sequence listings via EFS-Web, filing sequence
2429
listings in international applications, fees implications, consequences of failing to reply to compliance issues in a timely manner, the mandatory items of information that must be included in a sequence listing, information specific to several numeric identifiers, and contact information for assistance from the Sequence Systems Service Center.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015105
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised section title to "PatentIn Information." Revised to delete historical background pertaining to the development of, and updates to, PatentIn, and to describe PatentIn version
2430
3.5.1 (November 2010). Added information regarding help related to downloading or using PatentIn, and deleted references to hands-on training. Also added a discussion of the Checker software that may be used to check a sequence listing for compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824, and a suggestion to consult the User Notes on the Checker website for an explanation of errors that are not indicated, and content that is not verified, by the Checker software. —Revised to indicate that in 2007, the Office rescinded the 1996 partial waiver of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.141 et seq. with regard to restriction requirements in certain
2434
applications claiming polynucleotide molecules. Added that for national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), polynucleotide inventions will be considered for restriction, rejoinder, and examination practice in accordance with the standards set forth in MPEP Chapter 800. —Revised to explain that copies of patents and patent application publications that include sequence listings are available for sale through the Office of Public Records, Certification
2435
Division, on paper, on a CDROM, or in PDF format via the Internet. However, these copies will not include a sequence listing if the sequence listing is not included in the composed electronic image (page image) version of the patent or patent application publication. Applicants and members of the general public can obtain an electronic copy of a sequence listing through the Certification Division for a separate fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(3).
106Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 2500:
—Revised to update 35 U.S.C. 41(b). Deleted note about the administration of 35 U.S.C. 41(b) during 2005-2008. Further revised to remove discussion of Public Law 96-517 and subsequent Public Laws modifying the statutory provisions regarding maintenance fees.
2501
—Revised subsection I to refer to "entity status" rather than "small entity status" and removed indication regarding expired patents. Revised subsection II to remove reference to withdrawals of attorneys and agents. —Revised to remove reference to 35 U.S.C. 41 and multiple reissues.2504 —Revised to add reference to USPTO website page for payment options and mailing addresses.2510 —Revised subsection I to add reference to USPTO website for the Office of Finance Online Shopping Page in place of outdated steps to find the maintenance fee status information from the USPTO homepage. —Revised to update 37 CFR 1.366. Also revised to refer to changes in "entity status" rather than "small entity status."
2515
—Revised to include reference to fees for micro entities and to add a reference to current USPTO website page for USPTO Fee Schedule.
2520
—Deleted text that stated the maintenance fee amount is set by statute. —Revised to replace reference to "37 CFR 1.378(c)" with "37 CFR 1.378(a)-(c)."2530 —Revised to state that if a discounted fee (small or micro) is received without the entitlement to an entity status being established, the Office will mail an Underpayment Notice or Non-Acceptance Notice to the fee submitter.
2531
—Revised to remove references to unavoidable delay as the basis for petitions to accept late payment of a maintenance fee.
2540
—Revised to include reference to both pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a) and current 37 CFR 1.33(a).2542 —Section retitled "Entity Status Discounts" and rewritten to provide more detailed information pertaining to maintenance fee payments and entity status. Added subsections I-III. New subsection
2550
I concerns claiming entitlement to small entity status and micro entity status. New subsection II concerns removal of either small entity status or micro entity status. New subsection III concerns payments which do not match the entity status of record. —Revised to add indication that post issuance revocation and withdrawal of attorney requests are not regularly processed.
2560
—Deleted text regarding outdated paper processing steps by the Office of Patent Application Processing. —Revised to include reference to USPTO website page for determining status of maintenance fee payments in place of outdated steps to find the maintenance fee status information from the USPTO homepage.
2570
—Revised subsection IV to reflect that a receipt of payment for a maintenance fee will only be made upon request.
2575
—Revised to indicate that pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) applies to pre-AIA applications and 37 CFR 3.73(c) applies to AIA applications. Added cross-reference to MPEP § 325.
2580
—Revised to update 37 CFR 1.378.2590 —Revised to indicate that a separate petition fee and a separate statement of unintentional delay are required for each delayed maintenance fee payment, to specify the signing requirements for pre-AIA and AIA applications, to remove the reference to 37 CFR 1.378(c), to replace the reference to 37 CFR 1.378(e) with 37 CFR 1.378(d), and to remove reference to a petition fee for reconsideration of a decision.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015107
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Subsection I concerning the unavoidable delay basis for petitions to accept late payment of a maintenance fee was deleted. —Renumbered subsection II as subsection I. Revised subsection to replace 37 CFR 1.138(c) with 37 CFR 1.138(b) and 37 CFR 1.20(i)(2) with 37 CFR 1.17(m). Revised to provide information as to whether the EFS-web version of Form PTO/SB/66 or the non-EFS-web version of this form should be used in certain situations. —Revised to update title of Form PTO/SB/66 and to include updated versions of relevant forms.2595 —Revised to replace 37 CFR 1.138(c) with 37 CFR 1.138(b).
108Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 2600:
—Deleted the word "original" modifying "requests" in the fourth and ninth paragraphs as the modifier is not necessary.
2601
—Clarified that the first flowchart shows a reexamination filed prior to September 16, 2012, which would be subject to the SNQ standard.
2601.01
—Added a sentence after the description of the first flow chart explaining that except for the standard for instituting reexamination, the same procedure pertains for an inter partes reexamination filed from September 16, 2011 through September 15, 2012. —Moved the text specifying that the AIA amendment to 35 U.S.C. 301(a)(2) is not applicable to an ongoing inter partes reexamination no matter when the prior art citation was filed from item (B) to the end of the section.
2602
—In item (C), deleted "in the Central Reexamination Unit or Technology Center (in which the reexamination proceeding is being examined)" after "stored" because it reflected an outdated procedure. —Added ", prior to September 16, 2012," after "requester" in paragraph (A) as a reminder that inter partes reexamination was discontinued.
2609
—Updated 37 CFR 1.33(c).2622 —Added forms PTO/AIA/81B and PTO/SB/81C and deleted outdated form PTO/SB/81. —Updated form PTO/SB/83.2623 —Deleted the reference to 37 CFR 1.915 in two places in the first paragraph after the rules because requests for inter partes reexamination can no longer be filed.
2625
—Entire text deleted and replaced by the following notice: "No requests for inter partes Reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012. Guidance on the former practice is available in the 9th Edition of the MPEP."
2627
—Entire text deleted and replaced by the following notice: "No requests for inter partes Reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012. Guidance on the former practice is available in the 9th Edition of the MPEP."
2630
—Entire text deleted and replaced by the following notice: "No requests for inter partes Reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012. Guidance on the former practice is available in the 9th Edition of the MPEP."
2631
—Deleted outdated instructions pertaining to accessing Public PAIR.2632 —Deleted outdated instructions pertaining to accessing a reexamination file via Public PAIR.2632.01 —Clarified that micro entity reductions are only available for patent owners and not third party requesters.
2634
—Deleted an outdated intranet address for PALM, the phrase that stated the status codes for applications ranging from "020" to over "100," and instructions pertaining to discontinued paper processing.
2635
—Clarified that the stated reports from PALM are examples. —Revised to state that reexamination requests "are" assigned to the CRU. Clarified that in the rare situation where a reexamination has been assigned to an assistant examiner, a primary examiner
2636
must sign all actions, conference all actions with a SPRS or TC Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) and another examiner, and take responsibility for all actions taken. —In the "Copending reissue and reexamination proceeding" subsection, text is revised to eliminate reference to the "TC" because reissue applications are assigned to examiners in the TC as well as the CRU.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015109
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Revised text to indicate that the CRU support staff or STIC will perform a litigation search report prior to action by the examiner. Modified text to indicate that litigation information must be brought to the attention of a CRU SPRS.
2640
—Added a sentence to clarify that "… the second or subsequent request must be directed to the claims of the patent, as modified by any disclaimer, or by any reexamination certificate that has issued as of the time of the determination." —Entire text deleted and replaced by the following notice: "No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012. Guidance on the former practice is available in the 9th Edition of the MPEP."
2641
—Revised text to clarify what Office proceedings are considered by the examiner in determining whether the same question of patentability has already been raised and to define "earlier concluded
2642
or pending examination or review" to include review of the patent in a trial by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other contested proceedings in addition to prior examinations. —Changed form paragraph 22.01.01 to specify "in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent being reexamined, or has been raised to or by the Office in a pending reexamination or supplemental examination of the patent." —Deleted the last sentence of the section because it does not reflect current policies.2643 —In subsection I, in the last paragraph, two occurrences, changed form PTOL- "501" to "2070" to reflect current practice.
2646
—In subsection II, in the first paragraph, clarified that there is no right to petition "as an 'ultra-vires' action by the Office" a finding of a SNQ or RLP based on reasons other than those advanced by the requester. —In subsection II, in third to last paragraph, deleted "the extremely rare" and inserted "a" in its place. —In subsection II, in second to last paragraph, changed policy of filing the opposition "by facsimile transmission" to "electronically." —In subsection III, revised text regarding prior art citations submitted after the order for reexamination to delete the indication that they be stored as a separate file in a physical location (because this does not account for electronic processing). Added a sentence to note that written statements under 37 CFR 1.501 are not permitted in inter partes reexaminations. —In the last paragraph, two occurrences, changed form PTOL-"501" to "2070" to reflect current practice.
2647
—In the second paragraph, two occurrences, changed form PTOL-"501" to "2070" to reflect current practice.
2647.02
—Changed text that stated reassignment to another examiner is the general rule to limit the general rule to the situation in which the examiner's determination failed to find any SNQ or RLP in order
2648
to distinguish procedures from situations in which the examiner's determination is only a partial denial of some SNQs or RLPs. In last paragraph, two occurrences, added "or RLP(s)" after "SNQ(s)" to clarify that a petition may be filed when the reexamination is subject to the RLP standard. —Clarified the text of the Editor Note for 35 U.S.C. 314.2654 —In the second paragraph, added the phrase "of all the claims requested to be reexamined" after "a refusal to order reexamination" in the first sentence in order to distinguish procedures from situations in which the examiner's determination is only a partial denial of some SNQs or RLPs.
2655
—Changed "items of information" or "information" to "document(s)" in several locations because "items of information" is now a phrase associated with supplemental examination.
2656
—Revised text regarding the submission of prior art after a Notice of Intent to Issue Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) was mailed to reflect the Office's more recent publication procedures, i.e., the proceeding generally begins the publication (issue) cycle immediately after
110Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
NIRC. To obtain entry, the submission must be accompanied by (A) a factual accounting providing a sufficient explanation of why the information submitted could not have been submitted earlier, (B) an unequivocal statement that one or more claims are unpatentable, and (C) an amendment to such claim or claims, and an explanation as to how the amendment causes such claim or claims to be patentable. These requirements are similar to the requirements to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1) and help the Office comply with the statutory mandate of "special dispatch" for reexaminations. —Revised to indicate a notice will be present on the certificate indicating that the list of cited prior art documents will be available via PAIR. Text was deleted regarding the discontinued practice of listing the references on the reexamination certificate.
2657
—Added "ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304" after " ex parte reexamination" in the last sentence before subsection I to distinguish from reexaminations ordered from a supplemental examination request.
2658
—In subsection I, in the first sentence, added "inter partes" before "reexamination" and added "under the first-to-invent prior art regime" after "publications" to clarify that all inter partes reexaminations are subject to this prior art regime. —In subsection II, added "ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304" after " ex parte reexamination" to distinguish from reexaminations ordered from a supplemental examination request. —In subsection IV.E, existing text was deleted and replaced by a reference to MPEP § 2258.02, which sets forth the applicable policies as to claiming foreign priority or domestic benefit in light of changes made by the PLTIA. —In subsection IV.H, added "pre-AIA" before "35 U.S.C. 102(c)" to clarify which provision applies and deleted text that suggested the filing of a reissue application to address questions outside the scope of reexamination. Similar text also deleted in form paragraph 26.03. —Deleted the last two sentences, inserted two new sentences regarding the application of claim preclusion (res judicata) to the Office in reexamination proceedings, and added references to In
2659
re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and In re Construction Equipment Company, 665 F.3d 1254, 100 USPQ2d 1922 (Fed. Cir. 2011). —In subsection I, in the first paragraph, deleted text that discusses a ten-week deadline.2660 —In subsection V, updated the text of the sample Office action to reflect current text in form paragraphs 7.20.fti, 7.21.fti, and 26.03. —Clarified the first sentence by adding "undergoing reexamination" after "any claim."2660.03 —Added an Editor Note to state the limited applicability of 35 U.S.C. 314(c) as reproduced.2661 —In item (B), added "except as provided in MPEP §§ 2666.40 and 2666.60" to clarify when a third party requester may file comments on a patent owner's supplemental response.
2662
—In item (F)(1), added a reference to MPEP § 2674 et seq. —In item (L), deleted text referring to reexamination resulting from a court order, litigation concurrent with an inter partes reexamination proceeding, and reexamination proceedings pending for more than one year. —Revised the second paragraph to clarify the Office's current policy on correspondence address used for the mailing of Office actions and to delete reference to the PALM printer because such printers are no longer used.
2664
—Deleted the reference to PTOL-2070 in the second and fourth paragraphs. —In the third paragraph, added a sentence to describe the mailing procedures when there is more than one third party requester for a request and if any requester failed to designate a mailing address of a registered practitioner as the correspondence address. —In the fourth paragraph, deleted "each additional partial patent owner as discussed above." —Added that CRU SPRS can also decide whether a request for an extension of time will be granted. Changed reference to the automatic extension of time in ex parte reexamination to be
2665
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015111
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
"two" months instead of one month to be consistent with changes due to implementation of the PLT. See MPEP § 2265. —In subsection I, after the reference to 37 CFR 1.111, added "other than the provision in 37 CFR 1.111(a)(1) to 'see …. [37 CFR] 1.136 for time for reply to avoid abandonment" to clarify that the extension of time provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 are not applicable to inter partes reexamination.
2666
—In subsection III, added "(i.e., closed)" after "sealed" in the first paragraph and changed the last paragraph to state that patent owners cannot submit an application data sheet (ADS) except as provided in MPEP § 2258.02 because an ADS is required in certain situations in order to claim foreign priority or domestic benefit as modified by the PLT implementation rule. —Added a reference to MPEP § 2667 at the end of the first paragraph after 37 CFR 1.530.2666.01 —In subsection I, in the fourth paragraph, added text to advise that a requester should file comments in the 30 day time period even if patent owner's response is filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of the page length requirement of 37 CFR 1.943(b).
2666.05
—In subsection II, seventh paragraph, added a clause to clarify that a requester is provided with a time period to supply corrected comments if the comments were in response to a non-final Office action. —Modified text in the second paragraph to clarify when a requester can file comments based on a patent owner's supplemental response.
2666.20
—Added a cross-reference to MPEP § 2682 after the sentence discussing 37 CFR 41.77(c) and (e) in the third paragraph. —Revised text under "Discussion of Option (B)" to state that the requester may file comments within 30 days of the date of service of patent owner's corrected or supplemental response.
2666.30
—Clarified text in regard to when a requester can and cannot file comments if patent owner files a corrected response in response to a defect in their original response.
2666.40
—Revised penultimate paragraph to provide an exception to the one month or thirty day time period as provided in MPEP §§ 2666.05 and 2667.
2666.50
—Updated final paragraph to reflect current procedures wherein the technical support staff of the CRU reviews papers filed by the patent owner and requester. —Revised the first paragraph to provide an exception to the one month or thirty day time period as provided in MPEP §§ 2666.05 and 2667.
2666.60
—Clarified text in the second and third paragraph about when a requester may file comments in response to a patent owner correcting an informal response. —Modified text regarding the procedures of the return of inappropriate papers to eliminate procedures for discontinued paper processing and to state that inappropriate papers are expunged by marking the papers "closed" and "non-public."
2667
—Revised the title for subsection I to read "Types of Papers Expunged with Approval of the Central Reexamination Unit Director or SPRS." —Throughout subsection I, replaced "returned" with "expunged." —In subsections I.A.2 and I.B.2, after "37 CFR 1.957(d)," added the clause "if the submission is made prior to the mailing of an ACP" to clarify that the stated procedures to file a corrected submission do not apply to submissions after an ACP. —In subsections I.A.1, I.A.3, and I.B.1, replaced "RLA" with "SPRS." —In subsection I.B.3, in the third paragraph, clarified text about when a requester may file comments in response to a patent owner correcting an informal response by adding the phrase "unless patent owner's submission correcting the defect is directed to form and does not go to the merits of the case (e.g. payment of a fee other than an excess claims fee)." —In subsection I.C, removed text that inappropriate papers are returned "to an identified third party or destroyed if the third party submitter is unidentified" and reference to a storage area to cover procedures for electronic as well as paper processing.
112Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In subsection III, revised the title to "Papers Located in the Patent File," removed all reference to the "storage area" to cover procedures for electronic as well as paper processing, added a reference to 37 CFR 1.902 and deleted the last sentence because proper timely prior art submissions are placed in the patent file and not the reexamination file. —Added 35 U.S.C. 27, updated 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) and 133, and updated 37 CFR 1.137. Specifically, the statute and regulations were changed to only provide for revival under the
2668
unintentional standard and to provide for the extension of the 12-month period for filing a subsequent application. —Modified the text to make it clear that a petition based on unavoidable delay is no longer available and to discuss the requirements under revised 37 CFR 1.137(a) for a petition to revive. Also added an indication that questions had been raised concerning the Office's authority to revive an unintentionally abandoned application (without a showing of unavoidable delay) in certain situations, citing to Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. V Int'l Game Tech, 543 f.3D 657 (Fed. Cir. 2008) as an example. —In the first paragraph, clarified that only claims undergoing reexamination and under a rejection may be cancelled if the patent owner fails to file a timely and appropriate response to an Office action. —Changed "clerical staff" to "technical support staff" for consistency with current position titles and modified text (e.g., making copies) that referred to discontinued paper processing.
2670
—In subsection II, revised text to eliminate discontinued processing steps of consultation with a RLA in OPLA and modified text that referenced discontinued paper processing.
2671
—In subsection V, modified the text in form paragraph 26.03 to eliminate the suggestion to file a reissue for issues raised that exceed the scope of reexamination.
2671.01
—In subsection X, deleted "as the action that does not close prosecution." —In the second paragraph, the end of the first sentence was changed to "issues should be clearly developed."
2671.02
—In subsection I, last paragraph, "single" was deleted before "previous" in the first sentence. —In subsection IV, modified the text in form paragraph 26.03 to eliminate the suggestion to file a reissue for issues raised that exceed the scope of reexamination. —In subsection VIII, revised text by deleting the step of hand carrying actions to the support staff to eliminate processing steps that are drawn towards discontinued paper processing. —In subsection I, changed "manager will" to "manager may" to reflect current procedures that the manager may let the examiner select the third member.
2671.03
—In subsection III, second to last sentence, "the ACP and" was added after "comments responding to" and in the last sentence "replacement" was changed to "corrected."
2672
—In subsection IV, deleted ", and/or the issues raised in the ACP" in the third sentence because the ACP is not "served" on the requester. In subsection V, two instances, "and/or" was changed to "or." —In subsection III, added a new penultimate paragraph that states affidavits or declarations are treated the same as amendments. This text was copied from MPEP § 2265.
2673
—Added a new third paragraph stating "Note that a requester is not entitled to file an appeal or cross appeal for proposed rejections which were determined to not raise a substantial new question
2674
of patentability or a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Such a decision is final and nonappealable. See 35 U.S.C. 312(c) and 37 CFR 1.927." —Added text reading "The respondent's brief may include any arguments previously made of record that support the examiner's finding with respect to any claim addressed in the opposing party's appellant brief. See MPEP § 2675.01." —Changed "corrected" brief or briefs to "amended" brief or briefs to make terminology consistent in all appeal sections.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015113
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—In item (B) following the reproductions of the rules, added "Note that a party is not always entitled to file an appeal or cross appeal. See MPEP §§ 2674 and 2674.01."
2675
—Revised to delete text indicating that the examiner reviews the appellant brief for compliance because the Board currently reviews the brief for compliance. —Inserted text copied from MPEP § 2677 which states that examiners are not required to make any determination if fewer than all of the rejected claims are identified as being appealed and will treat all pending claims in the proceeding as being on appeal. —Revised first paragraph to add indication that "[i]f an appellant brief was not properly filed and a notice of non-compliance is mailed to the appellant, the party opposing the appellant may file
2675.01
a respondent brief within one month from the date of service of the amended appellant's brief filed in response to the non-compliance notice." Also added explanation that "[t]he respondent's brief may include any arguments previously made of record that support the examiner's finding with respect to any claim addressed in the opposing party's appellant brief." Added citation to Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 109 USPQ2d 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2014) as support for the text. —Revised to delete text indicating that the examiner reviews the respondent brief for compliance because the Board currently reviews the brief for compliance. —Deleted the indication that an "examiner will have two weeks following the appeal conference to prepare the examiner's answer" to allow the examiner's manager flexibility in assigning work tasks.
2676
—Changed "clerical staff" to "technical support staff" and "Reexamination Legal Advisor (RLA)" to "CRU SPRS" for consistency with current position titles and practice.
2677
—Modified text (e.g., making copies) that referred to discontinued paper processing. In the penultimate paragraph, deleted the phrase "no later than two weeks from the date of the appeal conference (unless otherwise authorized by the CRU director)" to allow the examiner's manager flexibility in assigning work tasks. —Revised to replace "Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences" with "Board."2681 —Deleted paragraph discussing suspension of action because it reflects discontinued practice. —In subsection I, clarified the text to state that the Board has "discretionary" authority to issue a new ground of rejection and to explain when the Board may use that authority. —Subsection II revised to limit the title and text to discussing that a Board decision containing a new ground of rejection is a non-final decision. —In subsection III, clarified that the rules do not provide for the Board to include in its decision a statement that a claim may be allowable in amended form. —In subsection IV, modified text to clarify that petitions on a Board decision are very limited (e.g., to procedural matters) and that disagreements with the merits of a Board decision cannot be petitioned. —In subsection V, revised text to simply state that Board decisions are published at the discretion of the Office. —Modified to remove language that described discontinued paper processing steps and to include language that describes current electronic processing steps. For example, deleted the second paragraph after the rule reproductions because it reflected outdated paper processing steps.
2682
—In subsection I, amended the title and text to clarify that the subsection discusses a Board decision in which there are no new grounds of rejection. Added text to define a final Board decision and to clarify the procedures if no further action is taken by any party after a Board decision. —In subsection I.A, clarified text as to the procedures followed when no action is taken by any party to the appeal. —In subsection I.B, revised text to clearly state when a request for rehearing must be filed and what happens if a request for rehearing is not timely filed.
114Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In subsection II, modified text to provide more detailed guidance on procedures regarding practice under 37 CFR 41.77 when a new ground of rejection is made in a Board decision. For example, added text to clearly state that the patent owner must either request rehearing or reopening of prosecution or the appeal may be terminated. Also, added a paragraph that states when jurisdiction remains with the Board and a paragraph to discuss procedures when there is a new ground of rejection in addition to rejections or findings of patentability that are affirmed. —Revised the title of subsection II.A to clarify that it is drawn to a proceeding under 37 CFR 41.77(b)(2). —In subsection II.B, modified the title and the text to clarify that the subsection is drawn to when the patent owner requests that prosecution be reopened under 37 CFR 41.77(b)(1). Specifically, added and reorganized text to be in subsections that address paragraphs (b)(1), (c), (d), and (e) of 37 CFR 41.77. Text in subsections II.B.2 through II.B.4 is new. —Added new subsection II.C, to clarify procedures when no submission is made under 37 CFR 41.77(b)(1) or (2). —Deleted former subsection III as the material is now covered in subsection II. —Former subsection IV renumbered as subsection III. In subsection III.A, clarified procedures about when CRU director approval is needed to reopen prosecution after a Board decision. —Deleted 37 CFR 90.2 and 90.3; added former 37 CFR 1.302 and 1.304 as these provisions are still effective for appeals in inter partes reexaminations and are referenced in this MPEP section.
2683
—In subsection I.A, added a citation to Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 111 USPQ2d 1241, 753 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014) with an explanation that court dismissed a third party's appeal because it lacked Article III standing. —Revised first paragraph such that the interviews prohibited by 37 CFR 1.955 are not limited to telephonic interviews.
2685
—Clarified language regarding "any prior or concurrent proceedings" by deleting the examples given in the first sentence and adding a new third sentence to state that prior or concurrent
2686
proceedings include supplemental examination and reviews before the PTAB in addition to the examples provided in 37 CFR 1.985(a). —In subsection II, deleted the third sentence pertaining to the example of suspending the second proceeding when the first proceeding is awaiting appeal before a Federal court.
2686.01
—In subsection III, clarified that it is the third party in an " inter partes" proceeding that will have an opportunity to comment and deleted "hand-carried" and inserted "forwarded" to remove reference to discontinued paper processing. —Subsection III.A modified to remove language that described discontinued paper processing steps and to include language that describes current electronic processing steps. —In subsection VI, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, changed "returning" to "expunging" and deleted the clause "but no copy of the petition will be retained by the Office." —In subsection IV, inserted ", or it will be expunged, if the petition has been scanned into the Office's IFW system prior to its discovery" at the end of the first sentence. The second sentence
2686.02
was amended to read "[t]he decision returning or expunging such a premature petition will be made of record in the reexamination file." —In subsection I, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, deleted "the reissue application reaches the Technology Center (TC), that" to reflect that current procedures that reissue applications
2686.03
are also handled by the CRU. Similar phrase deleted in the first two paragraphs of subsection II.C. —In subsection III, revised text in first paragraph to eliminate reference to a RLA because that practice is discontinued. —In subsection IV, modified to remove language under (A) that described discontinued paper processing steps and to include language that describes current electronic processing steps.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015115
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—In subsection V, first paragraph, inserted "(or it will be expunged, if the petition has been scanned into the Office's IFW system prior to its discovery)" after "CRU" in the first sentence. The last sentence was amended to read "[t]he decision returning or expunging such a premature petition will be made of record in both the reexamination file and the reissue application file." —Subsection VII revised to remove reference to specific interview types. —In subsection I, deleted case law citation regarding the response times set in reexaminations when litigation is pending and revised text to simply state that all aspects of the reexamination
2686.04
proceeding will be expedited to the extent possible and deleted text that stated the request will be taken up by the examiner for decision in 6 weeks after the request is filed. —In subsection II, in the first paragraph of item (B), inserted "pre-AIA" before "35 U.S.C. 317(b)," deleted the parenthetical "(as to those asserted by the patent owner, and/or challenged by the third party requester, and resolved in favor of the patent owner in the civil action)" and added a reference to subsection V of this section. In item (B)(3), deleted the sentence "[i]f the answer to each of questions (1)-(3) is 'yes'. . .," revised the sentences beginning "[i]f the examiner subsequently . . . subsection V. below" to reflect current practice, and inserted "or reasonable likelihood of prevailing" after "patentability" in the last sentence. —In subsection III, deleted the last sentence of the third to last paragraph because that practice is discontinued. —In subsection IV, third paragraph, revised text to reflect current practice. In the fourth paragraph, clarified text by adding "(and) if the Office is notified of the final court decision" and deleting "and the reexamination prosecution will be terminated." In the fifth sentence, "or reasonable likelihood of prevailing" was added after "patentability." In the penultimate paragraph, revised text to reflect current practice by replacing the language after "validity holding" in the first sentence with ", if a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to terminate reexamination of those claims is filed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in subsection V" and by deleting "the order to reexamine is vacated by the CRU Director if the decision was rendered prior to the order. If the decision was rendered subsequent to the order,". —In subsection V, added subsections A, B, and C to reflect current practice. —In subsection VI, deleted reference to the Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) because most litigation search reports are performed by the technical support staff in the CRU. —Deleted the phrase ", including providing for stay, transfer, consolidation or termination of such matter or proceeding."
2686.05
—In subsection II.B, modified text that "[t]he CRU SPRS/TC QAS will convene a panel review conference" to "[a] panel review conference will be convened" to reflect current practice that the examiner may convene a conference with the approval of the CRU SPRS or TC QAS.
2687
—Subsection III revised to remove reference to specific interview types. —In subsection V, deleted the phrase "via the appropriate Office" in the last sentence. —Subsection VI revised to reflect current electronic processing practice. —In subsection VII, added the phrase "that requires a response" after "an Office action" in the first sentence to clarify this situation from a failure to respond to an Office action that does not require a response, such as an Action Closing Prosecution. —Revised to remove reference to specific interview types.2687.01 —In item (F), inserted "(e.g., by checking Box 9 'Other' on form PTOL-2068 and describing the status and Box 16 'Other' on the examiner's checklist form PTO-1516)" to clarify how examiners can indicate this status when preparing the NIRC.
2688
—In the seventh paragraph, changed "international and U.S. classification" to "current classification" to reflect changes to the CPC system and changed "list of prior art documents" to
2690
"notice regarding the list of prior art documents" to more accurately reflect the current practice in which the list of documents is not printed on the certificate.
116Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—In the last sentence, deleted "forwarded to the Office of Patent Legal Administration in accordance with MPEP" to reflect current practice.
2694
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015117
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
CHAPTER 2700:
—Added text to briefly explain that effective May 13, 2015, international design applications may be filed under the terms of the implementation of the Hague Agreement as to the U.S. and clarified
2701
that the term "design patents" includes patents issued from design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 and international design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 385. —In subsection V, added citation to Bayer AG and Bayer Corporation v. Carlsbad Technology Inc., 298 F.3d 1377, 64 USPQ2d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2002) to support the existing statement that a certificate of correction may be used to correct the date a patent is expiring due to the 1995 change in 35 U.S.C. 154(c), which provides a term of 17 years from grant or 20 years from filing, whichever is greater. Also added a citation to Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., 482 F.3d 1317, 82 USPQ2d 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2007) to support the existing statement that patents subject to a terminal disclaimer may receive term extension under 35 U.S.C. 156. —Clarified that the term "design patents" includes patents issued from design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 and international design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 385.
2710
—Added Editor Notes to explain the limited applicability of some paragraphs of the rules reproduced herein.
2730
—Modified to include text that summarizes 37 CFR 1.702(d), 1.703, 1.704, and 1.705, as set forth in the final rule Changes to Implement Patent Term Adjustment Under Twenty-Year Patent Term, 65 FR 56366 (September 18, 2000)(PTA implementation rule). —Added text that defines "original application" as set forth in the PTA implementation rule and supporting citation to Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 87 USPQ2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Revised text to explain that the term "design patents" includes patents issued from design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 and international design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 385. —Updated 37 CFR 1.704 to include changes effective December 18, 2013 and added text to describe the December 18, 2013 amendments to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(12) and 1.704(f) with regard to possible PTA reduction if the application is not in condition for examination within 8 months of its filing date or commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f). —Updated 37 CFR 1.703(b)(1) and 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10), (12), (13), and (14) and (d)(1) to include changes effective either January 9, 2015 or March 10, 2015. The changes pertain to patent term adjustment calculations when a request for continued examination is filed. Added text that briefly summarizes the regulatory changes. —Modified text to clarify the multiple amendments over the last three years to the provision that defines further prosecution via a continuing application as a circumstance constituting a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application. —Added an Editor Note to explain the limited applicability of some paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.703.2731 —Modified text to clarify that the recent changes to 37 CFR 1.703(a)(1) apply to patents granted on or after January 14, 2013. —Updated 37 CFR 1.703(b)(1) to include changes effective January 9, 2015. The changes pertain to patent term adjustment calculations when a request for continued examination is filed and are set forth in the final rule Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in view of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee, 80 FR 1346 (January 9, 2015). Added text that further explains the regulatory change. Specifically, provided several paragraphs that discuss what the Office deems "time consumed by continued examination." —Revised to discuss Novartis AG v. Lee, 740 F.3d 593, 109 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2014) which pertain to PTA calculations when a request for continued examination is filed. —Clarified that under 37 CFR 1.703(e), the provisions of 37 CFR 41.31 are applicable if the notice of allowance was issued prior to September 17, 2012 in order to define when jurisdiction passes from the Board.
118Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Added an Editor Note to explain the limited applicability of some paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.704.2732 —Updated 37 CFR 1.704 to include changes effective December 18, 2013 and added text to describe the December 18, 2013 amendments to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(12) and 1.704(f) with regard to possible PTA reduction if the application is not in condition for examination within 8 months of its filing or commencement of national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f). —Updated 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10), (12), (13), and (14) and (d)(1) to include changes effective March 10, 2015. The changes pertain to patent term adjustment calculations when a request for continued examination is filed and are from the final rule Changes to Patent Term Adjustment in view of the Federal Circuit Decision in Novartis v. Lee, 80 FR 1346 (January 9, 2015). Added text that discusses the regulatory changes. Specifically, modified the paragraphs discussing 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10) to indicate whether certain papers filed after a notice of allowance will or will not result in a reduction of any earned adjustment under 37 CFR 1.703; added several paragraphs to explain the new provision in 37 CFR 1.704(c)(12); and added a paragraph to explain the changes made to 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1). —Added reference to Gilead Sciences Inc. v. Lee, 778 F.3d 1341, 113 USPQ2d 1837 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which held that submission of an information disclosure statement after a reply to a restriction requirement and prior to an Office action, without a safe harbor statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d), is an applicant delay under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(8). —Modified to clarify that under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10), the applicant delay (if any) would end on the date the patent issues if the Office does not mail a response to the applicant's post-allowance paper and the patent issues in less than four months from the applicant's post-allowance paper. —Added reference to Mohsenzadeh v. Lee, 115 USPQ2d 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2015) which held that PTA accrued in a parent application does not carry over to a continuing or divisional application. —Added an Editor Note to state the applicability of 37 CFR 1.705(a) based upon the effective date of the AIA Technical Corrections Act (Public Law 112-274).
2733
—Included a citation to Treatment of Letters Stating That the USPTO's Patent Term Adjustment Determination Is Greater Than What the Applicant or Patentee Believes Is Appropriate, 75 FR 42079 (July 20, 2010), 1357 OG 262 (August 24, 2010) to support the already stated policy that the Office will not act on letters from patentees stating that the patent term adjustment is greater than what they expected. —Added an Editor Note to state the applicability of 37 CFR 1.705(b) and (c) based upon the effective date of the AIA Technical Corrections Act (Public Law 112-274).
2734
Redesignated the former introductory text as subsection I. Office Procedure for the Treatment of Requests for Reconsideration of Patent Term Adjustment. In subsection I, added text to explicitly explain the Office's procedure of handling requests for reconsideration of patent term adjustment. For example, the text discusses the possible actions if the Office finds that the patent term adjustment printed on the patent is correct or incorrect. In addition, added a discussion of Novartis AG v. Lee, 740 F.3d 539, 109 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which held that there was not equitable tolling of the 180 day period to file a civil action in district court and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Kappos, 891 F.Supp.2d 135 (D.D.C. 2012), which did toll the same 180 day period because patentee timely requested reconsideration of the PTA determinations by the Office. —Redesignated former subsection I as subsection II. In subsection II, added text to clarify when a request for reinstatement under 37 CFR 1.705(c) must be filed in comparison to a request for reconsideration under 37 CFR 1.705(b). —Added new subsection III to describe an optional procedure to request recalculation of the patent term adjustment for patents that meet the following criteria: (1) issued between January 14, 2013 and May 20, 2014; and (2) resulted directly from international applications (e.g., applications that entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371). Any requests under this optional procedure must have been filed prior to July 31, 2014. Form PTO/SB/132 can be used to make a request under this optional procedure and a copy of the form is reproduced.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015119
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Added an Editor Note to state the applicability of 37 CFR 1.705(d) is based upon the effective date of the AIA Technical Corrections Act (Public Law 112-274).
2736
Clarified text in regard to which provision of 37 CFR 1.705 applies depending on whether the patent was granted on/after January 14, 2013 or prior to January 14, 2013. —Corrected 35 U.S.C. 156 by adding the phrase "which claims … the approved product" in paragraph (d)(1)(B) and the last two sentences in paragraph (d)(1)(E) regarding the date on which a product receives permission.
2752
120Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 2800:
—Replaced form PTO/SB/81B and references thereto with form PTO/AIA/81B, which is an updated version of form PTO/SB/81B.
2805
—In the second paragraph, changed "supplemental reexamination" to "supplemental examination" in order to use proper nomenclature.
2806
—Added subsections I and II. Text previously in the section is moved to new subsection I. Added subsection II to discuss policies and procedures on making a determination on the request for supplemental examination when litigation is copending.
2816
—Changed "SNQ" to "substantial new question of patentability" in several locations.2816.02 —In subsection I, modified text to make the SNQ determination discussion consistent with MPEP § 2242 as amended in this revision of the MPEP. For example, changed "earlier examination" to "earlier concluded examination or review" and expanded its definition to include new proceedings, such as supplemental examination and post-grant reviews by the Board. —Updated form PTO-2302 to the current version.2818.01 —In the first sentence, changed "supplemental reexamination" to "supplemental examination" in order to use proper nomenclature.
2821
—Changed "SNQ" to "substantial new question of patentability."
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015121
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
CHAPTER 2900:
Chapter 2900 is newly added to the MPEP and provides guidance related to international design applications.
—Provides a general overview of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs. Discusses the flow of an international design application
2901
from filing to formal examination, registration, and publication by the International Bureau, and examination by the Offices of the designated Contracting Parties. —References 35 U.S.C. 381, 37 CFR 1.9 and 1.1011, Article 1 of the Hague Agreement, and Rule 1 of the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague
2902
Agreement for definitions of relevant terms. States that within the context of Chapter 2900, "Article" means an article of the Hague Agreement; "Rule" means a rule under the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement and "Administrative Instruction" means the Administrative Instruction for the Application of the Hague Agreement referred to in Rule 34. —Discusses the specific declarations made by the United States under the Hague Agreement where the United States is designated in an international design application.
2903
—Reproduces and discusses Hague Article 3 regarding who is entitled to file an international design application.
2904
—Reproduces and discusses Hague Article 4, which indicates that an international design application may be filed either directly with the International Bureau or indirectly with an applicant's Contracting Party.
2905
—Reproduces 35 U.S.C. 382, and 37 CFR 1.1002, 1.1011, 1.1012, and 1.1045 and discusses procedures for filing through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing.
2905.01
—Explains that international design applications may be filed via EFS-Web, mail, or hand delivery to the Customer Service Window at the USPTO Alexandria headquarters. Explains
that the Priority Mail Express® provisions of 37 CFR 1.10 apply to international design applications, but international design applications are excluded from Certificate of Mailing or Transmission procedures of 37 CFR 1.8. —Reproduces Hague Article 9, Hague Rules 6, 13 and 14, and discusses the requirements for according a filing date to an international design application.
2906
—Reproduces relevant portions of Hague Articles 5 and 10, Hague Rule 15, and discusses international registration and date of international registration.
2907
—Reproduces and discusses 35 U.S.C. 381 and 384, and 37 CFR 1.1023, directed to the filing date of an international design application in the United States.
2908
—Reproduces Hague Article 5, Hague Rule 7, 35 U.S.C. 383, and 37 CFR 1.1021, directed to the contents of the international design application.
2909
—Subsection I discusses mandatory contents required in all international design applications. —Subsection II discusses additional mandatory contents required by certain Contracting Parties. —Subsection III discusses optional contents as addressed in Hague Rule 7(5) and 37 CFR 1.1021(c). —Subsection IV is directed to the contents required of international applications designating the United States. —Reproduces 37 CFR 1.1022, sets forth relevant portions of Hague Rules 1 and 7, and discusses the requirement that international design applications must be presented on the forms established
2909.01
by the International Bureau, an electronic interface made available by the International Bureau, or any form or electronic interface having the same contents and format.
122Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
—Discusses the requirements of reproductions (drawings) in the context of 37 CFR 1.1026, Hague Rule 9 and Hague Administrative Instructions 401-405.
2909.02
—Discusses the filing of reproductions, including drawings, photographs, or combinations thereof, with the USPTO through EFS-Web.
2902.02(a)
—Discusses where annex forms may be accessed and that annex forms specific to the designation of the USPTO include those for submitting the inventor's oath or declaration, information disclosure statements, and certification of micro entity status.
2909.03
—Reproduces and discusses 37 CFR 1.1031 and Hague Rule 12 as related to the payment of fees. Subsection I discusses the transmittal fee. Subsection II discusses payment of the basic
2910
fee, publication fee, designation fee, and individual designation fee required by the USPTO. Subsection III discusses the payment of fees payable to the International Bureau through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing. —Reproduces and discusses 37 CFR 1.1041 and Hague Rule 3 with respect to who may represent an applicant before the International Bureau. Emphasizes that a representative of an
2911
applicant before the USPTO as an office of indirect filing must be a practitioner registered in compliance with 37 CFR 11.6 or granted a limited recognition to practice under 37 CFR 11.9(a) or (b). —Reproduces and discusses 37 CFR 1.1042 and Hague Administrative Instruction 302 with respect to establishing a correspondence address for the applicant.
2912
—Reproduces 35 U.S.C. 387 and 37 CFR 1.1051. Discusses the manner by which an applicant may petition to excuse, with respect to the United States, applicant's failure to act within
2913
prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement where the delay in applicant's failure to act was unintentional. —Reproduces 35 U.S.C. 384 and 37 CFR 1.1052. Discusses the process by which an applicant may petition for the conversion of an international design application designating the United States to a design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16.
2914
—Reserved for future use.2915-2919 —Reproduces 35 U.S.C. 389, and select paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.9, Hague Article 10, Hague Article 12, and Hague Article 14. Explains that upon receipt of the publication under Hague
2920
Article 10(3), the Office will establish an application file for an international design application which designates the United States and examine said application in due course. —Reproduces 37 CFR 1.41(f). Discusses the requirements under 37 CFR 1.48 for requests for correction of inventorship and requests to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors.
2920.01
—Explains that the rules governing the applicant set forth in 37 CFR 1.42-1.46 are generally applicable to nonprovisional international design applications.
2920.02
—Reproduces 37 CFR 1.1066 and discusses how the Office will establish a correspondence address.
2920.03
—Section title only.2920.04 —Discusses the requirements for the specification of a nonprovisional international design application.
2920.04(a)
—Subsection I discusses the requirements for the title and reproduces form paragraphs 15.05.01 and 15.59 for use by examiners. —Subsection II discusses description requirements and explains that statements in the specification of a design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 are also generally permissible in the specification of a nonprovisional international design application. Also discusses the use of broken lines in nonprovisional international design applications.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015123
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
—Subsection III reproduces and discusses 37 CFR 1.1025. Explains that a design application may only include one claim and explains the proper terminology required for the claim. —Reproduces 37 CFR 1.1026. Discusses the formal requirements for reproductions in nonprovisional international design applications. Explains that reproductions may be submitted
2920.04(b)
in either black and white or color. Sets forth form paragraphs for use by examiners when reproductions are objected to or include matter not forming part of the claimed design. —Reproduces 37 CFR 1.1021(d)(3) and 37 CFR 1.1067(b). Explains that international design applications that designate the United States are required to contain an inventor's oath or
2920.04(c)
declaration. The International Bureau reviews the international design application designating the United States to ensure that the required inventor's oath or declaration is provided. —Reproduces 35 U.S.C. 389 and 37 CFR 1.1062 and 1.1063. Discusses similarities and differences in examination practice for nonprovisional international design applications and design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16.
2920.05
—Reproduces portions of Hague Rules 12 and 18, and 37 CFR 1.1063. Discusses the Notification of Refusal.
2920.05(a)
—Reproduces Hague Article 13 and 37 CFR 1.1064. Explains that only one independent and distinct design may be claimed in each nonprovisional international design application.
2920.05(b)
—Explains that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) apply to nonprovisional international design applications. Sets forth form paragraphs for use by examiners when making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
2920.05(c)
—Reproduces 35 U.S.C. 386 and 37 CFR 1.55, and discusses foreign priority claims.2920.05(d) —Reproduces 35 U.S.C. 386(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(a), (d), and (e), and discusses domestic benefit claims.
2920.05(e)
—Explains that applicants for international design applications are subject to the duty to disclose information material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56, and discusses filing of an information disclosure statement in an international design application.
2920.05(f)
—Explains the procedure to be followed when a nonprovisional international design application is in condition for allowance.
2920.06
—Reserved for future use.2921-2929 —Reproduces Hague Rule 22, Hague Article 16, and 37 CFR 1.1065. Explains the process by which an applicant may request correction or other change in an international design registration.
2930
—Reserved for future use.2931-2939 —Reproduces Hague Rule 18 bis and 37 CFR 1.1068 and explains that upon issuance of a patent on a nonprovisional international design application, the Office will send to the International Bureau a statement that protection has been granted in the United States.
2940
—Reserved for future use.2941-2949 —Reproduces 35 U.S.C. 389, 35 U.S.C. 173, 37 CFR 1.1071 and 37 CFR 1.1031. Explains that a grant of protection for an industrial design that is the subject of an international
2950
registration shall only arise in the United States through the issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 389(d) or 171, and in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 153.
124Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
CHAPTER FPC:
Chapter FPC is newly added to the MPEP and provides a consolidated listing of the form paragraphs of the MPEP. The FPC sections within this chapter are organized by form paragraph number, and do not necessarily correspond to the chapters of the MPEP in which the form paragraphs appear.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015125
CHANGE SUMMARY FOR THE NINTH EDITION, REVISION 07.2015
Manual of PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Original Ninth Edition, March 2014
Latest Revision November 2015 [R-07.2015]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
AVAILABILITY
The paperbound format of the Manual was discontinued by the Government Publishing Office effective December 13, 2012. The Manual is available electronically in html and PDF renderings on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/. The Office also provides a search engine for searching the full text of the Manual at http://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS.
Most hyperlinks from the Manual to internal and external websites are active. For particularly long website addresses (URLs), an extra space has been added to the rendered text for readability (especially in the PDF rendering). Clicking on a hyperlink will direct the user to the referenced website because the reference link data in the source document includes the URL without the extra space; however, copying text that includes the extra space and thereafter pasting it in a browser will result in an error.
Previous editions and revisions of the Manual are available from the MPEP Archives page on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/index.htm.
EXPLANATION OF NOTATIONS
Revision Date Indicator. Each section within an MPEP Chapter includes a revision date indicator, e.g., [R-07.2015]. The numbers within the bracket indicate the date the revision cycle for that section was completed, which would be July 2015 in the example above. Note that the publication date of the Manual as indicated on the title page and on the bottom of the PDF renderings may be later than the date the revision cycle was completed because of the time required for clearance processes.
"Pre-AIA." Where the phrase "pre-AIA" is associated with a law or rule, it means that version which was in force before the date of the change necessitated by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284.
"Pre-PLT" or pre-PLT (AIA)." Where the phrase "pre-PLT" or "pre-PLT (AIA)" is associated with a law or rule, it means that version which was in force before the date of the change necessitated by the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012, Title II (Patent Law Treaty Implementation (PLT)), Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (Dec. 18, 2012). Note that the "pre-PLT (AIA)" designation is used when there is also a "pre-AIA" version of the law or rule that still has applicability in limited circumstances.
Five Asterisks. The use of five asterisks in the body of the laws, rules, treaties, and administrative instructions indicates a portion of the law, rule, treaty, or administrative instruction which was not reproduced.
First Edition, November 1949 Second Edition, November 1953 Third Edition, November 1961 Fourth Edition, June 1979 Fifth Edition, August 1983 Sixth Edition, January 1995 Seventh Edition, July 1998 Eighth Edition, August 2001
Final Revision, August 2012 Ninth Edition, March 2014 [R-11.2013]
Revised, October 2015 [R-07.2015] Revised, November 2015 [R-07.2015]
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
Foreword
This Manual is published to provide U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiners, applicants, attorneys, agents, and representatives of applicants with a reference work on the practices and procedures relative to the prosecution of patent applications before the USPTO. It contains instructions to examiners, as well as other material in the nature of information and interpretation, and outlines the current procedures which the examiners are required or authorized to follow in appropriate cases in the normal examination of a patent application. The Manual does not have the force of law or the force of the rules in Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
A separate manual entitled “Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure” is published by the USPTO as a reference work for trademark cases.
Examiners will be governed by the applicable statutes, rules, decisions, and orders and instructions issued by the Director of the USPTO and other officials authorized by the Director of the USPTO.
Subsequent changes in practice and other revisions will be incorporated in the form of revisions to sections of chapters and/or to appendices of the Manual.
Suggestions for improving the form and content of the Manual are always welcome. They should be addressed to:
Mail Stop MPEP Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
March 2014
INTRODUCTION
Constitutional Basis
The Constitution of the United States provides:
“Art. 1, Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Statutes
Pursuant to the provision of the Constitution, Congress has over the years passed a number of statutes under which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is organized and our patent system is established. The provisions of the statutes can in no way be changed or waived by the USPTO.
Prior to January 1, 1953, the law relating to patents consisted of various sections of the Revised Statutes of 1874, derived from the Patent Act of 1870 and numerous amendatory and additional acts.
By an Act of Congress approved July 19, 1952, which came into effect on January 1, 1953, the patent laws were revised and codified. The patent law is Title 35 of the United States Code which governs all cases in the USPTO. In referring to a particular section of the patent code the citation is given, for example, as, 35 U.S.C. 1. Title 35 of the United States Code is reproduced in Appendix L of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). A copy of the consolidated patent laws is available on t h e U S P T O w e b s i t e a t w w w. u s p t o . g ov / w e b / o f fi c e s / p a c / m p e p / consolidated_laws.pdf.
35 U.S.C. 1 Establishment.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.— The United States Patent and Trademark Office is established as an agency of the United States, within the Department of Commerce. In carrying out its functions, the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall be subject to the policy direction of the Secretary of Commerce, but otherwise shall retain responsibility for decisions regarding the management and administration of its operations and shall exercise independent control of its budget allocations and expenditures, personnel decisions and processes, procurements, and other administrative and management functions in accordance with this title and applicable provisions of law. Those
operations designed to grant and issue patents and those operations which are designed to facilitate the registration of trademarks shall be treated as separate operating units within the Office.
(b) OFFICES.— The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall maintain its principal office in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, for the service of process and papers and for the purpose of carrying out its functions. The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall be deemed, for purposes of venue in civil actions, to be a resident of the district in which its principal office is located, except where jurisdiction is otherwise provided by law. The United States Patent and Trademark Office may establish satellite offices in such other places in the United States as it considers necessary and appropriate in the conduct of its business.
(c) REFERENCE.— For purposes of this title, the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall also be referred to as the “Office” and the “Patent and Trademark Office.”
Rules
One of the sections of the patent statute, namely, 35 U.S.C. 2, authorizes the USPTO, subject to the policy direction of the Secretary of Commerce, to establish regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the conduct of proceedings in the USPTO.
These regulations or rules and amendments thereto are published in the Federal Register and in the Official Gazette. In the Federal Register and in the Code of Federal Regulations the rules pertaining to patents are in Parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 41, 42, and 90 of Title 37, Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights. In referring to a particular section of the rules the citation is given, for example, as 37 CFR 1.31. A booklet entitled “Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37, Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights,” published by the Office of the Federal Register, contains all of the patent rules as well as trademark rules and copyright rules. Persons desiring a copy of this booklet should order a copy from the Superintendent of Documents. A copy of the consolidated patent rules is available on the USPTO website at w w w. u s p t o . g ov / w e b / o f fi c e s / p a c / m p e p / consolidated_rules.pdf.
The primary function of the rules is to advise the public of the rules which have been established in accordance with the statutes and which must be followed before the USPTO. The rules govern the examiners, as well as applicants and their attorneys
Rev. 07.2015, October 20151
and agents. The rules pertaining to patent practice appear in the MPEP as Appendix R.
Director’s Orders and Notices
From time to time, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, formerly the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, has issued Orders and Notices relating to various specific situations that have arisen in operating the USPTO. Notices and circulars of information or instructions have also been issued by other USPTO officials under authority of the Director. Orders and Notices have served various purposes including giving examiners instruction, information, interpretations, and the like. Others have been for the information of the public, advising what the USPTO will do under specified circumstances.
Decisions
In addition to the statutes and rules, the actions taken by the examiner in the examination of applications for patents are to a great extent governed by decisions on prior cases. Applicants dissatisfied with an examiner’s action may have it reviewed. In general, that portion of the examiner’s action pertaining to objections on formal matters may be reviewed by petition to the Director of the USPTO (see MPEP § 1002), and that portion of the examiner’s action pertaining to the rejection of claims on the merits may be reviewed by appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (see MPEP § 1201). The distinction is set forth in 37 CFR 1.181 and 1.191. In citing decisions as authority for his or her actions, the examiner should cite the decision in the manner set forth in MPEP § 707.06.
Publications Available from the U.S. Government Publishing Office
For current price and availability information, visit the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) web site (http://bookstore.gpo.gov), call the GPO Order
Desk (202-512-1800 or 1-866-512-1800), or send a fax to 202-512-2104.
Products and Services Available From the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Patent and trademark related products and services available from the USPTO are described on the electronic data products page of the USPTO’s website (www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ electronic-bulk-data-products).
Call 800-786-9199 for information on Patent, Trademark, and General Products. Customer Service Representatives are available Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
For further information on electronic information products, contact:
Electronic Information Products Division EIPD, Randolph Square 2800 S. Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22206Telephone: 571-272-5600 Fax: 571-273-0110 E-mail: ipd@uspto.gov
For further information on patent and trademark copy/document sales, contact:
Office of Public Records (OPR) Customer Service Telephone: 571-272-3150 or 800-972-6382 Fax: 571-273-3250 Email: dsd@uspto.gov Website: http://ebiz1.uspto.gov/oems25p/index.html
See MPEP § 1730 for additional information sources.
2Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
-1Change Summary ..............................................................................................................................................
-1Title Page ...........................................................................................................................................................
-1Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................
-1Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................
100-1Secrecy, Access, National Security, and Foreign Filing ..............................................................................................................100
200-1Types, Cross-Noting, and Status of Application ..........................................................................................................................200
300-1Ownership and Assignment .........................................................................................................................................................300
400-1Representative of Applicant or Owner ........................................................................................................................................400
500-1Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers ...................................................................................................................................500
600-1Parts, Form, and Content of Application .....................................................................................................................................600
700-1Examination of Applications .......................................................................................................................................................700
800-1Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting ................................................................................800
900-1Prior Art, Classification, and Search ...........................................................................................................................................900
1000-1Matters Decided by Various U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Officials ................................................................................1000
1100-1Statutory Invention Registration (SIR); Pre-Grant Publication (PGPub) and Preissuance Submissions ..................................1100
1200-1Appeal ........................................................................................................................................................................................1200
1300-1Allowance and Issue ..................................................................................................................................................................1300
1400-1Correction of Patents .................................................................................................................................................................1400
1500-1Design Patents ...........................................................................................................................................................................1500
1600-1Plant Patents ..............................................................................................................................................................................1600
1700-1Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................................................................................1700
1800-1Patent Cooperation Treaty .........................................................................................................................................................1800
1900-1Protest ........................................................................................................................................................................................1900
2000-1Duty of Disclosure .....................................................................................................................................................................2000
2100-1Patentability ...............................................................................................................................................................................2100
2200-1Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents ...................................................................................................2200
2300-1Interference Proceedings ...........................................................................................................................................................2300
2400-1Biotechnology ............................................................................................................................................................................2400
2500-1Maintenance Fees ......................................................................................................................................................................2500
2600-1Optional Inter Partes Reexamination .........................................................................................................................................2600
2700-1Patent Terms and Extensions .....................................................................................................................................................2700
2800-1Supplemental Examination ........................................................................................................................................................2800
2900-1International Design Applications .............................................................................................................................................2900
FPC-1Form Paragraphs Consolidated ...................................................................................................................................................FPC
I-1Appendix I: [Reserved] ....................................................................................................................................I
II-1Appendix II: List of Decisions Cited ..............................................................................................................II
L-1Appendix L: Patent Laws ................................................................................................................................L
R-1Appendix R: Patent Rules ...............................................................................................................................R
T-1Appendix T: Patent Cooperation Treaty and Regulations Under the PCT ......................................................T
AI-1Appendix AI: Administrative Instructions Under the PCT ...........................................................................AI
P-1Appendix P: Paris Convention ........................................................................................................................P
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
Table of Contents
PageChapter
Subject Matter Index ................................................................................................................................Index-1Index
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
Table of Contents
PageChapter
Chapter 100 Secrecy, Access, National Security, and Foreign Filing
General101 Information as to Status of an Application
102
Right of Public To Inspect Patent Files and Some Application Files
103
Power to Inspect Application104 Suspended or Excluded Practitioner Cannot Inspect
105
Control of Inspection by Assignee106 Rights of Assignee of Part Interest106.01
[Reserved]107-109 Confidential Nature of International Applications
110
[Reserved]111-114 Review of Applications for National Security and Property Rights Issues
115
[Reserved]116-119 Secrecy Orders120 Handling ofApplications under Secrecy Order and/or Bearing National Security Markings
121
[Reserved]122-129 Examination of Secrecy Order Cases130 [Reserved]131-139 Foreign Filing Licenses140 [Reserved]141-149 Statements to DOE and NASA150 Content of the Statements151
101 General [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 122 Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications.
(a) CONFIDENTIALITY.— Except as provided in subsection (b), applications for patents shall be kept in confidence by the Patent and Trademark Office and no information concerning the same given without authority of the applicant or owner unless necessary to carry out the provisions of an Act of Congress or in such special circumstances as may be determined by the Director.
(b) PUBLICATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—
(A) Subject to paragraph (2), each application for a patent shall be published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director, promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title. At the request of the applicant, an application may be published earlier than the end of such 18-month period.
(B) No information concerning published patent applications shall be made available to the public except as the Director determines.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a determination by the Director to release or not to release information concerning a published patent application shall be final and nonreviewable.
(2) EXCEPTIONS.—
(A) An application shall not be published if that application is—
(i) no longer pending;
(ii) subject to a secrecy order under section 181 ;
(iii) a provisional application filed under section 111(b); or
(iv) an application for a design patent filed under chapter 16.
(B)(i) If an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications 18 months after filing, the application shall not be published as provided in paragraph (1).
(ii) An applicant may rescind a request made under clause (i) at any time.
(iii) An applicant who has made a request under clause (i) but who subsequently files, in a foreign country or under a multilateral international agreement specified in clause (i), an application directed to the invention disclosed in the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, shall notify the Director of such filing not later than 45 days after the date of the filing of such foreign or international application. A failure of the applicant to provide such notice within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned.
(iv) If an applicant rescinds a request made under clause (i) or notifies the Director that an application was filed in a foreign country or under a multilateral international agreement specified in clause (i), the application shall be published in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) on or as soon as is practical after the date that is specified in clause (i).
(v) If an applicant has filed applications in one or more foreign countries, directly or through a multilateral international agreement, and such foreign filed applications corresponding to an application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office or the description of the invention in such foreign filed applications is less extensive than the application or description of the invention in the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, the applicant may submit a
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-1
redacted copy of the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office eliminating any part or description of the invention in such application that is not also contained in any of the corresponding applications filed in a foreign country. The Director may only publish the redacted copy of the application unless the redacted copy of the application is not received within 16 months after the earliest effective filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title. The provisions of section 154(d) shall not apply to a claim if the description of the invention published in the redacted application filed under this clause with respect to the claim does not enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the subject matter of the claim.
(c) PROTEST AND PRE-ISSUANCE OPPOSITION.— The Director shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure that no protest or other form of pre-issuance opposition to the grant of a patent on an application may be initiated after publication of the application without the express written consent of the applicant.
(d) NATIONAL SECURITY.— No application for patent shall be published under subsection (b)(1) if the publication or disclosure of such invention would be detrimental to the national security. The Director shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure that such applications are promptly identified and the secrecy of such inventions is maintained in accordance with chapter 17 .
(e) PREISSUANCE SUBMISSIONS BY THIRD PARTIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any third party may submit for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patent, published patent application, or other printed publication of potential relevance to the examination of the application, if such submission is made in writing before the earlier of—
(A) the date a notice of allowance under section 151 is given or mailed in the application for patent; or
(B) the later of—
(i) 6 months after the date on which the application for patent is first published under section 122 by the Office, or
(ii) the date of the first rejection under section 132 of any claim by the examiner during the examination of the application for patent.
(2) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Any submission under paragraph (1) shall—
(A) set forth a concise description of the asserted relevance of each submitted document;
(B) be accompanied by such fee as the Director may prescribe; and
(C) include a statement by the person making such submission affirming that the submission was made in compliance with this section.
18 U.S.C. 2071 Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally.
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
37 CFR 1.11 Files open to the public.
(a) The specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the file of: A published application; a patent; or a statutory invention registration are open to inspection by the public, and copies may be obtained upon the payment of the fee set forth in § 1.19(b)(2). If an application was published in redacted form pursuant to § 1.217, the complete file wrapper and contents of the patent application will not be available if: The requirements of paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of § 1.217 have been met in the application; and the application is still pending. See § 2.27 of this title for trademark files.
*****
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence.
(a) Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section.
(1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section for international applications and paragraph (j) of this section for international design applications) may be available in the following situations:
(i) Patented applications and statutory invention registrations. The file of an application that has issued as a patent or published as a statutory invention registration is available to the public as set forth in § 1.11. A copy of the patent application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of such an application may be provided upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b).
100-2Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 101
(ii) Published abandoned applications. The file of an abandoned published application is available to the public as set forth in § 1.11(a). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the published application, or a specific document in the file of the published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b).
(iii) Published pending applications. A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of a pending published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b). If a redacted copy of the application was used for the patent application publication, the copy of the specification, drawings, and papers may be limited to a redacted copy. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application that has been published, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(iv) Unpublished abandoned applications (including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon. The file contents of an unpublished, abandoned application may be made available to the public if the application is identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. An application is considered to have been identified in a document, such as a patent, when the application number or serial number and filing date, first named inventor, title, and filing date or other application specific information are provided in the text of the patent, but not when the same identification is made in a paper in the file contents of the patent and is not included in the printed patent. Also, the file contents may be made available to the public, upon a written request, if benefit of the abandoned application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request, and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)).
(v) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed. A copy of the file contents of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the benefit of the application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or in an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed, or a specific document in the file of the pending application may also be provided to any person upon
written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(vi) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified . A copy of the application as originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the application is incorporated by reference or otherwise identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(vii) When a petition for access or a power to inspect is required. Applications that were not published or patented, that are not the subject of a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), or are not identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States, are not available to the public. If an application is identified in the file contents of another application, but not the published patent application or patent itself, a granted petition for access (see paragraph (i)) or a power to inspect (see paragraph (c) of this section) is necessary to obtain the application, or a copy of the application.
(2) Information concerning a patent application may be communicated to the public if the patent application is identified in a published patent document or in an application as set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of this section. The information that may be communicated to the public ( i.e., status information) includes:
(i) Whether the application is pending, abandoned, or patented;
(ii) Whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b);
(iii) The application “numerical identifier” which may be:
(A) The eight-digit application number (the two-digit series code plus the six-digit serial number); or
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-3
§ 101SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
(B) The six-digit serial number plus any one of the filing date of the national application, the international filing date, or date of entry into the national stage; and
(iv) Whether another application claims the benefit of the application ( i.e., whether there are any applications that claim the benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386 of the application), and if there are any such applications, the numerical identifier of the application, the specified relationship between the applications ( e.g., continuation), whether the application is pending, abandoned or patented, and whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b).
*****
All U.S. Patent and Trademark Office employees are legally obligated to preserve pending applications for patents in confidence until they are published or patented in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. 35 U.S.C. 122 and 18 U.S.C. 2071 impose statutory requirements which cover the handling of patent applications and related documents. Suspension, removal, and even criminal penalties may be imposed for violations of these statutes.
Any employee having custody of a patent application or related documents will be responsible for maintaining confidentiality and otherwise conforming with the requirements of law. No part of any application or paper related thereto should be reproduced or copied except for official purposes. Application files must not be displayed or handled so as to permit perusal or inspection by any unauthorized member of the public.
Whenever an application, or an artifact file in an Image File Wrapper (IFW) application, is removed from the operating area having custody of the file, a charge on the PALM system must be properly and promptly made. Applications, artifact files, and official papers for which there is no electronic file must not be placed in desk drawers or other locations where they might be easily overlooked or are not visible to authorized personnel. Interoffice mail must be sent in appropriate envelopes.
Official papers are accepted only at the Customer Service Window, except for certain papers that have been specifically exempted from the central delivery policy. See MPEP § 502. Appropriate corrective
action for IFW messages with faulty identifications or incorrect routing should be taken at once to ensure the prompt receipt thereof at the appropriate destination.
All U.S. Patent and Trademark Office employees should bear in mind at all times the critical importance of ensuring the confidentiality and accessibility of patent application files and related documents, and in addition to the specific procedures referred to above, should take all appropriate action to that end.
Examiners, classifiers, and other U.S. Patent and Trademark Office employees who assist public searchers by outlining or indicating a field of search, should also bear in mind the critical importance of ensuring the confidentiality of information revealed by a searcher when requesting field of search assistance. See MPEP § 1701. Statutory requirements and curbs regarding the use of information obtained by an employee through government employment are imposed by 5 U.S.C. 2635.701- 2635.703 and 18 U.S.C. 1905.
Examiners, while holding interviews with attorneys and applicants, should be careful to prevent exposures of files and drawings of other applicants.
Extreme care should be taken to prevent inadvertent and/or inappropriate disclosure of the filing date or application number of any application. This applies not only to Office actions but also to notes in the file or in the artifact folder of IFW applications.
TELEPHONE AND IN-PERSON REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING PENDING OR ABANDONED APPLICATIONS
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence.
(a) Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section.
*****
(2) Information concerning a patent application may be communicated to the public if the patent application is identified in a published patent document or in an application
100-4Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 101
as set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of this section. The information that may be communicated to the public ( i.e., status information) includes:
(i) Whether the application is pending, abandoned, or patented;
(ii) Whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b);
(iii) The application “numerical identifier” which may be:
(A) The eight-digit application number (the two-digit series code plus the six-digit serial number); or
(B) The six-digit serial number plus any one of the filing date of the national application, the international filing date, or date of entry into the national stage; and
(iv) Whether another application claims the benefit of the application ( i.e., whether there are any applications that claim the benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386 of the application), and if there are any such applications, the numerical identifier of the application, the specified relationship between the applications ( e.g., continuation), whether the application is pending, abandoned or patented, and whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b).
*****
Except as provided in 35 U.S.C. 122(b), no information concerning pending or abandoned patent applications (except applications which have been published, reissue applications and reexamination proceedings) may be given to the public without appropriate written authorization. See 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14.
When handling an incoming telephone call or an in-person request for information regarding an unpublished pending or abandoned patent application, no information should be disclosed until the identity of the requester can be adequately verified as set forth below. Particular care must be exercised when a request is made for the publication date or publication number, or issue date and patent number assigned to a pending patent application. If the publication or issue date is later than the current date (i.e., the date of the request), such information may be given only to the applicant, an inventor, the assignee of record, or the attorney or agent of record.
The following procedure should be followed before any information about an unpublished pending or
abandoned patent application is given over the telephone:
(A) Obtain the caller’s full name, the application number, and the caller’s telephone number. Ask the caller if there is a patent practitioner (attorney or agent) of record.
(1) If there is a patent practitioner of record, ask for his or her registration number. If the registration number is not known, ask for the name of the patent practitioner of record. Inform the caller that a patent practitioner of record will be called after verification of his/her identity and that information concerning the application will be released to that patent practitioner.
(2) If there is no patent practitioner of record, ask the caller why he or she is entitled to information concerning the application. If the caller identifies himself or herself as inventor, an applicant or an authorized representative of the assignee of record, ask for the correspondence address of record and inform caller that his or her association with the application must be verified before any information concerning the application can be released and that he or she will be called back. If the caller indicates that he or she is not an inventor, applicant or an authorized representative of the assignee of record then status information may only be given pursuant to MPEP § 102.
(B) Verify that information concerning the application can be released by checking PALM or the application file.
(1) If the caller stated there was a patent practitioner of record, PALM intranet should be used to verify the registration number given or to obtain the registration number of a patent practitioner of record. Then PALM intranet (using the registration number) should be used to obtain a telephone number for a patent practitioner of record.
(2) If the caller identified himself or herself as an inventor, applicant or an authorized representative of the assignee of record, PALM intranet should be used to verify the correspondence address of record. PALM intranet should be used to determine if there is a patent practitioner of record. If there is a patent practitioner of record, their telephone number can be obtained from PALM intranet.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-5
§ 101SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
(C) Return the call using the telephone number as specified below.
(1) If a patent practitioner is of record in the application, information concerning the application should only be released by calling the patent practitioner's telephone number obtained from PALM intranet.
(2) If the inventor, applicant or an authorized representative of the assignee of record requests information, and there is no patent practitioner of record and the correspondence address of record has been verified, information concerning the application can be released to the caller using the telephone number given by the caller. If the caller’s association with the application cannot be verified, no information concerning the application will be released. However, the caller should be informed that the caller’s association with the application could not be verified.
In handling an in-person request, ask the requester to wait while verifying their identification as in (B) above.
102 Information as to Status of an Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence.
(a) Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section.
(1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section for international applications and paragraph (j) of this section for international design applications) may be available in the following situations:
(i) Patented applications and statutory invention registrations. The file of an application that has issued as a patent or published as a statutory invention registration is available to the public as set forth in §1.11(a). A copy of the patent application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of such an application may be provided upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b).
(ii) Published abandoned applications. The file of an abandoned published application is available to the public as set forth in §1.11(a) . A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the published application, or a specific document in the file of the published application may be provided to any
person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b) .
(iii) Published pending applications. A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of a pending published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b) . If a redacted copy of the application was used for the patent application publication, the copy of the specification, drawings, and papers may be limited to a redacted copy. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application that has been published, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(iv) Unpublished abandoned applications (including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon. The file contents of an unpublished, abandoned application may be made available to the public if the application is identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. An application is considered to have been identified in a document, such as a patent, when the application number or serial number and filing date, first named inventor, title, and filing date or other application specific information are provided in the text of the patent, but not when the same identification is made in a paper in the file contents of the patent and is not included in the printed patent. Also, the file contents may be made available to the public, upon a written request, if benefit of the abandoned application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) ,120 , 121 , 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b) ).
(v) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed. A copy of the file contents of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the benefit of the application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or in an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed or a specific document in the file of the pending application may also be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
100-6Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 102
(vi) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified. A copy of the application as originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the application is incorporated by reference or otherwise identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(vii) When a petition for access or a power to inspect is required. Applications that were not published or patented, that are not the subject of a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), or are not identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States, are not available to the public. If an application is identified in the file contents of another application, but not the published patent application or patent itself, a granted petition for access (see paragraph (i)) or a power to inspect (see paragraph (c) of this section) is necessary to obtain the application, or a copy of the application.
(2) Information concerning a patent application may be communicated to the public if the patent application is identified in a published patent document or in an application as set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of this section. The information that may be communicated to the public ( i.e., status information) includes:
(i) Whether the application is pending, abandoned, or patented;
(ii) Whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b);
(iii) The application “numerical identifier” which may be:
(A) The eight-digit application number (the two-digit series code plus the six-digit serial number); or
(B) The six-digit serial number plus any one of the filing date of the national application, the international filing date, or date of entry into the national stage; and
(iv) Whether another application claims the benefit of the application ( i.e., whether there are any applications that
claim the benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386 of the application), and if there are any such applications, the numerical identifier of the application, the specified relationship between the applications ( e.g., continuation), whether the application is pending, abandoned or patented, and whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b).
*****
Status information of an application means only the following information:
(A) whether the application is pending, abandoned, or patented;
(B) whether the application has been published;
(C) the application number or the serial number plus any one of the filing date of the national application, the international filing date or the date of entry into the national stage; and
(D) whether another application claims the benefit of the application (i.e., whether there are any applications that claim the benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386 of the application), and if there are any such applications, status information therefor as set forth in 37 CFR 1.14(a)(2)(iv).
A requester seeking status information regarding an application should check the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ support-centers/patent-electronic-business-center. Alternatively, the requester may contact the File Information Unit (see MPEP § 1730). The File Information Unit (FIU) will check the relevant Office records and will inform the requester whether the application has been published or has issued as a patent. If the application has been published, the FIU will inform the requester of the publication number and publication date, and if the application has issued as a patent, the patent number, issue date and classification. If the application has not been published, but is pending or abandoned then the FIU should determine whether the requester is:
(1) the applicant;
(2) a patent practitioner of record;
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-7
§ 102SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
(3) the assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest;
(4) the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(5) a registered attorney or agent named in the papers accompanying the application papers filed under 37 CFR 1.53 or the national stage documents filed under 37 CFR 1.495, if a power of attorney has not been appointed under 37 CFR 1.32.
If the requester is any of (1) - (5) as set forth above, or if the application contains written authority granting access to the requester signed by any of (1) - (5) as set forth above, then the requester is entitled to status information. See 37 CFR 1.14(c) and MPEP § 104 for additional information pertaining to who can provide written authority granting access to such information. If the requester is inquiring about whether a reply was received or when an Office action can be expected, the requester should be directed to call the Technology Center (TC) to which the application is assigned. The assignment of an application to a TC can be determined from PALM intranet.
If the requester is not any of (1) - (5) or a person with written authority from any of (1) - (5) as set forth above, and the application is (1) identified by application number (or serial number and filing date) in a published patent document, or (2) an application claiming the benefit of the filing date of an application identified by application number (or serial number and filing date) in a published patent document, then a written request including a copy of a published patent document (United States or foreign) which refers to the specific application must be provided when requesting status information for the application. If the published patent document is not in English, then a translation of the pertinent part thereof must also be included. The published patent document may be presented in person to the FIU or in written correspondence to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for example, by facsimile transmission. Any written correspondence must include a return address or facsimile number. If the application is referred to by application number or serial number and filing date in a published patent document (e.g., a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international application publication or an international design application), or in a U.S.
application open to public inspection, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a), the requester is entitled to status information for the application. (The published patent document will at least identify the application from which the patent itself was issued.) PALM intranet should be used to determine the status of the application. If the requester asks whether there are any applications on file which claim the benefit of the filing date of the identified application, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a)(2)(iv), status information (application number, filing date and whether the application is pending, abandoned or patented) for the applications claiming benefit of the identified application may be given to the requester as well. PALM intranet should be used to determine the application number and filing date of any applications claiming the benefit of the filing date of the identified application. The requester should be informed of the national applications listed in the “child” section of the screen. If the child application is not shown to have been patented , PALM intranet should be used to determine whether the application is pending or abandoned. Alternatively, PALM intranet may be used with the patent number for continuity data for the patent. Other information contained on the screen, such as whether the application is a Continuation-in-Part (CIP), continuation or divisional application, the date of abandonment of the application, and the issue date, may be confidential information and should not be communicated. As to the extent of the chain of applications for which status information is available, the rule applies only to subsequent and not prior applications.
Furthermore, if the requester is not any of (1) - (5) or a person with written authority from any of (1) - (5) as set forth above, but the application is a national stage application or any application claiming the benefit of the filing date of a published international application and the United States of America has been indicated as a Designated State in the international application, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a)(2)(iv), the requester is entitled to status information for the national stage application as well as any application claiming the benefit of the filing date of the published international application. A copy of the first page of the published international application or of the corresponding page of the PCT Gazette must be supplied with the status request.
100-8Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 102
The status request should be made in writing to the International Patent LegalAdministration (see MPEP § 1730). Alternatively, inquiries relating to applications claiming the benefit of the filing date of a published international application may be directed to the PCT Help desk. Only the serial number and filing date, or application number, as well as whether the application is pending, abandoned, or patented may be given for the national stage application and for any applications claiming the benefit of the filing date of the referenced published international application. Other information contained on the continuity data screen, such as whether the application is a CIP, continuation or divisional application, the date of abandonment of the application and issue date may be confidential information and should not be communicated.
If the requester is not any of (1) - (5) or a person with written authority from any of (1) - (5) as set forth above, but the application is an international design application maintained by the Office in its capacity as a designated office (37 CFR 1.1003) for national processing, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a)(2)(iv), the requester is entitled to status information for the international design application as well as any application claiming the benefit of the filing date of the published international design application. With respect to an international design application maintained by the Office in its capacity as an office of indirect filing (37 CFR 1.1002), status information may be made available where contained in the file of the international design application maintained by the Office for national processing.
STATUS LOCATION INFORMATION FOR OFFICE PERSONNEL
When it is desired to determine the current location or status of an application, Office personnel should use PALM. If the application is an Image File Wrapper (IFW) application, no location is associated with the file.
Office personnel requesting status/location information on applications prior to 07 series applications that are not in the PALM system should contact the FIU (see MPEP § 1730) where the
numerical index records of the above mentioned applications are maintained.
103 Right of Public To Inspect Patent Files and Some Application Files [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.11 Files open to the public.
(a) The specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the file of: A published application; a patent; or a statutory invention registration are open to inspection by the public, and copies may be obtained upon the payment of the fee set forth in § 1.19(b)(2). If an application was published in redacted form pursuant to § 1.217, the complete file wrapper and contents of the patent application will not be available if: The requirements of paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of § 1.217 have been met in the application; and the application is still pending. See § 2.27 of this title for trademark files.
(b) All reissue applications, all applications in which the Office has accepted a request to open the complete application to inspection by the public, and related papers in the application file, are open to inspection by the public, and copies may be furnished upon paying the fee therefor. The filing of reissue applications, other than continued prosecution applications under §1.53(d) of reissue applications, will be announced in the Official Gazette. The announcement shall include at least the filing date, reissue application and original patent numbers, title, class and subclass, name of the inventor, name of the owner of record, name of the attorney or agent of record, and examining group to which the reissue application is assigned.
(c) All requests for reexamination for which all the requirements of § 1.510 or § 1.915 have been satisfied will be announced in the Official Gazette. Any reexaminations at the initiative of the Director pursuant to § 1.520 will also be announced in the Official Gazette. The announcement shall include at least the date of the request, if any, the reexamination request control number or the Director initiated order control number, patent number, title, class and subclass, name of the inventor, name of the patent owner of record, and the examining group to which the reexamination is assigned.
(d) All papers or copies thereof relating to a reexamination proceeding which have been entered of record in the patent or reexamination file are open to inspection by the general public, and copies may be furnished upon paying the fee therefor.
(e) Except as prohibited in § 41.6(b), § 42.14 or § 42.410(b), the file of any interference or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is open to public inspection and copies of the file may be obtained upon payment of the fee therefor.
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence.
(a) Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-9
§ 103SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
(1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section for international applications and paragraph (j) of this section for international design applications) may be available in the following situations:
(i) Patented applications and statutory invention registrations. The file of an application that has issued as a patent or published as a statutory invention registration is available to the public as set forth in §1.11(a). A copy of the patent application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of such an application may be provided upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b).
(ii) Published abandoned applications. The file of an abandoned published application is available to the public as set forth in § 1.11(a). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the published application, or a specific document in the file of the published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b).
(iii) Published pending applications. A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of a pending published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b). If a redacted copy of the application was used for the patent application publication, the copy of the specification, drawings, and papers may be limited to a redacted copy. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application that has been published, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(iv) Unpublished abandoned applications (including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon. The file contents of an unpublished, abandoned application may be made available to the public if the application is identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. An application is considered to have been identified in a document, such as a patent, when the application number or serial number and filing date, first named inventor, title, and filing date or other application specific information are provided in the text of the patent, but not when the same identification is made in a paper in the file contents of the patent and is not included in the printed patent. Also, the file contents may be made available to the public, upon a written request, if benefit of the abandoned application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application underPCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)).
(v) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed. A copy of the file contents of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the benefit of the application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or in an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application underPCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed or a specific document in the file of the pending application may also be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(vi) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified. A copy of the application as originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the application is incorporated by reference or otherwise identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(vii) When a petition for access or a power to inspect is required. Applications that were not published or patented, that are not the subject of a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), or are not identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States, are not available to the public. If an application is identified in the file contents of another application, but not the published patent application or patent itself, a granted petition for access (see paragraph (i)) or a power to inspect (see paragraph (c) of this section) is necessary to obtain the application, or a copy of the application.
(2) Information concerning a patent application may be communicated to the public if the patent application is identified in a published patent document or in an application as set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of this
100-10Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 103
section. The information that may be communicated to the public ( i.e., status information) includes:
(i) Whether the application is pending, abandoned, or patented;
(ii) Whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b);
(iii) The application “numerical identifier” which may be:
(A) The eight-digit application number (the two-digit series code plus the six-digit serial number); or
(B) The six-digit serial number plus any one of the filing date of the national application, the international filing date, or date of entry into the national stage; and
(iv) Whether another application claims the benefit of the application ( i.e., whether there are any applications that claim the benefit of the filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386 of the application), and if there are any such applications, the numerical identifier of the application, the specified relationship between the applications ( e.g., continuation), whether the application is pending, abandoned or patented, and whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b).
*****
I. ACCESS TO IMAGE FILE WRAPPER (IFW) APPLICATIONS
The Image File Wrapper (IFW) system uses image technology to replace the paper processing of patent applications in the Office. Paper components of these application files (including the specification, oath or declaration, drawings, information disclosure statements, amendments, Office actions, and file jacket notations) have been scanned to create electronic image files. For patent applications in the IFW system, the IFW file is the Official file and no access is granted to the original paper document sheets used to create the IFW file. All processing and examination is conducted using the electronic images instead of the paper source documents.
If an IFW file has been created for a patented application, published application, or an application to which a patented or published application claims domestic priority, the IFW file (with the exception of non-patent literature) is accessible through public PAIR. All patent applications filed after June 30, 2003, have been scanned into the IFW system are available in public PAIR upon publishing or
patenting. Pending applications filed before June 30, 2003, are scanned into IFW as incoming papers are received in the Office.
II. PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence.
(a) Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section.
(1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section for international applications and paragraph (j) of this section for international design applications) may be available in the following situations:
*****
(ii) Published abandoned applications. The file of an abandoned published application is available to the public as set forth in § 1.11(a). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the published application, or a specific document in the file of the published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b).
(iii) Published pending applications. A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of a pending published application may be provided to any person upon request and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in § 1.19(b). If a redacted copy of the application was used for the patent application publication, the copy of the specification, drawings, and papers may be limited to a redacted copy. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application that has been published, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
*****
If a patent application has been published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b), then a copy of the specification, drawings, and all papers relating to the file of that published application (whether abandoned or pending) may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b). See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(ii) and (iii). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 374 and 35 U.S.C. 390, the publication by the International Bureau of an international application under the PCT or an international design application designating the United States under the Hague Agreement is deemed to be a publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). Note that the U.S. is automatically designated in all
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-11
§ 103SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
international applications under the PCT filed on or after January 1, 2004.
If a redacted copy of the application was used for the patent application publication, the copy of the application will be limited to the redacted copy of the application and the redacted materials provided under 37 CFR 1.217(d).
See paragraph I., above, for information pertaining to access to Image File Wrapper (IFW) applications. Published applications maintained in the IFW system are available on the USPTO website in the public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. If the published patent application is pending and it is not maintained in the IFW system, the paper application file itself will not be available to the public for inspection. Only copies of the application file may be obtained pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iii). If the published patent application is abandoned, the entire application is available to the public for inspection and obtaining copies. See 37 CFR 1.11(a).
III. UNPUBLISHED ABANDONED AND PENDING APPLICATIONS (INCLUDING PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS) THAT ARE IDENTIFIED
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence.
(a) Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section.
(1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section for international applications and paragraph (j) of this section for international design applications) may be available in the following situations:
*****
(iv) Unpublished abandoned applications (including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon. The file contents of an unpublished, abandoned application may be made available to the public if the application is identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. An application is considered to have been identified in a document, such as a patent, when the application number or serial number and filing date, first named
inventor, title, and filing date or other application specific information are provided in the text of the patent, but not when the same identification is made in a paper in the file contents of the patent and is not included in the printed patent. Also, the file contents may be made available to the public, upon a written request, if benefit of the abandoned application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)).
(v) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed. A copy of the file contents of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the benefit of the application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or in an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed or a specific document in the file of the pending application may also be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(vi) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified. A copy of the application as originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the application is incorporated by reference or otherwise identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
*****
Abandoned applications meeting the requirements of 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv) and any application that is open to the public under 37 CFR 1.11 may be obtained by any person upon written request to the File Information Unit (FIU) without the specific
100-12Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 103
written authority of the inventor, applicant in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, assignee, attorney or agent of record or Director. The following abandoned applications are available from the FIU: (A)An abandoned application referred to in a U.S. patent application publication or U.S. patent; and (B) a pending File Wrapper Continuation application (FWC) filed under former 37 CFR 1.62 of an abandoned application that meets the requirements of 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv). Under former 37 CFR 1.62(f), where access is permitted to an application within the file wrapper of a FWC application, the applicant has waived the right to keep all earlier filed applications in the same file wrapper in confidence.
37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(i) relates only to United States applications that are open to public inspection. See 37 CFR 1.14(g)(3)-(5) for access to international applications where the U.S. is designated. See also MPEP § 110. See 37 CFR 1.14(j) for access to international design applications. If an abandoned application is referred to in an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or in a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), access to the abandoned application is available under 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv).
An abandoned non-IFW application identified in a U.S. patent application publication, U.S. patent or a U.S. application that is open to public inspection may be ordered for inspection by any member of the public through the FIU. An abandoned file received by a member of the public must be returned to the charge counter in the FIU before closing the same day it is received. If the abandoned application is contained within a pending FWC application, the requester will generally be directed to the appropriate Technology Center (TC) to inquire as to the availability of the pending FWC application. If the pending FWC application is available, it will be forwarded to the FIU for the requester to pick-up. See paragraph I., above, for information pertaining to access to IFW applications.
The incorporation by reference of a pending application in a U.S. patent application publication, a U.S. patent, a published international application
published in accordance with PCT Article 21(2), a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), or a statutory invention registration constitutes a special circumstance under 35 U.S.C. 122 warranting that a copy of the application-as-filed be provided upon written request as provided in 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(vi). In addition, if a U.S. patent application publication, a U.S. patent, a published international application, or a published international registration claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386 to a U.S. patent application, a copy of that application-as-filed may be provided upon written request (see 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(v)), or be available through the public PAIR system if the application is maintained in the IFW system. A benefit claim in an international design application that does not designate the United States is not a claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365 or 386. The written request, including a copy of the page of the patent application publication, U.S. patent, published international application, or published international registration including the incorporation by reference or specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365, or 386 and the requisite fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(1), should be directed to the Certification Division. However, an incorporation by reference that is made as part of a transmittal letter for the application, or that is a part of the text of the application that has been canceled and which does not appear as part of the printed patent, may not be relied upon to obtain a copy of the application as originally filed. A petition for access with an explanation of special circumstances other than the not-printed incorporation by reference will be required. See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(vii).
Copies of a patent application-as-filed and the contents of a patent application file wrapper may be ordered on-line or requested by facsimile from the Certification Division. Payment of the appropriate fee under 37 CFR 1.19(b) may be made by USPTO Deposit Account, American Express®, Discover®, MasterCard®, or Visa® by any person having a right to access to the originally filed application or patent. The Office does not provide for access to non-United States applications.
Form PTO/SB/68 may be used to request access.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-13
§ 103SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
100-14Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 103
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-15
§ 103SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
IV. ACCESS WHERE PART OF AN APPLICATION IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN A U.S. PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATION OR A U.S. PATENT
37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(vi) permits a member of the public, without a petition for access, to obtain a copy of a pending application as originally filed, when the application is incorporated by reference in a U.S. patent application publication or a U.S. patent, upon the filing of an appropriate request and the payment of the required fee. However, if only part of the application is incorporated by reference, for example, where an application states, “the disclosure of a valve on page 5, lines 5-35, of application No. XX/YYY,YYY, is hereby incorporated by reference,” then a petition for access is required to obtain access to or a copy of the incorporated material. Incorporation by reference of part of an application in a U.S. patent application publication or a U.S. patent constitutes a special circumstances under 35 U.S.C. 122(a) warranting that access to that part of the original disclosure of the application be granted on petition. The incorporation by reference will be interpreted as a waiver of confidentiality of only that part of the original disclosure as filed, and not the entire application file. In re Gallo, 231 USPQ 496 (Comm’r Pat. 1986). If applicant objects to access to the entire application file, applicant must file two copies of the information incorporated by reference along with the objection. In the example given, applicant would be required to provide two copies of page 5, lines 5-35 of the XX/YYY,YYY application. Failure to provide the material within the time period provided will result in the entire application content (including prosecution history) being made available to the petitioner. The Office will not attempt to separate the noted materials from the remainder of the application. Compare In re Marsh Eng’g. Co., 1913 C.D. 183 (Comm’r Pat. 1913).
V. PETITION FOR ACCESS BY THIRD PARTY
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence.
(a) Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section.
(1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section for international applications and paragraph (j) of this section for international design applications) may be available in the following situations:
*****
(vii) When a petition for access or a power to inspect is required. Applications that were not published or patented, that are not the subject of a benefit claim under35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), or are not identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States, are not available to the public. If an application is identified in the file contents of another application, but not the published patent application or patent itself, a granted petition for access (see paragraph (i)) or a power to inspect (see paragraph (c) of this section) is necessary to obtain the application, or a copy of the application.
*****
(i) Access or copies in other circumstances. The Office, either sua sponte or on petition, may also provide access or copies of all or part of an application if necessary to carry out an Act of Congress or if warranted by other special circumstances. Any petition by a member of the public seeking access to, or copies of, all or part of any pending or abandoned application preserved in confidence pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, or any related papers, must include:
(1) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g); and
(2) A showing that access to the application is necessary to carry out an Act of Congress or that special circumstances exist which warrant petitioner being granted access to all or part of the application.
*****
Any interested party may file a petition, accompanied by the petition fee, to the Director for access to an application. Inasmuch as the post office address is necessary for the complete identification of the petitioner, it should always be included complete with ZIP Code number. In addition, telephone and facsimile numbers should be provided to expedite handling of the petition. Petitions for access are handled in the Office of Patent Legal Administration, unless the application is involved
100-16Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 103
in an interference, derivation proceeding, or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See MPEP § 1002.02(b), item 21.
The petition may be filed either with proof of service of copy upon the inventor, applicant in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, assignee of record, or attorney or agent of record in the application to which access is sought, or the petition may be filed in duplicate, in which case the duplicate copy will be sent by the Office to the inventor, applicant in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, assignee of record, or attorney or agent of record in the application (hereinafter “applicant”). A separate petition, with fee, must be filed for each application file to which access is desired. Each petition should show not only why access is desired, but also why petitioner believes he or she is entitled to access. The applicant will normally be given a limited period such as 3 weeks within which to state any objection to the granting of the petition for access and reasons why it should be denied. If applicant states that he or she has no objection to the requested access, the petition will be granted. If objection is raised or applicant does not respond, the petition will be decided on the record. If access is granted to the application, any objections filed by the applicant will be available to the petitioner since these papers are in the application file. If access to the application is denied, petitioner will not receive copies of any objections filed by the applicant. A determination will be made whether “special circumstances” are present which warrant a grant of access under 35 U.S.C. 122. See below when the application is the basis of a claim for benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 or part of the application is incorporated by reference in a United States patent. “Special circumstances” could be found where an applicant has relied upon his or her application as a means to interfere with a competitor’s business or customers. See, e.g., In re Crossman, 187 USPQ 367 (PTO Solicitor 1975); and In re Trimless Cabinets, 128 USPQ 95 (Comm’r Pat. 1960). Furthermore, “special circumstances” could be found where an attorney or agent of record in an application in which a provisional double patenting rejection is made does not have power of attorney in the copending application having a common assignee or inventor. However, a more expeditious means of obtaining
access would be to obtain power to inspect from an assignee or inventor. See MPEP §§ 104 and 106.01.
VI. ACCESS WHERE PATENT CLAIMS 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) BENEFIT
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence.
(a) Confidentiality of patent application information. Patent applications that have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) are generally preserved in confidence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Information concerning the filing, pendency, or subject matter of an application for patent, including status information, and access to the application, will only be given to the public as set forth in § 1.11 or in this section.
(1) Records associated with patent applications (see paragraph (g) of this section for international applications and paragraph (j) of this section for international design applications) may be available in the following situations:
*****
(iv) Unpublished abandoned applications (including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon. The file contents of an unpublished, abandoned application may be made available to the public if the application is identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. An application is considered to have been identified in a document, such as a patent, when the application number or serial number and filing date, first named inventor, title, and filing date or other application specific information are provided in the text of the patent, but not when the same identification is made in a paper in the file contents of the patent and is not included in the printed patent. Also, the file contents may be made available to the public, upon a written request, if benefit of the abandoned application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the application, or a specific document in the file of the application may be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)).
(v) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed. A copy of the file contents of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the benefit of the application is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in an application that has issued as a U.S. patent, or in an application that has published as a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application underPCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-17
§ 103SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). A copy of the application-as-filed or a specific document in the file of the pending application may also be provided to any person upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)). The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
(vi) Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified. A copy of the application as originally filed of an unpublished pending application may be provided to any person, upon written request and payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)), if the application is incorporated by reference or otherwise identified in a U.S. patent, a statutory invention registration, a U.S. patent application publication, an international publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) , or a publication of an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) of an international design application designating the United States. The Office will not provide access to the paper file of a pending application, except as provided in paragraph (c) or (i) of this section.
*****
Whenever a patent relies on the filing date of an earlier but still pending application, the Office permits an applicant to obtain a copy of the prior application, either as originally filed or of the pending file history, upon written request (to the Office of Public Records) and payment of the appropriate fee. Furthermore, after publication of a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, a statutory invention registration, an international application under PCT Article 21(2), or an international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3), the file contents of any abandoned application identified or relied upon in such a publication are available pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv). If the application is pending and benefit of the application is claimed pursuant to 35 U.S.C.119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in such a patent document, then the file contents of the application are available pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(v). Such a patent application is available through the public PAIR system if the application is maintained in the IFW system.
VII. ACCESS TO PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS
In provisional applications, access or certified copies will only be given to parties with written authority
from a named inventor, the assignee of record, the attorney or agent of record, or, for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, an applicant other than an inventor. Since provisional applications do not require an oath or declaration, there may be no power of attorney in the application. If there is no power of attorney in the provisional application, a certified copy requested by the registered attorney or agent named in the papers accompanying the provisional application papers will be supplied to the correspondence address of the provisional application. Provisional applications are also available in the same manner as any other application. For example, an application that is relied upon for priority in a U.S. patent and is abandoned is available under 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv) and, as a result may be available through public PAIR.
VIII. APPLICATION AT THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board handles all requests for access to, or copies of Office records directly related to, applications involved in interferences, derivation proceedings, or trials. See 37 CFR 41.109 and 37 CFR 42.3. See also MPEP Chapter 2300.
IX. DEFENSIVE PUBLICATIONS
The entire application file of a defensive publication is available to the public for inspection and obtaining copies. See MPEP § 711.06.
X. REISSUE APPLICATIONS
37 CFR 1.11(b) opens reissue applications to inspection by the general public. 37 CFR 1.11(b) also provides for announcement of the filings of reissue applications in the Official Gazette (except for continued prosecution applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d)). This announcement gives interested members of the public an opportunity to submit to the examiner information pertinent to patentability of the reissue application.
IFW reissue application files are open to inspection by the general public by way of Public PAIR via the USPTO Internet site. In viewing the images of the files, members of the public will be able to view the
100-18Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 103
entire content of the reissue application file history. To access Public PAIR, a member of the public would (A) go to the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov, (B) click on “Check Status” under the “Patents” column, (C) click on Public PAIR, and (D) enter the reissue application number.
XI. REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION
An announcement of the filing of each request for reexamination in which the entire fee has been paid, and of each reexamination ordered at the initiative of the Director under 37 CFR 1.520, will be published in the Official Gazette. A reexamination file is normally NOT open to inspection by the general public until the file has been scanned into the IFW system, at which point the file is open to inspection by the public by way of Public PAIR via the USPTO Internet site. In viewing the images of the reexamination proceedings, members of the public will be able to view the entire contents of the reexamination file with the exception of non-patent literature. See also MPEP § 2232.
XII. DECISIONS BY THE DIRECTOR
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence. *****
(e) Decisions by the Director. Any decision by the Director that would not otherwise be open to public inspection may be published or made available for public inspection if:
(1) The Director believes the decision involves an interpretation of patent laws or regulations that would be of precedential value; and
(2) The applicant is given notice and an opportunity to object in writing within two months on the ground that the decision discloses a trade secret or other confidential information. Any objection must identify the deletions in the text of the decision considered necessary to protect the information, or explain why the entire decision must be withheld from the public to protect such information. An applicant or party will be given time, not less than twenty days, to request reconsideration and seek court review before any portions of a decision are made public under this paragraph over his or her objection
*****
37 CFR 41.6 Public availability of Board records.
(a) Publication.
(1) Generally. Any Board action is available for public inspection without a party’s permission if rendered in a file open
to the public pursuant to § 1.11 of this title or in an application that has been published in accordance with §§ 1.211 to 1.221 of this title. The Office may independently publish any Board action that is available for public inspection.
(2) Determination of special circumstances.Any Board action not publishable under paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be published or made available for public inspection if the Director believes that special circumstances warrant publication and a party does not, within two months after being notified of the intention to make the action public, object in writing on the ground that the action discloses the objecting party’s trade secret or other confidential information and states with specificity that such information is not otherwise publicly available. If the action discloses such information, the party shall identify the deletions in the text of the action considered necessary to protect the information. If the affected party considers that the entire action must be withheld from the public to protect such information, the party must explain why. The party will be given time, not less than twenty days, to request reconsideration and seek court review before any contested portion of the action is made public over its objection.
(b) Record of proceeding.
(1) The record of a Board proceeding is available to the public unless a patent application not otherwise available to the public is involved.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, after a final Board action in or judgment in a Board proceeding, the record of the Board proceeding will be made available to the public if any involved file is or becomes open to the public under § 1.11 of this title or an involved application is or becomes published under §§ 1.211 to 1.221 of this title.
37 CFR 1.14(e) states the conditions under which significant decisions by the Director that would not otherwise be open to public inspection will be made available to the public. 37 CFR 41.6 describes the procedure for making a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board available to the public. These sections are applicable to decisions deemed by the Director to involve an interpretation of patent laws or regulation that would be of significant precedential value, where such decisions are contained in either pending or abandoned applications or in Board records not otherwise open to the public. It is applicable whether or not the decision is a final decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
37 CFR 1.14(e) and 37 CFR 41.6 are considered to place a duty on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to identify significant decisions and to take the steps necessary to inform the public of such decisions, by
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-19
§ 103SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
publication of such decisions, in whole or in part. It is anticipated, however, that no more than a few dozen decisions per year will be deemed of sufficient importance to warrant publication under the authority of this section.
XIII. FOIA REQUESTS
37 CFR 102.4 Requirements for making requests.
(a) A request for USPTO records that are not customarily made available to the public as part of USPTO’s regular informational services must be in writing, and shall be processed under FOIA, regardless of whether FOIA is mentioned in the request. Requests should be sent to the USPTO FOIA Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 (records FOIA requires to be made regularly available for public inspection and copying are addressed in § 102.2(c)). For the quickest handling, the request letter and envelope should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Request.” For requests for records about oneself, § 102.24 contains additional requirements. For requests for records about another individual, either a written authorization signed by that individual permitting disclosure of those records to the requester or proof that individual is deceased (for example, a copy of a death certificate or an obituary) facilitates processing the request.
(b) The records requested must be described in enough detail to enable USPTO personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, a request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record, and the name and location of the office where the record is located. Also, if records about a court case are sought, the title of the case, the court in which the case was filed, and the nature of the case should be included. If known, any file designations or descriptions for the requested records should be included. In general, the more specifically the request describes the records sought, the greater the likelihood that USPTO will locate those records. If the FOIA Officer determines that a request does not reasonably describe records, the FOIA Officer will inform the requester what additional information is needed or why the request is otherwise insufficient. The FOIA Officer also may give the requester an opportunity to discuss the request so that it may be modified to meet the requirements of this section.
Many decisions of the Office are available on the FOIA section of the USPTO website at www.uspto .gov/ learning-and-resources /ip-policy/electronic-freedom-information-act-e-foia. See 37 CFR Part 102, Subpart A, “Freedom of
Information Act,” for rules pertaining to FOIA requests.
104 Power to InspectApplication [R-07.2015]
I. AUTHORITY TO GRANT ACCESS - APPLICATION FILED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence. *****
(c) Power to inspect a pending or abandoned application. Access to an application may be provided to any person if the application file is available, and the application contains written authority ( e.g., a power to inspect) granting access to such person. The written authority must be signed by:
(1) The applicant;
(2) A patent practitioner of record;
(3) The assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest;
(4) The inventor or a joint inventor; or
(5) A registered attorney or agent named in the papers accompanying the application papers filed under § 1.53 or the national stage documents filed under § 1.495, if a power of attorney has not been appointed under § 1.32.
*****
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the applicant, a patent practitioner of record, the assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest, or an inventor may provide a written authority for access to a pending or abandoned application kept in confidence under 35 U.S.C. 122(a), except as provided in 37 CFR 1.11, 1.14, 41.6, or 42.412. The written authority must identify the application to be inspected and the name of the person authorized to have access, and will be made of record. Access provided upon the written order of the Director will also become a part of the record of the application.
A person acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 may execute a power to inspect an application only if the patent practitioner was named in the application transmittal papers filed under 37 CFR 1.53 or the national stage documents filed under 37 CFR 1.495 and a power of attorney has not been appointed under 37 CFR 1.32. Once a power of attorney has been filed, any previously filed power
100-20Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 104
to inspect signed by a patent practitioner who does not have a power of attorney will cease to have effect. For a discussion of power of attorney in an application, see MPEP § 402.
II. AUTHORITY TO GRANT ACCESS - APPLICATION FILED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
37 CFR 1.14 (pre-AIA) Patent applications preserved in confidence.
*****
(c) Power to inspect a pending or abandoned application. Access to an application may be provided to any person if the application file is available, and the application contains written authority (e.g., a power to inspect) granting access to such person. The written authority must be signed by:
(1) An applicant;
(2) An attorney or agent of record;
(3) An authorized official of an assignee of record (made of record pursuant to § 3.71 of this chapter); or
(4) A registered attorney or agent named in the papers accompanying the application papers filed under § 1.53 or the national stage documents filed under § 1.495, if an executed oath or declaration pursuant to § 1.63 or § 1.497 has not been filed.
*****
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, if an executed oath or declaration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.497 has been filed, no person but the applicant (any one of joint applicants), an attorney or agent of record (if a power of attorney was filed), or an assignee whose assignment is of record will be permitted to have access to the file of any pending application kept in confidence under 35 U.S.C. 122(a), except as provided for under 37 CFR 1.11, 1.14, 41.6, or 42.412, unless written authority from one of the above indicated parties, identifying the application to be inspected and the name of the person authorized to have access, is made of record, or upon the written order of the Director, which will also become a part of the record of the application.
A person acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 may execute a power to inspect an application only if the attorney or agent was named in the application transmittal papers filed under 37 CFR 1.53 or the national stage documents filed under 37 CFR 1.495 and an executed oath or declaration
has not been filed. Once an executed oath or declaration has been filed, any previously filed power to inspect signed by a registered attorney or agent who does not have a power of attorney will cease to have effect. For a discussion of power of attorney in an application, see MPEP § 402.
III. POWER TO INSPECT
Powers to inspect are not accepted in Image File Wrapper (IFW) applications. IFW applications are available through the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, and pro se applicants and attorneys of record have direct access to the IFW through Private PAIR (when a Customer Number is associated with the correspondence address for the application, and the applicant or attorney has access to Private PAIR for the customer number). In addition, IFW application files of published applications or patents are available at least through Public PAIR. If for some reason an applicant, inventor, assignee, or attorney or agent of record cannot view an IFW application through PAIR, then a copy of the application must be purchased from the Office of Public Records. A "power to inspect" is, in effect, the same as a "power to inspect and make copies."
Where an applicant relied on his or her application as a means to interfere with a competitor’s business or customers, permission to inspect the application may be given the competitor by the Director. Such permission is via petition for access under 37 CFR 1.14(i).
An unrestricted power to inspect given by an applicant or inventor is, under existing practice, recognized as in effect until and unless rescinded. The same is true in the case of one given by the attorney or agent of record, or assignee so long as such attorney or agent, or assignee retains his or her connection with the application.
Permission to inspect given by the Director, however, is not of a continuing nature, since the conditions that justified the permission to inspect when given may not apply at a later date.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-21
§ 104SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
IV. ACCESS TO PATENT APPLICATIONS (PROVISIONAL AND NONPROVISIONAL) AND BOARD RECORDS
In order to ensure that access to patent applications, other than applications that are available pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or 1.14, and Board records are given only to persons who are entitled thereto or who are specially authorized to have access under 37 CFR 1.11, 1.14 and 41.6 and to ensure also that the file record identifies any such specially authorized person who has been given access to a file, the following practice will be observed by all personnel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
(A) Access, as provided for in the rules, will be given on oral request to any applicant, inventor, patentee, assignee, or attorney or agent of record in an application or patent only upon proof of identity or upon recognition based on personal acquaintance.
(B) Where a power of attorney or authorization of agent was given to a registered firm prior to July 2, 1971, access will be given upon oral request as in paragraph (A) above to any registered member or employee of the firm who has signatory power for the firm.
(C) Unregistered employees of attorneys or agents, public stenographers, and all other persons not within the provisions of paragraphs (A) and (B) above will be given access only upon presentation of a written authorization for access (power to inspect) signed by a person specified in paragraph (A) above, which authorization will be entered as a part of the official file. The power to inspect must specifically name the person who is entitled to inspect and copy the application. An associate or representative of the named person is not entitled to access to the application on behalf of the authorized person. Further, the power to inspect must specifically identify the application by application number and be limited to a single application. Form PTO/SB/67 may be used for this purpose.
(D) In provisional applications, access or certified copies may only be requested by parties with written authority from a named inventor, the applicant, the assignee of record, or the attorney or agent of record, unless the application is available pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv)-(vi). Since provisional applications do not require an oath or declaration, there may be no power of attorney in
the application. If the person requesting a certified copy is not a named inventor, the applicant, assignee of record, or an attorney or agent of record, the requested certified copy will be supplied to the correspondence address of the provisional application
105 Suspended or Excluded Practitioner Cannot Inspect [R-11.2013]
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) employees are forbidden to hold either oral or written communication with an attorney or agent who has been suspended or excluded from practice by the USPTO regarding an application unless it is one in which said attorney or agent is an inventor or the applicant. Power to inspect given to such an attorney or agent will not be accepted.
106 Control of Inspection by Assignee [R-11.2013]
The applicant or assignee of record of the entire interest in an application may file an application or intervene in the prosecution of the application, appointing an attorney or agent of his or her own choice. See 37 CFR 1.46 and 3.71. Such an application filing or intervention, however, does not exclude the inventor from access to the application to see that it is being prosecuted properly, unless the applicant or assignee makes specific request to that effect. Any request to prevent the inventor from obtaining access to the file should be filed as a separate paper, 37 CFR 1.4(c), and should be directed to the Office of Petitions. If the request is granted, the inventor will be informed that he or she will only be permitted to inspect the application on sufficient showing why such inspection is necessary to conserve his or her rights. Of course, after the application has published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b), the application will be available to the public and any restriction on the inventor to access his or her application previously granted will no longer be in effect.
106.01 Rights of Assignee of Part Interest [R-11.2013]
While it is only the assignee of record of the entire interest who can intervene in the prosecution of an
100-22Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 105
application or interference to the exclusion of the applicant (or, for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, can prosecute the application after becoming the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46), an assignee of a part interest or a licensee of exclusive right is entitled to inspect the application. For information pertaining to prosecution by the assignee, see MPEP § 324 (for applications filed before September 16, 2012) and MPEP § 325 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012).
107-109 [Reserved]
110 Confidential Nature of International Applications [R-07.2015]
PCT Article 30
Confidential Nature of the International Application.
(1)(a) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (b), the International Bureau and the International Searching Authorities shall not allow access by any person or authority to the international application before the international publication of that application, unless requested or authorized by the applicant.
(b) The provisions of subparagraph (a) shall not apply to any transmittal to the competent International Searching Authority, to transmittals provided for under Article 13, and to communications provided for under Article 20.
(2)(a) No national Office shall allow access to the international application by third parties unless requested or authorized by the applicant, before the earliest of the following dates:
(i) date of the international publication of the international application,
(ii) date of receipt of the communication of the international application under Article 20,
(iii) date of receipt of a copy of the international application under Article 22.
(b) The provisions of subparagraph (a) shall not prevent any national Office from informing third parties that it has been designated, or from publishing that fact. Such information or publication may, however, contain only the following data: identification of the receiving Office, name of the applicant, international filing date, international application number, and title of the invention.
(c) The provisions of subparagraph (a) shall not prevent any designated Office from allowing access to the international application for the purposes of the judicial authorities.
(3) The provisions of paragraph (2)(a) shall apply to any receiving Office except as so far as transmittals provided for under Article 12(1) are concerned.
(4) For the purposes of this Article, the term “access” covers any means by which third parties may acquire cognizance, including individual communication and general publication, provided, however, that no national Office shall generally publish an international application or its translation before the international publication or, if international publication has not taken place by the expiration of 20 months from the priority date, before the expiration of 20 months from the said priority date.
PCT Article 38
Confidential Nature of the International Preliminary Examination.
(1) Neither the International Bureau nor the International Preliminary Examining Authority shall, unless requested or authorized by the applicant, allow access within the meaning, and with the proviso, of Article 30(4) to the file of the international preliminary examination by any person or authority at any time, except by the elected Offices once the international preliminary examination report has been established.
(2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (1) and Articles 36(1) and (3) and 37(3)(b), neither the International Bureau nor the International Preliminary Examining Authority shall, unless requested or authorized by the applicant, give information on the issuance or non-issuance of an international preliminary examination report and on the withdrawal or non-withdrawal of the demand or of any election.
35 U.S.C. 368 Secrecy of certain inventions; filing international applications in foreign countries.
(a) International applications filed in the Patent and Trademark Office shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 17.
(b) In accordance with article 27(8) of the treaty, the filing of an international application in a country other than the United States on the invention made in this country shall be considered to constitute the filing of an application in a foreign country within the meaning of chapter 17, whether or not the United States is designated in that international application.
(c) If a license to file in a foreign country is refused or if an international application is ordered to be kept secret and a permit refused, the Patent and Trademark Office when acting as a Receiving Office, International Searching Authority, or International Preliminary ExaminingAuthority, may not disclose the contents of such application to anyone not authorized to receive such disclosure.
Although most international applications are published soon after the expiration of 18 months from the priority date, PCT Article 21(2)(a), such
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-23
§ 110SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
publication does not open up the Home Copy or Search Copy to the public for inspection, except as provided in 37 CFR 1.14(g) .
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence. *****
(g) International applications.
(1) Copies of international application files for international applications which designate the U.S. and which have been published in accordance with PCT Article 21(2), or copies of a document in such application files, will be furnished in accordance with PCT Articles 30 and 38 and PCT Rules 94.2 and 94.3, upon written request including a showing that the publication of the application has occurred and that the U.S. was designated, and upon payment of the appropriate fee (see § 1.19(b)), if:
(i) With respect to the Home Copy (the copy of the international application kept by the Office in its capacity as the Receiving Office, see PCT Article 12(1)), the international application was filed with the U.S. Receiving Office;
(ii) With respect to the Search Copy (the copy of an international application kept by the Office in its capacity as the International Searching Authority, see PCT Article 12(1)), the U.S. acted as the International Searching Authority, except for the written opinion of the International Searching Authority which shall not be available until the expiration of thirty months from the priority date; or
(iii) With respect to the Examination Copy (the copy of an international application kept by the Office in its capacity as the International Preliminary Examining Authority), the United States acted as the International Preliminary Examining Authority, an International Preliminary Examination Report has issued, and the United States was elected.
(2) A copy of an English language translation of a publication of an international application which has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(d)(4) will be furnished upon written request including a showing that the publication of the application in accordance with PCT Article 21(2) has occurred and that the U.S. was designated, and upon payment of the appropriate fee (§ 1.19(b)(4)).
(3) Access to international application files for international applications which designate the U.S. and which have been published in accordance with PCT Article 21(2), or copies of a document in such application files, will be permitted in accordance with PCT Articles 30 and 38 and PCT Rules 44 ter .1, 94.2 and 94.3, upon written request including a showing that the publication of the application has occurred and that the U.S. was designated.
(4) In accordance with PCT Article 30, copies of an international application-as-filed under paragraph (a) of this section will not be provided prior to the international publication of the application pursuant to PCT Article 21(2).
(5) Access to international application files under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) and (g)(3) of this section
will not be permitted with respect to the Examination Copy in accordance with PCT Article 38.
*****
37 CFR 1.14(g) applies to international applications having an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000. After publication of an application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), the USPTO will make available copies of the application files and also allow for access to those files in accordance with 37 CFR 1.14(a). Therefore, after publication of an international application designating the U.S. under PCT Article 21, the USPTO will make available copies of, and allow access to, those international application files which are kept in the USPTO (see 37 CFR 1.14(g) ).
37 CFR 1.14(g)(1) sets forth those conditions upon which copies of international application files may be provided to the public. 37 CFR 1.14(g)(1)(i) and (ii) address the situation where the U.S. acted as the receiving Office and the International Searching Authority, respectively. Under these provisions, copies of the Home and Search Copies of the international file will be provided upon request. However, the written opinion established by the International Searching Authority will not be available until the expiration of 30 months from the priority date. 37 CFR 1.14(g)(1)(iii) addresses the situation in which the U.S. acted as the International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA), the U.S. was elected, and the international preliminary examination report (IPER) has issued. PCT Rule 94.2 provides that after issuance of the IPER, the IPEA shall provide copies of any documents in the examination file to the elected Offices upon request. PCT Rule 94.3 permits the elected Offices to provide access to any documents in its files after international publication has occurred. Therefore, the USPTO acting in its capacity as an elected Office, will provide a copy of the examination file in an international application to a third party upon submission of a request complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.14(g)(1)(iii). Requests for copies of an international application file under 37 CFR 1.14(g)(1) must be in the form of a written request sent to the International Patent Legal Administration and must include a showing that the international application has been published and that
100-24Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 110
the U.S. was designated. Such a showing should preferably be in the form of the submission of a copy of the front page of the published international application. Additionally, requests for copies of international application files must also be accompanied by the appropriate fee (37 CFR 1.19(b)).
37 CFR 1.14(g)(2) provides that copies of English language translations of international applications, which were published in a non-English language and which designated the U.S., and which have been submitted to the Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(d)(4), will also be available to the public. The USPTO will not provide general notification to the public of the filing of English language translations under 35 U.S.C. 154. Under 35 U.S.C. 154, it is the responsibility of the applicant to notify any possible infringers for the purposes of obtaining provisional rights.
37 CFR 1.14(g)(3) addresses access to the Home Copy and the Search Copy of the international application. Access to the Examination Copy of the international application is prohibited under 37 CFR 1.14(g)(5) as required by PCT Article 38.
111-114 [Reserved]
115 Review of Applications for National Security and Property Rights Issues [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 181 Secrecy of certain inventions and withholding of patent.
Whenever publication or disclosure by the publication of an application or by the grant of a patent on an invention in which the Government has a property interest might, in the opinion of the head of the interested Government agency, be detrimental to the national security, the Commissioner of Patents upon being so notified shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of an application or the grant of a patent therefor under the conditions set forth hereinafter.
*****
All provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), international applications filed
under the PCT, and international design applications filed under the Hague Agreement, in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are reviewed for the purposes of issuance of a foreign filing license pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 184. See also 37 CFR 5.1(b). These applications are screened upon receipt in the USPTO for subject matter that, if disclosed, might impact the national security. Such applications are referred to the appropriate agencies for consideration of restrictions on disclosure of the subject matter as provided for in 35 U.S.C. 181.
If a defense agency concludes that disclosure of the invention would be detrimental to the national security, a secrecy order is recommended to the Commissioner for Patents. The Commissioner then issues a Secrecy Order and withholds the publication of the application or the grant of a patent for such period as the national interest requires.
For those applications in which the Government has a property interest (including applications indicating national security classified subject matter), responsibility for notifying the Commissioner for Patents of the need for a Secrecy Order resides with the agency having that interest. Applications that are national security classified (see 37 CFR 1.9(i)) may be so indicated by use of authorized national security markings (e.g., “Confidential,” “Secret,” or “Top Secret”). National security classified documents filed in the USPTO must be either hand-carried to Licensing and Review or mailed to the Office in compliance with 37 CFR 5.1(a) and Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009. However, the Office will accept such applications filed with the USPTO via the Department of Defense Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) and consider them as filed via the USPTO’s electronic filing system for purposes of 37 CFR 1.16(t) and 37 CFR 1.445(a)(ii). As set forth in 37 CFR 5.1(d), the applicant in a national security classified patent application must obtain a secrecy order from the appropriate defense agency or provide authority to cancel the markings. A list of contacts at the appropriate defense agency can be obtained by contacting Licensing and Review.
A second purpose for the screening of all applications, with an exception for provisional applications, is to identify inventions in which DOE
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-25
§ 115SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
or NASA might have property rights. See 42 U.S.C. 2182, 51 U.S.C. 20135, and MPEP § 150.
A third function of the screening procedure is to process foreign filing license petitions under 37 CFR 5.12(a). See MPEP § 140.
Provisional applications filed in a foreign language are also screened under these provisions. The Office will make an attempt to determine the subject matter of the application, but the applicant may be required to provide at least an English language abstract of the information for screening purposes. It is strongly recommended that if the applicant is in possession of an English language description of the technology, it should be filed with the provisional application to prevent screening delays.
All applications are required to be cleared from secrecy review before forwarding to issue. If the L&R code on the general information display does not equal 1, then in an IFW application, a message should be sent to LREVINCOMINGDOCS.
The Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) System's general information display discloses the current Licensing and Review status as well as the historical status. The indicator “L&R code” displays the current status of the application while the indicators “Third Level Review” and “Secrecy Order” display the historical status of the application. An L&R code of “3” or a “Third Level Review” of “Yes” indicates that application is/has been considered for security screening.
An L&R code of “4” indicates that application is currently under Secrecy Order. In this case, the application has been converted to a paper application file and there should be no images maintained in the Image File Wrapper system (IFW).
While the initial screening is performed only by designated personnel, all examiners have a responsibility to be alert for obviously sensitive subject matter either in the original disclosure or subsequently introduced, for example, by amendment. If the examiner is aware of subject matter which should be subject to screening by appropriate office personnel, this should be brought to the attention of Licensing and Review, to any of
the supervisory patent examiners (SPEs) of Technology Center Working Group 3640.
116-119 [Reserved]
120 Secrecy Orders [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 5.1 Correspondence.
(a) All correspondence in connection with this part, including petitions, should be addressed to: Mail Stop L&R, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
(b) Definitions.
(1) Application as used in this part includes provisional applications (§ 1.9(a)(2) of this chapter), nonprovisional applications (§ 1.9(a)(3)), international applications (§ 1.9(b)), or international design applications (§ 1.9(n)).
(2) Foreign application as used in this part includes, for filing in a foreign country, foreign patent office, foreign patent agency, or international agency (other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as a Receiving Office for international applications (35 U.S.C. 361, § 1.412) or as an office of indirect filing for international design applications (35 U.S.C. 382, § 1.1002)) any of the following: An application for patent, international application, international design application, or application for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model.
(c) Patent applications and documents relating thereto that are national security classified (see § 1.9(i) of this chapter) and contain authorized national security markings ( e.g., “Confidential,” “Secret” or “Top Secret”) are accepted by the Office. National security classified documents filed in the Office must be either hand-carried to Licensing and Review or mailed to the Office in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) The applicant in a national security classified patent application must obtain a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2(a). If a national security classified patent application is filed without a notification pursuant to § 5.2(a), the Office will set a time period within which either the application must be declassified, or the application must be placed under a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2(a), or the applicant must submit evidence of a good faith effort to obtain a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2(a) from the relevant department or agency in order to prevent abandonment of the application. If evidence of a good faith effort to obtain a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2(a) from the relevant department or agency is submitted by the applicant within the time period set by the Office, but the application has not been declassified or placed under a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2(a), the Office will again set a time period within which either the application must be declassified, or the application must be placed under a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2(a), or the applicant must submit evidence of a good faith effort to again obtain a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2(a) from the relevant department or agency in order to prevent abandonment of the application.
100-26Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 116-119
(e) An application will not be published under § 1.211 of this chapter or allowed under § 1.311 of this chapter if publication or disclosure of the application would be detrimental to national security. An application under national security review will not be published at least until six months from its filing date or three months from the date the application was referred to a defense agency, whichever is later. A national security classified patent application will not be published under § 1.211 of this chapter or allowed under § 1.311 of this chapter until the application is declassified and any secrecy order under § 5.2(a) has been rescinded.
(f) Applications on inventions made outside the United States and on inventions in which a U.S. Government defense agency has a property interest will not be made available to defense agencies.
37 CFR 5.2 Secrecy order.
(a) When notified by the chief officer of a defense agency that publication or disclosure of the invention by the granting of a patent would be detrimental to the national security, an order that the invention be kept secret will be issued by the Commissioner for Patents.
(b) Any request for compensation as provided in 35 U.S.C. 183 must not be made to the Patent and Trademark Office, but directly to the department or agency which caused the secrecy order to be issued.
(c) An application disclosing any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section also falls within the scope of such secrecy order. Any such application that is pending before the Office must be promptly brought to the attention of Licensing and Review, unless such application is itself under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. Any subsequently filed application containing any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must either be hand-carried to Licensing and Review or mailed to the Office in compliance with § 5.1(a).
37 CFR 5.3 Prosecution of application under secrecy orders; withholding patent.
Unless specifically ordered otherwise, action on the application by the Office and prosecution by the applicant will proceed during the time an application is under secrecy order to the point indicated in this section:
(a) National applications under secrecy order which come to a final rejection must be appealed or otherwise prosecuted to avoid abandonment. Appeals in such cases must be completed by the applicant but unless otherwise specifically ordered by the Commissioner for Patents will not be set for hearing until the secrecy order is removed.
(b) An interference or derivation will not be instituted involving a national application under secrecy order. An applicant whose application is under secrecy order may suggest an interference (§ 41.202(a) of this title), but the Office will not
act on the request while the application remains under a secrecy order.
(c) When the national application is found to be in condition for allowance except for the secrecy order the applicant and the agency which caused the secrecy order to be issued will be notified. This notice (which is not a notice of allowance under § 1.311 of this chapter) does not require reply by the applicant and places the national application in a condition of suspension until the secrecy order is removed. When the secrecy order is removed the Patent and Trademark Office will issue a notice of allowance under § 1.311 of this chapter, or take such other action as may then be warranted.
(d) International applications and international design applications under secrecy order will not be mailed, delivered, or otherwise transmitted to the international authorities or the applicant. International applications under secrecy order will be processed up to the point where, if it were not for the secrecy order, record and search copies would be transmitted to the international authorities or the applicant.
37 CFR 5.4 Petition for rescission of secrecy order.
(a) A petition for rescission or removal of a secrecy order may be filed by, or on behalf of, any principal affected thereby. Such petition may be in letter form, and it must be in duplicate.
(b) The petition must recite any and all facts that purport to render the order ineffectual or futile if this is the basis of the petition. When prior publications or patents are alleged the petition must give complete data as to such publications or patents and should be accompanied by copies thereof.
(c) The petition must identify any contract between the Government and any of the principals under which the subject matter of the application or any significant part thereof was developed or to which the subject matter is otherwise related. If there is no such contract, the petition must so state.
(d) Appeal to the Secretary of Commerce, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 181, from a secrecy order cannot be taken until after a petition for rescission of the secrecy order has been made and denied. Appeal must be taken within sixty days from the date of the denial, and the party appealing, as well as the department or agency which caused the order to be issued, will be notified of the time and place of hearing.
37 CFR 5.5 Permit to disclose or modification of secrecy order.
(a) Consent to disclosure, or to the filing of an application abroad, as provided in 35 U.S.C. 182, shall be made by a “permit” or “modification” of the secrecy order.
(b) Petitions for a permit or modification must fully recite the reason or purpose for the proposed disclosure. Where any proposed disclosee is known to be cleared by a defense agency to receive classified information, adequate explanation of such clearance should be made in the petition including the name of the agency or department granting the clearance and the date and degree thereof. The petition must be filed in duplicate.
(c) In a petition for modification of a secrecy order to permit filing abroad, all countries in which it is proposed to file must
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-27
§ 120SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
be made known, as well as all attorneys, agents and others to whom the material will be consigned prior to being lodged in the foreign patent office. The petition should include a statement vouching for the loyalty and integrity of the proposed disclosees and where their clearance status in this or the foreign country is known all details should be given.
(d) Consent to the disclosure of subject matter from one application under secrecy order may be deemed to be consent to the disclosure of common subject matter in other applications under secrecy order so long as not taken out of context in a manner disclosing material beyond the modification granted in the first application.
(e) Organizations requiring consent for disclosure of applications under secrecy order to persons or organizations in connection with repeated routine operation may petition for such consent in the form of a general permit. To be successful such petitions must ordinarily recite the security clearance status of the disclosees as sufficient for the highest classification of material that may be involved.
I. SECRECY ORDER TYPES
Three types of Secrecy Orders, each of a different scope, are issued as follows:
(A) Secrecy Order and Permit for Foreign Filing in Certain Countries (Type I secrecy order)— to be used for those patent applications that disclose critical technology with military or space application in accordance with DoD Directive 5230.25 “Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data From Public Disclosure,” based on 10 U.S.C. 130 “Authority to Withhold From Public Disclosure Certain Technical Data.”
(B) Secrecy Order and Permit for Disclosing Classified Information (Type II secrecy order)— to be used for those patent applications which contain data that is properly classified or classifiable under a security guideline where the patent application owner has a current DoD Security Agreement, DD Form 441. If the application is classifiable, this secrecy order allows disclosure of the technical information as if it were classified as prescribed in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM).
(C) General Secrecy Order (Type III secrecy order)— to be used for those patent applications that contain data deemed detrimental to national security if published or disclosed, including that data properly classifiable under a security guideline where the patent application owner does not have a DoD Security Agreement. The order prevents disclosure
of the subject matter to anyone without an express written consent from the Commissioner for Patents. However, quite often this type of secrecy order includes a permit “Permit A” which relaxes the disclosure restrictions as set forth in the permit.
The Type I Secrecy Order is intended to permit the widest utilization of the technical data in the patent application while still controlling any publication or disclosure which would result in an unlawful exportation. This type of Secrecy Order also identifies the countries where corresponding patent applications may be filed. Countries with which the United States has reciprocal security agreements are: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Please note that applications subject to a secrecy order cannot be filed directly with the European Patent Office since no reciprocal security agreement with this organization exists. Applications must be filed in the individual EPO member countries identified above. Applicant must arrange filing of such subject matter through the agency sponsoring the secrecy order.
The intent of the Type II Secrecy Order is to treat classified and classifiable technical data presented as a patent application in the same manner as any other classified material. Accordingly, this Secrecy Order will include a notification of the classification level of the technical data in the application.
The Type III Secrecy Order is used where the other types of Orders do not apply, including Orders issued by direction of agencies other than the Department of Defense.
A Secrecy Order should not be construed in any way to mean that the Government has adopted or contemplates adoption of the alleged invention disclosed in an application; nor is it any indication of the value of such invention.
II. RELATED SUBJECT MATTER
The Secrecy Orders apply to the subject matter of the invention, not just to the patent application itself.
100-28Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 120
Thus, the Secrecy Order restricts disclosure or publication of the invention in any form. Furthermore, other patent applications already filed or later filed which contain any significant part of the subject matter of the application also fall within the scope of the Order and must be brought to the attention of Licensing & Review if such applications are not already under Secrecy Order by the Commissioner.
The effects of a Secrecy Order are detailed in the notifying letter and include restrictions on disclosure of the invention and delay of any patent grant until the Order is rescinded.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
When the Secrecy Order issues, the law specifies that the subject matter or any material information relevant to the application, including unpublished details of the invention, shall not be published or disclosed to any person not aware of the invention prior to the date of the Order, including any employee of the principals except as permitted by the Secrecy Order. The law also requires that all information material to the subject matter of the application be kept in confidence, unless written permission to disclose is first obtained from the Commissioner for Patents except as provided by the Secrecy Order. Therefore, all correspondence to be filed in an application which is subject to a secrecy order and which is directly related to the subject matter covered by the Secrecy Order must be transmitted to the Office in a manner which would preclude disclosure to unauthorized individuals and addressed as set forth in 37 CFR 5.1(a). Use of facsimile transmission is not permitted. 37 CFR 1.6(d)(6).
Subject matter under Secrecy Order must be safeguarded under conditions that will provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons.
When applicants desire to change the Power of Attorney in an application under Secrecy Order, applicant is required to provide a statement that the new attorney(s) has been apprised of the secrecy order.
In the case of applications bearing National Security Classification markings pursuant to an Executive Order, e.g., “Confidential” or “Secret,” applicants must provide a DoD cage code as evidence of the ability to accept and store classified information. Applicants no longer need to provide individual personal information to ensure a proper security clearance. Personnel controlling the cleared correspondence address bear the burden of ensuring that individuals obtaining classified information from the correspondence address follow the proper procedures for handling classified information.
IV. INTERNATIONALAPPLICATIONS (PCT)AND INTERNATIONAL DESIGN APPLICATIONS
If the Secrecy Order is applied to an international application or an international design application, the application will not be mailed, delivered, or otherwise transmitted to the international authorities or the applicant as long as the Secrecy Order remains in effect.
An international application will be considered withdrawn (abandoned) if the Secrecy Order remains in effect at the end of the time limit under PCT Rule 22.3 because the Record Copy of the international application was not received in time by the International Bureau. 37 CFR 5.3(d), PCT Article 12(3), and PCT Rule 22.3. If the United States of America has been designated, however, it is possible to save the U.S. filing date, by fulfilling the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c) prior to the withdrawal.
V. CHANGES IN SECRECY ORDERS
Applicants may petition for rescission or modification of the Secrecy Order. For example, if the applicant believes that certain existing facts or circumstances would render the Secrecy Order ineffectual, he or she may informally contact the sponsoring agency to discuss these facts or formally petition the Commissioner for Patents to rescind the Order. Rescission of a Secrecy Order may also be effected in some circumstances by expunging the sensitive subject matter from the disclosure, provided the sensitive subject matter is not necessary for an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112. See MPEP § 724.05. The defense agency identified with the
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-29
§ 120SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
Secrecy Order as sponsoring the Order should be contacted directly for assistance in determining what subject matter in the application is sensitive, and whether the agency would agree to rescind the Order upon expunging this subject matter. The applicant may also petition the Commissioner for Patents for a permit to disclose the invention to another or to modify the Secrecy Order stating fully the reason or purpose for disclosure or modification. An example of such a situation would be a request to file the application in a foreign country. The requirements for petitions are described in 37 CFR 5.4 and 5.5. The law also provides that if an appeal is necessary, it may be taken to the Secretary of Commerce. Any petition or appeal should be addressed to the Mail Stop L&R, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia, 22313-1450.
VI. IMPROPER OR INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE
If, prior to or after the issuance of the Secrecy Order, any significant part of the subject matter or material information relevant to the application has been or is revealed to any U.S. citizen in the United States, the principals must promptly inform such person of the Secrecy Order and the penalties for improper disclosure. If such part of the subject matter was or is disclosed to any person in a foreign country or foreign national in the U.S., the principals must not inform such person of the Secrecy Order, but instead must promptly furnish to Mail Stop L&R, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia, 22313-1450 the following information to the extent not already furnished: date of disclosure; name and address of the disclosee; identification of such subject matter; and any authorization by a U.S. government agency to export such subject matter. If the subject matter is included in any foreign patent application or patent, this should be identified.
VII. EXPIRATION
Under the provision of 35 U.S.C. 181, a Secrecy Order remains in effect for a period of 1 year from its date of issuance. A Secrecy Order may be renewed for additional periods of not more than 1 year upon notice by a government agency that the national interest so requires. The applicant is notified of any such renewal.
The expiration of or failure to renew a Secrecy Order does not lessen in any way the responsibility of the principals for the security of the subject matter if it is subject to the provisions of Exec. Order No. 12958 or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 141 et. seq. and 42 U.S.C. 2181 et. seq. or other applicable law unless the principals have been expressly notified that the subject patent application has been declassified by the proper authorities and the security markings have been authorized to be canceled or removed.
121 Handling of Applications under Secrecy Order and/or Bearing National Security Markings [R-08.2012]
Applications subject to Secrecy Order will be deleted from any image file system within the USPTO, converted to paper and held with Licensing and Review. The application will be transferred to an examiner designated by Licensing and Review for examination. Under the current Executive Order for Classified National Security Information, standards are prescribed for the marking, handling, and care of official information which requires safeguarding in the interest of security.
Papers marked as prescribed in the Executive Orders and showing that such marking is applied by, or at the direction of, a government agency, are accepted in patent applications. All applications or papers, including non-patent literature, in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office bearing words such as “Secret,” “Confidential,” “ITAR” or similar must be promptly referred to Technology Center (TC) Working Group 3640 for clarification or security treatment. Under no circumstances can any such application, drawing, exhibit, or other paper be placed in public records, such as the patented files, until all security markings have been considered and declassified or otherwise explained. For applications filed with the Office bearing what appears to be National Security Markings, the applicant will be so notified by Licensing and Review and asked to explain the markings, remove such markings if improper, or obtain a Secrecy Order, if necessary. If markings are found improper and removed, the application may be referred to a defense agency if deemed necessary for review under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 181. Any application filed
100-30Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 121
directly with Licensing and Review, not bearing proper security markings or Secrecy Order will be transmitted to scanning for incorporation as an electronic file in IFW and treated as a normal application.
Authorized security markings may be placed on the patent application drawings when filed provided that such markings are outside the illustrations and that they are removed when the material is declassified. 37 CFR 1.84(v).
122-129 [Reserved]
130 Examination of Secrecy Order Cases [R-11.2013]
All applications in which a Secrecy Order has been imposed are examined in a secure location by examiners possessing national security clearances under the control of Licensing and Review. If the Order is imposed subsequent to the docketing of an application in another TC, the application will be transferred to an examiner designated by Licensing and Review.
Secrecy Order cases are examined for patentability as in other cases, but will not be passed to issue; nor will an interference or derivation be instituted where one or more of the conflicting cases is classified or under Secrecy Order. See 37 CFR 5.3 and MPEP § 2306.
In case of a final rejection, while such action must be properly replied to, and an appeal, if filed, must be completed by the applicant to prevent abandonment, such appeal will not be set for hearing by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board until the Secrecy Order is removed, unless specifically ordered by the Commissioner for Patents.
When a Secrecy Order case is in condition for allowance, a notice of allowability (Form D-10) is issued, thus closing the prosecution. See 37 CFR 5.3(c). Any amendments received thereafter are not entered or responded to until such time as the Secrecy Order is rescinded. At such time,
amendments which are free from objection will be entered; otherwise they are denied entry.
Due to the additional administrative burdens associated with handling papers in Secrecy Order cases, the full statutory period for reply will ordinarily be set for all Office actions issued on such cases.
Sometimes applications bearing national security markings but no Secrecy Order come up for examination. In this case, the examiner should require the applicant to seek imposition of a Secrecy Order or authority to cancel the markings. This should preferably be done with the first action and, in any event, prior to final disposition of the application. Pursuant to 37 CFR 5.1(d), if no Secrecy Order has issued in a national security classified patent application, the Office will set a time period within which the applicant must take one of the following three actions in order to prevent abandonment of the application:
(A) obtain a Secrecy Order;
(B) declassify the application; or
(C) submit evidence of a good faith effort to obtain a Secrecy Order pursuant to 37 CFR 5.2(a).
Pursuant to 37 CFR 5.1(e), a national security classified patent application will not be allowed until the application is declassified and any Secrecy Order pursuant to 37 CFR 5.2(a) has been rescinded.
131-139 [Reserved]
140 Foreign Filing Licenses [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 184 Filing of application in foreign country.
(a) FILING IN FOREIGN COUNTRY.—Except when authorized by a license obtained from the Commissioner of Patents a person shall not file or cause or authorize to be filed in any foreign country prior to six months after filing in the United States an application for patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of an invention made in this country. A license shall not be granted with respect to an invention subject to an order issued by the Commissioner of Patents pursuant to section 181 without the concurrence of the head of the departments and the chief officers of the agencies who caused the order to be issued. The license may be granted retroactively where an application has been filed
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-31
§ 140SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
abroad through error and the application does not disclose an invention within the scope of section 181.
(b) APPLICATION.—The term “application” when used in this chapter includes applications and any modifications, amendments, or supplements thereto, or divisions thereof.
(c) SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS,AMENDMENTS, AND SUPPLEMENTS.—The scope of a license shall permit subsequent modifications, amendments, and supplements containing additional subject matter if the application upon which the request for the license is based is not, or was not, required to be made available for inspection under section 181 and if such modifications, amendments, and supplements do not change the general nature of the invention in a manner which would require such application to be made available for inspection under such section 181. In any case in which a license is not, or was not, required in order to file an application in any foreign country, such subsequent modifications, amendments, and supplements may be made, without a license, to the application filed in the foreign country if the United States application was not required to be made available for inspection under section 181 and if such modifications, amendments, and supplements do not, or did not, change the general nature of the invention in a manner which would require the United States application to have been made available for inspection under such section 181.
35 U.S.C. 185 Patent barred for filing without license.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law any person, and his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, shall not receive a United States patent for an invention if that person, or his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall, without procuring the license prescribed in section 184, have made, or consented to or assisted another’s making, application in a foreign country for a patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of the invention. A United States patent issued to such person, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall be invalid, unless the failure to procure such license was through error, and the patent does not disclose subject matter within the scope of section 181.
35 U.S.C. 186 Penalty.
Whoever, during the period or periods of time an invention has been ordered to be kept secret and the grant of a patent thereon withheld pursuant to section 181, shall, with knowledge of such order and without due authorization, willfully publish or disclose or authorize or cause to be published or disclosed the invention, or material information with respect thereto, or whoever willfully, in violation of the provisions of section 184, shall file or cause or authorize to be filed in any foreign country an application for patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of any invention made in the United States, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
35 U.S.C. 187 Nonapplicability to certain persons
The prohibitions and penalties of this chapter shall not apply to any officer or agent of the United States acting within the scope of his authority, nor to any person acting upon his written instructions or permission.
35 U.S.C. 188 Rules and regulations, delegation of power.
The Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a defense department, the chief officer of any department or agency of the Government designated by the President as a defense agency of the United States, and the Secretary of Commerce, may separately issue rules and regulations to enable the respective department or agency to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and may delegate any power conferred by this chapter.
37 CFR 5.11 License for filing in, or exporting to, a foreign country an application on an invention made in the United States or technical data relating thereto.
(a) A license from the Commissioner for Patents under 35 U.S.C. 184 is required before filing any application for patent including any modifications, amendments, or supplements thereto or divisions thereof or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model, in a foreign country, foreign patent office, foreign patent agency, or any international agency (other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office acting as a Receiving Office for international applications (35 U.S.C. 361 , § 1.412 ) or as an office of indirect filing for international design applications (35 U.S.C. 382 , §1.1002 )), if the invention was made in the United States, and:
(1) An application on the invention has been filed in the United States less than six months prior to the date on which the application is to be filed, or
(2) No application on the invention has been filed in the United States.
(b) The license from the Commissioner for Patents referred to in paragraph (a) of this section would also authorize the export of technical data abroad for purposes relating to the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign application without separately complying with the regulations contained in 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the Department of State), 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (Export Administration Regulations of the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce) and 10 CFR part 810 (Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities Regulations of the Department of Energy).
(c) Where technical data in the form of a patent application, or in any form, are being exported for purposes related to the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign application, without the license from the Commissioner for Patents referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, or on an invention not made in the United States, the export regulations contained in 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the Department of State), 15 CFR parts
100-32Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 140
730 through 774 (Export Administration Regulations of the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce) and 10 CFR part 810 (Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities Regulations of the Department of Energy) must be complied with unless a license is not required because a United States application was on file at the time of export for at least six months without a secrecy order under § 5.2 being placed thereon. The term “exported” means export as it is defined in 22 CFR part 120, 15 CFR part 734 and activities covered by 10 CFR part 810.
(d) If a secrecy order has been issued under § 5.2, an application cannot be exported to, or filed in, a foreign country (including an international agency in a foreign country), except in accordance with § 5.5.
(e) No license pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is required:
(1) If the invention was not made in the United States, or
(2) If the corresponding United States application is not subject to a secrecy order under § 5.2, and was filed at least six months prior to the date on which the application is filed in a foreign country, or
(3) For subsequent modifications, amendments and supplements containing additional subject matter to, or divisions of, a foreign patent application if:
(i) A license is not, or was not, required under paragraph (e)(2) of this section for the foreign application;
(ii) The corresponding United States application was not required to be made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181; and
(iii) Such modifications, amendments, and supplements do not, or did not, change the general nature of the invention in a manner which would require any corresponding United States application to be or have been available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181.
(f) A license pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section can be revoked at any time upon written notification by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. An authorization to file a foreign patent application resulting from the passage of six months from the date of filing of a United States patent application may be revoked by the imposition of a secrecy order.
37 CFR 5.12 Petition for license.
(a) Filing of an application on an invention made in the United States will be considered to include a petition for license under 35 U.S.C. 184 for the subject matter of the application. The filing receipt or other official notice will indicate if a license is granted. If the initial automatic petition is not granted, a subsequent petition may be filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) A petition for license must include the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) of this chapter, the petitioner’s address, and full instructions for delivery of the requested license when it is to be delivered to other than the petitioner. The petition should be presented in letter form.
37 CFR 5.13 Petition for license; no corresponding application.
If no corresponding national, international design, or international application has been filed in the United States, the petition for license under § 5.12(b) must also be accompanied by a legible copy of the material upon which a license is desired. This copy will be retained as a measure of the license granted.
37 CFR 5.14 Petition for license; corresponding U.S. application.
(a) When there is a corresponding United States application on file, a petition for license under § 5.12(b) must also identify this application by application number, filing date, inventor, and title, but a copy of the material upon which the license is desired is not required. The subject matter licensed will be measured by the disclosure of the United States application.
(b) Two or more United States applications should not be referred to in the same petition for license unless they are to be combined in the foreign or international application, in which event the petition should so state and the identification of each United States application should be in separate paragraphs.
(c) Where the application to be filed or exported abroad contains matter not disclosed in the United States application or applications, including the case where the combining of two or more United States applications introduces subject matter not disclosed in any of them, a copy of the application as it is to be filed or exported abroad, must be furnished with the petition. If, however, all new matter in the application to be filed or exported is readily identifiable, the new matter may be submitted in detail and the remainder by reference to the pertinent United States application or applications.
37 CFR 5.15 Scope of license.
(a) Applications or other materials reviewed pursuant to §§ 5.12 through 5.14, which were not required to be made available for inspection by defense agencies under 35 U.S.C. 181, will be eligible for a license of the scope provided in this paragraph. This license permits subsequent modifications, amendments, and supplements containing additional subject matter to, or divisions of, a foreign patent application, if such changes to the application do not alter the general nature of the invention in a manner which would require the United States application to have been made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181. Grant of this license authorizes the export and filing of an application in a foreign country or to any foreign patent agency or international patent agency when the subject matter of the foreign application corresponds to that of the domestic application. This license includes authority:
(1) To export and file all duplicate and formal application papers in foreign countries or with international agencies;
(2) To make amendments, modifications, and supplements, including divisions, changes or supporting matter consisting of the illustration, exemplification, comparison, or explanation of subject matter disclosed in the application; and
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-33
§ 140SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
(3) To take any action in the prosecution of the foreign application provided that the adding of subject matter or taking of any action under paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section does not change the general nature of the invention disclosed in the application in a manner that would require such application to have been made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181 by including technical data pertaining to:
(i) Defense services or articles designated in the United States Munitions List applicable at the time of foreign filing, the unlicensed exportation of which is prohibited pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, and 22 CFR parts 120 through 130; or
(ii) Restricted Data, sensitive nuclear technology or technology useful in the production or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy, dissemination of which is subject to restrictions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, as implemented by the regulations for Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities, 10 CFR part 810, in effect at the time of foreign filing.
(b) Applications or other materials which were required to be made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181 will be eligible for a license of the scope provided in this paragraph. Grant of this license authorizes the export and filing of an application in a foreign country or to any foreign patent agency or international patent agency. Further, this license includes authority to export and file all duplicate and formal papers in foreign countries or with foreign and international patent agencies and to make amendments, modifications, and supplements to, file divisions of, and take any action in the prosecution of the foreign application, provided subject matter additional to that covered by the license is not involved.
(c) A license granted under § 5.12(b) pursuant to § 5.13 or § 5.14 shall have the scope indicated in paragraph (a) of this section, if it is so specified in the license. A petition, accompanied by the required fee (§ 1.17(g) of this chapter), may also be filed to change a license having the scope indicated in paragraph (b) of this section to a license having the scope indicated in paragraph (a) of this section. No such petition will be granted if the copy of the material filed pursuant to § 5.13 or any corresponding United States application was required to be made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181. The change in the scope of a license will be effective as of the date of the grant of the petition.
(d) In those cases in which no license is required to file or export the foreign application, no license is required to file papers in connection with the prosecution of the foreign application not involving the disclosure of additional subject matter.
(e) Any paper filed abroad or transmitted to an international patent agency following the filing of a foreign application that changes the general nature of the subject matter disclosed at the time of filing in a manner which would require such application to have been made available for inspection under 35 U.S.C. 181 or which involves the disclosure of subject matter listed in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section must be separately licensed in the same manner as a foreign application. Further, if no license has been granted under § 5.12(a) on filing the
corresponding United States application, any paper filed abroad or with an international patent agency that involves the disclosure of additional subject matter must be licensed in the same manner as a foreign application.
(f) Licenses separately granted in connection with two or more United States applications may be exercised by combining or dividing the disclosures, as desired, provided:
(1) Subject matter which changes the general nature of the subject matter disclosed at the time of filing or which involves subject matter listed in paragraphs (a)(3) (i) or (ii) of this section is not introduced and,
(2) In the case where at least one of the licenses was obtained under § 5.12(b), additional subject matter is not introduced.
(g) A license does not apply to acts done before the license was granted. See § 5.25 for petitions for retroactive licenses.
37 CFR 5.18 Arms, ammunition, and implements of war.
(a) The exportation of technical data relating to arms, ammunition, and implements of war generally is subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the Department of State (22 CFR parts 120 through 130); the articles designated as arms, ammunitions, and implements of war are enumerated in the U.S. Munitions List (22 CFR part 121). However, if a patent applicant complies with regulations issued by the Commissioner for Patents under 35 U.S.C. 184, no separate approval from the Department of State is required unless the applicant seeks to export technical data exceeding that used to support a patent application in a foreign country. This exemption from Department of State regulations is applicable regardless of whether a license from the Commissioner for Patents is required by the provisions of §§ 5.11 and 5.12 (22 CFR part 125).
(b) When a patent application containing subject matter on the Munitions List (22 CFR part 121) is subject to a secrecy order under § 5.2 and a petition is made under § 5.5 for a modification of the secrecy order to permit filing abroad, a separate request to the Department of State for authority to export classified information is not required (22 CFR part 125).
37 CFR 5.19 Export of technical data.
(a) Under regulations (15 CFR 734.3(b)(1)(v)) established by the Department of Commerce, a license is not required in any case to file a patent application or part thereof in a foreign country if the foreign filing is in accordance with the regulations (§§ 5.11 through 5.25) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
(b) An export license is not required for data contained in a patent application prepared wholly from foreign-origin technical data where such application is being sent to the foreign inventor to be executed and returned to the United States for subsequent filing in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (15 CFR 734.10(a)).
37 CFR 5.20 Export of technical data relating to sensitive nuclear technology.
100-34Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 140
Under regulations (10 CFR 810.7) established by the United States Department of Energy, an application filed in accordance with the regulations (§§ 5.11 through 5.25) of the Patent and Trademark Office and eligible for foreign filing under 35 U.S.C. 184, is considered to be information available to the public in published form and a generally authorized activity for the purposes of the Department of Energy regulations.
37 CFR 5.25 Petition for retroactive license.
(a) A petition for retroactive license under 35 U.S.C. 184 shall be presented in accordance with § 5.13 or § 5.14(a), and shall include:
(1) A listing of each of the foreign countries in which the unlicensed patent application material was filed,
(2) The dates on which the material was filed in each country,
(3) A verified statement (oath or declaration) containing:
(i) An averment that the subject matter in question was not under a secrecy order at the time it was filed aboard [sic], and that it is not currently under a secrecy order,
(ii) A showing that the license has been diligently sought after discovery of the proscribed foreign filing, and
(iii) An explanation of why the material was filed abroad through error without the required license under § 5.11 first having been obtained, and
(4) The required fee (§ 1.17(g) of this chapter).
(b) The explanation in paragraph (a) of this section must include a showing of facts rather than a mere allegation of action through error. The showing of facts as to the nature of the error should include statements by those persons having personal knowledge of the acts regarding filing in a foreign country and should be accompanied by copies of any necessary supporting documents such as letters of transmittal or instructions for filing. The acts which are alleged to constitute error should cover the period leading up to and including each of the proscribed foreign filings.
(c) If a petition for a retroactive license is denied, a time period of not less than thirty days shall be set, during which the petition may be renewed. Failure to renew the petition within the set time period will result in a final denial of the petition. A final denial of a petition stands unless a petition is filed under § 1.181 within two months of the date of the denial. If the petition for a retroactive license is denied with respect to the invention of a pending application and no petition under § 1.181 has been filed, a final rejection of the application under 35 U.S.C. 185 will be made.
In the interests of national security, the United States government imposes restrictions on the export of technical information. These restrictions are administered by the Departments of Commerce,
State, and/or Energy depending on the subject matter involved. For the filing of patent applications and registrations of industrial designs in foreign countries, the authority for export control has been delegated to the Commissioner for Patents (note that the term “Commissioner of Patents” is used in Chapter 17 of title 35 of the U.S. Code, but “Commissioner for Patents” is used in most of the remainder of the statute and throughout title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations; both titles are understood to represent the same individual). Note that the export of subject matter abroad for purposes not related to foreign filing of a patent application or a registration of an industrial design, such as preparing an application in a foreign country for subsequent filing in the USPTO is not covered by any license from the USPTO. Applicants are directed to the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce for the appropriate clearances.
There are two ways in which permission to file an application abroad may be obtained: either a petition for a foreign filing license may be granted (37 CFR 5.12) or an applicant may wait 6 months after filing an application in the USPTO (35 U.S.C. 184) at which time a license on that subject matter is no longer required as long as no Secrecy Order has been imposed. 37 CFR 5.11(e)(2).
There are several means by which a foreign filing license may be issued. First, every U.S. origin application filed in the USPTO is considered to include an implicit petition for a foreign filing license. The grant of a license is not immediate or even ensured. If the application is not marked by the security screeners, the petition is granted. The filing receipt or other official notice will indicate if a foreign filing license is granted. The license becomes effective on the date shown. Further, grant of this license is made of record in the application file. The scope of this license is quite broad as set forth in 37 CFR 5.15(a).
I. EXPEDITED FOREIGN FILING LICENSE
Explicit petitions for foreign filing licenses will also be accepted in accordance with 37 CFR 5.12(b). Such petitions may be hand carried to the Office, faxed to Licensing and Review, or submitted via
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-35
§ 140SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
EFS-Web. See MPEP §§ 502, 502.01 and 502.05. Applicants may be interested in such petitions in cases:
(A) in which the filing receipt license is not granted;
(B) in which the filing receipt has not yet been issued (37 CFR 5.14(a) or (b));
(C) in which there is no corresponding U.S. application (37 CFR 5.13);
(D) in which subject matter additional to that already licensed is sought to be licensed (37 CFR 5.14(c) and 5.15(e)); or
(E) in which expedited handling is requested.
The scope of any license granted on these petitions is indicated on the license.
Petitions under 37 CFR 5.14(a) or (b) as well as any license granted on the petition are made of record in the application file. Petitions under 37 CFR 5.14(c) are not ordinarily made of record in the application file.
Applicants granted a license under 37 CFR 5.12(b) having the relatively narrow scope indicated in 37 CFR 5.15(b) may petition under 37 CFR 5.15(c) to convert the license to the broad scope of 37 CFR 5.15(a). A fee is charged for such a petition. See 37 CFR 1.17(g). If the petition is granted, the change in the scope of the license is effective as of that day.
Generally, a license will be granted, if there is no national security concern, within 3 business days from receipt of the expedited petition (filed under 37 CFR 5.12(b)) in Licensing and Review. Applicants are strongly encouraged to hand deliver or fax the license request directly to Licensing and Review at 571-273-0185. Applicants should also provide a contact number or fax number to which the license should be sent. Without this information, the license will be mailed to the requester, thereby delaying the receipt of the license.
II. RETROACTIVE LICENSES
A petition for a retroactive filing license may be filed under 37 CFR 5.25 if an unlicensed foreign filing has occurred through error. However, the
requirements of 37 CFR 5.25 must be fulfilled in order for such a petition to be granted. Note that for petitions filed prior to September 16, 2012, the petition must specify that the error occurred without deceptive intent (see pre-AIA 37 CFR 5.25(a)(3)(iii) and (b)). Licenses under 37 CFR 5.25 are only made retroactive with respect to specific acts of foreign filing, and therefore the countries, the actual dates of filing and the establishing of the nature of the error must be provided for each act of proscribed foreign filing for which a retroactive license is sought. Also, the required verified statement must be in oath or declaration form.
Upon written notification from the USPTO, any foreign filing license required by 37 CFR 5.11(a) may be revoked. Ordinarily, revocation indicates that additional review of the licensed subject matter revealed the need for referral of the application to the appropriate defense agencies. Revocation of a filing receipt license (37 CFR 5.12(a)) does not necessarily mean that a petition under 37 CFR 5.12(b) for a license of narrower scope will not be granted. The revocation becomes effective on the date on which the notice is mailed. Foreign filings, which occurred prior to revocation, need not be abandoned or otherwise specially treated; however, additional filings without a license are not permitted unless 6 months have elapsed from the filing of any corresponding U.S. application. Papers and other documents needed in support of prosecution of foreign applications may be sent abroad if they comply with any pertinent export regulations. Of course, if and once a Secrecy Order is issued, the restrictions thereof must immediately be observed.
Only the imposition of a Secrecy Order will cause revocation of the authority which arises from 35 U.S.C. 184 to file a foreign patent application 6 months or later after the date of filing of a corresponding U.S. patent application.
The penalties for failing to obtain any necessary license to file a patent application abroad are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 182, 35 U.S.C. 185, and 35 U.S.C. 186 and include loss of patenting rights in addition to possible fine or imprisonment. Petitions for retroactive foreign filing licenses are processed by Licensing and Review and decided by the Office of Petitions. See MPEP § 1002.02(b). If applicant also
100-36Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 140
wishes an expedited license for future filings, a separate expedited license request must be filed with Licensing and Review.
141-149 [Reserved]
150 Statements to DOE and NASA [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.14 Patent applications preserved in confidence. *****
(d) Applications reported to Department of Energy. Applications for patents which appear to disclose, purport to disclose or do disclose inventions or discoveries relating to atomic energy are reported to the Department of Energy, which Department will be given access to the applications. Such reporting does not constitute a determination that the subject matter of each application so reported is in fact useful or is an invention or discovery, or that such application in fact discloses subject matter in categories specified by 42 U.S.C. 2181(c) and (d).
*****
Title 42 United States Code, Section 2182 reads in part:
42 U.S.C. 2182 Inventions conceived during Commission contracts; ownership; waiver; hearings
*****
No patent for any invention or discovery, useful in the production or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy, shall be issued unless the applicant files with the application, or within thirty days after request therefor by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (unless the Commission advises the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office that its rights have been determined and that accordingly no statement is necessary) a statement under oath setting forth the full facts surrounding the making or conception of the invention or discovery described in the application and whether the invention or discovery was made or conceived in the course of or under any contract, subcontract, or arrangement entered into with or for the benefit of the Commission, regardless of whether the contract, subcontract, or arrangement involved the expenditure of funds by the Commission. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall as soon as the application is otherwise in condition for allowance forward copies of the application and the statement to the Commission.
*****
Similarly, Title 51 United States Code, section 20135 provides in part:
51 U.S.C. 20135 Property rights in inventions
*****
(d) Patent Application. - No patent may be issued to any applicant other than the Administrator for any invention which appears to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereafter in this section referred to as the "Director") to have significant utility in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities unless the applicant files with the Director, with the application or within 30 days after request therefor by the Director, a written statement executed under oath setting forth the full facts concerning the circumstances under which the invention was made and stating the relationship (if any) of the invention to the performance of any work under any contract of the Administration. Copies of each such statement and the application to which it relates shall be transmitted forthwith by the Director to the Administrator.
*****
Property rights statements to DOE or NASA may be filed at any time but should be updated if necessary to accurately reflect property rights at the time the application is allowed.
Shortly after filing, an informal request for a property rights statement will be mailed to those applicants whose nonprovisional applications have been marked by the USPTO security screeners as being of interest to DOE or NASA. Provisional applications are not subject to DOE or NASA property rights review. While no formal time period is set, a response by applicants within 45 days will expedite processing. If the statement submitted during this period is defective, another letter is sent from Licensing and Review detailing the deficiencies and giving applicant another opportunity to respond during this period of informal correspondence.
If no response to the initial so called 45-Day Letter is received or if repeated efforts to correct a defective statement evidence an absence of cooperation on the part of the applicant, a formal request for a statement in accordance with the statutes will be made. A 30-day statutory period for response is then set. There is no provision for an extension of this time period. If no proper and timely statement is received, the application will be held abandoned and the
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-37
§ 150SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
applicant so notified. Such applications may be revived under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.137. In re Rutan, 231 USPQ 864 (Comm’r Pat. 1986).
Any papers pertaining to property rights under section 152 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2182, (DOE), or section 305(c) or the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 42 U.S.C. 2457, (NASA), that have not been associated with the application file, or have not been made of record in the file and processed by the Licensing and Review section, must be sent to the Licensing and Review section immediately.
151 Content of the Statements [R-11.2013]
The law requires the statement to set forth “the full facts” surrounding the conception and making of the invention. These facts should include those which are unique to that invention. The use of form paragraphs or printed forms which set forth only broad generalized statements of fact is not ordinarily regarded as meeting the requirements of these statutes.
The word “applicant” in both of these statutes is construed by the Office to mean the inventor or joint inventors in person, or an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter. Accordingly, in the ordinary situation, the statements must be signed by the inventor or the joint inventors, or an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter if available. This construction is consistent with the fact that no other person could normally be more knowledgeable of the “full facts concerning the circumstances under which such invention was made,” (42 U.S.C. 2457) or, “full facts surrounding the making or conception of the invention or discovery” (42 U.S.C. 2182). If a request under 37 CFR 1.48 for correction of inventorship is granted during pendency of an application in which a property rights statement has been filed, a supplemental statement executed by any added inventor(s) is required and should promptly be filed with Licensing and Review.
In instances where an applicant does not have firsthand knowledge whether the invention involved
work under any contract, subcontract, or arrangement with or for the benefit of the Atomic Energy Commission, or had any relationship to any work under any contract of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and includes in his or her statement information of this nature derived from others, his or her statement should identify the source of his or her information. Alternatively, the statement by the applicant could be accompanied by a supplemental declaration or oath, as to the contractual matters, by the assignee or other person, e.g., an employee thereof, who has the requisite knowledge.
When an inventor applicant is deceased or legally incapacitated, or where it is shown to the satisfaction of this Office that he or she refuses to furnish a statement or cannot be reached after diligent efforts, declarations or statements under oath setting forth the information required by the statutes may be accepted from an officer or employee of the assignee who has sufficient knowledge of the facts. The offer of such substitute statements should be based on the actual unavailability of or refusal by the applicant, rather than mere inconvenience. Where it is shown that one of the joint inventors is deceased or unavailable, a statement by all of the other inventor(s) may be accepted.
The following is an acceptable format for statements to DOE or NASA assuming that no government funds or other considerations were involved in the making or conception of the invention. It is important that the information provided in the statement be an accurate reflection of the fact situation at the time the statement is made. While the sample below is in the form of a declaration, a sworn oath is equally acceptable.
Note that the statement must be in the form of an oath or declaration. Further note that the statement must be signed by all the inventors. See also the notice entitled “Statements Filed Under Atomic Energy Act and NASA Act” published in 914 OG 1 (Sept. 4, 1973) for further information.
I (We) _____________________ citizens of residing at declare: That I (we) made and conceived the invention described and claimed
100-38Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 151
in patent application number filed in the United States of America on titled. I (We) ________________ citizens of ________________ residing at ________________ declare: That I (we) made and conceived the invention described and claimed in patent application number ________________ filed in the United States of America on ________________ titled ________________. (Include completed I. or II. below) I. (for Inventors Employed by an Organization) That I (we) made and conceived this invention while employed by ________________. That the invention is related to the work I am (we are) employed to perform and was made within the scope of my (our) employment duties; That the invention was made during working hours and with the use of facilities, equipment, materials, funds, information and services of ________________. Other relevant facts are: ________________. That to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief based upon information provided by ________________ of ________________: -OR- II. (For Self-Employed Inventors) That I (we) made and conceived this invention on my (our) own time using only my (our) own facilities, equipment, materials, funds, information and services. Other relevant facts are ________________ That to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief: (Include III. and/or IV. below as appropriate) III. The invention or discovery was not made or conceived in the course of, or in connection with, or under the terms of any contract, subcontract or arrangement entered into with or for the benefit of the United States Atomic Energy Commission or its successors Energy Research and Development Administration or the Department of Energy. -AND/OR- IV. The invention was not made under nor is there any relationship of the invention to the performance of any work under any contract of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
V. The undersigned inventor(s) declare(s) further that all statements made herein of his or her (their)own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. Inventor’s Signature________________ Post Office Address________________ Date________________ Inventor’ s Signature________________ Post Office Address________________ Date________________
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015100-39
§ 151SECRECY, ACCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND FOREIGN FILING
Chapter 200 Types, Cross-Noting, and Status of Application
Types of Applications201 National Applications201.01 General Terms Used to Describe Applications
201.02
[Reserved]201.03 Provisional Application201.04 Reissue Application201.05 Divisional Application201.06
Former 37 CFR 1.60 Divisional Continuation Procedure
201.06(a)
Former 37 CFR 1.62 File Wrapper Continuing Procedure
201.06(b)
37 CFR 1.53(b) and 37 CFR 1.63(d) Divisional-Continuation Procedure
201.06(c)
37 CFR 1.53(d) Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) Practice
201.06(d)
Continuation Application201.07 Continuation-in-Part Application201.08
Cross-Noting202 Status of Applications203
New203.01 Rejected203.02 Amended203.03 Allowed or in Issue203.04 Abandoned203.05 Incomplete203.06 [Reserved]203.07 Status Inquiries203.08
Congressional and Other Official Inquiries
203.08(a)
[Reserved]204-209 Priority to, or the Benefit of, the Filing Date of a Prior-Filed Application
210
Claiming the Benefit of an Earlier Filing Date Under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 119(e)
211
Requirements Related to the Prior-Filed Application
211.01
Claiming the Benefit of a Provisional Application
211.01(a)
Claiming the Benefit of a Nonprovisional Application
211.01(b)
Claiming the Benefit of an International Application Designating the United States
211.01(c)
Claiming the Benefit of an International Design Application Designating the United States
211.01(d)
Reference to Prior Application(s)211.02
Correcting or Adding a Benefit Claim After Filing
211.02(a)
Time Period for Making a Claim for Benefit Under 37 CFR 1.78
211.03
Delayed Benefit Claims211.04 Sufficiency of Disclosure in Prior-Filed Application
211.05
[Reserved]212 Right of Priority of Foreign Application213
Recognized Countries and Regional Patent Offices of Foreign Filing
213.01
Formal Requirements Relating to Foreign Priority Application
213.02
Time for Filing U.S. Nonprovisional Application
213.03
Requirement to File Priority Claim and Certified Copy During Pendency of Application
213.04
Right of Priority Based Upon an Application for an Inventor’s Certificate
213.05
Claiming Priority and Filing a Certified Copy in a National Stage Application (35 U.S.C. 371)
213.06
Claiming Priority and Filing a Certified Copy in a Nonprovisional International Design Application
213.07
Formal Requirements of Claim for Foreign Priority
214
Time for Filing Priority Claim214.01 Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claims
214.02
Office Acknowledgement of Priority Claims
214.03
Proper Identification of Priority Application in Foreign Priority Claim
214.04
Certified Copy of Foreign Application215 Electronic Priority Document Exchange
215.01
Time For Filing Certified Copy – Application Filed On or After March 16, 2013
215.02
Timeliness Requirement – Met By Priority Document Exchange
215.02(a)
Timeliness Requirement – Met By Interim Copy of Foreign Application
215.02(b)
Time For Filing Certified Copy – Application Filed Before March 16, 2013
215.03
Entitlement to Priority216
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-1
Perfecting Claim for Priority Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) After Issuance of a Patent
216.01
Incorporation by Reference Under 37 CFR 1.57(b)
217
201 Types of Applications [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 161 Patents for plants.
Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for plants, except as otherwise provided.
35 U.S.C. 171 Patents for designs.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever invents any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
(b) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.
(c) FILING DATE.—The filing date of an application for patent for design shall be the date on which the specification as prescribed by section 112 and any required drawings are filed.
Patent applications can be directed to three broad types of subject matter:
(A) applications for patents as provided for by 35 U.S.C. 101 relating to a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter," etc.;
(B) applications for plant patents as provided for by 35 U.S.C. 161; and
(C) applications for design patents as provided for by 35 U.S.C. 171.
The first type of patent application is sometimes referred to as a “utility” patent applications when being contrasted with a plant or design patent
application. The specialized procedure which pertains to the examination of applications for design and plant patents are treated in detail in Chapters 1500 and 1600, respectively.
201.01 National Applications [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 111 Application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed on or after December 18, 2013. See 35 U.S.C. 111 (pre-PLT (AIA)) or 35 U.S.C. 111 (pre-AIA) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) WRITTEN APPLICATION.—An application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director.
(2) CONTENTS.—Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112;
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113; and
(C) an oath or declaration as prescribed by section 115.
(3) FEE, OATH OR DECLARATION, AND CLAIMS.—The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee, oath or declaration, and 1 or more claims may be submitted after the filing date of the application, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director. Upon failure to submit the fee, oath or declaration, and 1 or more claims within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of an application shall be the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(b) PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—
(1) AUTHORIZATION.—A provisional application for patent shall be made or authorized to be made by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director. Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112(a); and
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113.
(2) CLAIM.—A claim, as required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.
(3) FEE.—The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee may be submitted after the filing date of the application, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director. Upon failure to submit the fee within
200-2Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201
such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of a provisional application shall be the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(5) ABANDONMENT.—Notwithstanding the absence of a claim, upon timely request and as prescribed by the Director, a provisional application may be treated as an application filed under subsection (a). Subject to section 119(e)(3), if no such request is made, the provisional application shall be regarded as abandoned 12 months after the filing date of such application and shall not be subject to revival after such 12-month period.
(6) OTHER BASIS FOR PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—Subject to all the conditions in this subsection and section 119(e), and as prescribed by the Director, an application for patent filed under subsection (a) may be treated as a provisional application for patent.
(7) NO RIGHT OF PRIORITY OR BENEFIT OF EARLIEST FILING DATE.—A provisional application shall not be entitled to the right of priority of any other application under section 119, 365(a), or 386(a) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
(8) APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall apply to provisional applications for patent, except as otherwise provided, and except that provisional applications for patent shall not be subject to sections 131 and 135.
(c) PRIOR FILED APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the Director may prescribe the conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, under which a reference made upon the filing of an application under subsection (a) to a previously filed application, specifying the previously filed application by application number and the intellectual property authority or country in which the application was filed, shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the subsequent application for purposes of a filing date. A copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application shall be submitted within such period and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Director. A failure to submit the copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned. Such application shall be treated as having never been filed, unless—
(1) the application is revived under section 27; and
(2) a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are submitted to the Director.
35 U.S.C. 111 (pre-PLT (AIA)) Application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012, and before December 18, 2013. See 35 U.S.C. 111 or 35 U.S.C. 111 (pre-AIA) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) WRITTEN APPLICATION.—An application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director.
(2) CONTENTS.—Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112;
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113; and
(C) an oath or declaration as prescribed by section 115.
(3) FEE AND OATH OR DECLARATION.—The application must be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee and oath or declaration may be submitted after the specification and any required drawing are submitted, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director.
(4) FAILURE TO SUBMIT.—Upon failure to submit the fee and oath or declaration within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in submitting the fee and oath or declaration was unavoidable or unintentional. The filing date of an application shall be the date on which the specification and any required drawing are received in the Patent and Trademark Office.
(b) PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—
(1) AUTHORIZATION.—A provisional application for patent shall be made or authorized to be made by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director. Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112(a); and
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113.
(2) CLAIM.—A claim, as required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.
(3) FEE.—
(A) The application must be accompanied by the fee required by law.
(B) The fee may be submitted after the specification and any required drawing are submitted, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director.
(C) Upon failure to submit the fee within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in submitting the fee was unavoidable or unintentional.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of a provisional application shall be the date on which the specification and any required drawing are received in the Patent and Trademark Office.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-3
§ 201.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
(5) ABANDONMENT.—Notwithstanding the absence of a claim, upon timely request and as prescribed by the Director, a provisional application may be treated as an application filed under subsection (a). Subject to section 119(e)(3), if no such request is made, the provisional application shall be regarded as abandoned 12 months after the filing date of such application and shall not be subject to revival after such 12-month period.
(6) OTHER BASIS FOR PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—Subject to all the conditions in this subsection and section 119(e), and as prescribed by the Director, an application for patent filed under subsection (a) may be treated as a provisional application for patent.
(7) NO RIGHT OF PRIORITY OR BENEFIT OF EARLIEST FILING DATE.—A provisional application shall not be entitled to the right of priority of any other application under section 119 or 365(a) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States under section 120, 121, or 365(c).
(8) APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall apply to provisional applications for patent, except as otherwise provided, and except that provisional applications for patent shall not be subject to sections 131 and 135.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111 requirements substantially correspond to those of pre-PLT (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 111, but do not include conforming amendments with regard to the oath or declaration provisions and other miscellaneous provisions of the AIA.
37 CFR 1.9 Definitions.
(a)(1) A national application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111, an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the HagueAgreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10.
(2) A provisional application as used in this chapter means a U.S. national application for patent filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(b).
(3) A nonprovisional application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. national application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10.
(b) An international application as used in this chapter means an international application for patent filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty prior to entering national processing at the Designated Office stage.
*****
(l) Hague Agreement as used in this chapter means the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs adopted at Geneva, Switzerland, on July 2, 1999, and Hague Agreement Article as used in this chapter means an Article under the Hague Agreement.
(m) Hague Agreement Regulations as used in this chapter means the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement, and Hague Agreement Rule as used in this chapter means one of the Hague Agreement Regulations.
(n) An international design application as used in this chapter means an application for international registration of a design filed under the Hague Agreement. Unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to "design application" or "application for a design patent" in this chapter includes an international design application that designates the United States.
I. APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111
Applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) include original nonprovisional utility, plant, design, divisional, continuation, and continuation-in-part applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), reissue applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), and design patent continued prosecution applications (CPAs) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d). See MPEP § 601.01(a) for an overview of the procedures and requirements for filing applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
For details regarding reissue, design, and plant patent applications, see MPEP Chapters 1400, 1500, and 1600, respectively. For details regarding divisional, continuation, and continuation-in-part applications, see MPEP §§ 201.06 et seq., 201.07, and 201.08, respectively. See MPEP § 201.06(d) for a discussion of continued prosecution applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
Effective December 18, 2013, the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty in title II. Notable changes include the filing date requirements for nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). Unless the application is for a design patent, nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, are no longer required to include at least one claim or any drawings in order to receive a filing date for the application. See MPEP §§ 601.01(e) and 601.01(f). The filing date of an application for a design patent is the date on which the Office receives the specification
200-4Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.01
including at least one claim and any required drawings. See 35 U.S.C. 171(c). In addition, as provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III.
Applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) are provisional applications for patent and are filed under 37 CFR 1.53(c). Significant differences between nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) include the following:
(A) No claim is required in a provisional application.
(B) No oath or declaration is required in a provisional application.
(C) Provisional applications will not be examined for patentability.
(D) A provisional application is not entitled to claim priority to any foreign application or the benefit of any earlier filed national application.
(E) A design patent application is not entitled to claim the benefit of a provisional application (See 35 U.S.C. 172 and 37 CFR 1.53(c)(4)).
See MPEP § 201.04 for detailed information regarding provisional applications.
For applications not filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, see MPEP Chapters 1800 and 2900 for details regarding international applications (PCT) and international design applications, respectively.
II. INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION DESIGNATING THE UNITED STATES
35 U.S.C. 363 International application designating the United States: Effect.
An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office.
37 CFR 1.9(a)(1) defines a national application as a U.S. application which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111, an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the HagueAgreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10.
Note that 37 CFR 1.9(b) defines an international application for patent as one filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty prior to entering national processing at the Designated Office stage.
Treatment of a national application under 35 U.S.C. 111 and a national stage application (a national application which entered the national stage from an international application in which the conditions of 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1) have been satisfied) are similar but not identical.
See MPEP § 1893.03 et seq. for examination of international applications in the national stage, and MPEP § 1896 for a description of the differences between a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty that entered the national stage. Note in particular the following examples:
(A) Restriction practice as explained in MPEP § 806 et seq. is applied to national applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) while unity of invention practice as explained in MPEP §§ 1850 and 1893.03(d) is applied to national stage applications.
(B) National nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) without an executed oath or declaration, basic filing fee, search fee, or examination fee are governed by the notification practice set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(f), as are utility and plant patent applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, without a claim. Incomplete national stage applications are governed by the notification practice set forth in 37 CFR 1.495.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-5
§ 201.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
III. INTERNATIONAL DESIGN APPLICATION DESIGNATING THE UNITED STATES
35 U.S.C. 385 Effect of international design application.
An international design application designating the United States shall have the effect, for all purposes, from its filing date determined in accordance with section 384, of an application for patent filed in the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to chapter 16.
37 CFR 1.9 Definitions.
(a)(1) A national application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111, an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the HagueAgreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10.
(2) A provisional application as used in this chapter means a U.S. national application for patent filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(b).
(3) A nonprovisional application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. national application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10.
*****
(l) Hague Agreement as used in this chapter means the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs adopted at Geneva, Switzerland, on July 2, 1999, and Hague Agreement Article as used in this chapter means an Article under the Hague Agreement.
(m) Hague Agreement Regulations as used in this chapter means the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement, and Hague Agreement Rule as used in this chapter means one of the Hague Agreement Regulations.
(n) An international design application as used in this chapter means an application for international registration of a design filed under the Hague Agreement. Unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to "design application" or "application for a design patent" in this chapter includes an international design application that designates the United States.
Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA), Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (Dec. 18, 2012) implemented the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs. The Hague Agreement is an
international agreement that enables an applicant to file a single international design application which may have the effect of an application for protection for the design(s) in countries and/or intergovernmental organizations that are parties to the Hague Agreement (the “Contracting Parties”) designated in the application. The United States is a Contracting Party to the Hague Agreement, which took effect with respect to the United States on May 13, 2015. The Hague Agreement is administered by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“the International Bureau”).
See MPEP Chapter 2900 for information regarding international design applications.
201.02 General Terms Used to Describe Applications [R-07.2015]
See 37 CFR 1.9(a) for definitions of the terms “national application,” “provisional application,” and “nonprovisional application;” see 37 CFR 1.9(b) for the definition of “international application;" and see 37 CFR 1.9(n) for the definition of ”international design application." See also MPEP § 201.01.
“Original” application is used in the patent statutes and rules to refer to an application which is not a reissue application. An original application may be a first filing or a continuing application.
A continuing application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 37 CFR 1.78.
A “substitute” application is in essence the duplicate of an application by the same applicant abandoned before the filing of the later application. Current practice does not require applicant to insert in the specification reference to the earlier application; however, attention should be called to the earlier application. A substitute application does not obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application. Use form paragraph 2.07 to remind applicant of possible substitute status.
200-6Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.02
¶ 2.07 Definition of a Substitute
Applicant refers to this application as a “substitute” of Application No. [1], filed [2]. The term “substitute” is used to designate an application which is in essence the duplicate of an application by the same applicant abandoned before the filing of the later application. A “substitute” does not obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application.
201.03 [Reserved]
[Editor Note: Information pertaining to correction of inventorship, name of inventor, and order of names in an application has been moved to MPEP § 602.01(c) et seq.]
201.04 Provisional Application [R-07.2015]
I. PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FILED ON OR AFTER DECEMBER 18, 2013
35 U.S.C. 111 Application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed on or after December 18, 2013. See 35 U.S.C. 111 (pre-PLT) for the law applicable to provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) before December 18, 2013.]
*****
(b) PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—
(1) AUTHORIZATION.—A provisional application for patent shall be made or authorized to be made by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director. Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112(a); and
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113.
(2) CLAIM.—A claim, as required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.
(3) FEE.—The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee may be submitted after the filing date of the application, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director. Upon failure to submit the fee within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of a provisional application shall be the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(5) ABANDONMENT.—Notwithstanding the absence of a claim, upon timely request and as prescribed by the Director, a provisional application may be treated as an application filed
under subsection (a). Subject to section 119(e)(3), if no such request is made, the provisional application shall be regarded as abandoned 12 months after the filing date of such application and shall not be subject to revival after such 12-month period.
(6) OTHER BASIS FOR PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—Subject to all the conditions in this subsection and section 119(e), and as prescribed by the Director, an application for patent filed under subsection (a) may be treated as a provisional application for patent.
(7) NO RIGHT OF PRIORITY OR BENEFIT OF EARLIEST FILING DATE.—A provisional application shall not be entitled to the right of priority of any other application under section 119, 365(a), or 386(a) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
(8) APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall apply to provisional applications for patent, except as otherwise provided, and except that provisional applications for patent shall not be subject to sections 131 and 135.
37 CFR 1.9 Definitions.
(a)
*****
(2) A provisional application as used in this chapter means a U.S. national application for patent filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(b).
*****
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013.]
*****
(c) Application filing requirements — Provisional application. The filing date of a provisional application is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application.
(1) A provisional application must also include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1), which may be an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or a cover letter identifying the application as a provisional application. Otherwise, the application will be treated as an application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) An application for patent filed under paragraph (b) of this section may be converted to a provisional application and be accorded the original filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. The grant of such a request
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-7
§ 201.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
for conversion will not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees that were properly paid in the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. Such a request for conversion must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q) and be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) Payment of the issue fee on the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section; or
(iii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) A provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section may be converted to a nonprovisional application filed under paragraph (b) of this section and accorded the original filing date of the provisional application. The conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will not result in either the refund of any fee properly paid in the provisional application or the application of any such fee to the filing fee, or any other fee, for the nonprovisional application. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application under this paragraph will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application for which conversion is requested. Thus, applicants should consider avoiding this adverse patent term impact by filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), rather than converting the provisional application into a nonprovisional application pursuant to this paragraph. A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(i) and an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b), unless the provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section otherwise contains at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The nonprovisional application resulting from conversion of a provisional application must also include the filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a nonprovisional application, and the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) if either the basic filing fee for a nonprovisional application or the inventor's oath or declaration was not present on the filing date accorded the resulting nonprovisional application ( i.e., the filing date of the original provisional application). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must also be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) A provisional application is not entitled to the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 386(a) or § 1.55, or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or § 1.78 of any other application. No claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or § 1.78(a) may be made in a design application based on a provisional application. The requirements of §§ 1.821 through 1.825 regarding application
disclosures containing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences are not mandatory for provisional applications.
Effective December 18, 2013, the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA), title II, amended 35 U.S.C. 111(b) to more closely align the corresponding provisions for nonprovisional applications in 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and provisional applications in 35 U.S.C. 111(b). The corresponding provision in 37 CFR 1.53(c) was revised accordingly.
The parts of a provisional application that are required are set forth in 37 CFR 1.51(c) and MPEP § 601.01(b). The filing date of a provisional application filed on or after December 18, 2013, is the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), with or without claims, is filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although the application will be accorded a filing date regardless of whether any drawings are submitted, applicants are advised to file any drawing required by 37 CFR 1.81(a) with the application. No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application.
A provisional application must include a cover sheet required by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1), which may be an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76), or a cover letter identifying the application as a provisional application. Otherwise, the application will be treated as an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). The filing fee is set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(d).
II. PROVISIONALAPPLICATION FILED BEFORE DECEMBER 18, 2013
35 U.S.C. 111 Application (pre-PLT)
[Editor Note: 35 U.S.C. 111(b) as reproduced herein is applicable to any patent application filed before December 18, 2013. See 35 U.S.C. 111 for the law applicable to provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) on or after December 18, 2013.]
*****
(b) PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—
(1) AUTHORIZATION.—A provisional application for patent shall be made or authorized to be made by the
200-8Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.04
inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director. Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112; and
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113.
(2) CLAIM.—A claim, as required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.
(3) FEE.—
(A) The application must be accompanied by the fee required by law.
(B) The fee may be submitted after the specification and any required drawing are submitted, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director.
(C) Upon failure to submit the fee within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in submitting the fee was unavoidable or unintentional.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of a provisional application shall be the date on which the specification and any required drawing are received in the Patent and Trademark Office.
(5) ABANDONMENT.—Notwithstanding the absence of a claim, upon timely request and as prescribed by the Director, a provisional application may be treated as an application filed under subsection (a). Subject to section 119(e)(3), if no such request is made, the provisional application shall be regarded as abandoned 12 months after the filing date of such application and shall not be subject to revival after such 12-month period.
(6) OTHER BASIS FOR PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—Subject to all the conditions in this subsection and section 119(e), and as prescribed by the Director, an application for patent filed under subsection (a) may be treated as a provisional application for patent.
(7) NO RIGHT OF PRIORITY OR BENEFIT OF EARLIEST FILING DATE.—A provisional application shall not be entitled to the right of priority of any other application under section 119 or 365(a) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States under section 120, 121, or 365(c).
(8) APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall apply to provisional applications for patent, except as otherwise provided, and except that provisional applications for patent shall not be subject to sections 131 and 135.
*****
37 CFR 1.9 Definitions.
(a)
*****
(2) A provisional application as used in this chapter means a U.S. national application for patent filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(b).
*****
37 CFR 1.53 (pre-PLT) Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 before December 18, 2013.]
*****
(c) Application filing requirements—Provisional application. The filing date of a provisional application is the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and any drawing required by § 1.81(a) are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application.
(1) A provisional application must also include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1), which may be an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or a cover letter identifying the application as a provisional application. Otherwise, the application will be treated as an application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) An application for patent filed under paragraph (b) of this section may be converted to a provisional application and be accorded the original filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. The grant of such a request for conversion will not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees that were properly paid in the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. Such a request for conversion must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q) and be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) Payment of the issue fee on the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section; or
(iii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) A provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section may be converted to a nonprovisional application filed under paragraph (b) of this section and accorded the original filing date of the provisional application. The conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will not result in either the refund of any fee properly paid in the provisional application or the application of any such fee to the filing fee, or any other fee, for the nonprovisional application. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application under this paragraph will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application for which conversion is requested. Thus, applicants should consider avoiding this adverse patent term impact by filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-9
§ 201.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (rather than converting the provisional application into a nonprovisional application pursuant to this paragraph). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(i) and an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b), unless the provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section otherwise contains at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The nonprovisional application resulting from conversion of a provisional application must also include the filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a nonprovisional application, the inventor’s oath or declaration, and the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) if either the basic filing fee for a nonprovisional application or the inventor's oath or declaration was not present on the filing date accorded the resulting nonprovisional application ( i.e., the filing date of the original provisional application). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must also be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) A provisional application is not entitled to the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 365(a) or § 1.55, or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) or § 1.78(a) of any other application. No claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or § 1.78(a)(4) may be made in a design application based on a provisional application. No request under § 1.293 for a statutory invention registration may be filed in a provisional application. The requirements of §§ 1.821 through 1.825 regarding application disclosures containing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences are not mandatory for provisional applications.
*****
The parts of a provisional application that are required are set forth in 37 CFR 1.51(c) and MPEP § 601.01(b). The filing date of a provisional application is the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and any drawing required by 37 CFR 1.81(a) are filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application.
A provisional application must also include the cover sheet required by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1), which may be an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76), or a cover letter identifying the application as a provisional application. Otherwise, the application will be treated
as an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). The filing fee is set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(d).
III. PROVISIONALAPPLICATION - IN GENERAL
One of the provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (effective as of June 8, 1995), is the establishment of a domestic priority system. The Act provides a mechanism to enable domestic applicants to quickly and inexpensively file provisional applications. Under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 119(e), applicants are entitled to claim the benefit of priority in a given application in the United States. The domestic priority period will not count in the measurement of the 20-year patent term. See 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(3). Thus, domestic applicants are placed on equal footing with foreign applicants with respect to the patent term.
A provisional application is a regular national filing that starts the Paris Convention priority year. Foreign filings must be made within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional application if applicant wishes to rely on the filing date of the provisional application in the foreign filed application.
NOTE:
(A) No claim is required in a provisional application.
(B) No oath or declaration is required in a provisional application.
(C) Provisional applications will not be examined for patentability.
(D) A provisional application is not entitled to claim priority to any foreign application or the benefit of any earlier filed national application.
A provisional application will automatically be abandoned 12 months after its filing date and will not be subject to revival to restore it to pending status thereafter. See 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(5). The period of pendency of a provisional application is extended to the next succeeding business day if the day that is 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3) and 37 CFR 1.7(b). For example, if a provisional application was filed on January 15,
200-10Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.04
1999, the last day of pendency of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(5) and 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3) is extended to January 18, 2000 (January 15, 2000 is a Saturday and Monday, January 17, 2000 is a federal holiday and therefore, the next succeeding business day is Tuesday, January 18, 2000). A nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application must be filed no later than January 18, 2000.
Effective December 18, 2013, a nonprovisional application that was filed more than 12 months after the filing date of the provisional application, but within 14 months after the filing date of the provisional application, may have the benefit of the provisional application restored by filing a grantable petition to restore the benefit under 37 CFR 1.78(b). See MPEP § 211.01(a).
A provisional application is not entitled to claim priority benefits based on any other application under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386. If applicant attempts to claim the benefit of an earlier U.S. or foreign application in a provisional application, the filing receipt will not reflect the improper benefit or priority claim. Moreover, if a nonprovisional application claims the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application, and states that the provisional application relies upon the filing date of an earlier application, the claim for benefit or priority earlier than the filing date of the provisional application will be disregarded.
An application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be converted to a provisional application provided a request for conversion is submitted along with the fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q). The request and fee must be submitted in the nonprovisional application prior to the earlier of the abandonment of the nonprovisional application, the payment of the issue fee, or the expiration of 12 months after
the filing date of the nonprovisional application. The grant of any such request will not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees which were properly paid in the application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). See MPEP § 601.01(c). 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(5) permits a provisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(c) to be converted to a nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must be accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) and an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, unless the provisional application otherwise contains at least one such claim. The request must be filed in the provisional application prior to the earliest of the abandonment of the provisional application or the expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application. The filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a nonprovisional application and the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f), if appropriate, are also required. For provisional applications filed before December 18, 2013, if the inventor's oath or declaration was not filed with the provisional application, it must be submitted with the request for conversion. The grant of any such request will not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees which were properly paid in the application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(c). Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will result in the term of any patent issuing from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application. This adverse patent term impact can be avoided by filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), rather than requesting conversion of the provisional application to a nonprovisional application. See 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3).
Design applications may not make a claim for priority of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). See 35 U.S.C. 172 and 37 CFR 1.78(a).
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-11
§ 201.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
200-12Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.04
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-13
§ 201.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
200-14Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.04
201.05 Reissue Application [R-11.2013]
A reissue application is an application for a patent to take the place of an unexpired patent that is defective. A detailed treatment of reissue applications can be found in MPEP Chapter 1400.
201.06 Divisional Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.
*****
(d) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application (including a nonprovisional application resulting from an international application or international design application), an international application designating the United States, or an international design application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed copending nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and this section.
*****
(2) Except for a continued prosecution application filed under § 1.53(d), any nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that claims the benefit of one or more prior-filed nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States must contain or be amended to contain a reference to each such prior-filed application, identifying it by application number (consisting of the series code and serial number), international application number and international filing date, or international registration number and filing date under § 1.1023. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application, the reference required by this paragraph must be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)). The reference also must identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application.
*****
A later application for an independent or distinct invention, carved out of a nonprovisional application (including a nonprovisional application resulting from an international application or international design application), an international application designating the United States, or an international design application designating the United States and disclosing and claiming only subject matter disclosed
in the earlier or parent application, is known as a divisional application. The divisional application should set forth at least the portion of the earlier disclosure that is germane to the invention as claimed in the divisional application. A continuation-in-part application should not be designated as a divisional application. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the protection of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not extend to continuation-in-part applications, stating that “the protection afforded by section 121 to applications (or patents issued therefrom) filed as a result of a restriction requirement is limited to divisional applications.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 1362, 86 USPQ2d 1001, 1007-1008 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus the disclosure presented in a divisional application must not include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted as an amendment to the parent application.
A divisional application is often filed as a result of a restriction requirement made by the examiner. The divisional application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application, but not an international design application). The inventorship in the divisional application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application, and the divisional application must claim the benefit of the prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). See 37 CFR 1.78, especially paragraphs (d) and (e), and MPEP § 211 et seq. for additional requirements and more information regarding entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of a prior-filed copending application.
An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a “divisional” of the provisional application. See 37 CFR 1.78, especially paragraphs (a)-(c), and MPEP § 211 et seq. for requirements and information pertaining to entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 it is no longer suggested to include the appropriate U.S. Patent and Trademark Office classification of the divisional application and the status and assigned art unit of the parent application in the application data sheet. See MPEP § 601.05.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-15
§ 201.06TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
Use form paragraph 2.01 to remind applicant of possible divisional status.
¶ 2.01 Possible Status as Divisional
This application, which discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. [1], filed [2], appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a divisional application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq .
Examiner Note:
1. In brackets 1 and 2, insert the application number (series code and serial number) and filing date of the prior application, respectively.
2. This form paragraph should only be used if it appears that the application may be a divisional, but a benefit claim has not been properly established.
3. An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a "divisional" of the prior application.
A design application may be considered to be a divisional of a utility application (but not of a provisional application), and is entitled to the filing date thereof if the drawings of the earlier filed utility application show the same article as that in the design application sufficiently to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, such a divisional design application may only be filed under the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), and not under 37 CFR 1.53(d). See MPEP § 1504.20.
While a divisional application may depart from the phraseology used in the parent application there may be no departure therefrom in substance or variation in the disclosure that would amount to “new matter” if introduced by amendment into the parent application. Compare MPEP § 201.08 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
For notation to be put in the file history by the examiner in the case of a divisional application, see MPEP § 202.
201.06(a) Former 37 CFR 1.60 Divisional Continuation Procedure [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.60 was deleted effective December 1, 1997. See 1203 O.G. 63, October 21, 1997. A continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.60 on or after December 1, 1997, will automatically be treated as an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). All continuation and divisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.60 prior to December 1, 1997 will continue to be processed and examined under the procedures set forth in former 37 CFR 1.60. For more information pertaining to practice and procedure under former 37 CFR 1.60, see MPEP § 201.06(a) in the MPEP 8th Edition, Rev. 1 (February 2003)(available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm).
201.06(b) Former 37 CFR 1.62 File Wrapper Continuing Procedure [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.62 was deleted effective December 1, 1997. See 1203 O.G. 63, October 21, 1997. A request for a continuation or divisional application filed under former 37 CFR 1.62 on or after December 1, 1997, in an application that was filed on or after June 8, 1995, will be treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, see MPEP 706.07(h), paragraph IV. A request filed on or after December 1, 1997, under former 37 CFR 1.62 for a continuation-in-part (CIP) application, or for a continuation or divisional of an application having a filing date before June 8, 1995, will be treated as an improper application.
All continuation, divisional and CIP applications filed under former 37 CFR 1.62 prior to December 1, 1997, will continue to be processed and examined under the procedures set forth in former 37 CFR 1.62. For more information pertaining to practice and procedure under former 37 CFR 1.62, see MPEP § 201.06(b) in the MPEP 8th Edition, Rev. 1 (February
200-16Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(a)
2003)(available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm).
201.06(c) 37 CFR 1.53(b) and 37 CFR 1.63(d) Divisional-Continuation Procedure [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013.]
*****
(b) Application filing requirements— Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, other than an application for a design patent or a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. The filing date of an application for a design patent filed under this section, except for a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which the specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and § 1.78.
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.
*****
37 CFR 1.53 (pre-PLT) Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 (pre-PLT) before December 18, 2013.]
*****
(b) Application filing requirements - Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, except for a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section or a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 containing a description pursuant to § 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to § 1.75, and any drawing required by § 1.81(a) are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part
application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121 or 365(c) and § 1.78(c) and (d).
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.
*****
I. IN GENERAL
37 CFR 1.53(b) is the section under which all applications are filed EXCEPT: (A) an application resulting from entry of an international application into the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495; (B) a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) and 37 CFR 1.53(c); (C) a continued prosecution application (CPA) of a design application under 37 CFR 1.53(d); or (D) a nonprovisional international design application. Applications submitted under 37 CFR 1.53(b), as well as CPAs submitted under 37 CFR 1.53(d), are applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). An application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be an original or a reissue, a continuation, a divisional, a continuation-in-part, or a substitute. (See MPEP § 201.02 for substitute application.) The application may be for a utility patent under 35 U.S.C. 101, a design patent under 35 U.S.C. 171, a plant patent under 35 U.S.C. 161, or a reissue under 35 U.S.C. 251. An application will be treated as one filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) unless otherwise designated.
For applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, the filing date of a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), other than a design patent application, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. Effective December 18, 2013, utility and plant patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) are no longer required to include at least one claim or any drawings in order to receive a filing date for the application. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection I. The filing date of an application for a design patent is the date on which the Office receives the specification including at least one claim and any required drawings. 35 U.S.C. 171(c). In addition, as
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-17
§ 201.06(c)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III.
In order to be complete for filing date purposes, all applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) before December 18, 2013, must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 containing a description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75, and any drawing required by 37 CFR 1.81(a).
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee and application size fee, and the inventor’s oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 (and 37 CFR 1.64 (for a substitute statement), 37 CFR 1.175 (for a reissue) or 37 CFR 1.162 (for a plant patent)) are also required by 37 CFR 1.51(b) for a complete application. However, the filing of the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, application size fee and inventor’s oath or declaration may be filed after the application filing date upon payment of the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f). Additionally, the filing of the inventor’s oath or declaration may be postponed until payment of the issue fee where the application contains an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 identifying each inventor by his or her legal name, and a mailing address where each inventor customarily receives mail, and residence, if the inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail.
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the statutory filing fee and an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 (and 37 CFR 1.175 (if a reissue) or 37 CFR 1.162 (if for a plant patent)) are also required by 37 CFR 1.51(b) for a complete application, but the filing fee and oath or declaration may be filed after the application filing date upon payment of the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f). See 37 CFR 1.53(f) and MPEP § 607.
Unless an application is submitted with a statement that the application is a continuation or divisional application, see 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2), the Office will process the application as a new non-continuing application. Applicants are advised to clearly designate any continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application as such by submitting a reference to the prior-filed application with the appropriate relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2) (i.e., in an application data sheet for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, or in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012) to avoid the need for a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 37 CFR 1.78(e) and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m), and the issuance of a filing receipt that does not indicate that the application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part. See MPEP § 211 et seq.
II. OATH/DECLARATION
37 CFR 1.63 Oath or Declaration.
[Editor Note: Applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012.]
*****
(d)(1) A newly executed oath or declaration under § 1.63, or substitute statement under § 1.64, is not required under §§ 1.51(b)(2) and 1.53(f), or under §§ 1.497 and 1.1021(d), for an inventor in a continuing application that claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in compliance with § 1.78 of an earlier-filed application, provided that an oath or declaration in compliance with this section, or substitute statement under § 1.64, was executed by or with respect to such inventor and was filed in the earlier-filed application, and a copy of such oath, declaration, or substitute statement showing the signature or an indication thereon that it was executed, is submitted in the continuing application.
(2) The inventorship of a continuing application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is the inventor or joint inventors specified in the application data sheet filed before or concurrently with the copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application. If an application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, the inventorship is the inventorship set forth in the copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, unless it is accompanied by a statement signed pursuant to § 1.33(b) stating the name of each inventor in the continuing application.
200-18Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(c)
(3) Any new joint inventor named in the continuing application must provide an oath or declaration in compliance with this section, except as provided for in § 1.64.
*****
37 CFR 1.63 (pre-AIA) Oath or Declaration.
[Editor Note: Not applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012.]
(d)(1) A newly executed oath or declaration is not required under § 1.51(b)(2) and § 1.53(f) in a continuation or divisional application, provided that:
(i) The prior nonprovisional application contained an oath or declaration as prescribed by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section;
(ii) The continuation or divisional application was filed by all or by fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application;
(iii) The specification and drawings filed in the continuation or divisional application contain no matter that would have been new matter in the prior application; and
(iv) A copy of the executed oath or declaration filed in the prior application, showing the signature or an indication thereon that it was signed, is submitted for the continuation or divisional application.
(2) The copy of the executed oath or declaration submitted under this paragraph for a continuation or divisional application must be accompanied by a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors in the continuation or divisional application.
(3) Where the executed oath or declaration of which a copy is submitted for a continuation or divisional application was originally filed in a prior application accorded status under § 1.47, the copy of the executed oath or declaration for such prior application must be accompanied by:
(i) A copy of the decision granting a petition to accord § 1.47 status to the prior application, unless all inventors or legal representatives have filed an oath or declaration to join in an application accorded status under § 1.47 of which the continuation or divisional application claims a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121, or 365(c); and
(ii) If one or more inventor(s) or legal representative(s) who refused to join in the prior application or could not be found or reached has subsequently joined in the prior application or another application of which the continuation or divisional application claims a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), a copy of the subsequently executed oath(s) or declaration(s) filed by the inventor or legal representative to join in the application.
(4) Where the power of attorney or correspondence address was changed during the prosecution of the prior application, the change in power of attorney or correspondence address must be identified in the continuation or divisional application. Otherwise, the Office may not recognize in the continuation or divisional application the change of power of
attorney or correspondence address during the prosecution of the prior application.
(5) A newly executed oath or declaration must be filed in a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application.
*****
A copy of an oath or declaration from a prior application may be submitted with a continuation or divisional application, or with a continuation-in-part application filed on or after September 16, 2012, even if the oath or declaration identifies the application number of the prior application. However, if such a copy of the oath or declaration is filed after the filing date of the continuation or divisional application and an application number has been assigned to the continuation or divisional application (see 37 CFR 1.5(a)), the cover letter accompanying the oath or declaration should identify the application number of the continuation or divisional application. The cover letter should also indicate that the oath or declaration submitted is a copy of the oath or declaration from a prior application to avoid the oath or declaration being incorrectly matched with the prior application file. Furthermore, applicant should also label the copy of the oath or declaration with the application number of the continuation or divisional application in the event that the cover letter is separated from the copy of the oath or declaration.
A copy of the oath or declaration from a prior nonprovisional application may be filed in a continuation or divisional application even if the specification for the continuation or divisional application is different from that of the prior application, in that revisions have been made to clarify the text to incorporate amendments made in the prior application, or to make other changes provided the changes do not constitute new matter relative to the prior application. If the examiner determines that the continuation or divisional application contains new matter relative to the prior application, the examiner should so notify the applicant in the next Office action and indicate that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, a continuing application, including a
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-19
§ 201.06(c)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
continuation-in-part application, may be filed with a copy of an oath or declaration or substitute statement from the prior nonprovisional application, provided that the oath or declaration is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or the substitute statement is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64. See 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1). It should be noted that a copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration submitted in a continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012 must comply with requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 in effect for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. For example, the inventor’s oath or declaration must include a statement that the inventor is an original inventor of the claimed application and a statement that the application was made or was authorized to be made by the person executing the oath or declaration. Accordingly, a new inventor’s oath or declaration may need to be filed in a continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012, where the prior application was filed before September 16, 2012, in order to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.63 (or 1.64) in effect for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 602.05(a) for additional details regarding oaths or declarations in continuing applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, a newly executed oath or declaration is required in a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) naming an inventor not named in the prior application, and in a continuation-in-part application. See MPEP § 602.05(b) for additional details regarding oaths or declarations in continuing applications filed before September 16, 2012.
III. SPECIFICATION AND DRAWINGS
A continuation or divisional application may be filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) using the procedures set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b), by providing: (A) a new specification and drawings and a copy of the signed oath or declaration as filed in the prior application provided the new specification and drawings do not contain any subject matter that would have been new matter in the prior application; or (B) a new specification and drawings and a newly executed oath or declaration provided the new specification
and drawings do not contain any subject matter that would have been new matter in the prior application. For continuing applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, claiming the benefit of an application filed before September 16, 2012, a copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration filed in the earlier-filed application can only be submitted in the continuing application if the oath or declaration complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 as revised effective September 16, 2012. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, to claim the benefit of a prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) applicant must include a reference to the prior application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2) in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the reference to the prior application must be in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet. See MPEP § 211 et seq.
The new specification and drawings of a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may include changes to the specification and drawings originally filed in the prior application in the manner that an applicant may file a substitute specification, see 37 CFR 1.125, or amend the drawings of an application so long as it does not result in the introduction of new matter. Applicant should file a new set of claims as the original claims of the continuing application instead of filing a copy of the claims from the prior application and a preliminary amendment to those claims. It is the applicant’s responsibility to review any new specification or drawings submitted for a continuation or divisional application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) to determine that it contains no new matter. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, an applicant is advised to simply file a continuing application with a newly executed oath or declaration when it is questionable as to whether the continuing application adds material that would have been new matter if presented in the prior application. In addition, for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, if one or more claims are allowed in the continuation or divisional application which are directed to matter shown and described in the prior nonprovisional application but not claimed in the prior application, the applicant should be required to file a supplemental oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67(b). For applications filed on
200-20Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(c)
or after September 16, 2012, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.67(b), no supplemental oath or declaration will be required.
If a continuation or divisional application as filed contains subject matter that would have been new matter in the prior application, the applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part. Form paragraph 2.10.01 may be used to require the applicant to correct the relationship of the applications. See MPEP § 211 et seq.
Any utility or plant patent application, including any continuing application, that will be published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) should be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with a specification that includes any claim(s) and drawings that the applicant would like to have published. This is important because under 35 U.S.C. 154(d), a patentee may obtain provisional rights if the invention claimed in a patent is substantially identical to the invention claimed in the patent application publication and the Office will generally publish the specification (including the claims) and drawings as filed. Filing a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with a preliminary amendment (which makes all the desired changes to the specification, including adding, deleting or amending claims) is NOT recommended. For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application is part of the original disclosure of the application. If a preliminary amendment is filed in a format that cannot be included in the publication, the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will issue a notice to the applicant requiring the applicant to submit the amendment in a format usable for publication purposes. See 37 CFR 1.115(a)(1) and 1.215. The only format for an amendment to the specification (other than the claims) that is usable for publication is a substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125. As noted above, a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be filed with a new specification and corrected drawings, along with a copy of an oath or declaration from a prior (parent) application, provided the new specification and drawings do not contain any subject matter that would have been new
matter in the prior application. Thus, the new specification and corrected drawings may include some or all of the amendments entered during the prosecution of the prior application(s), as well as additional amendments submitted for clarity or contextual purposes, and a new set of claims. In order to have a patent application publication of a continuation or divisional application contain only a desired set of claims, rather than the set of claims in the prior application, it is strongly recommended that the continuation or divisional application be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with a new specification containing only the desired set of claims.
See subsection II., above and MPEP § 602.05 et seq. for requirements pertaining to filing a copy of an oath or declaration from a prior application in a continuing application.
IV. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
An applicant may incorporate by reference the prior application by including, in the continuing application-as-filed, an explicit statement that such specifically enumerated prior application or applications are “hereby incorporated by reference.” The statement must appear in the specification. See 37 CFR 1.57(c) and MPEP § 608.01(p). The inclusion of this incorporation by reference statement will permit an applicant to amend the continuing application to include subject matter from the prior application(s), without the need for a petition provided the continuing application is entitled to a filing date notwithstanding the incorporation by reference. For applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, the incorporation by reference statement may appear in the transmittal letter or in the specification. Note that for applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, if applicants used a former version of the transmittal letter form provided by the USPTO, the incorporation by reference statement could only be relied upon to add inadvertently omitted material to the continuation or divisional application.
For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(d) for benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-21
§ 201.06(c)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
application designating the United States that was present on the filing date of the continuing application is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b). Note that pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(4), any amendment to an international design application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(1) is effective only as to the United States and will only be acted upon after the international design application becomes a nonprovisional application.
Effective December 18, 2013, 37 CFR 1.57(b) was amended to contain the provisions of former 37 CFR 1.57(a). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(b) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, applicants are encouraged to provide an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed application(s) for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). See 37 CFR 1.57(c) and MPEP § 608.01(p) for discussion regarding explicit incorporation by reference. See MPEP § 217 for more detailed information pertaining to incorporation by reference pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b).
An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If an incorporation by reference statement is included in an amendment to the specification to add a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 after the filing date of the application, the amendment would not be proper. When a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 is submitted after the filing of an application, the reference to the prior application cannot include an incorporation by reference statement of the prior application. See Dart Indus. v. Banner, 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980).
Mere reference to another application, patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything therein into the application containing such reference
for the purpose of the disclosure required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a). In re de Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 177 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1973). See MPEP § 608.01(p). As noted above, however, for applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, 37 CFR 1.57(b) provides that a claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 37 CFR 1.78 is considered an incorporation by reference as to inadvertently omitted material. See MPEP § 217.
A. Application NOT Entitled to a Filing Date
Material needed to accord an application a filing date may not be incorporated by reference unless an appropriate petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) or under 37 CFR 1.182 is granted. Until such a petition has been granted, the application will not be entitled to a filing date.
For an application filed on or after September 21, 2004, if the material needed for a filing date is completely contained within a prior-filed application to which benefit is claimed, applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) along with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f) and an amendment with the inadvertently omitted material requesting that the amendment be entered and the application be accorded a filing date as of the original date of deposit of the application papers. See 37 CFR 1.57(b)(3) and MPEP § 217 .
In an application containing an explicit incorporation by reference statement in the specification or in a transmittal letter (if the transmittal letter was filed prior to September 21, 2004), a petition for the granting of a filing date may be made under 37 CFR 1.182. A petition under 37 CFR 1.182 and the required petition fee, including an amendment submitting the necessary omitted material, requesting that the necessary omitted material contained in the prior application and submitted in the amendment, be included in the continuation or divisional application based upon the incorporation by reference statement, is required in order to accord the application a filing date as of the date of deposit of the continuing application. An amendment submitting the omitted material and relying upon the incorporation by reference will not be entered in the continuing application unless a decision granting
200-22Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(c)
the petition states that the application is accorded a filing date and that the amendment will be entered.
B. Application Entitled to a Filing Date
If a continuing application as originally filed on or after September 21, 2004 does not include an explicit incorporation by reference statement and is entitled to a filing date despite the inadvertent omission of a portion of the prior application(s), applicant may be permitted to add the omitted material by way of an amendment under 37 CFR 1.57(b). Such an amendment must be made within any time period set by the Office. See 37 CFR 1.57(b)(1).
If an application as originally filed included a proper explicit incorporation by reference statement (or an explicit incorporation by reference statement that has been made effective under 37 CFR 1.57(h)), the omitted specification page(s) and/or drawing figure(s) may be added by amendment provided the omitted item(s) contains only subject matter in common with a document that has been properly incorporated by reference. If the Office identified the omitted item(s) in a “Notice of Omitted Item(s),” applicant must respond to the “Notice of Omitted Item(s)” by filing an appropriate amendment. See MPEP § 601.01(d) and § 601.01(g).
V. INVENTORSHIP IN A CONTINUING APPLICATION
A. Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the filing of a continuing application by all or by fewer than all of the inventors named in a prior application without a newly executed oath or declaration is permitted provided that an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, or a substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64, was executed by or with respect to such inventor and was filed in the earlier-filed application, and a copy of such oath, declaration, or substitute statement showing the signature or an indication thereon that it was executed, is submitted in the continuing application. Note, in order to submit a copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application into a continuation or divisional application filed on or after September 16, 2012, the
oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 as revised effective September 16, 2012. Specifically, the inventor’s oath or declaration must state that the inventor (1) is an original inventor of the claimed invention; and (2) authorized the filing of the patent application for the claimed invention. The inventor’s oath or declaration also must contain an acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in such declaration is punishable under section 1001 of U.S. Code title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.
37 CFR 1.63(d)(2) provides that the inventorship of a continuing application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is the inventor or joint inventors specified in the application data sheet filed before or concurrently with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application. If an application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, the inventorship is the inventorship set forth in the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, unless the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration is accompanied by a statement signed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b) stating the name of each inventor in the continuing application. 37 CFR 1.63(d)(3) provides that any new joint inventor named in the continuing application must provide an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64.
37 CFR 1.63(f) provides that with respect to an application naming only one inventor, any reference to the inventor's oath or declaration in this chapter includes a substitute statement executed under 37 CFR 1.64. With respect to an application naming more than one inventor, any reference to the inventor's oath or declaration in this chapter means the oaths, declarations, or substitute statements that have been collectively executed by or with respect to all of the joint inventors, unless otherwise clear from the context.
B. Applications Filed Prior to September 16, 2012
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, Applicant has the option of filing: (A) a newly executed oath or declaration signed by the inventors
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-23
§ 201.06(c)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
for the continuation or divisional application; or (B) a copy of the oath or declaration filed in the prior application accompanied by a statement from applicant, applicant’s representative or other authorized party requesting the deletion of the names of the person or persons who are not inventors in the continuation or divisional application. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d) (in effect on September 15, 2012). Where the continuation or divisional application and a copy of the oath or declaration from the prior application are filed without a statement from an authorized party requesting deletion of the names of any person or persons named in the prior application, the continuation or divisional application will be treated as naming as inventors the person or persons named in the copy of the executed oath or declaration from the prior application. Accordingly, if a petition or request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (c) was granted in the prior application, the oath or declaration filed in a continuation or divisional application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(b) and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d) should be a copy of the oath or declaration executed by the added inventor(s) filed in the prior application. The statement requesting the deletion of the names of the person or persons who are not inventors in the continuation or divisional application must be signed by person(s) authorized pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b) to sign an amendment in the continuation or divisional application.
A newly signed oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 is required where an inventor who was not named as an inventor in the signed oath or declaration filed in the prior application is to be named in a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). The newly signed oath or declaration must be signed by all the inventors.
VI. SUBSTITUTE STATEMENT AND RULE 47 ISSUES
A. Substitute Statement
Under 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1) a newly executed substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 is not required under 37 CFR 1.51(b)(2) and 37 CFR 1.53(f) or under 37 CFR 1.497 and 1.1021(d) for an inventor in a continuing application that claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)
in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 of an earlier-filed application, provided a substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 was executed by or with respect to such inventor and was filed in the earlier-filed application, and a copy of such substitute statement showing the signature or an indication thereon that it was executed is submitted in the continuing application.
B. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 Issues
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)(3) provides for the situation in which the executed oath or declaration, of which a copy is submitted for a continuation or divisional application, was originally filed in a prior application accorded status under 37 CFR 1.47. 37 CFR 1.63(d)(3)(i) requires that the copy of the executed oath or declaration must be accompanied by a copy of any decision granting a petition to accord 37 CFR 1.47 status to such application, unless all nonsigning inventor(s) or legal representative (pursuant to 37 CFR 1.42 or 1.43) have filed an oath or declaration to join in an application of which the continuation or divisional application claims a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c). 37 CFR 1.63(d)(3)(ii) also requires that where one or more, but not all, nonsigning inventor(s) or legal representative(s) (pursuant to 37 CFR 1.42 or 1.43) subsequently joins in any application of which the continuation or divisional application claims a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) a copy of any oath or declaration filed by the inventor or legal representative who subsequently joined in such application must also accompany the copy of the executed oath or declaration.
Continuation or divisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) prior to September 16, 2012, which contain a copy of an oath or declaration that is not signed by one of the inventors and a copy of the decision according 37 CFR 1.47 status in the prior application, should be forwarded by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) to the Office of Petitions before being forwarded to the Technology Center (TC). The Office of Petitions will mail applicant a letter stating that “Rule 47” status has been accorded to the continuation or divisional application, but will not repeat the notice to the nonsigning inventor nor the announcement in the Official Gazette . See 37 CFR 1.47(c).
200-24Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(c)
It is important to note that if the filing date of the continuing application is on or after September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 as revised effective September 16, 2012, even though the continuing application may claim the benefit of an application filed before September 16, 2012. Specifically, the inventor’s oath or declaration in the continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012, must state that the inventor (1) is an original inventor of the claimed invention; and (2) authorized the filing of the patent application for the claimed invention. The inventor’s oath or declaration also must contain an acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in such declaration is punishable under section 1001 of U.S. Code title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.
VII. CHANGE OF ATTORNEY/CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.32(d) provides that a power of attorney from a prior national application for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) in a continuing application may have effect in the continuing application if a copy of the power of attorney from the prior application is filed in the continuing application unless:
(1) The power of attorney was granted by the inventor; and
(2) The continuing application names an inventor who was not named as an inventor in the prior application.
Filing a copy of the power of attorney in the continuing application in all situations (even where a change in power of attorney did not occur in the prior application) will make the record clear with respect to who has power of attorney. The Office recommends that the power of attorney should be from the assignee where one exists, but for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the power of attorney may only be signed by the applicant (see 37 CFR 1.42) or patent owner (for reissue applications).
With respect to the correspondence address for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.33(f) provides that where application papers from a prior application are used in a continuing application and the correspondence address was changed during the prosecution of the prior application, an application data sheet or separate paper identifying the correspondence address to be used for the continuing application must be submitted. Otherwise, the Office may not recognize the change of correspondence address effected during the prosecution of the prior application.
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)(4) provides that where the power of attorney or correspondence address was changed during the prosecution of the prior application, the change in power of attorney or correspondence address must be identified in the continuation or divisional application. Otherwise, the Office may not recognize in the continuation or divisional application the change of power of attorney or correspondence address which occurred during the prosecution of the prior application.
VIII. SMALL ENTITY OR MICRO ENTITY STATUS
If small entity status has been established in a parent application and is still proper and desired in a continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), a new assertion as to the continued entitlement to small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27 is required. See MPEP § 509.03.
The refiling of an application under 37 CFR 1.53 as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application (including a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (design applications only)), requires a new certification of entitlement to micro entity status in the continuing application. See 37 CFR 1.29(e) and MPEP § 509.04.
IX. COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS
Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132 filed during the prosecution of the prior nonprovisional
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-25
§ 201.06(c)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
application do not automatically become a part of a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). Where it is desired to rely on an earlier filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make such remarks of record in the 37 CFR 1.53(b) application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior nonprovisional application.
Use form paragraph 2.03 for instructions to applicant concerning affidavits or declarations filed in the prior application.
¶ 2.03 Affidavits or Declarations in Prior Application
Applicant refers to an affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application. Affidavits or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132, filed during the prosecution of the prior application do not automatically become a part of this application. Where it is desired to rely on an earlier-filed affidavit or declaration, the applicant should make the remarks of record in this application and include a copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the prior application.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is to be used in applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). Do not use this form paragraph in applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) since affidavits and/or declarations, such as those submitted under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132 filed during the prosecution of the parent nonprovisional application automatically become a part of the 37 CFR 1.53(d) application.
X. EXTENSIONS OF TIME
If an extension of time is necessary to establish continuity between the prior application and the continuing application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), the petition for an extension of time must be filed as a separate paper directed to the prior nonprovisional application. Under 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3), an authorization to charge all required fees, fees under 37 CFR 1.17, or all required extension of time fees will be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent or future reply requiring a petition for an extension of time for its timely submission. A continuing application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) is a new application which is assigned a new application number and filing date and is maintained separately from the file of the prior application. The filing of a continuing application is not a paper directed to, or placed in, the file of the prior
application and is not a “reply” to the last Office action in the prior application. Thus, a petition for an extension of time and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 are required to be filed as a separate paper in the prior application. Any petition for an extension of time directed to the prior application must be accompanied by its own certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 (if mailed by first class mail) or under
37 CFR 1.10 (if mailed by Priority Mail Express®), if the benefits of those rules are desired.
XI. ABANDONMENT OF THE PRIOR NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATION
Under 37 CFR 1.53(b) practice, the prior nonprovisional application is not automatically abandoned upon filing of the continuing application. If the prior nonprovisional application is to be expressly abandoned, such a paper must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.138. A registered patent practitioner not of record acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 may also expressly abandon a prior nonprovisional application as of the filing date granted to a continuing application when filing such a continuing application.
If the prior nonprovisional application which is to be expressly abandoned has a notice of allowance issued therein, the prior nonprovisional application can become abandoned by the nonpayment of the issue fee. However, once an issue fee has been paid in the prior application, even if the payment occurs following the filing of a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), a petition to withdraw the prior nonprovisional application from issue must be filed before the prior nonprovisional application can be abandoned (37 CFR 1.313). See MPEP § 711.01.
If the prior nonprovisional application which is to be expressly abandoned is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), a separate notice should be forwarded by the appellant to the Board, giving them notice thereof.
After a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in which the rejection of all claims is affirmed, the proceeding is terminated when the mandate is issued by the Court.
200-26Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(c)
XII. EXAMINATION
The practice relating to making first action rejections final also applies to continuation and divisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). See MPEP § 706.07(b).
Any preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) is part of the original disclosure. Amendments must be filed in compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 (e.g., the amendment must include a complete claim listing whenever a claim is added, canceled, or amended). See MPEP § 714. The Office may require a substitute specification for preliminary amendments. See MPEP § 714.01(e). Applications should be classified and assigned to the proper Technology Center (TC) by taking into consideration the claims that will be before the examiner upon entry of such a preliminary amendment. Where a copy of the oath or declaration from a prior application was filed in a continuation or divisional application, if the examiner determines that new matter is present relative to the prior application, the examiner should so notify the applicant in the next Office action (preferably the first Office action). The examiner should require applicant to delete the benefit claim or redesignate the application as a continuation-in-part. See subsection III., above and MPEP § 211. See MPEP § 608.04(b) when new matter is contained in a preliminary amendment. If the filing date of the continuing application is on or after September 16, 2012, the inventor’s oath or declaration must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 as revised effective September 16, 2012, even though the continuing application may claim the benefit of an application filed before September 16, 2012. Specifically, the inventor’s oath or declaration in the continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012, must state that the inventor (1) is an original inventor of the claimed invention; and (2) authorized the filing of the patent application for the claimed invention. The inventor’s oath or declaration also must contain an acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in such declaration is punishable under section 1001 of U.S. Code title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.
If the examiner finds that pages of the specification or drawings figures described in the specification are missing and the application is a continuation or divisional application filed prior to September 21, 2004 under 37 CFR 1.53(b) using a copy of the oath or declaration filed in the prior application under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d), the examiner must check to determine whether the continuation or divisional application, as originally filed, includes a statement incorporating by reference the prior application(s). For applications filed prior to September 21, 2004, the statement could appear in the application transmittal letter (or the specification, rather than only in the specification). The inclusion of this incorporation by reference of the prior application(s) was necessary in these applications to permit applicant to amend the continuation or divisional application to include subject matter in the prior application(s) without the need for a petition. See also the subsection above regarding “Incorporation by Reference.” If the continuation or divisional application filed prior to September 21, 2004 under 37 CFR 1.53(b) does not include the incorporation by reference statement in the application papers (in the specification or in the transmittal letter) as originally filed and applicant has not been informed of the omitted items, the application should be returned to OPAP for mailing of a “Notice of Omitted Item(s).” For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, see 37 CFR 1.57(b) and MPEP § 217 .
201.06(d) 37 CFR 1.53(d) Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) Practice [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
*****
(d) Application filing requirements - Continued prosecution (nonprovisional) application.
(1) A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under this paragraph, provided that:
(i) The application is for a design patent;
(ii) The prior nonprovisional application is a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b), except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the application is filed on or after September
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-27
§ 201.06(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i); and
(iii) The application under this paragraph is filed before the earliest of:
(A) Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under § 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
(B) Abandonment of the prior application; or
(C) Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
(2) The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed. An application filed under this paragraph:
(i) Must identify the prior application;
(ii) Discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior application;
(iii) Names as inventors the same inventors named in the prior application on the date the application under this paragraph was filed, except as provided in paragraph (d)(4) of this section;
(iv) Includes the request for an application under this paragraph, will utilize the file jacket and contents of the prior application, including the specification, drawings and the inventor's oath or declaration from the prior application, to constitute the new application, and will be assigned the application number of the prior application for identification purposes; and
(v) Is a request to expressly abandon the prior application as of the filing date of the request for an application under this paragraph.
(3) The filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a continued prosecution application filed under this paragraph are the basic filing fee as set forth in § 1.16(b), the search fee as set forth in § 1.16(l), and the examination fee as set forth in § 1.16(p).
(4) An application filed under this paragraph may be filed by fewer than all the inventors named in the prior application, provided that the request for an application under this paragraph when filed is accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application. No person may be named as an inventor in an application filed under this paragraph who was not named as an inventor in the prior application on the date the application under this paragraph was filed, except by way of correction of inventorship under § 1.48.
(5) Any new change must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to the filing of an application under this paragraph. No amendment in an application under this paragraph (a continued prosecution application) may introduce new matter or matter that would
have been new matter in the prior application. Any new specification filed with the request for an application under this paragraph will not be considered part of the original application papers, but will be treated as a substitute specification in accordance with § 1.125.
(6) The filing of a continued prosecution application under this paragraph will be construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public, who is entitled under the provisions of § 1.14 to access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of this paragraph, may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning the other application or applications in the file jacket.
(7) A request for an application under this paragraph is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request. No amendment in an application under this paragraph may delete this specific reference to any prior application.
(8) In addition to identifying the application number of the prior application, applicant should furnish in the request for an application under this paragraph the following information relating to the prior application to the best of his or her ability:
(i) Title of invention;
(ii) Name of applicant(s); and
(iii) Correspondence address.
(9) See § 1.103(b) for requesting a limited suspension of action in an application filed under this paragraph.
37 CFR 1.53 (pre-AIA) Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
*****
(d) Application filing requirements - Continued prosecution (nonprovisional) application.
(1) A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under this paragraph, provided that:
(i) The application is for a design patent:
(ii) The prior nonprovisional application is a design application that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b); and
(iii) The application under this paragraph is filed before the earliest of:
(A) Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under § 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
(B) Abandonment of the prior application; or
(C) Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
200-28Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(d)
(2) The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed. An application filed under this paragraph:
(i) Must identify the prior application;
(ii) Discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior application;
(iii) Names as inventors the same inventors named in the prior application on the date the application under this paragraph was filed, except as provided in paragraph (d)(4) of this section;
(iv) Includes the request for an application under this paragraph, will utilize the file jacket and contents of the prior application, including the specification, drawings and oath or declaration from the prior application, to constitute the new application, and will be assigned the application number of the prior application for identification purposes; and
(v) Is a request to expressly abandon the prior application as of the filing date of the request for an application under this paragraph.
(3) The filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a continued prosecution application filed under this paragraph are the basic filing fee as set forth in § 1.16(b), the search fee as set forth in § 1.16(l), and the examination fee as set forth in § 1.16(p).
(4) An application filed under this paragraph may be filed by fewer than all the inventors named in the prior application, provided that the request for an application under this paragraph when filed is accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application. No person may be named as an inventor in an application filed under this paragraph who was not named as an inventor in the prior application on the date the application under this paragraph was filed, except by way of correction of inventorship under § 1.48.
(5) Any new change must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to the filing of an application under this paragraph. No amendment in an application under this paragraph (a continued prosecution application) may introduce new matter or matter that would have been new matter in the prior application. Any new specification filed with the request for an application under this paragraph will not be considered part of the original application papers, but will be treated as a substitute specification in accordance with § 1.125.
(6) The filing of a continued prosecution application under this paragraph will be construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public, who is entitled under the provisions of § 1.14 to access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of this paragraph, may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning the other application or applications in the file jacket.
(7) A request for an application under this paragraph is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request. No amendment in an application under this paragraph may delete this specific reference to any prior application.
(8) In addition to identifying the application number of the prior application, applicant should furnish in the request for an application under this paragraph the following information relating to the prior application to the best of his or her ability:
(i) Title of invention;
(ii) Name of applicant(s); and
(iii) Correspondence address.
(9) See § 1.103(b) for requesting a limited suspension of action in an application filed under this paragraph.
*****
I. CPA PRACTICE HAS BEEN ELIMINATED AS TO UTILITY AND PLANT APPLICATIONS
Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice has been eliminated as to utility and plant applications. Applicants who wish to continue examination of the same claimed invention after the prosecution of a utility or plant application is closed should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. For more information on RCE practice, see MPEP § 706.07(h). Applicants who wish to file a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application should file an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b). See MPEP § 201.06(c). CPAs filed prior to July 14, 2003, will continue to be processed and examined under the procedures set forth in prior 37 CFR 1.53(d). Any request for a CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003, in a utility or plant application is improper, regardless of the filing date of the utility or plant application in which the CPA is filed.
The Office will not convert an improper CPA into an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) unless the applicant shows that there are extenuating circumstances that warrant the burdensome process of such conversion.
If an examiner discovers that an improper or incomplete CPA has been processed as a proper CPA in error, the examiner should immediately notify a supervisory applications examiner (SAE) or other technical support staff within the Technology Center
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-29
§ 201.06(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
(TC) who will reprocess the CPA and correct the application records as appropriate.
A. Applications Filed on or After June 8, 1995
If a utility or plant application has a filing date on or after June 8, 1995, an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 will be treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(h) and form paragraph 7.42.15. If the improper CPA does not satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114 (e.g., the request lacks a submission or the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e), or the prosecution of the application is not closed), the Office will treat the improper CPA as an improper RCE, and the time period set in the last Office action (or notice) will continue to run. The Office will send the applicant a Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE), PTO-2051. If the time period for reply to the last Office action (or notice) has expired, the application is abandoned and the applicant must file a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 and the required petition fee to revive the abandoned application. Unless prosecution in the application was not closed, the petition must be accompanied by a submission as defined by 37 CFR 1.114(c) and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), unless previously filed. If the last Office action is a notice of allowance, the issue fee must also be paid at the time of filing the petition to revive. If prosecution in the application was not closed, the petition must be accompanied by a reply to the non-final Office action.
Applicants cannot, as a matter of right, obtain continued examination on claims that are independent and distinct from the invention previously claimed (i.e., applicants cannot switch inventions when filing an RCE). See 37 CFR 1.145. Therefore, if applicants file a request for a divisional CPA on or after July 14, 2003 and the request satisfies all the requirements in 37 CFR 1.114 (e.g., the request is accompanied by the fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission), the Office will treat the improper divisional CPA as a proper RCE. However, any amendment canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to the nonelected invention will be treated as nonresponsive. See MPEP § 821.03. Any newly submitted claims that are directed to an invention
distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed will be withdrawn from consideration.Applicants should be notified by using form paragraph 8.04 or 8.26.
B. Applications Filed Before June 8, 1995
If a utility or plant application has a filing date before June 8, 1995, the Office cannot treat an improper CPA filed on or after July 14, 2003 as an RCE because RCE practice does not apply to applications filed before June 8, 1995. The Office will notify the applicant of the improper CPA by mailing a Notice of Improper CPA (or FWC) Filing For Utility or Plant Applications Filed Before June 8, 1995, PTO-2011 (Rev. 7/03 or later). The time period for reply set in the last Office action (or notice) will continue to run. Applicant may file a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b). If the time period for reply has expired, the application is abandoned. If the application in which the improper CPA is filed is abandoned when a continuing application is filed, applicant would need to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 to revive the prior application to establish copendency with the continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b).
II. FILING AND INITIAL PROCESSING OF CPAs FOR DESIGN APPLICATIONS
A. In General
In addition to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.53(b), a continuation or divisional (but not a continuation-in-part) application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b), except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the CPA is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(i) (i.e., an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor). A continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is called a “Continued Prosecution Application” or “CPA.” A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers
200-30Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(d)
required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b). In addition, the Office will not normally issue a new filing receipt for a CPA. See 37 CFR 1.54(b). The time delay between the filing date and the first Office action should be less for a CPA than for an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For examination priority purposes only, the USPTO will treat continuation CPAs as if they were “amended” applications (as of the CPA filing date) and not as “new” applications. This treatment is limited to CPAs in which the prior application has an Office action issued by the examiner. If no Office action has been issued in the prior application, the CPA will be treated, for examination purposes, like a “new” application unless a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102 or a request for expedited examination under 37 CFR 1.155 is filed in the CPA. As “amended” applications generally have a shorter time frame for being acted on by examiners than “new” applications, the treatment of a CPA as an “amended” application will result in a first Office action being mailed in the CPA much sooner than if it had been filed as a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or under former 37 CFR 1.60 or 1.62). Therefore, applicants are strongly encouraged to file any preliminary amendment in a CPA at the time the CPA is filed. See 37 CFR 1.115 and MPEP § 714.03(a).
A request for a CPA expressly abandons the prior application as of the filing date of the request for the CPA. See 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2)(v). Therefore, where the prior application is not to be abandoned, any continuation or divisional application must be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). If applicant wants the USPTO to disregard a previously filed request for a CPA filed in a design application (and not recognize its inherent request to expressly abandon the prior application) and to treat the paper as the filing of an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), the applicant must file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182. A request to expressly abandon an application is not effective until the abandonment is acknowledged, including the express abandonment of the prior application of a CPA that occurs by operation of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2)(v). The express abandonment of the prior application is acknowledged and becomes effective upon processing and entry of the CPA into the file
of the prior application. Thus, such a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 should be filed expeditiously since the petition will not be granted once the request for a CPA has been entered into the prior application (and the inherent request to expressly abandon the prior application has been acknowledged). If the request for a CPA has been entered into the prior application by the time the petition under 37 CFR 1.182 and the application file are before the deciding official for a decision on the petition, the petition will be denied. It is noted, however, that if the applicant intended to file a second application (either a continuation or a divisional) without abandoning the prior application, applicant can still achieve that result without loss of the benefit of the original filing date by: (A) continuing the prosecution of the original application via the CPA; and (B) filing a new continuation/divisional under 37 CFR 1.53(b) claiming benefit of the CPA and its parent applications under 35 U.S.C. 120 during the pendency of the CPA.
Since no new matter may be introduced in a CPA, the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d) is not available for filing a continuation-in-part application. All continuation-in-part applications must be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) and a newly executed oath or declaration is required.
Under the CPA procedure, the continuation or divisional application will utilize the file wrapper and contents of the prior nonprovisional application, including the specification, drawings and oath or declaration from the prior nonprovisional application, and will be assigned the same application number as the prior nonprovisional application. Any changes to the continuation or divisional application desired when filing the CPA must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to filing the CPA, see 37 CFR 1.53(d)(5). Any new specification filed with the CPA request will not be considered part of the original application papers, but will be treated as a substitute specification in accordance with 37 CFR 1.125. However, the applicant must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.125(b) before the substitute specification will be entered into the CPA. Since 37 CFR 1.125(b) requires that a substitute specification be accompanied by, inter alia, a statement that the substitute specification
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-31
§ 201.06(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
includes no new matter, any substitute specification containing new matter will be denied entry by the examiner.Any preliminary amendment to the written description and claims, other than a substitute specification, filed with a CPA request will ordinarily be entered. Any new matter which is entered, however, will be required to be canceled pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 132 from the descriptive portion of the specification. Further, any claim(s) which relies upon such new matter for support will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.06. In the event that a substitute specification or preliminary amendment containing new matter was filed with a request for a CPA, applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting that the substitute specification or preliminary amendment be removed from the CPA application file, and be accorded the status as a separate application by being placed in a new file wrapper and assigned a new application number, with the new application being accorded a filing date as of the date the request for a CPA and substitute specification/preliminary amendment were filed. Of course, a request for a CPA is not improper simply because the request is accompanied by a substitute specification or preliminary amendment containing new matter. Thus, an applicant will not be entitled to a refund of the filing fee paid in a proper CPA as a result of the granting of a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting that the substitute specification or preliminary amendment be removed from the CPA application file.
A CPA may be based on a prior CPA so long as the prior CPA is complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b) (except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the prior CPA contained an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor) and is a design application. There is no other limit to the number of CPAs that may be filed in a chain of continuing applications. However, only one CPA may be pending at one time based on the same prior nonprovisional application.
Under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the specification, claims, and drawings, and any amendments entered in the prior nonprovisional application are used in the CPA. A new basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee are required in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.16. No search and examination fees
are required for a CPA filed before December 8, 2004. The only other statutory requirement under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is a signed oath or declaration. Since a CPA cannot contain new matter, the oath or declaration filed in the prior nonprovisional application would supply all the information required under the statute and rules to have a complete application and to obtain a filing date. Accordingly, the previously filed oath or declaration (if any) will be considered to be the oath or declaration of the CPA. However, for continuing applications (including CPAs) filed on or after September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 as revised effective September 16, 2012.
The original disclosure of a CPA is the same as the original disclosure of the parent non-continued prosecution application and amendments entered in the parent application(s). However, any subject matter added by amendment in the parent application which is deemed to be new matter in the parent application will also be considered new matter in the CPA. No amendment filed in a CPA, even if filed on the filing date of the CPA, may include new matter.
If application papers for a design application are in any way designated as a CPA filing under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (e.g., contain a reference to 37 CFR 1.53(d), CPA, or continued prosecution application), the application papers will be treated by the Office as a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), even if the application papers also contain other inconsistent designations (e.g., if the papers are also designated as an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or include a reference to a “continuation-in-part CPA”). If application papers for a utility or plant application are in any way designated as a CPA filing under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the application papers will be treated as a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. See subsection I., above.
B. Conditions for Filing a CPA
A continuation or divisional application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), if the prior nonprovisional application is a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b). The term “prior
200-32Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(d)
nonprovisional application” in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1) means the nonprovisional application immediately prior to the CPA. A complete application as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b) must contain, inter alia, the appropriate filing fee (including the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee) and a signed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63(d). If the CPA is filed on or after September 16, 2012, the inventor’s oath or declaration is not required to have been filed in the prior application if the prior application contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor. The inventor’s oath or declaration must be submitted no later than payment of the issue fee.
In addition, a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) must be filed before the earliest of: (A) payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application; (B) abandonment of the prior application; or (C) termination of proceedings on the prior application.
Note that request for continued examination (RCE) practice under 37 CFR 1.114 is not available in design applications. Any improper RCE filed in a design application will not be treated as a CPA. An improper RCE filed in a design application will not toll the running of any time period for reply.
C. Initial Processing
A CPA request will be initially processed by the TC assigned the prior application. The TC will verify that (A) the prior application is a design application, but not an international design application, (B) the correct application number of the prior nonprovisional application is identified in the request, (C) the request is properly signed, (D) the prior nonprovisional application was pending on, and that the issue fee has not been paid in the prior nonprovisional application on or prior to, the filing date of the CPA request, (E) the prior nonprovisional application was complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b) (e.g., the filing fee has been paid and a signed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 has been filed in the prior application), except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the CPA is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior application contains an application data sheet indicating the
name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor, and (F) the proper filing fee has been paid in the CPA. If one or more other conditions for filing a CPA have not been satisfied or the proper basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee have not been paid, the applicant will be so notified and no examination will be made in the CPA until the filing error has been corrected or the proper fees have been submitted. See 37 CFR 1.53(h). If an examiner discovers that an improper or incomplete CPA has been processed as a proper CPA in error, the examiner should immediately notify a supervisory applications examiner (SAE) or other technical support staff within the TC who will reprocess the CPA and correct the application records.
D. Incorrect Patent Application Number Identified
A request for a CPA must identify the prior nonprovisional application (37 CFR 1.53(d)(2)(i)) by application number (series code and serial number) or by serial number and filing date. Where a paper requesting a CPA is filed which does not properly identify the prior nonprovisional application number, the TC should attempt to identify the proper application number by reference to other identifying information provided in the CPA papers, e.g., name of the inventor, filing date, title of the invention, and attorney’s docket number of the prior application. If the TC is unable to identify the application number of the prior application and the party submitting the CPA papers is a registered practitioner, the practitioner may be requested by telephone to supply a letter signed by the practitioner providing the correct application number. If all attempts to obtain the correct application number are unsuccessful, the paper requesting the CPA should be returned by the TC to the sender where a return address is available. The returned CPA request must be accompanied by a cover letter which will indicate to the sender that if the returned CPA request is resubmitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with the correct application number within two weeks of the mail date on the cover letter, the original date of receipt of the CPA request will be considered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as the date of receipt of the CPA request. See 37 CFR 1.5(a). A copy of the returned CPA request and a copy of the date-stamped cover letter should be retained by the TC. Applicants may use either the Certificate of
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-33
§ 201.06(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
Mailing or Transmission procedure under 37 CFR
1.8 or the Priority Mail Express® procedure under 37 CFR 1.10 for resubmissions of returned CPA requests if they desire to have the benefit of the date of deposit in the United States Postal Service. If the returned CPA request is not resubmitted within the two-week period with the correct application number, the TC should cancel the original “Office Date” stamp on the CPA request and re-stamp the returned CPA request with the date of receipt of the resubmission or with the date of deposit as Priority
Mail Express® with the United States Postal Service, if the CPA request is resubmitted under 37 CFR 1.10. Where the CPA request is resubmitted later than two weeks after the return mailing by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the later date of receipt
or date of deposit as Priority Mail Express® of the resubmission will be considered to be the filing date of the CPA request. The two-week period to resubmit the returned CPA request is not extendible. See 37 CFR 1.5(a).
In addition to identifying the application number of the prior application, applicant is urged to furnish in the request for a CPA the following information relating to the prior application to the best of his or her ability: (A) title of invention; (B) name of applicant(s); and (C) correspondence address. See 37 CFR 1.53(d)(8).
E. Signature Requirement
A CPA is a request to expressly abandon the prior application (37 CFR 1.53(d)(2)(v)) and, therefore, must be properly signed. For a listing of the individuals who may properly sign a CPA request, see 37 CFR 1.33(b). A CPA request filed on or after September 16, 2012, must be signed by:
(1) A patent practitioner of record appointed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.32(b);
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34; or
(3) The applicant (37 CFR 1.42). Unless otherwise specified, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner.
A CPA request filed prior to September 16, 2012, must be signed by
(1) A patent practitioner of record appointed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.32(b);
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34;
(3) An assignee as provided for under 37 CFR 3.71(b); or
(4) All of the applicants (37 CFR 1.41(b)) for patent, unless there is an assignee of the entire interest and such assignee has taken action in the application in accordance with 37 CFR 3.71.
In a joint application with no attorney or agent, all applicants must sign the CPA request in order for the CPA request to be considered properly signed. An unsigned or improperly signed CPA request will be placed in the file of the prior application, and is entitled to an application filing date, but is ineffective to abandon the prior application. A CPA will NOT be examined until the CPA request is properly signed.
A request for a CPA may be signed by a registered practitioner acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34. However, correspondence concerning the CPA will be sent by the Office to the correspondence address as it appears in the prior nonprovisional application until a new power of attorney, or change of correspondence address signed by an attorney or agent of record in the prior application, is filed in the CPA.
A request for a CPA filed prior to September 16, 2012 may also be signed by the assignee or assignees of the entire interest. However, the request must be accompanied by papers establishing the assignee's ownership under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b), unless such papers were filed in the prior application and ownership has not changed.
F. Filing Date
The filing date of a CPA is the date on which a request for a CPA on a separate paper for a CPA is filed. A request for a CPA cannot be submitted as a part of papers filed for another purpose, see 37 CFR
200-34Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(d)
1.53(d)(2), (e.g., the filing of a request for a CPA within an amendment after final for the prior application is an improper request for a CPA).
A paper requesting a CPA may be filed via EFS-Web. CPA requests are filed as follow-on documents, and may only be filed by registered e-filers. See MPEP § 502.05 for additional information regarding filing correspondence via EFS-Web. The date of receipt accorded to a CPA request submitted via EFS-Web is the date the complete request is received by the Office. See 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4).
A request for a CPA may also be sent to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by mail (see MPEP § 501), facsimile transmission (see MPEP § 502.01) or hand delivery to the USPTO Customer Service Window in Alexandria, VA 22314. The date of receipt accorded to a CPA request sent by facsimile transmission is the date the complete transmission is received by an Office facsimile unit, unless the transmission is completed on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia. Correspondence for which transmission was completed on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia, will be accorded a receipt date of the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See 37 CFR 1.6(a)(3).
Applicants filing a CPA by facsimile transmission may include a “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” (PTO/SB/29A) containing a mailing address and identifying information (e.g., the prior application number, filing date, title, first named inventor) with the request for a CPA. The USPTO will: (A) separate the “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” from the CPA request papers; (B) date-stamp the “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA”; (C) verify that the identifying information provided by the applicant on the “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” is the same information provided on the accompanying request for a CPA; and (D) mail the “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” to the mailing address provided on the “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA.” The “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” cannot be used to acknowledge receipt of any paper(s) other than the request for a CPA. A returned
“Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” may be used as prima facie evidence that a request for a CPA containing the identifying information provided on the “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” was filed by facsimile transmission on the date stamped thereon by the USPTO. As the USPTO will verify only the identifying information contained on the request for a CPA, and will not verify whether the CPA was accompanied by other papers (e.g., a preliminary amendment), the “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” cannot be used as evidence that papers other than a CPA were filed by facsimile transmission in the USPTO. Likewise, applicant-created “receipts” for acknowledgment of facsimile transmitted papers (whether created for the acknowledgment of a CPA or other papers) cannot be used as evidence that papers were filed by facsimile in the USPTO. Applicants are cautioned not to include information on a “Receipt for Facsimile Transmitted CPA” that is intended for retention in the application file, as the USPTO does not plan on retaining a copy of such receipts in the file of the application.
If an applicant filing a CPA by facsimile does not include an authorization to charge the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee to a deposit account or to a credit card using PTO-2038 (See MPEP § 509), the application will be treated under 37 CFR 1.53(f) as having been filed without the appropriate fees (as fees cannot otherwise be transmitted by facsimile).
37 CFR 1.6(f) provides for the situation in which the Office has no evidence of receipt of a CPA transmitted to the Office by facsimile transmission. 37 CFR 1.6(f) requires that a showing thereunder include, inter alia, a copy of the sending unit’s report confirming transmission of the application or evidence that came into being after the complete transmission of the application and within one business day of the complete transmission of the application.
The Certificate of Mailing Procedure under 37 CFR 1.8 does not apply to filing a request for a CPA, since the filing of such a request is considered to be a filing of national application papers for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date (37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A)). Thus, if (A) the Office mails a final
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-35
§ 201.06(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
Office action on July 2, 1997 (Wednesday), with a shortened statutory period of 3 months to reply and (B) a petition for a three-month extension of time (and the fee) and a CPA are received in the Office on January 5, 1998 (Monday), accompanied by a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 dated January 2, 1998 (Friday), then the prior application was abandoned on January 3, 1998, and the CPA is improper because the CPA was not filed before the abandonment of the prior application. As a further example, if (A) the Office mails a final Office action on July 2, 1997 (Wednesday), with a shortened statutory period of 3 months to reply and (B) applicant submits a petition for a three-month extension of time (and the fee) and a CPA request via facsimile transmission accompanied by a certificate of transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 at 9:00 PM Pacific Time on January 2, 1998 (Friday), but the Office does not receive the complete transmission until 12:01 AM Eastern Time on January 3, 1998 (Saturday), then the CPA is improper because the CPA request was not filed until January 5, 1998, see 37 CFR 1.6(a)(3), which is after the abandonment (midnight on Friday, January 2, 1998) of the prior application.
G. Filing Fee
The filing fees for a CPA are the basic filing fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(b), the search fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(l), and the examination fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(p). See 37 CFR 1.53(d)(3).
A general authorization to charge fees to a deposit account which was filed in the prior application carries over from the prior nonprovisional application to a CPA. Thus, where a general authorization to charge fees to a deposit account was filed in the prior application the Office should charge the necessary filing fee of the CPA to the deposit account.
Where a general authorization to charge fees to a deposit account was filed in the prior application and applicant desires to file a CPA without paying the filing fee on the filing date of the application, applicant may file the CPA with specific instructions revoking the general authorization filed in the prior application.
Where a filing date has been assigned to a CPA, but the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee are insufficient or have been omitted, applicant will be so notified by the Office and given a period of time in which to file the missing fee(s) and to pay the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f) in order to prevent abandonment of the application. For CPAs filed on or after December 8, 2004 but prior to July 1, 2005, which have been accorded a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d), if the search and/or examination fees are paid on a date later than the filing date of the application, the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) is not required. For CPAs filed on or after July 1, 2005, which have been accorded a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d), if any of the basic filing fee, search fee, or examination fee are paid on a date later than the filing date of the CPA, the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) is required. For CPAs filed on or after September 16, 2012, if the prior application does not contain the inventor’s oath or declaration, the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) is required (unless the inventor’s oath or declaration is being filed with the CPA). The time period usually set is 2 months from the date of notification. This time period is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). A CPA will not be placed upon the files for examination until all of its required parts, including the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, and any necessary surcharge, are received. See 37 CFR 1.53(h). Thus, it would be inappropriate to conduct an interview or to issue an action on the merits in the CPA until the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, and any necessary surcharge, are received.
H. Small Entity or Micro Entity Status
Small entity status established in the parent application does not automatically carry over to a CPA. Status as a small entity must be specifically established in every application in which the status is available and desired. 37 CFR 1.27(c)(4) provides that the refiling of an application as a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) requires a new assertion of continued entitlement to small entity status. Similarly, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.29(e), the refiling of an application under 37 CFR 1.53 as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application (including a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d))
200-36Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(d)
requires a new certification of entitlement to micro entity status for the continuing application. See also MPEP § 509.04.
Because small entity status and micro entity status do not automatically carry over from the prior application to the CPA, unless the request for a CPA specifically indicates that the filing fee is to be charged in the small entity or micro entity amount, or otherwise includes an assertion of entitlement to small entity or micro entity status, the regular undiscounted entity filing fee should be charged.
I. Extensions of Time
If an extension of time is necessary to establish continuity between the prior application and the CPA, the petition for extension of time should be filed as a separate paper directed to the prior nonprovisional application. However, a CPA is not improper simply because the request for a CPA is combined in a single paper with a petition for extension of time. The “separate paper” requirement of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2) is intended to preclude an applicant from burying a request for a CPA in a paper submitted primarily for another purpose, e.g., within an amendment after final for the prior application.
While the filing of a CPA is not strictly a reply to an Office action mailed in a prior application, a request for a CPA is a paper directed to and placed in the file of the prior application, and seeks to take action in (i.e., expressly abandon) the prior application. Thus, it will be considered a “reply” for purposes of 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3). As a result, an authorization in the prior application to charge all required fees, fees under 37 CFR 1.17, or all required extension of time fees to a deposit account or to a credit card (See MPEP § 509) will be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in the prior application for the purpose of establishing continuity with the CPA. The correct extension fee to be charged in the prior application would be the extension fee necessary to establish continuity between the prior application and the CPA on the filing date of the CPA.
If an extension of time directed to the prior application is filed as a separate paper, it must be
accompanied by its own certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 (if mailed by first class mail) or under
37 CFR 1.10 (if mailed by Priority Mail Express®), if the benefits of those rules are desired.
J. Notice of CPA Filing
Since a “Notice of Abandonment” is not mailed in the prior application as a result of the filing of a CPA nor is a filing receipt normally mailed for a CPA, the examiner should advise the applicant that a request for a CPA has been granted by including form paragraph 2.30 in the first Office action of the CPA.
¶ 2.30 CPA Status Acceptable (for Design Applications)
The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. An action on the CPA follows.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a request for a CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established. This notice should be given, since applicant is not notified of the abandonment of the parent nor is a filing receipt normally sent for a CPA. If the request for a CPA in a utility or plant application is improper and the CPA has been treated as an RCE, do not use this form paragraph (use form paragraph 7.42.15 instead). See MPEP § 706.07(h).
2. In bracket 1 insert the filing date of the request for a CPA.
3. In bracket 2 insert the Application Number of the parent application.
A “conditional” request for a CPA will not be permitted. Any “conditional” request for a CPA submitted as a separate paper with an amendment after final in an application will be treated as an unconditional request for a CPA of the application. This will result (by operation of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2)(v)) in the abandonment of the prior application, and (if so instructed in the request for a CPA) the amendment after final in the prior application will be treated as a preliminary amendment in the CPA. The examiner should advise the applicant that a “conditional” request for a CPA has been treated as an unconditional request for a CPA and has been accepted by including form paragraph 2.35 in the first Office action of the CPA.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-37
§ 201.06(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
¶ 2.35 CPA Status Acceptable - Conditional Request (for Design Applications)
Receipt is acknowledged of the “conditional” request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on prior Application No. [2]. Any “conditional” request for a CPA submitted as a separate paper is treated as an unconditional request for a CPA. Accordingly, the request for a CPA application is acceptable and a CPA has been established. An action on the CPA follows.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph in the first Office action of a CPA to advise the applicant that a “conditional” request for a CPA is treated as an unconditional request and the CPA is acceptable and that a CPA has been established. This notice should be given, since applicant is not notified of the abandonment of the parent nor is a filing receipt normally sent for a CPA. If the request for a CPA in a utility or plant application is improper and the CPA has been treated as an RCE, do not use this form paragraph (use form paragraph 7.42.15 instead). See MPEP § 706.07(h).
2. In bracket 1 insert the filing date of the request for a CPA.
3. In bracket 2 insert the Application Number identified in the CPA request.
Where the examiner recognizes that a paper filed in the prior application contains a request for a CPA, but the request is not in a separate paper, the examiner should, if possible, contact applicant by telephone to notify applicant that the request for a CPA is ineffective or notify the applicant in the next Office action that the CPA request is ineffective by using form paragraph 2.31.
¶ 2.31 CPA Status NotAcceptable - Request Not on Separate Paper (for Design Applications)
Receipt is acknowledged of the request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on Application No. [2]. However, because the request was not submitted on a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2) , the request is not acceptable and no CPA has been established.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to inform applicant that a request for a CPA in a design application is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2) and, therefore, no CPA has been established.
2. In bracket 1 insert the filing date of the paper containing the request for a CPA.
3. In bracket 2 insert the Application Number identified in the CPA request.
K. Inventorship
The inventive entity set forth in the prior nonprovisional application automatically carries over into the CPA UNLESS the request for a CPA is accompanied by or includes on filing a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the CPA. 37 CFR 1.53(d)(4).
The statement requesting the deletion of the names of the person or persons who are not inventors in the continuation or divisional application must be signed by person(s) authorized pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b) to sign an amendment in the continuation or divisional application. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statement must be signed by:
(1) A patent practitioner of record appointed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.32(b);
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34; or
(3) The applicant (37 CFR 1.42). Unless otherwise specified, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner.
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the statement must be signed by:
(1) A patent practitioner of record appointed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.32(b);
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34;
(3) An assignee as provided for under 37 CFR 3.71(b); or
(4) All of the applicants (37 CFR 1.41(b)) for patent, unless there is an assignee of the entire interest and such assignee has taken action in the application in accordance with 37 CFR 3.71.
The examiner should acknowledge receipt of a statement filed with a CPA requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in
200-38Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(d)
the CPA in the first Office action in the CPA by using form paragraph 2.32.
¶ 2.32 Request To Delete a Named Inventor in CPA (for Design Applications)
Receipt is acknowledged of the statement requesting that [1] be deleted as a named inventor which was filed with the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) on [2]. The inventorship has been corrected as requested.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph where a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) is filed accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application. Any request to delete a named inventor in a CPA filed after the CPA is filed must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48.
2. In bracket 1 insert the name or names of the inventor(s) requested to be deleted.
3. In bracket 2 insert the filing date of the CPA.
After the first Office action is mailed, the application file should be sent to OPAP for revision of its records to reflect the change of inventorship. Any request by applicant for a corrected filing receipt to show the change in inventorship should not be submitted until after the examiner has acknowledged the change in inventorship in an Office action. Otherwise, the “corrected” filing receipt may not show the change in inventorship.
The inventive entity of the CPA will be the same as the inventive entity of the prior application even if the CPA papers include a transmittal letter or a new oath or declaration naming an inventor not named in the prior application. However, the new oath or declaration will be placed in the application file. Upon review of the application, the examiner will notify the applicant in the first Office action using form paragraph 2.33 that the inventive entity of the prior application has been carried over into the CPA. If the inventive entity set forth in the transmittal letter of the new oath or declaration is desired, then a request under 37 CFR 1.48 along with the required fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) must be filed. See MPEP § 602.01(c)(1) for requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012. For requests filed before September 16, 2012, see MPEP § 602.01(c)(3). No new oath or declaration need be filed with the later-filed request under 37 CFR 1.48
if such was submitted on filing of the CPA. For continuing applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration must comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 as revised effective September 16, 2012 even though the application may claim the benefit of an application filed before September 16, 2012. Specifically, the inventor’s oath or declaration in the continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012, must state that the inventor (1) is an original inventor of the claimed invention; and (2) authorized the filing of the patent application for the claimed invention. The inventor’s oath or declaration also must contain an acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in such declaration is punishable under section 1001 of U.S. Code title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. For the oath or declaration requirements in applications filed prior to September 16, 2012 see MPEP § 602.01(b).
If a request under 37 CFR 1.48 is not filed, it should be noted that the filing in a CPA of a transmittal letter or a new oath or declaration containing an inventor not named in the prior nonprovisional application may result in the claims in the CPA being rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
¶ 2.33 New Inventor Identified in CPA (for Design Applications)
It is noted that [1] identified as a named inventor in the Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) on [2], but no request under 37 CFR 1.48, as is required, was filed to correct the inventorship. Any request to add an inventor must be in the form of a request under 37 CFR 1.48. Otherwise, the inventorship in the CPA shall be the same as in the prior application.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph where a request for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) identifies one or more inventors who were not named as inventors in the prior application on the filing date of the CPA.
2. In bracket 1 insert the name or names of the inventor(s) requested to be added followed by either --was-- or --were--, as appropriate.
3. In bracket 2 insert the filing date of the CPA.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-39
§ 201.06(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
III. EXAMINATION OF CPAs
A. Benefit of Earlier Filing Date
A request for a CPA is a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in the request, and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4) provides that a request for a CPA is the specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the prior application. That is, the CPA includes the request for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) and the recitation of the application number of the prior application in such request is the “specific reference to the earlier filed application” required by 35 U.S.C. 120. No further amendment to the specification of the CPA nor a reference in the CPA’s application data sheet is required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 37 CFR 1.78(d) to identify or reference the prior application, as well as any other application assigned the application number of the prior application (e.g., in instances in which a CPA is the last in a chain of CPAs).
Where an application claims a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a chain of applications, the application must make a reference to the first (earliest) application and every intermediate application. See Sampson v. Ampex Corp., 463 F.2d 1042, 1044-45, 174 USPQ 417, 418-19 (2d Cir. 1972); Sticker Indus. Supply Corp. v. Blaw-Knox Co., 405 F.2d 90, 93, 160 USPQ 177, 179 (7th Cir. 1968); Hovlid v. Asari, 305 F.2d 747, 751, 134 USPQ 162, 165 (9th Cir. 1962). See also MPEP § 211 et seq. In addition, every intermediate application must also make a reference to the first (earliest) application and every application after the first application and before such intermediate application.
In the situation in which there is a chain of CPAs, each CPA in the chain will, by operation of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), contain the required specific reference to its immediate prior application, as well as every other application assigned the application number identified in such request. Put simply, a specific reference to a CPA by application number and filing date will constitute a specific reference to: (A) the non-continued prosecution application originally assigned such application number (the prior application as to the first CPA in the chain); and (B)
every CPA assigned the application number of such non-continued prosecution application.
Where the non-continued prosecution application originally assigned such application number itself claims the benefit of a prior application or applications under 120, 121, or 386(c), 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2) continues to require that the non-continued prosecution application originally assigned such application number contain a reference to any such prior application(s). As a CPA uses the application file of the prior application, a specific reference in the prior application (as to the CPA) will constitute a specific reference in the CPA, as well as every CPA in the event that there is a chain of CPAs.
Where an applicant in an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) seeks to claim the benefit of a CPA under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 121 (as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part), 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2) requires a reference to the CPA by application number in an application data sheet or, for applications filed before September 16, 2012, in the first sentence of the specification. 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4) provides that “[t]he identification of an application by application number under this section is the identification of every application assigned that application number necessary for a specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every such application assigned that application number.” Thus, where a referenced CPA is in a chain of CPAs, this reference will constitute a reference under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4) to every CPA in the chain as well as the non-continued prosecution application originally assigned such application number.
Therefore, regardless of whether an application is filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d), a claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the benefit of a CPA is, by operation of 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(4), a claim to every application assigned the application number of such CPA. In addition, applicants will not be permitted to delete such a benefit claim as to certain applications assigned that application number (e.g., for patent term purposes). See 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7).
Further, an applicant in a CPA is not permitted to amend the first sentence(s) of the specification to
200-40Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.06(d)
provide the specific reference to the prior application, or to provide such a reference in an application data sheet. Any such amendment will not be entered. The applicant should be advised in the next Office action that any such amendment to the specification or reference in the application data sheet has not been entered by using form paragraph 2.34.
¶ 2.34 Reference in CPA to Prior Application (by Amendment to the Specification; for Design Applications)
The amendment filed [1] requesting that the specification be amended to refer to the present Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) as a [2] application of Application No. [3] has not been entered. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(7), a request for a CPA is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request. Thus, there is no need to amend the first sentence(s) of the specification to refer back to the prior application and any such amendment shall be denied entry.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to inform the applicant that an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification referring to the CPA as a continuing application of the prior application has not been entered and will not be entered if submitted again.
2. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the amendment.
3. In bracket 2, insert either --continuation-- or --divisional--.
4. In bracket 3, insert the Application Number of the prior nonprovisional application.
Priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) made in a parent application will automatically carry over to a CPA.
B. Terminal Disclaimer
A terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application carries over to a CPA. The terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application carries over because the CPA retains the same application number as the parent application, i.e., the application number to which the previously filed terminal disclaimer is directed. If applicant does not want the terminal disclaimer to carry over to the CPA, applicant must file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 along with the required petition fee, requesting the terminal disclaimer filed in the parent application not be carried over to the CPA. See MPEP § 1490, “Withdrawing a Recorded Terminal Disclaimer,” subheading entitled “A. Before Issuance of Patent.”
C. Prior Election
An election in reply to a restriction requirement made in the prior application carries over to the CPA only if all of the following conditions are met: (A) the CPA is designated as a continuation or is not designated at all (i.e., the CPA is NOT designated as a divisional); (B) there was an express election by the applicant in reply to a restriction requirement in the prior application; (C) the CPA presents claim(s) drawn only to invention(s) claimed in the prior application; and (D) the CPA does not contain an indication that a shift in election is desired.
Where all of the conditions are met, the examiner’s first action should repeat the restriction requirement made in the prior application to the extent it is still applicable in the CPA and include a statement that prosecution is being continued on the invention elected and prosecuted by applicant in the prior application.
D. Information Disclosure Statements and Preliminary Amendments
All information disclosure statements filed in the prior application that comply with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 will be considered in a CPA by the examiner. No specific request that the previously submitted information be considered in a CPA is required.
In addition, all information disclosure statements that comply with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 and are filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits will be considered by the examiner, regardless of whatever else has occurred in the examination process up to that point in time. The submission of an information disclosure statement after the first Office action is mailed could delay prosecution. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to file any information disclosure statement in a CPA as early as possible, preferably at the time of filing the CPA. For further discussion of information disclosure statements, see MPEP § 609.
Applicants are also encouraged to file all preliminary amendments at the time of filing a CPA because the entry of any preliminary amendment filed after the
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-41
§ 201.06(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
filing date of the CPA could be denied under 37 CFR 1.115 if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of a first Office action. See MPEP § 714.03(a). In a situation where the applicant needs more time to prepare a preliminary amendment or to file an information disclosure statement, applicant can request a three-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(b). The three-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(b) must be filed at the time of filing a CPA. See MPEP § 709.
E. Copies of Affidavits
Affidavits and declarations, such as those under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 and 1.132 filed during the prosecution of the parent nonprovisional application, automatically become a part of the CPA. Therefore, no copy of the original affidavit or declaration filed in the parent nonprovisional application need be filed in the CPA.
IV. PUBLIC ACCESS TO CPAs
A. Waiver of Confidentiality
A CPA is construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public who is entitled under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.14 to obtain access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.53(d) may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning, the other application(s) in the application file. 37 CFR 1.53(d)(6).
B. Certified Copy
A certified copy of a CPA will be prepared by the Certification Branch upon request. The certified copy will consist of a copy of the most recent non-continued prosecution application in the chain of CPAs. The filing date of the CPA will be shown in the certified copy as the filing date of the most recent non-continued prosecution application in the chain of CPAs.
V. FORMS
Form PTO/SB/29, “For Design Applications Only: Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) Request Transmittal,” may be used by applicant for filing a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d). The form is available o n t h e O f fi c e w e b s i t e a t www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms.
201.07 ContinuationApplication [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.
*****
(d) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application (including a nonprovisional application resulting from an international application or international design application), an international application designating the United States, or an international design application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed copending nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and this section.
*****
(2) Except for a continued prosecution application filed under § 1.53(d), any nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that claims the benefit of one or more prior-filed nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States must contain or be amended to contain a reference to each such prior-filed application, identifying it by application number (consisting of the series code and serial number), international application number and international filing date, or international registration number and filing date under § 1.1023. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application, the reference required by this paragraph must be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)). The reference also must identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application.
*****
A continuation application is an application for the invention(s) disclosed in a prior- filed copending nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States. The disclosure presented in the continuation must not
200-42Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.07
include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted as an amendment to the parent application.
The continuation application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or 1.53(d) if the application is a design application, but not an international design application). The inventorship in the continuation application must include at least one inventor named in the prior-filed application, and the continuation application must also claim the benefit of the prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). See 37 CFR 1.78, especially paragraphs (d) and (e), and MPEP § 211 et seq. for additional requirements and more information regarding entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of a prior-filed copending application.
An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a “divisional” of the provisional application. See 37 CFR 1.78, especially paragraphs (a)-(c), and MPEP § 211 et seq. for requirements and information pertaining to entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application.
At any time before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on an earlier application, an applicant may have recourse to filing a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) in order to introduce into the application a new set of claims and to establish a right to further examination by the Office. A continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available only for design applications, but not international design applications), however, must be filed prior to payment of the issue fee unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application. In addition, a continuation or divisional application may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the prior application is a nonprovisional design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b) (except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the CPA is filed on or after September 16, 2012), and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor. Use form paragraph 2.05 to remind applicant of possible continuation status.
¶ 2.05 Possible Status as Continuation
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. [1], filed [2], and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq .
Examiner Note:
1. In brackets 1 and 2, insert the application number (series code and serial number) and filing date of the prior application, respectively.
2. This form paragraph should only be used if it appears that the application may be a continuation, but a benefit claim has not been properly established.
3. An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a "continuation" of the prior application.
201.08 Continuation-in-Part Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.
*****
(d) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application (including a nonprovisional application resulting from an international application or international design application), an international application designating the United States, or an international design application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed copending nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and this section.
*****
(2) Except for a continued prosecution application filed under § 1.53(d), any nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that claims the benefit of one or more prior-filed nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States must contain or be amended to contain a reference to each such prior-filed application, identifying it by application number (consisting of the series code and serial number), international application number and international filing date, or international registration number and filing date under § 1.1023. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application, the reference required by this paragraph must be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)). The reference also must
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-43
§ 201.08TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application.
*****
A continuation-in-part is an application filed during the lifetime of an earlier nonprovisional application, repeating some substantial portion or all of the earlier nonprovisional application and adding matter not disclosed in the said earlier nonprovisional application. A continuation-in-part application may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). The continuation-in-part application must claim the benefit of the prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). For more information on claiming the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application, see MPEP § 211 et seq. A continuation-in-part application CANNOT be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a “continuation-in-part” of the provisional application because an application that claims benefit of a provisional application is a nonprovisional application of a provisional application, not a continuation, division, or continuation-in-part of the provisional application.
The mere filing of a continuation-in-part application does not itself create a presumption that the applicant acquiesces in any rejections which may be outstanding in the copending national nonprovisional application or applications upon which the continuation-in-part application relies for benefit.
A continuation-in-part application that has a sole inventor may also derive from an earlier application that has joint inventors and discloses only a portion of the subject matter of the later application, subject to the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78. Subject to the same conditions, a continuation-in-part application that has joint inventors may derive from an earlier application that has a sole inventor.
The Office does not need to make a determination as to whether the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 120 that
the earlier nonprovisional application discloses the invention of the second application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is met unless the filing date of the earlier nonprovisional application is relied upon in a proceeding before the Office. Accordingly, an alleged continuation-in-part application should be permitted to claim the benefit of the filing date of an earlier nonprovisional application if the alleged continuation-in-part application complies with the other requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78, such as:
(A) The first application and the alleged continuation-in-part application were filed with the same inventor or at least one common joint inventor;
(B) The alleged continuation-in-part application was “filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application”; and
(C) The alleged continuation-in-part application “contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.” (For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be submitted either in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet (see 37 CFR 1.76(b)(5)).)
See MPEP § 211 et seq. for more information on claiming the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application.
For notation to be put in the file history by the examiner in the case of a continuation-in-part application see MPEP § 202. See MPEP § 708 for order of examination.
Use form paragraph 2.06 to remind applicant of possible continuation-in-part status.
¶ 2.06 Possible Status as Continuation-in-Part
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. [1], filed [2], and adds additional disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the
200-44Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 201.08
filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq .
Examiner Note:
1. In brackets 1 and 2, insert the application number (series code and serial number) and filing date of the prior application, respectively.
2. This form paragraph should only be used if it appears that the application may qualify as a continuation-in-part, but no benefit claim has been properly established.
3. An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a "continuation-in-part" of the prior application.
202 Cross-Noting [R-07.2015]
I. NOTATION IN FILE HISTORY REGARDING PRIOR U.S. APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS
The front page of a printed patent identifies all prior applications for which benefits are claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in continuation-in-part, continuation, divisional, and reissue applications. Therefore, the identifying data of all prior applications for which benefits are claimed should be reviewed by the examiner to ensure that the data is accurate and provided in an application data sheet for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, or provided in either the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(3) and (d)(2) and MPEP § 211 et seq. For example, the reference to a prior nonprovisional application must include the appropriate relationship (e.g., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) between the nonprovisional applications.
The front page of a printed patent issuing on a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will identify the application number and filing date of the most recent noncontinued prosecution application (but not the filing date of the CPA) as well as all prior applications from which benefit was claimed in the most recent noncontinued prosecution application.
Where prior application data, including provisional application data, is preprinted on the PALM bib-data sheet, the examiner should check that data for
accuracy, including whether the application is, in fact, copending with the prior nonprovisional application or applications for which benefit is claimed. Similarly, the application number of any provisional application for which benefit is claimed should be printed on the PALM bib-data sheet. If applicant claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a prior provisional application, and states that the provisional application claims priority to earlier domestic or foreign application(s), the earlier application(s) should not be reflected on the PALM bib-data sheet because a provisional application is not entitled to the right of priority of any other application. See 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(7).
Where the data is correct, the examiner should initial the PALM bib-data sheet in the provided space. Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the PALM data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate. Upon entry of the data, a new PALM bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file. If the error was an applicant error, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate. See MPEP § 601.05 et seq. and § 211.02. A petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim may also be required. See MPEP § 211.03.
The inclusion of prior application information in the patent does not necessarily indicate that the claims are entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date. See MPEP § 306 for information pertaining to the assignment of applications claiming a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 to the filing date of an earlier filed application. In the situation in which there has been no reference to a prior application because the benefit of its filing date is not desired, no notation as to the prior application is made on the PALM bib-data sheet.
II. NOTATION IN FILE HISTORY REGARDING FOREIGN PRIORITY APPLICATION
If a foreign application listed on the oath or declaration (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) or application data sheet is not listed on the PALM bib-data sheet, the examiner should
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-45
§ 202TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
provide the information regarding the foreign application number, the country, and the filing date on the PALM bib-data sheet and forward the marked-up PALM bib-data sheet to the Legal Instrument Examiner for correction in the Office computer systems. Applications listed on the PALM bib-data sheet but filed in countries not qualifying for benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) should be lined through in ink. A listing of countries qualifying for benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) appears at MPEP § 213.01.
Where foreign applications are listed on the 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) or application data sheet, the examiner should check that such foreign applications are properly listed on the PALM bib-data sheet. A PALM bib-data sheet should include the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of each foreign application that the U.S. application is claiming the priority of. The examiner should check this information for accuracy. Should there be an error on the oath or declaration, or application data sheet itself, the examiner should require a new oath or declaration, or application data sheet, where appropriate. A petition for an unintentionally delayed claim for priority may also be required. See MPEP § 214 et seq. If the oath or declaration or the application data sheet is accurate, but there is an error on the PALM bib-data sheet, the examiner should make the appropriate corrections directly on the PALM bib-data sheet, and have the information corrected in the Office computer systems by forwarding the information to the examiner’s Legal Instrument Examiner, with an explanation of the correction to be made. The examiner should initial the PALM bib-data sheet in the “VERIFIED” space provided when the information is correct or has been amended to be correct. However, the examiner must still indicate on the Office action and on the PALM bib-data sheet whether the conditions of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) have been met.
If the filing dates of several foreign applications are claimed and the certified copy of each foreign application has been received, information respecting each of the foreign applications is to be entered on the PALM bib-data sheet.
The front page of the patent when it is issued, and the listing in the Official Gazette, will refer to the claim of priority, giving the country, the filing date, and the number of the foreign application in those applications in which the PALM bib-data sheet has been endorsed.
203 Status of Applications [R-11.2013]
203.01 New [R-11.2013]
A “new” application is a nonprovisional application that has not yet received an action by the examiner. An amendment filed prior to the first Office Action does not alter the status of a “new” application. Note that a request for continued examination (RCE)(see 37 CFR 1.114) is not a type of new application filing. See MPEP § 706.07(h).
203.02 Rejected [R-08.2012]
A nonprovisional application which, during its prosecution in the examining group and before allowance, contains an unanswered examiner’s action is designated as a “rejected” application. Its status as a “rejected” application continues as such until acted upon by the applicant in reply to the examiner’s action (within the allotted reply period), or until it becomes abandoned.
203.03 Amended [R-08.2012]
An “amended” nonprovisional application is one that having been acted on by the examiner, has in turn been acted on by the applicant in reply to the examiner’s action. The applicant’s reply may be confined to an election, a traverse of the action taken by the examiner or may include an amendment of the application.
203.04 Allowed or in Issue [R-07.2015]
An “allowed” nonprovisional application or an application “in issue” is one which has been examined and determined to meet all statutory requirements, and in which a notice of allowance has been sent to the applicant. Its status as an “allowed” application continues from the date of the notice of allowance until it issues as a patent, unless
200-46Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 203
it is withdrawn from issue (37 CFR 1.313), or becomes abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee and any required publication fee (37 CFR 1.314 and 1.316).
203.05 Abandoned [R-11.2013]
An abandoned application is, inter alia, one which is removed from the Office docket of pending applications:
(A) through formal abandonment by the applicant or by the attorney or agent of record;
(B) through failure of applicant to take appropriate action at some stage in the prosecution of a nonprovisional application;
(C) for failure to pay the issue fee (MPEP § 711 to § 711.05); or
(D) in the case of a provisional application, no later than 12 months after the filing date of the provisional application (see MPEP § 711.03(c) and 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(5)).
203.06 Incomplete [R-08.2012]
An application that is not entitled to a filing date (e.g., for lacking some of the essential parts) is termed an incomplete application. (MPEP § 506 and § 601.01(d)-(g)).
203.07 [Reserved]
203.08 Status Inquiries [R-11.2013]
I. IN GENERAL
Status information relating to patent applications is available through the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. There is both a public and private interface to PAIR. In public PAIR, information is available relating to issued patents, published patent applications, and applications to which a patented or published application claims domestic priority. In private PAIR, an applicant (or his or her registered patent attorney or registered patent agent) can securely track the progress of his or her application(s) through the USPTO. Private
PAIR makes available information relating to unpublished patent applications, but the applicant must associate a Customer Number with the application to obtain access. See MPEP § 403 for Customer Number practice.
Applicants and other persons seeking status information regarding an application should check the PAIR system on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/ patent-electronic-business-center. Alternatively, the requester may contact the File Information Unit (see MPEP § 1730). The File Information Unit (FIU) will check the relevant Office records and will inform the requester whether the application has been published or has issued as a patent. If the application has been published, the FIU will inform the requester of the publication number and publication date, and if the application has issued as a patent, the FIU will inform the requester of the patent number, issue date and classification. If the application has not been published, but is pending or abandoned then the FIU determines whether the requester is entitled to such information. See MPEP § 102 for additional information.
Inquiries as to the status of applications, by persons entitled to the information, should be answered promptly. Simple letters of inquiry regarding the status of applications will be transmitted from the Office of Patent Application Processing to the TCs for direct action. Such letters will be stamped “Status Letters.”
If the correspondent is not entitled to the information, in view of 37 CFR 1.14, he or she should be so informed.
For Congressional and other official inquiries, see MPEP § 203.08(a).
II. NEW APPLICATION
A Notice of Allowability, Form PTOL-37, is routinely mailed in every application determined to be allowable. Thus, the mailing of a form PTOL-37 in addition to a formal Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due (PTOL-85) in all allowed applications would seem to obviate the need for status inquiries even as a precautionary measure where the applicant
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-47
§ 203.08TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
may believe his or her new application may have been passed to issue on the first examination. However, as an exception, a status inquiry would be appropriate where a Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) is not received within three months from receipt of form PTOL-37.
Current examining procedures aim to minimize the spread in dates among the various examiner dockets of each art unit and TC with respect to actions on new applications. Accordingly, the dates of the “oldest new applications” appearing in the Official Gazette are fairly reliable guides as to the expected time frames of when the examiners reach the applications or action.
III. AMENDED APPLICATIONS
Amended applications are expected to be taken up by the examiner and an action completed within two months of the date the examiner receives the application. Accordingly, a status inquiry is not in order after reply by the attorney until 5 or 6 months have elapsed with no response from the Office. However, in the event that a six month period has elapsed, and no response from the Office is received, applicant should inquire as to the status of the application to avoid potential abandonment.
Applicants are encouraged to use PAIR to make status inquiries. See subsection I, above. A stamped postcard receipt or Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt for replies to Office actions, adequately and specifically identifying the papers filed, will be considered prima facie proof of receipt of such papers. See MPEP § 503. Where such proof indicates the timely filing of a reply, the submission of a copy of the postcard or Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt with a copy of the reply will ordinarily obviate the need for a petition to revive. Proof of receipt of a timely reply to a final action will obviate the need for a petition to revive only if the reply was in compliance with 37 CFR 1.113.
203.08(a) Congressional and Other Official Inquiries [R-11.2013]
Correspondence and inquiries from the White House, Members of Congress, embassies, and heads of Executive departments and agencies normally are
cleared by the USPTO’s Office of Policy and External Affairs and/or the Office of Governmental Affairs.
Inquiries referred to in this section such as correspondence from embassies, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of State should immediately be transmitted to the Administrator of the Office of Policy and External Affairs, and a staff member of that office should be notified by phone that such correspondence has been received at 571-272-9300. Inquiries referred to in this section such as correspondence from Congress or the White House should immediately be transmitted to the Director of the Office of Governmental Affairs, and a staff member of that office should be notified by phone that such correspondence has been received at 571-272-7300.
This procedure is used so that there will be uniformity in the handling of contacts from the indicated sources, and also so that compliance with directives of the Department of Commerce is attained.
204-209 [Reserved]
210 Priority to, or the Benefit of, the Filing Date of a Prior-Filed Application [R-07.2015]
Under certain conditions and on fulfilling certain requirements, a later-filed application for patent filed in the United States may claim the benefit of, or priority to, a prior application filed in the United States (see 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c); see also 37 CFR 1.78) or in a foreign country (see 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b); see also 37 CFR 1.55).
As a result of recent changes to the applicable laws and rules, the procedural requirements and time frames for claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an earlier-filed application may vary based on the filing date of the later-filed nonprovisional application.
Note that effective December 18, 2013, the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) amends the patent laws to implement the provisions
200-48Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 203.08(a)
of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) in title II; corresponding revisions to title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations also became effective on December 18, 2013. Notable changes to the law and rules include the restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in a subsequent application filed within two months of the expiration of the twelve-month period (six-month period for design applications) for filing such a subsequent application. In addition, title I of the PLTIA became effective May 13, 2015, along with corresponding revisions to the rules. Notable changes include the ability to file international design applications and to claim priority to, and the benefit of, international design applications in nonprovisional applications.
I. REQUIREMENTS OF 37 CFR 1.78 (CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF AN EARLIER NATIONAL APPLICATION)
The following is an overview of the substantive changes to 37 CFR 1.78 resulting from implementation of Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (Leahy Smith America Invents Act (AIA)) and implementation of Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (titles I and II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA)). See MPEP § 211 et seq. for the detailed requirements for claiming (and entitlement to), the benefit of an earlier-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
Whether an application was filed before, on, or after March 16, 2013, statutory provisions require that for a later-filed application to be entitled to the benefit of an earlier-filed national application, the later-filed application must contain a specific reference to the earlier-filed application. 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120.
The inventor’s oath or declaration provisions of Public Law 112-29, sec. 4, 125 Stat. 284 (the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act) and the rules related thereto became effective September 16, 2012. In implementing these provisions the Office revised 37 CFR 1.78 to require that a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c) must be in the application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76). Thus for all applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must
be in the application data sheet; for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet or in the first sentence(s) of the specification.
In implementing the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA), the Office reorganized and revised 37 CFR 1.78 effective May 13, 2015. All versions of 37 CFR 1.78 in effect prior to May 13, 2015, have been consolidated in the current version of 37 CFR 1.78. The following is a summary of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.78.
(A) 37 CFR 1.78(a) contains provisions relating to claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application;
(B) 37 CFR 1.78(b) contains provisions relating to restoration of the right to claim the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) when the delay in filing the subsequent application was unintentional.
(C) 37 CFR 1.78(c) contains provisions relating to delayed claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application;
(D) 37 CFR 1.78(d) contains provisions relating to claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application;
(E) 37 CFR 1.78(e) contains provisions relating to delayed claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application;
(F) 37 CFR 1.78(f) contains provisions relating to applications containing patentably indistinct claims;
(G) 37 CFR 1.78(g) contains provisions relating to applications or patents under reexamination naming different inventors and containing patentably indistinct claims;
(H) 37 CFR 1.78(h) provides for situations where the specific reference to a prior filed application may be presented in the first sentence(s) of the specification in applications filed before September 16, 2012;
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-49
§ 210TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
(I) 37 CFR 1.78(i) provides for situations where a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b), (c), or (e) required in an international application can be filed in the earliest nonprovisional application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the international application;
(J) 37 CFR 1.78(j) provides that benefit under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) with respect to an international design application can only be claimed in nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon; and
(K) 37 CFR 1.78(k) provides that the time periods set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 are not extendable, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b) (and 37 CFR 1.7(a)), PCT Rule 80.5, and Hague Agreement Rule 4(4).
37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6) set forth provisions that are only applicable to nonprovisional applications filed on or after March 16, 2013 that claim the benefit of the filing date of a provisional or nonprovisional application filed prior to March 16, 2013. Specifically, the paragraphs require that if the later filed application contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within the time periods set forth in the rule. An applicant is not required to provide such a statement if the applicant reasonably believes on the basis of information already known to the individuals designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) that the later filed nonprovisional application does not, and did not at any time, contain a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. An applicant is also not required to provide such a statement if the application claims the benefit of an earlier application in which a statement that the earlier application contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 has been filed. See MPEP § 211.01 for additional information.
II. REQUIREMENTS OF 37 CFR 1.55 (CLAIMING PRIORITY TO AN EARLIER FOREIGN APPLICATION)
The following is an overview of the substantive changes to 37 CFR 1.55 resulting from implementation of Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (Leahy Smith America Invents Act (AIA)) and implementation of Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (titles I and title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA)). See MPEP § 213 et seq. for the detailed requirements for claiming (and entitlement to), priority to of an earlier filed foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 35 U.S.C. 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
Whether an application was filed before, on, or after March 16, 2013, 35 U.S.C. 119(b)(1) requires a claim for priority identifying the foreign application. Prior to September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.63 required the claim for priority to be identified on an application data sheet or in the oath or declaration.
The inventor’s oath or declaration provisions of Public Law 112-29, sec. 4, 125 Stat. 284 (the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act) and the rules related thereto became effective September 16, 2012. In implementing these provisions the Office revised 37 CFR 1.55 to require that a claim for foreign priority must be presented in the application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76). Thus for all applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) to the prior application must be presented in the application data sheet; for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the claim for priority to the foreign application must be identified in an application data sheet or in the oath or declaration.
In implementing the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA), the Office reorganized and revised 37 CFR 1.55 effective May 13, 2015. All versions of 37 CFR 1.55 in effect prior to May 13, 2015, have been consolidated in the current version of 37 CFR 1.55. The following is a summary of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.55.
(A) 37 CFR 1.55(a) provides generally that a nonprovisional application may claim priority to one or more prior foreign applications under the
200-50Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 210
conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b);
(B) 37 CFR 1.55(b) contains provisions relating to the time for filing a nonprovisional application claiming priority to a foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b);
(C) 37 CFR 1.55(c) contains provisions relating to the restoration of the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b);
(D) 37 CFR 1.55(d) contains provisions relating to the time for filing a priority claim in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and in an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371;
(E) 37 CFR 1.55(e) contains provisions relating to delayed priority claims in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371;
(F) 37 CFR 1.55(f) contains provisions relating to the time for filing the certified copy of a foreign application in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and in an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371;
(G) 37 CFR 1.55(g) contains provisions relating to the filing of a priority claim, certified copy of the foreign application, and translation of a non-English language foreign application in any application;
(H) 37 CFR 1.55(h) contains provisions relating to when the requirement for a certified copy will be considered satisfied based on a certified copy filed in another U.S. patent or application;
(I) 37 CFR 1.55(i) contains provisions relating to the priority document exchange agreement;
(J) 37 CFR 1.55(j) contains provisions relating to the filing of an interim copy of a foreign application;
(K) 37 CFR 1.55(k) contains provisions relating to requirements for certain applications filed on or after March 16, 2013;
(L) 37 CFR 1.55(l) contains provisions relating to inventor's certificates; and
(M) 37 CFR 1.55(m) contains provisions relating to the time for the filing of a priority claim and certified copy of the foreign application in an
international design application designating the United States;
(N) 37 CFR 1.55(n) provides for situations where a foreign priority claim may be presented in the oath or declaration in applications filed before September 16, 2012;
(O) 37 CFR 1.55(o) provides that right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) with respect to an international design application is applicable only to nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon; and
(P) 37 CFR 1.55(p) provides that the time periods set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 are not extendable, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b) (and 37 CFR 1.7(a)), PCT Rule 80.5, and Hague Agreement Rule 4(4).
III. REQUIREMENT FOR A STATEMENT UNDER 37 CFR 1.55 OR 1.78 FOR FIRST INVENTOR TO FILE TRANSITION APPLICATIONS
The first inventor to file provisions of Public Law 112-29, sec. 3, 125 Stat. 284 (the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act) and the rules related thereto became effective March 16, 2013. These provisions apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined under section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that is on or after March 16, 2013; or
(B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)
As a result, the effective filing date of each claimed invention determines whether an application is subject to examination under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as effective on March 16, 2013 or under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in effect on March 15, 2013 (i.e., pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103).
Title I of the PLTIA amended the definition of effective filing date in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) to provide
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-51
§ 210TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
for priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) and benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c).
The effective filing date for a claimed invention in a patent or application (except in an application for reissue or reissued patent) is set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100(i)(1) as:
(A) if subparagraph (B) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(B) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
For an application for reissue or a reissued patent, the effective filing date for a claimed invention, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100(i)(2), is determined by deeming the claim to the invention to have been contained in the patent for which reissue was sought.
In implementing the first inventor to file provision of the AIA, the Office added a statement requirement to 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 for transition applications. See 37 CFR 1.55(k) and 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6). Note that the statement requirement for transition applications does not apply to nonprovisional international design applications.
A. Transition Applications
Transition applications are nonprovisional applications that:
(A) are filed on or after March 16, 2013; and
(B) claim foreign priority to, or domestic benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013.
Transition applications are either pre-AIA first-to-invent applications or AIA first-inventor-to-file applications depending on the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s).
The statement provisions of 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 require that if the later-filed transition application contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date
on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect (unless the later-filed application is a nonprovisional international design application). The statement must be provided within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application, four months from the date of entry into the national stage as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 in an international application, sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application, or the date that a first claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, is presented in the later-filed application. Nonprovisional international design applications are excluded from the transition provisions of 37 CFR 1.55(k) and 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6).
For a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013 that claims priority to, or the benefit of, the filing date of an earlier filed application, the applicant would not be required to provide any statement if:
(A) The nonprovisional application discloses only subject matter also disclosed in a priority or domestic benefit application filed prior to March 16, 2013; or
(B) the nonprovisional application claims only priority to, or the benefit of, the filing date of an application filed on or after March 16, 2013.
An applicant is not required to provide such a statement under 37 CFR 1.78 in a continuing transition application if the application claims the benefit of a nonprovisional application in which such a statement under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 has been filed. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(6)(i).
An applicant is not required to provide such a statement under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 if the applicant reasonably believes on the basis of information already known to the individuals designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) that the later-filed transition application does not, and did not at any time, contain a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
Applicant is not required to identify how many or which claims in the transition application have an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, or
200-52Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 210
identify the subject matter in the transition application not also disclosed in the priority or benefit application. Applicant is only required to state that there is a claim in the transition application that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. The Office may issue a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 if an applicant takes conflicting positions on whether an application contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. For example, the Office may require the applicant to identify where there is written description support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the pre-AIA application for each claim to a claimed invention if an applicant provides the statement under 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6), but later argues that the application should have been examined as a pre-AIA application because the application does not actually contain a claim to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
B. Application Data Sheet and Filing Receipt
The application data sheet (ADS, Form PTO/AIA/14) and the transmittal letter for 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage filing (Form PTO- 1390) are available for an applicant to make the 37 CFR 1.55/1.78 statement by marking a check box on the forms. The presence or absence of the 37 CFR 1.55/1.78 statement is reflected on the filing receipt. If applicant receives a filing receipt with incorrect information regarding the 37 CFR 1.55/1.78 statement, applicant may request a corrected filing receipt. Therefore, applicants should carefully and promptly review their filing receipts in order to ensure that their applications will be examined under the correct statutory framework.
211 Claiming the Benefit of an Earlier Filing Date Under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 119(e) [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 120 Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States.
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed
application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section.
35 U.S.C. 119 Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority.
*****
(e)(1) An application for patent filed under section 111(a) or section 363 for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in a provisional application filed under section 111(b), by an inventor or inventors named in the provisional application, shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the provisional application filed under section 111(b), if the application for patent filed under section 111(a) or section 363 is filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the provisional application. The Director may prescribe regulations, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), pursuant to which the 12-month period set forth in this subsection may be extended by an additional 2 months if the delay in filing the application under section 111(a) or section 363 within the 12-month period was unintentional. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed provisional application under this subsection unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed provisional application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this subsection. The Director may establish procedures, including the payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this subsection.
(2) A provisional application filed under section 111(b) may not be relied upon in any proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office unless the fee set forth in subparagraph (A) or (C) of section 41(a)(1) has been paid.
(3) If the day that is 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the period of pendency of the provisional application shall be extended to the next succeeding secular or business day. For an application for patent filed under section 363 in a Receiving Office other than the Patent and Trademark Office, the 12-month and additional
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-53
§ 211TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
2-month period set forth in this subsection shall be extended as provided under the treaty and Regulations as defined in section 351.
37 CFR 1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.
(a) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application, other than for a design patent, or an international application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed provisional applications under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and this section.
(1) The nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States must be:
(i) Filed not later than twelve months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, subject to paragraph (b) of this section (a subsequent application); or
(ii) Entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) of a subsequent application that was filed within the period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Each prior-filed provisional application must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor. In addition, each prior-filed provisional application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in § 1.53(c), and the basic filing fee set forth in § 1.16(d) must have been paid for such provisional application within the time period set forth in § 1.53(g).
(3) Any nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States that claims the benefit of one or more prior-filed provisional applications must contain, or be amended to contain, a reference to each such prior-filed provisional application, identifying it by the provisional application number (consisting of series code and serial number). If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application, the reference required by this paragraph must be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)).
(4) The reference required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section must be submitted during the pendency of the later-filed application. If the later-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), this reference must also be submitted within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed provisional application. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371, this reference must also be submitted within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed provisional application. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, failure to timely submit the reference is considered a waiver of any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of the prior-filed provisional application. The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is:
(i) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000; or
(ii) An international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before November 29, 2000.
(5) If the prior-filed provisional application was filed in a language other than English and both an English-language translation of the prior-filed provisional application and a statement that the translation is accurate were not previously filed in the prior-filed provisional application, the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file, in the prior-filed provisional application, the translation and the statement. If the notice is mailed in a pending nonprovisional application, a timely reply to such a notice must include the filing in the nonprovisional application of either a confirmation that the translation and statement were filed in the provisional application, or an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)) eliminating the reference under paragraph (a)(3) of this section to the prior-filed provisional application, or the nonprovisional application will be abandoned. The translation and statement may be filed in the provisional application, even if the provisional application has become abandoned.
(6) If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, claims the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the nonprovisional application, four months from the date of entry into the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application, sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed provisional application, or the date that a first claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, is presented in the nonprovisional application. An applicant is not required to provide such a statement if the applicant reasonably believes on the basis of information already known to the individuals designated in § 1.56(c) that the nonprovisional application does not, and did not at any time, contain a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
(b) Delayed filing of the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States. If the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States has a filing date which is after the expiration of the twelve-month period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section but within two months from the expiration of the period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the benefit of the provisional application may be restored under PCT Rule 26 bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition pursuant to this paragraph, if the delay in filing the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States within the period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section was unintentional.
(1) A petition to restore the benefit of a provisional application under this paragraph filed on or after May 13, 2015,
200-54Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211
must be filed in the subsequent application, and any petition to restore the benefit of a provisional application under this paragraph must include:
(i) The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to the prior-filed provisional application in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)) identifying it by provisional application number (consisting of series code and serial number), unless previously submitted;
(ii) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and
(iii) A statement that the delay in filing the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States within the twelve-month period set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
(2) The restoration of the right of priority under PCT Rule 26 bis.3 to a provisional application does not affect the requirement to include the reference required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section to the provisional application in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 within the time period provided by paragraph (a)(4) of this section to avoid the benefit claim being considered waived.
(c) Delayed claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application. If the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and paragraph (a)(3) of this section is presented in an application after the time period provided by paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application may be accepted if the reference identifying the prior-filed application by provisional application number was unintentionally delayed. A petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application must be accompanied by:
(1) The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and paragraph (a)(3) of this section to the prior-filed provisional application, unless previously submitted;
(2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and
(3) A statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under paragraph (a)(4) of this section and the date the benefit claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
(d) Claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application. An applicant in a nonprovisional application (including a nonprovisional application resulting from an international application or international design application), an international application designating the United States, or an international design application designating the United States may claim the benefit of one or more prior-filed copending nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States under the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and this section.
(1) Each prior-filed application must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor. In addition, each prior-filed application must either be:
(i) An international application entitled to a filing date in accordance with PCT Article 11 and designating the United States;
(ii) An international design application entitled to a filing date in accordance with § 1.1023 and designating the United States; or
(iii) A nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that is entitled to a filing date as set forth in § 1.53(b) or (d) for which the basic filing fee set forth in § 1.16 has been paid within the pendency of the application.
(2) Except for a continued prosecution application filed under § 1.53(d), any nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that claims the benefit of one or more prior-filed nonprovisional applications, international applications designating the United States, or international design applications designating the United States must contain or be amended to contain a reference to each such prior-filed application, identifying it by application number (consisting of the series code and serial number), international application number and international filing date, or international registration number and filing date under § 1.1023. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application, the reference required by this paragraph must be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)). The reference also must identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application.
(3)
(i) The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and paragraph (d)(2) of this section must be submitted during the pendency of the later-filed application.
(ii) If the later-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), this reference must also be submitted within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application. If the later-filed application is a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371, this reference must also be submitted within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application. The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is:
(A) An application for a design patent;
(B) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000; or
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-55
§ 211TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
(C) An international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before November 29, 2000.
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, failure to timely submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and paragraph (d)(2) of this section is considered a waiver of any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the prior-filed application.
(4) The request for a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d) is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to the prior-filed application. The identification of an application by application number under this section is the identification of every application assigned that application number necessary for a specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every such application assigned that application number.
(5) Cross-references to other related applications may be made when appropriate (see § 1.14), but cross-references to applications for which a benefit is not claimed under title 35, United States Code, must not be included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(5)).
(6) If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, other than a nonprovisional international design application, claims the benefit of the filing date of a nonprovisional application or an international application designating the United States filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application, four months from the date of entry into the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application, sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application, or the date that a first claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, is presented in the later-filed application. An applicant is not required to provide such a statement if either:
(i) The application claims the benefit of a nonprovisional application in which a statement under § 1.55(k), paragraph (a)(6) of this section, or this paragraph that the application contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 has been filed; or
(ii) The applicant reasonably believes on the basis of information already known to the individuals designated in § 1.56(c) that the later filed application does not, and did not at any time, contain a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
(7) Where benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application or an international design application which designates but did not originate in the United States, the Office may require a certified copy of such application together with an English translation thereof if filed in another language.
(e) Delayed claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application,
international application, or international design application. If the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and paragraph (d)(2) of this section is presented after the time period provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed copending nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States may be accepted if the reference required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section was unintentionally delayed. A petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed application must be accompanied by:
(1) The reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and paragraph (d)(2) of this section to the prior-filed application, unless previously submitted;
(2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and
(3) A statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under paragraph (d)(3) of this section and the date the benefit claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
(f) Applications containing patentably indistinct claims. Where two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application.
(g) Applications or patents under reexamination naming different inventors and containing patentably indistinct claims. If an application or a patent under reexamination and at least one other application naming different inventors are owned by the same person and contain patentably indistinct claims, and there is no statement of record indicating that the claimed inventions were commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on the effective filing date (as defined in § 1.109), or on the date of the invention, as applicable, of the later claimed invention, the Office may require the applicant or assignee to state whether the claimed inventions were commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on such date, and if not, indicate which named inventor is the prior inventor, as applicable. Even if the claimed inventions were commonly owned, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on the effective filing date (as defined in § 1.109), or on the date of the invention, as applicable, of the later claimed invention, the patentably indistinct claims may be rejected under the doctrine of double patenting in view of such commonly owned or assigned applications or patents under reexamination.
(h) Applications filed before September 16, 2012. Notwithstanding the requirement in paragraphs (a)(3) and (d)(2) of this section that any specific reference to a prior-filed application be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), this requirement in paragraph (a)(3) and (d)(2) of this section will be satisfied by the presentation of such specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before September 16, 2012, or resulting from an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before September 16, 2012. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to any
200-56Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211
specific reference submitted for a petition under paragraph (b) of this section to restore the benefit of a provisional application.
(i) Petitions required in international applications. If a petition under paragraph (b), (c), or (e) of this section is required in an international application that was not filed with the United States Receiving Office and is not a nonprovisional application, then such petition may be filed in the earliest nonprovisional application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the international application and will be treated as having been filed in the international application.
(j) Benefit under 35 U.S.C. 386(c). Benefit under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) with respect to an international design application is applicable only to nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon.
(k) Time periods in this section. The time periods set forth in this section are not extendable, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b) (and § 1.7(a)), PCT Rule 80.5, and Hague Agreement Rule 4(4).
There are several procedural requirements for a later-filed application to claim the benefit of the filing date of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or, provided the later-filed application is not a design application (see 35 U.S.C. 172), under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). These requirements are briefly summarized below, followed by a cross-reference to the MPEP section where the requirement is discussed in greater detail.
(A) The prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date and meet additional requirements as discussed in MPEP § 211.01.
(B) The later-filed application must name the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior-filed application for a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see MPEP § 211.01).
(C) For a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the later-filed application must contain a reference to the prior-filed application (see MPEP § 211.02).
(D) The reference to the prior-filed application must be submitted within the time periods set forth in 37 CFR 1.78. See MPEP § 211.03. However, the Office will accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim in certain circumstances. See MPEP § 211.04.
(E) In order to be entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application, the earlier application must disclose the claimed invention of the later-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C.
112(a) except for the best mode requirement. See MPEP § 211.05.
(F) If a nonprovisional application, other than a nonprovisional international design application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, claims the benefit of the filing date of a provisional or nonprovisional application filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within a specified time period. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6) and MPEP § 210, subsection III. If the claims in the later-filed application are not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date, the examiner should:
(1) Notify applicant that the claims in the later-filed application are not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date have not been satisfied (the examiner may use form paragraph 2.09 and other appropriate form paragraphs provided in the following subsections); and
(2) Conduct a prior art search based on the actual filing date of the application instead of the earlier filing date. The examiner may use an intervening reference in a rejection until applicant corrects the benefit claim or shows that the conditions for entitlement to the benefit of the prior application have been met.
211.01 Requirements Related to the Prior-Filed Application [R-07.2015]
I. THE PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION MUST BE ENTITLED TO A FILING DATE
If the prior-filed application is a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d), and the basic filing fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16 must have been paid within the pendency of the application. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1)(iii). If the prior-filed application is an international application designating the United States, the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with PCT Article 11. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1)(i). If the prior-filed application is an international design application designating the United States, the prior-filed application must be
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-57
§ 211.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1)(ii).
If the prior-filed application is a provisional application, the provisional application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(c) and the basic filing fee of the provisional application must have been paid within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.53(g). See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2).
Form paragraph 2.40 may be used to notify applicant that the application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application because the prior-filed application was not entitled to a filing date and/or did not include the basic filing fee.
¶ 2.40 Prior-Filed Application Not Entitled to a Filing Date or Basic Filing Fee Was Not Paid
This application claims the benefit of prior-filed application No. [1] under 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). If the prior-filed application is an international application designating the United States, it must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with PCT Article 11; if the prior-filed application is an international design application designating the United States, it must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023; and if the prior-filed application is a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b) or 1.53(d) and include the basic filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1). If the prior-filed application is a provisional application, the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(c) and the basic filing fee must be paid within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g). See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2).
This application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application because the prior-filed application [2]. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim to the prior-filed application from the Application Data Sheet (ADS) or, for applications filed before September 16, 2012, from the ADS or the first sentence(s) of the specification as appropriate.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to notify applicant that the application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application because the prior-filed application was not entitled to a filing date and/or did not include the basic filing fee.
2. In bracket 1, insert the application number of the prior-filed application.
3. In bracket 2, insert “was not entitled to a filing date”; “did not include the basic filing fee”; or “was not entitled to a filing date and did not include the basic filing fee”.
II. SAME INVENTOR OR A COMMON JOINT INVENTOR
The statute requires that applications claiming benefit of the earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 name the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the previously filed application or provisional application. Note that to be entitled to the benefit of any prior-filed application(s), in addition to naming the inventor or at least one common joint inventor, the invention claimed in the later-filed application must be supported in the manner provided by the 35 U.S.C. 112(a), except for the best mode requirement. See MPEP § 211.05.
III. TRANSITION APPLICATION STATEMENT
If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, claims the benefit of the filing date of a provisional or nonprovisional application filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within a specified time period. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6) and MPEP § 210, subsection III. Nonprovisional international design applications are excluded from the transition provisions of 37 CFR 1.78(a)(6) and (d)(6).
IV. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
See MPEP § 211.01(a) for additional information and requirements specific to claiming the benefit of a provisional application.
See MPEP § 211.01(b) for additional information and requirements specific to claiming the benefit of an earlier-filed nonprovisional application.
211.01(a) Claiming the Benefit of a Provisional Application [R-07.2015]
I. IN GENERAL
When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the nonprovisional application must be filed not later than 12 months after the date on which the provisional application was filed, unless
200-58Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.01(a)
the benefit of the provisional application has been restored. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1) and (b) and subsection II, below. If the day that is 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the nonprovisional application may be filed on the next succeeding business day. See 35 U.S.C. 21(b), 37 CFR 1.7(b), and MPEP § 201.04 and § 505.
In addition, each prior-filed provisional application must have the same inventor or at least one joint inventor in common with the later-filed application and must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(c), and the basic filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(d) must have been paid for such provisional application within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g). See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2) and MPEP § 211.01.
If benefit is being claimed to a provisional application which was filed in a language other than English, (A) an English language translation of the provisional application, and (B) a statement that the translation is accurate, are required to be filed in the provisional application. If the translation and statement were not filed in the provisional application, the applicant will be notified in the nonprovisional application and given a period of time within which to file the translation and statement in the provisional application, and a reply in the nonprovisional application confirming that the translation and statement were filed in the provisional application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(5). In the alternative, applicant may delete the benefit claim to the provisional application from the Application Data Sheet (ADS) or, for applications filed before September 16, 2012, from the ADS or the first sentence(s) of the specification, as appropriate. See MPEP § 601.05(a) or (b), as appropriate, for additional details on the requirements for a corrected or supplemental ADS. In a pending nonprovisional application, failure to timely reply to such notice will result in the abandonment of the nonprovisional application. Form paragraph 2.38 may be used to notify applicant that an English translation of the non-English language provisional application is required.
¶ 2.38 Claiming Benefit to a Non-English Language Provisional Application
This application claims benefit to provisional application No. [1], filed on [2], in a language other than English. An English translation of the non-English language provisional application and a statement that the translation is accurate must be filed in provisional application No. [3]. See 37 CFR 1.78. The [4] required by 37 CFR 1.78 is missing. Accordingly, applicant must supply 1) the missing [5] in provisional application No. [6] and 2) in the present application, a confirmation that the translation and statement were filed in the provisional application. If 1) and 2) are not filed (or if the benefit claim is not withdrawn) prior to the expiration of the time period set in this Office action, the present application will be abandoned. See 37 CFR 1.78.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to notify applicant that an English translation of the non-English language provisional application and/or a statement that the translation is accurate is required. Do not use this form paragraph if a translation of the provisional application and a statement that the translation was accurate were filed in the nonprovisional application (the present application) before November 25, 2005.
2. In brackets 1 and 3, insert the application number of the non-English language provisional application.
3. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the prior provisional application.
4. In brackets 4 and 5, insert --English translation and a statement that the translation is accurate-- or --statement that the translation is accurate--, where appropriate.
Applicant may claim the benefit of a provisional application by claiming the benefit of an intermediate copending nonprovisional application. The later-filed application must claim the benefit of the intermediate nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); the intermediate application must be filed not later than 12 months after the filing date of the provisional application (in which the basic filing fee was timely filed) unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored (see 37 CFR 1.78(b) and subsection II., below); and both the later-filed application and the intermediate application must claim the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). Design applications may not claim the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). See 35 U.S.C. 172.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-59
§ 211.01(a)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
II. RESTORING THE BENEFIT OF A PROVISIONAL APPLICATION
Effective December 18, 2013, title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) provides for restoration of the right to claim benefit of a provisional application filed after the expiration of the twelve-month period in 35 U.S.C. 119(e). If a nonprovisional application or an international application designating the United States has a filing date which is after the expiration of the twelve-month period but within two months from the expiration of the period, the benefit of the provisional application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b), if the delay in filing the nonprovisional application or the international application was unintentional. Thus, an application may now validly claim the benefit of a provisional application filed up to fourteen months earlier. As a result of the implementation of title I of the PLTIA, 37 CFR 1.78(a) and (b) were amended effective May 13, 2015, to provide that a petition to restore the right of priority filed on or after May 13, 2015, must be filed in the subsequent application and to clarify that the subsequent application is the application required to be filed within the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1)(i). For purposes of 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1)(ii), the subsequent application may be a nonprovisional application or an international application designating the United States. Where a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b) is required in an international application that was not filed in the United States Receiving Office and is not a nonprovisional application, then the petition may be filed in the earliest nonprovisional application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to the international application and will be treated as being filed in the international application. See 37 CFR 1.78(i).
A petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b) requires:
(A) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior-filed provisional application, which must be included in application data sheet (unless previously submitted in an application data sheet);
(B) the petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m); and
(C) a statement that the delay in filing the nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States within the twelve-month period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1)(i) was unintentional.
The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
If a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b) to restore benefit of a provisional application is granted, a further petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b) is not required in an application entitled to claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) of the subsequent application for which benefit of the provisional application was restored.
Use form paragraphs 2.09 and 2.11.01 to indicate that the later-filed application must be filed not later than 12 months after the filing date of the provisional application for which a benefit is sought unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored (37 CFR 1.78(b)).
¶ 2.11.01 Application Must Be Filed Within 12 Months From the Provisional Application Unless Petition Granted
This application is claiming the benefit of provisional application No. [1] under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). However, this application was not filed within twelve months from the filing date of the provisional application, and there is no indication of an intermediate nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States that is directly claiming the benefit of the provisional application and filed within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional application. In addition, no petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b) or request under PCT Rule 26 bis.3 to restore the benefit of the provisional application has been granted.
Applicant is required to delete the claim to the benefit of the prior-filed provisional application, unless applicant can establish that this application, or an intermediate nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States, was filed within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional application. See 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3). Alternatively, applicant may wish to file a petition to restore the benefit of the provisional application under 37 CFR 1.78 in the subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States if the subsequent application was filed within two months from the expiration of the twelve-month period and the delay was unintentional. A petition under 37 CFR 1.78(b) to restore the benefit of the provisional application must include: (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior-filed provisional application (unless previously submitted); (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (3) a statement that the delay in filing the
200-60Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.01(a)
subsequent nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States within the twelve-month period was unintentional. A petition to restore the benefit of a provisional application must be filed in the subsequent application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by heading form paragraph 2.09.
2. In bracket 1, insert the application number of the prior-filed provisional application.
211.01(b) Claiming the Benefit of a Nonprovisional Application [R-07.2015]
I. COPENDENCY
When a later-filed application is claiming the benefit of a prior-filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the later-filed application must be copending with the prior application or with an intermediate nonprovisional application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application. Copendency is defined in the clause which requires that the later-filed application must be filed before: (A) the patenting of the prior application; (B) the abandonment of the prior application; or (C) the termination of proceedings in the prior application. If the prior application issues as a patent, it is sufficient for the later-filed application to be copending with it if the later-filed application is filed on the same date, or before the date that the patent issues on the prior application. See MOAEC, Inc. v. MusicIP Corp., 568 F. Supp. 2d 978, 982 (W.D. Wis. 2008) wherein the district court interpreted “before” to mean “not later than” and allowed a continuation application filed the same day that the parent patent issued to have the benefit of the filing date of the parent application. But see Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp, Civil Action No. 12-259-RGA (D.Del. Feb. 11, 2015). Thus, the later-filed application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) while the prior application is still pending before the examiner, or is in issue, or even between the time the issue fee is paid and the patent issues. Patents usually will be published within four weeks of payment of the issue fee. Applicants are encouraged
to file any continuing applications no later than the date the issue fee is paid, to avoid issuance of the prior application before the continuing application is filed.
If the prior application is abandoned, the later-filed application must be filed before the abandonment in order for it to be copending with the prior application. The term “abandoned,” refers to abandonment for failure to prosecute (MPEP § 711.02), express abandonment (MPEP § 711.01), abandonment for failure to pay the issue fee (37 CFR 1.316), and abandonment for failure to notify the Office of a foreign filing after filing a nonpublication request under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) (MPEP § 1124). The expression “termination of proceedings” includes the situations when an application is abandoned or when a patent has been issued, and hence this expression is the broadest of the three copendency definitions.
After a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which the rejection of all claims is affirmed, the proceeding is terminated when the mandate is issued by the Court. There are several other situations in which proceedings are terminated as is explained in MPEP § 711.02(c).
When proceedings in an application are terminated, the application is treated in the same manner as an abandoned application, and the term “abandoned application” may be used broadly to include such applications.
The term “continuity” is used to express the relationship of copendency of the same subject matter in two different applications naming the same inventor or at least one joint inventor in common. The later-filed application may be referred to as a continuing application when the prior application is not a provisional application. Continuing applications include divisional, continuation, and continuation-in-part applications. The statute is so worded that the prior application may disclose more than the later-filed application, or the later-filed application may disclose more than the prior application, and in either case the later-filed application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application as to the common subject
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-61
§ 211.01(b)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
matter disclosed in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), except for the best mode requirement.
A later-filed application which is not copending with the prior application (which includes those called “substitute” applications as set forth in MPEP § 201.02) is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application. Therefore, prior art against the claims of the later-filed application is determined based on the filing date of the later-filed application. An applicant should not refer to such prior application(s) in an application data sheet (see 37 CFR 1.76) and is not required to refer to the prior application in the specification of the later-filed application, but is required to otherwise call the examiner’s attention to the prior application if it or its contents or prosecution is material to patentability of the later-filed application as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b).
Use form paragraphs 2.09 and 2.11 to indicate the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is improper because there is no copendency between the applications.
¶ 2.11 Application Must Be Copending With Parent
This application is claiming the benefit of prior-filed application No. [1] under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Copendency between the current application and the prior application is required. Since the applications are not copending, the benefit claim to the prior-filed application is improper. Applicant is required to delete the claim to the benefit of the prior-filed application, unless applicant can establish copendency between the applications.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by heading form paragraph 2.09.
2. Do not use this form paragraph for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to provisional applications.
3. In bracket 1, insert the application number of the prior-filed application.
II. BENEFIT CLAIMS TO MULTIPLE PRIOR APPLICATIONS
Sometimes a pending application is one of a series of applications wherein the pending application is not copending with the first filed application but is copending with an intermediate application entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first
application. If applicant wishes that the pending application have the benefit of the filing date of the first filed application, applicant must, besides making reference to the intermediate application, also make reference to the first application. See Sticker Indus. Supply Corp. v. Blaw-Knox Co., 405 F.2d 90, 160 USPQ 177 (7th Cir. 1968) and Hovlid v. Asari, 305 F.2d 747, 134 USPQ 162 (9th Cir. 1962). The reference to the prior applications must identify all of the prior applications and indicate the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) between each nonprovisional application in order to establish copendency throughout the entire chain of prior applications. Appropriate references must be made in each intermediate application in the chain of prior applications. See MPEP § 211.02 for guidance regarding properly referencing prior applications.
There is no limit to the number of prior applications through which a chain of copendency may be traced to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the earliest of a chain of prior copending applications. See In re Henriksen, 399 F2.d 253, 158 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1968). But see MPEP § 2190 (prosecution laches).
A nonprovisional application that directly claims the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) must be filed within 12 months from the filing date of the provisional application unless the benefit of the provisional application has been restored. See 37 CFR 1.78(b) and MPEP § 211.01(a), subsection II. Although an application that itself directly claims the benefit of a provisional application is not required to specify the relationship to the provisional application, if the instant nonprovisional application is not filed within the 12 month period, but claims the benefit of an intermediate nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120 that was filed within 12 months from the filing date of the provisional application and claimed the benefit of the provisional application, the intermediate application must be clearly identified as claiming the benefit of the provisional application so that the Office can determine whether the intermediate nonprovisional application was filed within 12 months of the provisional application and thus, whether the claim is proper. Where the benefit of more than one provisional application is being claimed, the intermediate nonprovisional application(s) claiming
200-62Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.01(b)
the benefit of each provisional application must be indicated. See MPEP § 211.02 for guidance regarding properly referencing prior applications.
If a benefit claim to a provisional application is submitted without an indication that an intermediate application directly claims the benefit of the provisional application and the instant nonprovisional application is not filed within the 12 month period (or 14 month period if the benefit of the provisional application has been restored pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(b)) or the relationship between each nonprovisional application is not indicated, the Office will not recognize such benefit claim and will not include the benefit claim on the filing receipt. Therefore, a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c) and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m) will be required if the intermediate application and the relationship of each nonprovisional application are not indicated within the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78. See MPEP § 201.04.
211.01(c) Claiming the Benefit of an International Application Designating the United States [R-07.2015]
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 365(c), a regular national application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53(b) may claim the benefit of the filing date of an international application which designates the United States without completing the requirements for entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. See MPEP §§ 1895 and 1895.01. Thus, rather than submitting a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, applicant may file a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an international (PCT) application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). Such applications are often referred to as “bypass” applications. To claim the benefit of the filing date of an international application, the international application must designate the United States and be entitled to a filing date in accordance with PCT Article 11, and the later-filed application must be filed during the pendency (e.g., prior to the abandonment) of the international application.
The ability to take such action is based on provisions of the United States patent law. 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that “An international application
designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office.” 35 U.S.C. 371(d) indicates that failure to timely comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c) “shall be regarded as abandonment of the application by the parties thereof.” It is therefore clear that an international application which designates the United States has the effect of a pending U.S. application from the international application filing date until its abandonment as to the United States. The first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 365(c) specifically provides that “In accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 120,... a national application shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior international application designating the United States.” The condition of 35 U.S.C. 120 relating to the time of filing requires the later application to be “filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application....”
211.01(d) Claiming the Benefit of an International DesignApplication Designating the United States [R-07.2015]
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, a nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of a prior international design application designating the United States. See MPEP §§ 211 and 2920.05(e). 37 CFR 1.78(j) provides that benefit under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) with respect to an international design application can only be claimed in nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon. To obtain benefit of the filing date of a prior international design application designating the United States, the international design application must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1)(ii).
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-63
§ 211.01(d)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
See MPEP § 2920.05(e) for additional information pertaining to benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(c).
211.02 Reference to Prior Application(s) [R-07.2015]
I. APPLICATION DATA SHEET
Both 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 include the requirement that the later-filed application must contain a specific reference to the prior application.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76). For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(a)) and/or in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title, although the Office prefers the use of an application data sheet. If applicant is claiming the benefit of multiple prior applications, and the reference to the prior applications is in the specification, the reference may be in a continuous string of multiple sentences at the beginning of the specification. The multiple sentences must begin as the first sentence after the title, and any additional sentence(s) including a benefit claim must follow the first sentence and not be separated from the first sentence by any other sentence not making a benefit claim. If the specific reference is only contained in the application data sheet, then the benefit claim information will be included on the front page of any patent or patent application publication, but will not be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification.
For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 for benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, nonprovisional application, international application designating the United States, or international design application designating the United States that was present on the filing date of the continuation or divisional application, or the nonprovisional application claiming benefit of a prior-filed provisional application, is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR
1.57(b). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(b) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. See MPEP § 201.06 and 217. However, applicants are encouraged to provide in the specification an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed application(s) for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). See 37 CFR 1.57(c). See also MPEP §§ 217 and MPEP § 608.01(p).
When a benefit claim is submitted after the filing of an application, and the later-filed application as filed did not incorporate the prior-filed application by reference, applicant cannot add an incorporation by reference statement of the prior application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). See Dart Indus. v. Banner , 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980). See also 37 CFR 1.57(b).
If an applicant includes a benefit claim in the application but not in the manner specified by 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., if the claim is included in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter) within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78, the Office will not require a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) to correct the claim if the information concerning the claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the filing receipt. If, however, a claim is not included in an ADS (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012 in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an ADS) and is not recognized by the Office as shown by its absence on the filing receipt, the Office will require a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee to correct the claim. The Office may not recognize any benefit claim where, for example, there is no indication of the relationship between the nonprovisional applications, or no indication of an intermediate nonprovisional application that is directly claiming the benefit of a provisional application. See subsection II, below. Even if the Office has recognized a benefit claim by entering it into the
200-64Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.02
Office’s database and including it on applicant’s filing receipt, the benefit claim is not a proper benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 unless the reference is included in an ADS or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, included in the ADS or in the first sentence(s) of the specification and all other requirements are met.
In view of this requirement for a specific reference in the later-filed application, the right to rely on a prior application may be waived by an applicant if a reference to the prior application is not included in the later-filed application. If the examiner is aware of the fact that an application is a continuing application of a prior application or the applicant fails to submit the reference to the prior application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., the reference was submitted in the transmittal letter but not in an application data sheet (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012 in the first sentence(s) of the specification or an application data sheet)), he or she should merely call attention to this in an Office action by using the wording of form paragraph 2.15.
¶ 2.15 Reference to Prior Application, 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) Benefit
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. [1], filed [2]. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS with the reference. See MPEP § 211.02.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this paragraph when an application does not claim the benefit of a prior-filed application, but makes a reference to, or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in, the prior-filed application.
2. In bracket 1, insert the application number of the prior-filed application.
3. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the prior-filed application.
4. In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (design applications under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16 only), a specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification, or in an application data sheet, to the prior application is not required and may not be made. The specific reference requirement of 35 U.S.C. 120 is met by the transmittal request for the CPA which is considered to be part of the CPA. 37 CFR 1.53(d)(2)(iv) and 1.53(d)(7).
If the examiner is aware of a prior application he or she should note it in an Office action, as indicated above, but should not require the applicant to call attention to the prior application.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-65
§ 211.02TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
For notations to be placed in the file history in the case of continuing applications, see MPEP § 202 and § 1302.09.
II. REFERENCE TO PRIOR NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS
Except for benefit claims to the prior application in a continued prosecution application (CPA), benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c) must identify the prior application by application number, by international application number and international filing date, or by international registration number and international filing date under 37 CFR 1.1023, and indicate the relationship between the applications. See 37 CFR 1.78. The relationship between the applications is whether the instant application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior nonprovisional application. For international design applications, the required reference can identify the nonprovisional application number instead of the international registration number and filing date under 37 CFR 1.1023 once the international design application becomes a nonprovisional application. Identifying the prior international design application by the nonprovisional application number is preferable to the Office.
Where the reference to a prior nonprovisional application appears in the specification of an application as permitted for applications filed before September 16, 2012, an example of a proper benefit claim is “this application is a continuation of prior Application No. ---, filed ---.” A benefit claim that merely states that “this application claims the benefit of Application No. ---, filed ---” does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78, since the relationship between the applications is not stated. In addition, a benefit claim that merely states that “this application is a continuing application of Application No. ---, filed ---” does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 since the proper relationship, which includes the type of continuing (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) application, is not stated.
A request for a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available only for design applications, but not international design applications) is itself the specific
reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to every application assigned the same application number identified in the request. (Note: The CPA is assigned the same application number as the prior application.) In a CPA, a specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title, or in an application data sheet, to a prior application assigned the same application number is not required and may not be made. Any such reference should be deleted. No amendment in a CPA may delete the specific reference to the prior application assigned the same application number. A specific reference to an application not assigned the same application number, but relied on for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 is required. Cross references to other related applications not assigned the same application as the CPA may be made when appropriate.
When a nonprovisional application (other than a CPA) filed on or after September 16, 2012 is entitled under 35 U.S.C. 120 to an earlier U.S. effective filing date, the reference must be included in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the benefit claim must appear either in the application data sheet, or as a statement in the first sentence(s) of the specification. An example of such a statement is “This is a divisional (or continuation, or continuation-in-part, as appropriate) application of Application No. ---, filed ---.”In the case of a design application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) as a divisional, continuation or continuation-in-part of a CPA, there should be only one reference to the series of applications assigned the same application number, with the filing date cited being that of the original non-continued application. See MPEP § 1504.20 for additional information pertaining to benefit claims in design applications.
Where a nonprovisional application is claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a prior national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the appropriate relationship must be indicated on an application data sheet for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(a)) and/or in the first sentence(s) specification, Where the reference to the prior-filed national stage application appears in the specification, a suitable
200-66Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.02
reference would read “This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 08/---, which was the National Stage of International Application No. PCT/DE95/---, filed ---.”
Any benefit claim that does not both identify a prior application by its application number and specify a relationship between the applications will not be considered to contain a specific reference to a prior application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120. Such benefit claim may not be recognized by the Office and may not be included on the filing receipt even if the claim appears in an application data sheet (for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012), or in the application data sheet or the first sentence(s) of the specification (for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012). As a result, publication of the application may not be scheduled on the basis of the prior application’s filing date. If the Office does not recognize a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 because it does not contain the required reference and the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 for submitting the required reference has expired, applicant must submit a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m) in order for the Office to accept the unintentionally delayed claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 because the application will not have been scheduled for publication on the basis of the prior application’s filing date.
To specify the relationship between the applications, applicant must specify whether the application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior application. Note that the terms are exclusive. An application cannot be, for example, both a continuation and a divisional or a continuation and a continuation-in-part of the same application. Moreover, if the benefit of more than one nonprovisional application is claimed, then the relationship between each application (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) must be specified in order to establish copendency throughout the entire chain of prior-filed applications. For example, where the reference to a prior nonprovisional application appears in the specification of an application as permitted for applications filed before September 16, 2012, a statement that “this application claims the benefit of Application Nos. C, B, and A” or “this application
is a continuing application of Application Nos. C, B, and A” is improper. Applicant instead must state, for example, that “this application is a continuation of Application No. C, filed ---, which is a continuation of Application No. B, filed ---, which is a continuation of Application No. A, filed ---.
III. REFERENCE TO PRIOR PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS
When a nonprovisional application filed on or after September 16, 2012 is entitled to an earlier U.S. effective filing date of one or more provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the reference must be included in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the reference to the provisional application must be in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(a)) and/or in the first sentence(s) specification. Where the reference to a prior provisional application appears in the first sentence(s) of the specification a statement such as “This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/---, filed ---, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ ---, filed ---.” should appear as the first sentence(s) of the description. In addition, where a nonprovisional application benefit claim appears in the specification of an application filed before September 16, 2012 and the application is claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a prior application, which in turn claims the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), a suitable reference would read, “This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/---, filed ---, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/---, filed ---.”. Note that a design application cannot claim the benefit of a provisional application. See MPEP § 1504.20 for benefit information specific to design applications and MPEP § 2920.05(e) for benefit information specific to international design applications.
The relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) is not required and should not be specified when the benefit of a prior provisional application is being claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). No relationship should be specified because whenever a priority claim to a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is made, it is implicit that the relationship is “nonprovisional application of a
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-67
§ 211.02TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
provisional application.” If a relationship between a prior provisional application and the nonprovisional application is submitted, it may be unclear whether the applicant wishes to claim the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120. Thus, applicants seeking to claim the priority to a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not state that the application is a “continuation” of a provisional application or that the application claims 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit to a provisional application. Although 35 U.S.C. 120 does not preclude a benefit claim to a provisional application, it is not recommended that applicants claim the benefit to a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120 since such a claim could have the effect of reducing the patent term, as the term of a patent issuing from such an application may be measured from the filing date of the provisional application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2).
211.02(a) Correcting or Adding a Benefit Claim After Filing [R-07.2015]
I. CORRECTED FILING RECEIPT
If applicant receives a filing receipt with missing or incorrect benefit claim information, applicant may request a corrected filing receipt. The Office will not grant a request for a corrected filing receipt to include a benefit claim unless the proper reference to the prior application is included (i) in an ADS (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or (ii) in the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) within the time period required by 37 CFR 1.78 with a few exceptions. See MPEP § 211.03. If the proper reference was previously submitted in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, the request for a corrected filing receipt should indicate that the reference was properly and timely made in the ADS. If the proper reference was previously submitted in an application filed prior to September 16, 2012, the request for a corrected filing receipt should indicate that the reference was properly and timely made and where such reference is located (i.e., the specification, an amendment to the specification, or an ADS). The Office plans to notify applicants on or with the filing receipt that a benefit claim may not have been recognized because the
benefit claim was improper but applicants are advised that only the benefit claims that are listed on the filing receipt have been recognized by the Office. Therefore, applicants should carefully and promptly review their filing receipts in order to avoid the need for a petition (37 CFR 1.78) and the petition fee.
II. ADDING BENEFIT CLAIMS
If a benefit claim is added after the time period required by 37 CFR 1.78, a petition and the petition fee are required. See MPEP § 211.04. Any petition under 37 CFR 1.78 must be accompanied by a corrected ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76(c) (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or by an amendment to the specification or a supplemental ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(c) (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) unless the proper reference was previously submitted. In addition to the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and ADS or amendment, to add a benefit claim it may be necessary for applicant to file one of the following, depending on the status of the application:
(A) a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, if the application is under a final rejection or has been allowed (see MPEP § 706.07(h)). An amendment or ADS filed after final rejection or allowance is not entered as a matter of right and must be filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116 or 1.312, respectively; or
(B) a reissue application or a request for a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.323, if appropriate (see MPEP §§ 1402 and 1481), if the application has issued as a patent.
When a benefit claim is submitted after the filing of an application, the reference to the prior application cannot include an incorporation by reference statement specifying of the prior application unless an incorporation by reference statement specifying of the prior application was presented upon filing of the application. See Dart Indus. v. Banner, 636 F.2d 684, 207 USPQ 273 (C.A.D.C. 1980). An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
200-68Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.02(a)
III. DELETING BENEFIT CLAIMS
In certain circumstances, applicants may choose to delete a benefit claim. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, applicant may do so by filing a corrected application data sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76(c) that deletes the reference to the prior-filed application. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, applicant may do so by amending the specification (if the benefit claim is in the specification) or by submitting a supplemental application data sheet in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(c) to delete any references to prior applications.
The examiner should consider whether any new prior art may now be available if a benefit claim is deleted. If an applicant is submitting an amendment to the specification or an ADS to delete a benefit claim after final rejection or action, the amendment or ADS will be treated under 37 CFR 1.116 (see MPEP § 714.12 and § 714.13). If the amendment or ADS to delete a benefit claim is submitted after the application has been allowed, the amendment or ADS will be treated under 37 CFR 1.312 (see MPEP § 714.16). A deletion of a benefit claim will not delay the publication of the application unless the amendment or ADS is recognized by the Office within nine weeks prior to the projected publication date that was originally calculated based on the benefit claim.
A cancellation of a benefit claim to a prior application may be considered as a showing that the applicant is intentionally waiving the benefit claim to the prior application in the instant application. If the applicant later files a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim to add the benefit claim to the prior application in the same application from which the benefit claim was canceled, the Office may refuse to accept such benefit claim because the delay was not unintentional. The correction or entry of the data in the PALM data base can be made by technical support staff of the TC. Upon entry of the data, a new PALM bib-data sheet should be placed in the file. See also MPEP § 707.05 and § 1302.09.
In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), no amendment may delete
the specific reference to a prior application assigned the same application number. (Note: In the CPA, the request is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to every application assigned the same application number identified in the request. Further, in a CPA, a specific reference in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title, or in an application data sheet, to a prior application assigned the same application number is not required and should not be made.)
211.03 Time Period for Making a Claim for Benefit Under 37 CFR 1.78 [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.78 specifies: (A) a time period within which a benefit claim to a prior nonprovisional application, international application, international design application, or provisional application must be stated or it is considered waived; and (B) provisions for the acceptance of the unintentionally delayed submission of a claim to the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application, international application, international design application, or provisional application.
If the application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the benefit claim of the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) must be made during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the later-filed application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application. If the application is a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the benefit claim must be made within the later of: (1) four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f); (2) four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage; or (3) sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c) unless a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim is granted. See MPEP § 211.04.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-69
§ 211.03TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
If the application is a design application, the claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for the benefit of a prior-filed application must be submitted during the pendency of the later-filed application.
If an applicant includes a claim to the benefit of a prior application elsewhere in the application but not in the manner specified in 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., if the benefit claim is included in an oath or declaration, or the application transmittal letter, or in the first sentence(s) of the specification for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012) within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78, the Office will not require a petition and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) to correct the benefit claim if the information concerning the benefit claim contained elsewhere in the application was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on a filing receipt. This is because the application will have been scheduled for publication on the basis of such information concerning the benefit claim. Applicant must still submit the benefit claim in the manner specified in 37 CFR 1.78 (i.e., in an ADS for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, or by an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an ADS for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) to have a proper claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the benefit of a prior application. If, however, an applicant includes a benefit claim elsewhere in the application and the claim is not recognized by the Office as shown by its absence on a filing receipt, the Office will require a petition and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) to correct the benefit claim. This is because the application will not have been scheduled for publication on the basis of the information concerning the benefit claim contained elsewhere in the application.
A petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee would not be required for correcting a timely submitted benefit claim for the following situations:
(A) Changing the relationship of the applications (e.g., changing from “continuation” or “divisional” to “continuation-in-part” or from “continuation-in-part” to “continuation” or “divisional”);
(B) Changing the filing date of a prior-filed nonprovisional or provisional application; and
(C) Changing a benefit claim of a prior-filed provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120 (e.g., “This application is a continuation of prior-filed provisional application No. ---”) to a benefit claim of the same provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (e.g., “This application claims the benefit of prior-filed provisional application No. ---”) during the pendency of the later-filed application. Note, however: If the later-filed application has issued as a patent, the correction cannot be made by a certificate of correction and would not be effective in a reissue application because the term of a patent is measured from the prior application’s filing date and removing the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) would have the effect of lengthening the term of the patent.
If a benefit claim is filed after the required time period and without a petition as required by 37 CFR 1.78, the applicant should be informed that the benefit claim was not entered and that a petition needs to be filed using form paragraph 2.39.
¶ 2.39 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c), or 386(c) Benefit Claim is Untimely
The benefit claim filed on [1] was not entered because the required reference was not timely filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78. If the application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the reference to the prior application must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a nonprovisional application entering the national stage from an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the reference to the prior application must be made during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications. See 37 CFR 1.78(a) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
If applicant desires the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) based upon a previously filed application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78(c) for benefit claims under 35
200-70Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.03
U.S.C. 119(e) or under 37 CFR 1.78(e) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). The petition must be accompanied by: (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted); (2) a petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph only for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after November 29, 2000 and for national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371. DO NOT use for design applications.
2. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the amendment or paper containing the benefit claim.
3. Do not use this form paragraph if the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78, but not in the location of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt. In this situation, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification (only if the application was filed before September 16, 2012) or an ADS. The reference is required in the ADS if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 210, subsection I and MPEP § 211.03.
211.04 Delayed Benefit Claims [R-07.2015]
If the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 is not submitted within the required time period, a petition for an unintentionally delayed claim may be filed. The petition must be accompanied by: (A) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted); (B) a petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (C) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. See 37 CFR 1.78(e).
Effective May 13, 2015, 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) was amended to make the procedures under 37 CFR
1.78(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim applicable to design applications where the benefit claim was not submitted during the pendency of the design application. Thus, a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(e) may be filed along with a request for certificate of correction after patent grant. See MPEP § 1481.03.
Likewise, if the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 is not submitted within the required time period, a petition for an unintentionally delayed claim may be filed. The petition must be accompanied by: (A) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior provisional application (unless previously submitted); (B) a petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (C) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. See 37 CFR 1.78(c).
Petitions for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim should be forwarded to the Office of Petitions. See MPEP § 1002.02(b).
DELAYED SUBMISSION OF BENEFIT CLAIM IN INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION
A petition under 37 CFR 1.78 for accepting an unintentionally delayed benefit claim and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are required to add a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) in an abandoned international application designating the United States, even when the international application did not enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. For example, when filing a “bypass” continuation application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that claims the benefit of an international application designating the United States that could have but did not claim the benefit of an earlier U.S. application, and the benefit claim is to be added to the international application, a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 must be filed in the international application.
If a petition under 37 CFR 1.78(c) or (e) is required in an international application that was not filed with the United States Receiving Office and is not a nonprovisional application, then the petition may be
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-71
§ 211.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
filed in the earliest nonprovisional application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the international application and will be treated as having been filed in the international application. See 37 CFR 1.78(i).
211.05 Sufficiency of Disclosure in Prior-Filed Application [R-07.2015]
I. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
To be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application, the later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or earlier-filed nonprovisional application or provisional application for which benefit is claimed); the disclosure of the invention in the prior application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Prods., Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the disclosure of the prior-filed application must provide adequate support and enablement for the claimed subject matter of the later-filed application in compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement.
A. Claiming the Benefit of Provisional Applications
Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter claimed in the nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application. In New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.,
298 F.3d 1290, 1294, 63 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court held that for a nonprovisional application to be afforded the priority date of the provisional application, “the specification of the provisional must ‘contain a written description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,’ 35 U.S.C. 112¶1, to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the nonprovisional application.”
In New Railhead, the patented drill bit was the subject of a commercial offer for sale. A provisional application was filed after the sale offer, but well within the one year grace period of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). A nonprovisional application, which issued as Patent No. 5,899,283, was filed within one year of the filing of the provisional application but more than one year after the sale offer. If the ‘283 patent was not afforded the priority date of the provisional application, the patent would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) since it was filed more than one year after the commercial offer for sale. The court looked at claim 1 of the ‘283 patent which recites a bit body being angled with respect to the sonde housing. The court then reviewed the provisional application and concluded that nowhere in the provisional application is the bit body expressly described as “being angled with respect to the sonde housing” as recited in claim 1 of the ‘283 patent. The court held that the disclosure of the provisional application does not adequately support the invention claimed in the ‘283 patent as to the angle limitation and therefore, the ‘283 patent is not entitled to the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(1) and the ‘283 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
A claim is not required in a provisional application. However, for a claim in a later filed nonprovisional application to be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application, the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application must adequately support and enable the subject matter of the claim in the later filed nonprovisional application. If a claim in the nonprovisional application is not adequately supported by the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application (as in New Railhead), that claim in the nonprovisional application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application. If the filing date of the earlier provisional application is necessary, for example, in the case of an interference or to overcome a reference, care must be taken to ensure that the disclosure filed as the provisional application adequately provides (1) a written description of the subject matter of the claim(s) at issue in the later filed nonprovisional application, and (2) an enabling disclosure to permit one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in the later
200-72Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.05
filed nonprovisional application without undue experimentation.
B. Claiming the Benefit of Nonprovisional Applications
The disclosure of a continuation application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application; i.e., the continuation must not include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application. See MPEP § 201.07. The disclosure of a divisional application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application, or include at least that portion of the disclosure of the prior-filed application that is germane to the invention claimed in the divisional application. See MPEP § 201.06. The disclosure of a continuation or divisional application cannot include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the prior-filed application. A continuation-in-part application may include matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application. See MPEP § 201.08. Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. If there is a continuous chain of copending nonprovisional applications, each copending application must disclose the claimed invention of the later-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order for the later-filed application to be entitled to the benefit of the earliest filing date.
Under 35 U.S.C. 120, a claim in a U.S. application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement, in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). A claim in a subsequently filed application that relies on a combination of prior applications may not be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 since 35 U.S.C. 120 requires that the earlier filed application contain a disclosure which complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement for each claim in the subsequently filed application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co.,
112 F.3d 1561, 1564, 42 USPQ2d 1674, 1677 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A claim in the later-filed application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application if the disclosure of the prior-filed application does not enable one skilled in the art to “use” the claimed invention. See In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 1406, 161 USPQ 783, 786 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]o be entitled to the benefits provided by [35 U.S.C. 120], the invention disclosed in the “previously filed” application must be described therein in such a manner as to satisfy all the requirements of the first paragraph of [35 U.S.C.] 112, including that which requires the description to be sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to use the [invention].”).
Where the prior application (a nonprovisional application) is found to be fatally defective because of insufficient disclosure to support allowable claims, a later-filed application filed as a “continuation-in-part” of the first application to supply the deficiency is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application. Hunt Co. v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 177 F.2d 583, 587, 83 USPQ 277, 281 (2d Cir. 1949) and cases cited therein. Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application. See, e.g., In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Van Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1972).
By way of further illustration, if the claims of a continuation-in-part application which are only entitled to the continuation-in-part filing date “read
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-73
§ 211.05TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
on” published, publicly used or sold, or patented subject matter (e.g., as in a genus-species relationship) a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 would be proper. Cases of interest in this regard are as follows: Mendenhall v. Cedarapids Inc., 5 F.3d 1557, 28 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971); In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 161 USPQ 783 (CCPA 1969); In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 118 USPQ 101 (CCPA 1958); In re Steenbock, 83 F.2d 912, 30 USPQ 45 (CCPA 1936); and Ex parte Hageman, 179 USPQ 747 (Bd. App. 1971).
Form paragraphs 2.09 and 2.10 should be used where the claims of the later-filed application are not adequately disclosed or enabled by the disclosure of the prior application.
¶ 2.09 Heading for Conditions for Benefit Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. [1] as follows:
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the appropriate statutory section(s).
2. One or more of form paragraphs 2.10 to 2.11.01 or 2.38 to 2.40 must follow depending upon the circumstances.
¶ 2.10 Disclosure of Prior-Filed Application Does Not Provide Support for Claimed Subject Matter
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or earlier-filed nonprovisional application or provisional application for which benefit is claimed). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. [1], fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by heading form paragraph 2.09.
2. This form paragraph may be used when there is lack of support or enablement in the prior-filed application for the claims in the application that is claiming the benefit of the prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). The prior-filed application can be a provisional application, a nonprovisional application, an international application (PCT) that designates the United States, or an international design application that designates the United States.
3. In bracket 1, insert the application number of the prior-filed application.
4. In bracket 2, provide an explanation of lack of support or enablement. If only some of the claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, the examiner should include a list of those claims after the explanation (e.g., “Accordingly, claims 1-10 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.”).
Form paragraph 2.10.01 should be used where applicant is claiming the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) and the relationship (continuation or divisional) of the applications should be changed to continuation-in-part because the disclosure of the later-filed application contains matter not disclosed in the prior-filed nonprovisional application.
¶ 2.10.01 Continuation or Divisional Application Contains New Matter Relative to the Prior-Filed Application
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: [1].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used when an application, which claims the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains new matter relative to the prior-filed application, and purports to be a “continuation,” “division,” or “divisional application” of the prior-filed application. Do not use this form paragraph if the applicant is claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
200-74Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 211.05
2. In bracket 1, provide an example of the matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application.
212 [Reserved]
213 Right of Priority of Foreign Application [R-07.2015]
Under certain conditions and on fulfilling certain requirements, an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a prior application filed in a foreign country. The conditions are specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), 172, 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b), and 37 CFR 1.55.
35 U.S.C. 119 Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority.
(a) An application for patent for an invention filed in this country by any person who has, or whose legal representatives or assigns have, previously regularly filed an application for a patent for the same invention in a foreign country which affords similar privileges in the case of applications filed in the United States or to citizens of the United States, or in a WTO member country, shall have the same effect as the same application would have if filed in this country on the date on which the application for patent for the same invention was first filed in such foreign country, if the application in this country is filed within 12 months from the earliest date on which such foreign application was filed. The Director may prescribe regulations, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7) , pursuant to which the 12-month period set forth in this subsection may be extended by an additional 2 months if the delay in filing the application in this country within the 12-month period was unintentional.
(b)(1) No application for patent shall be entitled to this right of priority unless a claim is filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number on that foreign application, the intellectual property authority or country in or for which the application was filed, and the date of filing the application, at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.
(2) The Director may consider the failure of the applicant to file a timely claim for priority as a waiver of any such claim. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under this section.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual
property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
(c) In like manner and subject to the same conditions and requirements, the right provided in this section may be based upon a subsequent regularly filed application in the same foreign country instead of the first filed foreign application, provided that any foreign application filed prior to such subsequent application has been withdrawn, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of, without having been laid open to public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and has not served, nor thereafter shall serve, as a basis for claiming a right of priority.
(d) Applications for inventors’certificates filed in a foreign country in which applicants have a right to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate shall be treated in this country in the same manner and have the same effect for purpose of the right of priority under this section as applications for patents, subject to the same conditions and requirements of this section as apply to applications for patents, provided such applicants are entitled to the benefits of the Stockholm Revision of the Paris Convention at the time of such filing.
*****
(f) Applications for plant breeder’s rights filed in a WTO member country (or in a foreign UPOV Contracting Party) shall have the same effect for the purpose of the right of priority under subsections (a) through (c) of this section as applications for patents, subject to the same conditions and requirements of this section as apply to applications for patents.
*****
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority.
(a) In general. An applicant in a nonprovisional application may claim priority to one or more prior foreign applications under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, 365(a) and (b), and 386(a) and (b) and this section.
(b) Time for filing subsequent application. The nonprovisional application must be:
(1) Filed not later than twelve months (six months in the case of a design application) after the date on which the foreign application was filed, subject to paragraph (c) of this section (a subsequent application); or
(2) Entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of a subsequent application that was filed within the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) Delayed filing of subsequent application. If the subsequent application has a filing date which is after the expiration of the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, but within two months from the expiration of the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the right of priority in the subsequent application may be restored under PCT Rule 26 bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition pursuant to this paragraph, if the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section was unintentional. A petition to restore the right of
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-75
§ 213TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
priority under this paragraph filed on or after May 13, 2015, must be filed in the subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. Any petition to restore the right of priority under this paragraph must include:
(1) The priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b) , or 386(a) or (b) in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, unless previously submitted;
(2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and
(3) A statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
(d) Time for filing priority claim—
(1) Application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The claim for priority must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application in an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section. The claim for priority must be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)) and must identify the foreign application to which priority is claimed by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing. The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is:
(i) An application for a design patent; or
(ii) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000.
(2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. The claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Delayed priority claim. Unless such claim is accepted in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) not presented in the manner required by paragraph (d) or (m) of this section during pendency and within the time period provided by paragraph (d) of this section (if applicable) is considered to have been waived. If a claim for priority is considered to have been waived under this section, the claim may be accepted if the priority claim was unintentionally delayed. A petition to accept a delayed claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) must be accompanied by:
(1) The priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application to which
priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, unless previously submitted;
(2) A certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section applies;
(3) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and
(4) A statement that the entire delay between the date the priority claim was due under this section and the date the priority claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
(f) Time for filing certified copy of foreign application—
(1) Application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, in an original application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed on or after March 16, 2013, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section. The time period in this paragraph does not apply in a design application.
(2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed during the international stage in an international application in which the national stage commenced on or after December 18, 2013, a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section.
(3) If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed within the time period specified [in] paragraph (f)(1) of this section in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or within the period specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, and an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section is not applicable, the certified copy of the foreign application must be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
(g) Requirement for filing priority claim, certified copy of foreign application, and translation in any application.
(1) The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed
200-76Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213
after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323.
(2) The Office may require that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application be filed earlier than otherwise provided in this section:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When deemed necessary by the examiner.
(3) An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When specifically required by the examiner.
(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
(h) Certified copy in another U.S. patent or application. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied in a reissue application if the patent for which reissue is sought satisfies the requirement of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application and such patent is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application will also be considered satisfied in an application if a prior-filed nonprovisional application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains a certified copy of the foreign application and such prior-filed nonprovisional application is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application.
(i) Foreign intellectual property office participating in a priority document exchange agreement. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth therein will be considered satisfied if:
(1) The foreign application was filed in a foreign intellectual property office participating with the Office in a bilateral or multilateral priority document exchange agreement (participating foreign intellectual property office), or a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy;
(2) The claim for priority is presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number,
country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and the applicant provides the information necessary for the participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application;
(3) The copy of the foreign application is received by the Office from the participating foreign intellectual property office, or a certified copy of the foreign application is filed, within the period specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section; and
(4) The applicant files in a separate document a request that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from a participating intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy where, although the foreign application was not filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy. The request must identify the participating intellectual property office and the subsequent application by the application number, day, month, and year of its filing in which a copy of the foreign application was filed. The request must be filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), or four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or the request must be accompanied by a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section.
(j) Interim copy. The requirement in paragraph (f) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth therein will be considered satisfied if:
(1) A copy of the original foreign application clearly labeled as "Interim Copy," including the specification, and any drawings or claims upon which it is based, is filed in the Office together with a separate cover sheet identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and stating that the copy filed in the Office is a true copy of the original application as filed in the foreign country (or intellectual property authority);
(2) The copy of the foreign application and separate cover sheet are filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section; and
(3) A certified copy of the foreign application is filed within the period specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(k) Requirements for certain applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, other than a nonprovisional international design application, claims priority to a foreign application filed prior
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-77
§ 213TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the nonprovisional application, four months from the date of entry into the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application, sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, or the date that a first claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, is presented in the nonprovisional application. An applicant is not required to provide such a statement if the applicant reasonably believes on the basis of information already known to the individuals designated in § 1.56(c) that the nonprovisional application does not, and did not at any time, contain a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
(l) Inventor's certificates. An applicant in a nonprovisional application may under certain circumstances claim priority on the basis of one or more applications for an inventor's certificate in a country granting both inventor's certificates and patents. To claim the right of priority on the basis of an application for an inventor's certificate in such a country under 35 U.S.C. 119(d), the applicant, when submitting a claim for such right as specified in this section, must include an affidavit or declaration. The affidavit or declaration must include a specific statement that, upon an investigation, he or she is satisfied that to the best of his or her knowledge, the applicant, when filing the application for the inventor’s certificate, had the option to file an application for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate as to the subject matter of the identified claim or claims forming the basis for the claim of priority.
(m) Time for filing priority claim and certified copy of foreign application in an international design application designating the United States. In an international design application designating the United States, the claim for priority may be made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations. In a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim, unless made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations, must be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing. In a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim and certified copy must be furnished in accordance with the time period and other conditions set forth in paragraph (g) of this section.
(n) Applications filed before September 16, 2012. Notwithstanding the requirement in paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(1), and (i)(2) of this section that any priority claim be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), this requirement in paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(1), and (i)(2) of this section will be satisfied by the presentation of such priority claim in the oath or declaration under § 1.63 in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before September 16, 2012, or resulting from an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before September 16, 2012. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to any priority claim submitted for a petition under paragraph (c) of this section to restore the right of priority to a foreign application.
(o) Priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b). The right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) with respect to an international design application is applicable only to nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon.
(p) Time periods in this section. The time periods set forth in this section are not extendable, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b) (and § 1.7(a)), PCT Rule 80.5, and Hague Agreement Rule 4(4).
Implementation of Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (titles I and title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA)), necessitated changes to the procedural requirements relating to claims for priority to an earlier-filed foreign application and to the submission of a certified copy of the priority document. The conditions for claiming priority to an earlier-filed foreign application are summarized below:
(A) The foreign application must be one filed in “a foreign country which affords similar privileges in the case of applications filed in the United States or to citizens of the United States or in a WTO member country.” See MPEP § 213.01.
(B) The foreign application must have been filed by the same applicant as the applicant in the United States, or by his or her legal representatives or assigns. Consistent with longstanding Office policy, this is interpreted to mean that the U.S. and foreign applications must name the same inventor or have at least one joint inventor in common. See MPEP § 213.02.
(C) The application, or its earliest parent United States application under 35 U.S.C. 120, must have been filed in a “recognized” country (see MPEP § 213.01) within 12 months from the date of the earliest foreign filing unless the right of priority has been restored (see MPEP § 213.03). However, the period of 12 months specified in this section is 6 months in the case of designs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 172. See MPEP §§ 1504.10 and 2920.05(d).
(D) The foreign application must be for the same invention as the application in the United States.
(E) For an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date
200-78Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213
of the prior foreign application. This time period is not extendable. See MPEP § 214.01.
(F) For applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 from an international application, the claim for priority must be made and a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time limit set forth in the PCT Articles and Regulations.
(G) For a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim, unless made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations, must be presented in an application data sheet during the pendency of the application. See 37 CFR 1.55(m). In addition, the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) with respect to an international design application can only be claimed in a nonprovisional, international, or international design application filed on or after May 13, 2015. See 37 CFR 1.55(o).
(H) In the case where the basis of the claim is an application for an inventor's certificate, the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55(l) must also be met. See MPEP § 213.05.
(I) A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 215.02 et seq. for applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, and MPEP § 215.03 for applications filed before March 16, 2013. The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted. See MPEP § 213.04.
(J) If a nonprovisional application (other than a nonprovisional international design application) filed on or after March 16, 2013, claims priority to a foreign application filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date (as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i)) on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within a specified time period. See 37 CFR 1.55(k) and MPEP § 210, subsection III.
Applicant may be informed of possible priority rights under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f) by using the wording of form paragraph 2.18.
¶ 2.18 Right of Priority Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f)
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
213.01 Recognized Countries and Regional Patent Offices of Foreign Filing [R-07.2015]
The right to rely on a foreign application is known as the right of priority in international patent law and this phrase has been adopted in the U.S. statute. The right of priority originated in a multilateral treaty of 1883, to which the United States adhered in 1887, known as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention). The treaty is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at Geneva, Switzerland. This treaty has been revised several times, the latest revision in effect being written in Stockholm in July 1967 (copy at Appendix P of this Manual). Articles 13-30 of the Stockholm Revision became effective on September 5, 1970. Articles 1-12 of the Stockholm Revision became effective on August 25, 1973. One of the many provisions of the Paris Convention requires each of the adhering countries to accord the right of priority to the nationals of the other countries and the first United States statute relating to this subject was enacted to carry out this obligation. A foreign country may also provide for this right by reciprocal legislation.
I. LIST OF RECOGNIZED COUNTRIES
Following is a table of states, i.e., countries, with respect to which the right of priority referred to in 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) has been recognized. The table indicates whether a basis for priority is that the state is party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) or the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris), or a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). See 35 U.S.C. 119(a). See w w w. w i p o . i n t / e x p o r t / s i t e s / w w w / p c t / en/texts/pdf/pct_paris_wto.pdf for the most current version of the table reproduced below. See also h t t p : / / w w w. w t o . o r g / e n g l i s h / t h e w t o _ e /whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm for a current list of WTO member countries along with their dates of membership. Applications for plant breeder’s rights filed in WTO member countries and foreign UPOV
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-79
§ 213.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
contracting parties may be relied upon for priority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 119(f). See MPEP §§ 1612
and 1613.
200-80Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213.01
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-81
§ 213.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
200-82Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213.01
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-83
§ 213.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
Note that the United States and Taiwan signed an agreement on priority for patent and trademark applications on April 10, 1996, and as of that date Taiwan is a country for which the right of priority is recognized in the United States. Taiwan became a member of the WTO on January 1, 2002.
If any applicant asserts the benefit of the filing date of an application filed in a country not on this list, the examiner should contact the Office of External Affairs to determine if there has been any change in the status of that country. It should be noted that the right is based on the country of the foreign filing and not upon the citizenship of the applicant.
II. RIGHT OF PRIORITY BASED UPON AN INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY
35 U.S.C. 365 Right of priority; benefit of the filing date of a prior application.
(a) In accordance with the conditions and requirements of subsections (a) through (d) of section 119, a national application shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior filed international application which designated at least one country other than the United States.
(b) In accordance with the conditions and requirements of section 119(a) and the treaty and the Regulations, an international application designating the United States shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior foreign application, or a prior international application designating at least one country other than the United States. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under the treaty and the Regulations, and to accept a priority claim that pertains to an application that was not filed within the priority period specified in the treaty and Regulations, but was filed within the additional 2-month period specified under section 119(a) or the treaty and Regulations.
*****
35 U.S.C. 365(a) provides that a national application shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior international application of whatever origin, which designated any country other than, or in addition to, the United States. Of course, the conditions prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which deals with the right of priority based on earlier filed foreign applications, must be complied with.
35 U.S.C. 365(b) provides that an international application designating the United States shall be
entitled to the right of priority of a prior foreign application which may either be another international application or a regularly filed foreign application. The international application upon which the claim of priority is based can either have been filed in the United States or a foreign country; however, it must contain the designation of at least one country other than, or in addition to, the United States.
As far as the actual place of filing is concerned, for the purpose of 35 U.S.C. 365(a) and (b) and 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), an international application designating a country is considered to be a national application regularly filed in that country on the international filing date irrespective of whether it was physically filed in that country, in another country, or in an intergovernmental organization acting as Receiving Office for a country.
III. RIGHT OF PRIORITY BASED UPON AN INTERNATIONAL DESIGN APPLICATION
35 U.S.C. 386 Right of priority.
(a) NATIONAL APPLICATION.—In accordance with the conditions and requirements of subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 and section 172, a national application shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior international design application that designated at least 1 country other than the United States.
(b) PRIOR FOREIGN APPLICATION.—In accordance with the conditions and requirements of subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 and section 172 and the treaty and the Regulations, an international design application designating the United States shall be entitled to the right of priority based on a prior foreign application, a prior international application as defined in section 351(c) designating at least 1 country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least 1 country other than the United States.
*****
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and 37 CFR 1.55, a nonprovisional application may make a claim of foreign priority in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172 with respect to a prior international design application that designates at least one country other than the United States. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(b) and 37 CFR 1.55, an international design application designating the United States may make a claim of foreign priority in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172 and the Hague Agreement and Regulations
200-84Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213.01
thereunder with respect to a prior foreign application, international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and (b) apply to nonprovisional applications, international applications (PCT) and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issued therefrom. See 37 CFR 1.55(o) and MPEP §§ 213 et seq. and 1504.10.
See MPEP § 2920.05(d) for additional information pertaining to the right of priority based upon an international design application.
IV. RIGHT OF PRIORITY (35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 365(a)-(b), AND 386(a)-(b)) BASED ON A FOREIGN APPLICATION FILED UNDER A BILATERAL OR MULTILATERAL TREATY
Under Article 4A of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, a right of priority may be based on an application for a patent or for the registration of a utility model or an industrial design filed under the national law of a foreign country adhering to the Convention, or on a foreign application filed under a bilateral or multilateral treaty concluded between two or more such countries. Examples of such treaties pertaining to the protection of designs are The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, the Benelux Designs Convention, and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) as created under European Union law. Treaties pertaining to utility and/or plant patents include The Convention on the Grant of European Patents (which established the European Patent Office), the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
In addition to the list of recognized countries set forth in subsection I, above, applicants may claim priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to applications filed in foreign regional patent offices having member states who are contracting states under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). These include the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO), the
European Patent Office (EPO), and the African Intellectual Property Organization (known under the acronym OAPI for its French name, Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle).
213.02 Formal Requirements Relating to Foreign Priority Application [R-07.2015]
I. IDENTIFICATION OF FOREIGNAPPLICATION
For original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the claim for foreign priority must identify the foreign application for which priority is claimed by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing. For international applications entering the national stage as to the Unites States, see MPEP § 213.06. For international design applications designating the United States, see MPEP § 2920.05(d).
For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for priority must be presented in an application data sheet. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). Providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the claim for priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and 37 CFR 1.55. In an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Note that it is permissible, but not required, to present the claim for priority in an application data sheet in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. For international design applications designating the United States, the claim for priority must be presented in an application data sheet unless the priority claim was made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations. See 37 CFR 1.55(m).
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the claim to priority need be in no special form, and may be made by a person authorized to sign correspondence under 37 CFR 1.33(b). No special language is required in making the claim for priority, and any expression which can be reasonably interpreted as claiming the benefit of the foreign application is accepted as the claim for priority. For
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-85
§ 213.02TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the claim for priority must appear in the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76). See 37 CFR 1.55(n).
For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application that was present on the filing date of the application is considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed foreign priority application as to inadvertently omitted material, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b). The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(b) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when all or a portion of the specification and/or drawing(s) is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application. See MPEP §§ 201.06(c) and 217. However, applicants are encouraged to provide an explicit incorporation by reference statement to the prior-filed foreign priority application(s) for which priority is claimed under 37 CFR 1.55 if applicants do not wish the incorporation by reference to be limited to inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). See 37 CFR 1.57(c). Thus, the incorporation by reference statement can be relied upon to permit the entering of a portion of the foreign priority application into the U.S. application when a portion of the foreign priority application has been inadvertently omitted from the U.S. application, or to permit the correction of translation error in the U.S. application where the foreign priority application is in a non-English language. See MPEP § 217 for additional information regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b), and MPEP § 608.01(p) for information regarding incorporation by reference statements. For information regarding 37 CFR 1.57(a) and filing by reference to a previously filed application, see MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III.
II. THE SAME INVENTOR OR AT LEAST ONE COMMON JOINT INVENTOR
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 119(a), the foreign application must have been filed by the same applicant as the applicant in the United States, or by his or her legal representatives or assigns. Consistent with longstanding Office policy, this is interpreted to mean that the U.S. and foreign applications must name the same inventor or have at least one joint inventor in common. For example, a right of priority
does not exist in the case of an application of sole inventor A in the foreign country and sole inventor B in the United States, even though the two applications may be owned by the same party. The application in the foreign country may have been filed by the assignee, or by the legal representative or agent of the inventor, rather than by the inventor, but in such cases the name of the inventor is usually given in the foreign application on a paper filed therein. Joint inventors A and B in a nonprovisional application filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office may properly claim the benefit of an application filed in a foreign country by A and another application filed in a foreign country by B, i.e., A and B may each claim the benefit of their foreign filed applications. See MPEP § 602.09.
III. TRANSITION APPLICATION STATEMENT
If a nonprovisional application filed on or after March 16, 2013, claims priority to a foreign application filed prior to March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date (as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i)) on or after March 16, 2013, the applicant must provide a statement to that effect within a specified time period. See 37 CFR 1.55(k) and MPEP § 210, subsection III. Nonprovisional international design applications are excluded from the transition provision of 37 CFR 1.55(k), as such applications can only be filed on or after May 13, 2015.
213.03 Time for Filing U.S. Nonprovisional Application [R-07.2015]
The United States nonprovisional application must be filed not later than twelve months (six months in the case of a design application) after the date on which the foreign application was filed, unless the right of priority has been restored, or the nonprovisional application must be entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of an application that was filed not later than twelve months (six months in the case of a design application) after the date on which the foreign application was filed, unless the right of priority has been restored. See 37 CFR 1.55(c) and subsection III, below. This twelve-month period is subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b) (and 37 CFR 1.7(a)) and PCT Rule
200-86Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213.03
80.5, and the six month period is subject to 35 U.S.C. 21(b), 37 CFR 1.7(a), and Hague Agreement Rule 4(4).
35 U.S.C. 21(b) and 37 CFR 1.7(a) provide that when the day, or the last day, for taking an action (e.g., filing a nonprovisional application within twelve months of the date on which the foreign application was filed) or paying a fee in the Office falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the action may be taken, or fee paid, on the next succeeding secular or business day. PCT Rule 80.5 has similar provisions relating to the expiration of any period during which any document or fee in an international application must reach a national Office or intergovernmental organization. Hague Agreement Rule 4(4) provides that if the period expires on a day on which the International Bureau or the office concerned is not open to the public, the period shall expire on the first subsequent day on which the International Bureau or the office concerned is open to the public.
In computing this 12 months (or six months in the case of a design application), the first day is not counted; thus, if an application was filed in Canada on January 3, 1983, the U.S. nonprovisional application may be filed on January 3, 1984. The Paris Convention specifies in Article 4C(2) that “the day of filing is not counted in this period.” (This is the usual method of computing periods, for example a 6-month period for reply to an Office action dated January 2 does not expire on July 1, but the reply may be made on July 2.) If the last day of the 12 months is a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the U.S. non-provisional application is in time if filed on the next succeeding business day; thus, if the foreign application was filed on September 4, 1981, the U.S. nonprovisional application is in time if filed on September 7, 1982, since September 4, 1982, was a Saturday and September 5, 1982 was a Sunday and September 6, 1982 was a federal holiday. In view of 35 U.S.C. 21, and the Paris Convention which provides “if the last day of the period is an official holiday, or a day on which the Office is not open for the filing of applications in the country where protection is claimed, the period shall be extended until the first following working day” (Article 4C(3)), if the 12 months expires on Saturday, the
U.S. application may be filed on the following Monday. Note Ex parte Olah, 131 USPQ 41 (Bd. App. 1960). See, e.g., Dubost v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 777 F.2d 1561, 1562, 227 USPQ 977, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
I. FILING OF PAPERS DURING UNSCHEDULED CLOSINGS OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
37 CFR 1.9(h) provides that the definition of “Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” includes an official closing of the Office. When the entire U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is officially closed for business for an entire day, for reasons due to adverse weather or other causes, the Office will consider each such day a “Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” under 35 U.S.C. 21. Any action or fee due on such a day may be taken, or fee paid, on the next succeeding business day the Office is open. In addition, 37 CFR 1.6(a)(1) provides “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is not open for the filing of correspondence on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” to clarify that any day that is a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday within the District of Columbia is a day that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is not open for the filing of applications within the meaning of Article 4C(3) of the Paris Convention. Note further that in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a)(2), even when the Office is not open for the filing of correspondence on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday within the District of Columbia, correspondence deposited
as Priority Mail Express® with the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 or filed via EFS-Web will be considered filed on the date of its deposit, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday within the District of Columbia (under 35 U.S.C. 21(b) or 37 CFR 1.7).
When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is open for business during any part of a business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., papers are due on that day even though the Office may be officially closed for some period of time during the business day because of an unscheduled event. The procedures of 37 CFR 1.10 may be used for filing applications. Information regarding whether or not the Office is officially closed on any particular day
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-87
§ 213.03TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
may be obtained by calling 1-800-PTO-9199 or (571) 272-1000.
II. FIRST FOREIGN APPLICATION
The 12 months is from earliest foreign filing except as provided in 35 U.S.C. 119(c). If an inventor has filed an application in France on October 4, 1981, and an identical application in the United Kingdom on March 3, 1982, and then files in the United States on February 2, 1983, the inventor is not entitled to the right of priority at all; the inventor would not be entitled to the benefit of the date of the French application since this application was filed more than twelve months before the U.S. application, and the inventor would not be entitled to the benefit of the date of the United Kingdom application since this application is not the first one filed. Ahrens v. Gray, 1931 C.D. 9, 402 O.G. 261 (Bd. App. 1929). If the first foreign application was filed in a country which is not recognized with respect to the right of priority, it is disregarded for this purpose. 35 U.S.C. 119(c) extends the right of priority to “subsequent” foreign applications if one earlier filed had been withdrawn, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of, under certain conditions.
The United Kingdom and a few other countries have a system of “post-dating” whereby the filing date of an application is changed to a later date. This “post-dating” of the filing date of the application does not affect the status of the application with respect to the right of priority; if the original filing date is more than one year prior to the U.S. filing no right of priority can be based upon the application. See In re Clamp, 151 USPQ 423 (Comm’r Pat. 1966).
If an applicant has filed two foreign applications in recognized countries, one outside the year and one within the year, and the later application discloses additional subject matter, a claim in the U.S. application specifically limited to the additional disclosure would be entitled to the date of the second foreign application since this would be the first foreign application for that subject matter.
III. RESTORING THE RIGHT OF PRIORITY
Effective December 18, 2013, title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) provides for restoration of the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, and 365(a) or (b). As provided in 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the subsequent application has a filing date which is after the expiration of the twelve-month period (or six-month period in the case of a design application), but within two months from the expiration of the period, the right of priority in the subsequent application may be restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application, or upon petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c), if the delay in filing the subsequent application within the period was unintentional. Thus, an application may now validly claim priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, 365(a)35 U.S.C. 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) to a foreign application filed up to fourteen months earlier (or eight months earlier in the case of a design application). As a result of title I of the PLTIA, 37 CFR 1.55(c) was amended effective May 13, 2015, to provide that restoration of the right of priority is available for priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b). In addition, 37 CFR 1.55(c) was amended to provide that a petition to restore the right of priority filed on or after May 13, 2015, must be filed in the subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application.
A petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) requires:
(A) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) in an application data sheet, identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing (unless previously submitted in an application data sheet);
(B) the petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m); and
(C) a statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the twelve-month period (or six-month period in the case of a design
200-88Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213.03
application) set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(b) was unintentional.
The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
Where the subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application, the Office may not have an application file established for the subsequent application. This would occur, for example, where an international application designating the United States was filed in a foreign Receiving Office and the applicant filed a continuation of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) rather than entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. Thus, in this situation, the petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) may be filed in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application. However, the statement required under 37 CFR 1.55(c)(3) must still relate to the unintentional delay in filing the subsequent application, i.e., the international application.
If a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority is granted, a further petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) is not required in an application entitled to claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of the subsequent application for which the right of priority was restored.
It should be noted that although an application may now validly claim priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) to a foreign application filed up to fourteen months earlier (or eight months earlier in the case of a design application) in view of the restoration provision of 37 CFR 1.55(c), an application subject to examination under pre-AIA first to invent laws (rather than the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA) would still be subject to the 12-month statutory time periods in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and (d) which are measured from the U.S. filing date. Thus, the application may still be subject to a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or (d)
despite the priority claim. See MPEP §§ 2133 and 2135 et seq.
213.04 Requirement to File Priority Claim and Certified Copy During Pendency of Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(g) Requirement for filing priority claim, certified copy of foreign application, and translation in any application.
(1) The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323.
(2) The Office may require that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application be filed earlier than otherwise provided in this section:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When deemed necessary by the examiner.
(3) An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When specifically required by the examiner.
(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
*****
37 CFR 1.55(g) sets forth the requirements for filing a priority claim, certified copy of foreign application, and translation that are applicable in all applications. 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1) specifies that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-89
§ 213.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or (f), or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application. These provisions do not in any way supersede the timing requirements elsewhere in 37 CFR 1.55 for filing a claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application. 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1) simply indicates that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application must be filed in or received by the Office within the pendency of the application in all situations, unless an appropriate petition is filed.
If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323.
In the following situations, the Office may require that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application be filed earlier than otherwise provided in 37 CFR 1.55 (see 37 CFR 1.55(g)(2)), or that an English translation of a non-English language foreign application be filed (see 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)):
(1) When the application is involved in an interference (see 37 CFR 41.202) or derivation (see 37 CFR part 42) proceeding;
(2) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(3) When deemed necessary by the examiner.
If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
213.05 Right of Priority Based Upon an Application for an Inventor’s Certificate [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 119 Benefit of earlier filing date; right of priority.
*****
(d) Applications for inventors’certificates filed in a foreign country in which applicants have a right to apply, at their discretion, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate shall be treated in this country in the same manner and have the same effect for purpose of the right of priority under this section as applications for patents, subject to the same conditions and requirements of this section as apply to applications for patents, provided such applicants are entitled to the benefits of the Stockholm Revision of the Paris Convention at the time of such filing.
*****
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(l) Inventor's certificates. An applicant in a nonprovisional application may under certain circumstances claim priority on the basis of one or more applications for an inventor’s certificate in a country granting both inventor’s certificates and patents. To claim the right of priority on the basis of an application for an inventor’s certificate in such a country under 35 U.S.C. 119(d), the applicant when submitting a claim for such right as specified in this section, must include an affidavit or declaration. The affidavit or declaration must include a specific statement that, upon an investigation, he or she is satisfied that to the best of his or her knowledge, the applicant, when filing the application for the inventor’s certificate, had the option to file an application for either a patent or an inventor’s certificate as to the subject matter of the identified claim or claims forming the basis for the claim of priority.
*****
37 CFR 1.55(l) contains the provisions relating to claiming priority to inventor's certificates. An inventor’s certificate may form the basis for rights of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(d) only when the country in which it is filed gives to applicants, at their discretion, the right to apply, on the same invention, either for a patent or for an inventor’s certificate. The affidavit or declaration specified under 37 CFR 1.55(l) is only required for the purpose of ascertaining whether, in the country where the application for an inventor’s certificate originated, this option generally existed for applicants with respect to the particular subject matter of the invention involved. The requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(d) and 37 CFR 1.55(l) are not intended, however, to probe into the eligibility of the particular applicant to exercise the option in the particular priority application involved.
It is recognized that certain countries that grant inventors’ certificates also provide by law that their own nationals who are employed in state enterprises may only receive inventors’ certificates and not
200-90Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213.05
patents on inventions made in connection with their employment. This will not impair their right to be granted priority in the United States based on the filing of the inventor’s certificate.
Accordingly, affidavits or declarations filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55(l) need only show that in the country in which the original inventor’s certificate was filed, applicants generally have the right to apply at their own option either for a patent or an inventor’s certificate as to the particular subject matter of the invention. Priority rights on the basis of an inventor’s certificate application will be honored only if the applicant had the option or discretion to file for either an inventor’s certificate or a patent on his or her invention in his or her home country. Certain countries which grant both patents and inventor’s certificates issue only inventor’s certificates on certain subject matter, generally pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, and cosmetics.
To ensure compliance with the treaty and statute, 37 CFR 1.55(l) provides that at the time of claiming priority to an inventor’s certificate, the applicant or his or her attorney must submit an affidavit or declaration stating that the applicant when filing his or her application for the inventor’s certificate had the option either to file for a patent or an inventor’s certificate as to the subject matter forming the basis for the claim of priority.
213.06 Claiming Priority and Filing a Certified Copy in a National Stage Application (35 U.S.C. 371) [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(d) Time for filing priority claim—
*****
(2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. The claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
*****
(f) Time for filing certified copy of foreign application—
*****
(2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time limit set
forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed during the international stage in an international application in which the national stage commenced on or after December 18, 2013, a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section.
*****
PCT Rule 4
The Request (Contents)
*****
4.10 Priority Claim
(a) Any declaration referred to in Article 8(1) (“priority claim”) may claim the priority of one or more earlier applications filed either in or for any country party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or in or for any Member of the World Trade Organization that is not party to that Convention. Any priority claim shall be made in the request; it shall consist of a statement to the effect that the priority of an earlier application is claimed and shall indicate:
(i) the date on which the earlier application was filed;
(ii) the number of the earlier application;
(iii) where the earlier application is a national application, the country party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or the Member of the World Trade Organization that is not party to that Convention in which it was filed;
(iv) where the earlier application is a regional application, the authority entrusted with the granting of regional patents under the applicable regional patent treaty;
(v) where the earlier application is an international application, the receiving Office with which it was filed.
(b) In addition to any indication required under paragraph (a)(iv) or (v):
(i) where the earlier application is a regional application or an international application, the priority claim may indicate one or more countries party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property for which that earlier application was filed;
(ii) where the earlier application is a regional application and at least one of the countries party to the regional patent treaty is neither party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property nor a Member of the World Trade Organization, the priority claim shall indicate at least one country party to that Convention or one Member of the Organization for which that earlier application was filed.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-91
§ 213.06TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
(c) For the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b), Article 2(vi) shall not apply.
(d) If, on September 29, 1999, paragraphs (a) and (b) as amended with effect from January 1, 2000, are not compatible with the national law applied by a designated Office, those paragraphs as in force until December 31, 1999, shall continue to apply after that date in respect of that designated Office for as long as the said paragraphs as amended continue not to be compatible with that law, provided that the said Office informs the International Bureau accordingly by October 31, 1999. The information received shall be promptly published by the International Bureau in the Gazette.
*****
PCT Rule 17
The Priority Document
17.1. Obligation to Submit Copy of Earlier National or International Application
(a) Where the priority of an earlier national or international application is claimed under Article 8, a copy of that earlier application, certified by the authority with which it was filed (“the priority document”), shall, unless that priority document has already been filed with the receiving Office together with the international application in which the priority claim is made, and subject to paragraphs (b) and (b -bis), be submitted by the applicant to the International Bureau or to the receiving Office not later than 16 months after the priority date, provided that any copy of the said earlier application which is received by the International Bureau after the expiration of that time limit shall be considered to have been received by that Bureau on the last day of that time limit if it reaches it before the date of international publication of the international application.
(b) Where the priority document is issued by the receiving Office, the applicant may, instead of submitting the priority document, request the receiving Office to prepare and transmit the priority document to the International Bureau. Such request shall be made not later than 16 months after the priority date and may be subjected by the receiving Office to the payment of a fee.
(b -bis) Where the priority document is, in accordance with the Administrative Instructions, made available to the International Bureau from a digital library prior to the date of international publication of the international application, the applicant may, instead of submitting the priority document, request the International Bureau, prior to the date of international publication, to obtain the priority document from such digital library.
(c) If the requirements of none of the three preceding paragraphs are complied with, any designated Office may, subject to paragraph (d), disregard the priority claim, provided that no designated Office shall disregard the priority claim before giving the applicant an opportunity to furnish the priority document within a time limit which shall be reasonable under the circumstances.
(d) No designated Office shall disregard the priority claim under paragraph (c) if the earlier application referred to in paragraph (a) was filed with it in its capacity as national Office
or if the priority document is, in accordance with the Administrative Instructions, available to it from a digital library.
17.2. Availability of Copies
(a) Where the applicant has complied with Rule 17.1(a), (b) or (b -bis), the International Bureau shall, at the specific request of the designated Office, promptly but not prior to the international publication of the international application, furnish a copy of the priority document to that Office. No such Office shall ask the applicant himself to furnish it with a copy. The applicant shall not be required to furnish a translation to the designated Office before the expiration of the applicable time limit under Article 22. Where the applicant makes an express request to the designated Office under Article 23(2) prior to the international publication of the international application, the International Bureau shall, at the specific request of the designated Office, furnish a copy of the priority document to that Office promptly after receiving it.
(b) The International Bureau shall not make copies of the priority document available to the public prior to the international publication of the international application.
(c) Where the international application has been published under Article 21, the International Bureau shall furnish a copy of the priority document to any person upon request and subject to reimbursement of the cost unless, prior to that publication:
(i) the international application was withdrawn,
(ii) the relevant priority claim was withdrawn or considered, under Rule 26 bis.2(b), not to have been made.
37 CFR 1.451 The priority claim and priority document in an international application.
(a) The claim for priority must, subject to paragraph (d) of this section, be made on the Request (PCT Rule 4.10) in a manner complying with sections 110 and 115 of the Administrative Instructions.
(b) Whenever the priority of an earlier United States national application or international application filed with the United States Receiving Office is claimed in an international application, the applicant may request in a letter of transmittal accompanying the international application upon filing with the United States Receiving Office or in a separate letter filed in the United States Receiving Office not later than 16 months after the priority date, that the United States Patent and Trademark Office prepare a certified copy of the prior application for transmittal to the International Bureau (PCT Article 8 and PCT Rule 17). The fee for preparing a certified copy is set forth in § 1.19(b)(1).
(c) If a certified copy of the priority document is not submitted together with the international application on filing, or, if the priority application was filed in the United States and a request and appropriate payment for preparation of such a certified copy do not accompany the international application on filing or are not filed within 16 months of the priority date, the certified copy of the priority document must be furnished by the applicant to the International Bureau or to the United
200-92Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213.06
States Receiving Office within the time limit specified in PCT Rule 17.1(a).
(d) The applicant may correct or add a priority claim in accordance with PCT Rule 26 bis.1.
37 CFR 1.55(d)(2) and (f)(2) pertain to the time for filing a priority claim and the time for filing a certified copy of a foreign application in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
In an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made and a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT with limited exceptions. See MPEP §§ 214.02 and 215.02. Note that it is permissible, but not required, to present the claim for priority in an application data sheet in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
An international application which seeks to establish the right of priority must comply with the conditions and requirements as prescribed by the Treaty and the PCT Regulations, in order to avoid rejection of the claim to the right of priority. Reference is especially made to the requirement of making a declaration of the claim of priority at the time of filing of the international application (Article 8(1) of the Treaty and Rule 4.10 of the PCT Regulations) or correcting or adding a priority claim (PCT Rule 26 bis.1) and the requirement of either filing a certified copy of the priority document with the international application, or submitting a certified copy of the priority document to the International Bureau at a certain time (Rule 17 of the PCT Regulations). The submission of the priority document to the International Bureau is only required in those instances where priority is based on an earlier filed foreign national application. With respect to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 as they pertain to applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, if the applicant submitted a certified copy of the foreign priority document in compliance with PCT Rule 17 during the international phase, the International Bureau will forward a copy of the certified priority document to each Designated Office that has requested a copy of the foreign priority document and the copy received from the International Bureau is acceptable to
establish that applicant has filed a certified copy of the priority document. See MPEP § 1893.03(c). If, however, the International Bureau is unable to forward a copy of the certified priority document because the applicant failed to submit a certified copy of the foreign priority document during the international phase, the applicant will need to provide a certified copy of the priority document or have the Office retrieve the priority application in accordance with the priority document exchange program during the national stage to fulfill the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55.
If the priority document is an earlier national application and did not accompany the international application when filed with the Receiving Office, an applicant must submit such document to the International Bureau not later than 16 months after the priority date. However, should an applicant request early processing of his or her international application in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Treaty, the priority document may not be available to the Office at that time (Rule 17.2(a) of the PCT Regulations). Applicants are encouraged to check the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system to verify that the certified copy has been received from the International Bureau. The formal requirements for obtaining the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 365 differ somewhat from those imposed by 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), however, the substantive right of priority is the same, in that it is derived from Article 4 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Article 8(2) of the Treaty).
35 U.S.C. 365(c) recognizes the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. 120. Any international application designating the United States, whether filed with a Receiving Office in this country or abroad, and even though other countries may have also been designated, has the effect of a regular national application in the United States, as of the international filing date. As such, any later filed national application, or international application designating the United States, may claim the benefit of the filing date of an earlier international application designating the United States, if the requirements and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 120 are fulfilled. Under the same circumstances, the benefit of the earlier filing date of a national application
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-93
§ 213.06TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
may be obtained in a later filed international application designating the United States. See MPEP § 211.01(c).
In those instances, where the applicant relies on an international application designating, but not originating in, the United States the Director may require submission of a copy of such application together with an English translation, since in some instances, and for various reasons, a copy of that international application or its translation might not otherwise be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
213.07 Claiming Priority and Filing a Certified Copy in a Nonprovisional International Design Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(m) Time for filing priority claim and certified copy of foreign application in an international design application designating the United States. In an international design application designating the United States, the claim for priority may be made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations. In a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim, unless made in accordance with the Hague Agreement and the Hague Agreement Regulations, must be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing. In a nonprovisional international design application, the priority claim and certified copy must be furnished in accordance with the time period and other conditions set forth in paragraph (g) of this section.
*****
(o) Priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b). The right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) with respect to an international design application is applicable only to nonprovisional applications, international applications, and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issuing thereon.
*****
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and 37 CFR 1.55, a nonprovisional application may make a claim of foreign priority in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172 with respect to a prior international design application that designates at least one country other than the United States. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(b) and 37 CFR 1.55, an international design application
designating the United States may make a claim of foreign priority in accordance with the conditions and requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 172 and the Hague Agreement and Regulations thereunder with respect to a prior foreign application, international application (PCT) designating at least one country other than the United States, or a prior international design application designating at least one country other than the United States. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 386(a) and (b) apply to nonprovisional applications, international applications (PCT) and international design applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, and patents issued therefrom. See 37 CFR 1.55(o).
See MPEP § 2920.05(d) for additional information pertaining to the right of priority based upon an international design application.
214 Formal Requirements of Claim for Foreign Priority [R-07.2015]
Under the statute (35 U.S.C. 119(b)), an applicant who wishes to secure the right of priority must comply with certain formal requirements within a time specified. If these requirements are not complied with the right of priority is lost and cannot thereafter be asserted.
The maximum time limit specified in the statute is that the claim for priority and the priority papers must be filed before the patent is granted, but the statute gives the Director authority to set this time limit at an earlier time during the pendency of the application. As a result of implementation of Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527 (titles I and title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA)), the procedural requirements relating to claims for priority to an earlier-filed foreign application and to the submission of a certified copy of the priority document were revised. The procedural requirements and the time relating to claims for priority of an earlier filed foreign application are set forth in 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 214.01 for procedural requirements pertaining to filing a claim for priority. See MPEP §§ 215.02-215.03 for timing requirements for submitting a certified copy of the priority application. See MPEP § 213.06 for claiming foreign priority and filing a certified copy of the priority
200-94Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 213.07
document in a national stage application and MPEP § 213.07 for claiming foreign priority and filing a certified copy of the priority document in a nonprovisional international design application.
Where a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(b) has not been made in a parent application, the claim for priority may be made in a continuing application provided the parent application has been filed within 12 months from the date of the earliest foreign filing (6 months for design applications). See In re Tangsrud, 184 USPQ 746 (Comm’r Pat. 1973). Where the requirements for perfecting priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) have not been met before the issuance of patent, see 37 CFR 1.55(g) and MPEP § 216.01 for an explanation of when the deficiencies are correctable by a certificate of correction or reissue.
It should be particularly noted that the certified copy must be filed in all cases even though it may not be necessary during the pendency of the application to overcome the date of any reference. The statute also gives the Director authority to require a translation of the foreign documents if not in the English language and such other information as the Director may deem necessary. See MPEP § 213.04 for additional information.
214.01 Time for Filing Priority Claim [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(d) Time for filing priority claim—
(1) Application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The claim for priority must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application in an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section. The claim for priority must be presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)) and must identify the foreign application to which priority is claimed by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing. The time periods in this paragraph do not apply if the later-filed application is:
(i) An application for a design patent; or
(ii) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before November 29, 2000.
(2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. The claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
*****
37 CFR 1.55(d)(1) sets forth the time periods for filing a priority claim in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2) and MPEP § 213.06 for the time period for claiming priority in an application entering the national stage. The time periods set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(d) do not apply to design applications.
For original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the requirements of the statute are that the applicant must (a) file a claim for the right of priority and (b) identify the original foreign application by specifying the application number of the foreign application, the intellectual property authority or country in which the application was filed and the date of filing of the application. 35 U.S.C. 119(b)(1) specifies that the claim for priority and the required identification information must be filed at such time during the pendency of the application as set by the Director. For applications other than design applications, the Director has by rule set this time period as the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). This time period is not extendable. In an application that entered the national stage from an international application after compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made during the pendency of the application and within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2) and MPEP § 213.06. In a design application, a claim for priority may be made at any time during the pendency of the application. See 37 CFR 1.55(g). See also MPEP §§ 1504.10 and 2920.05(d) for additional information pertaining to priority claims in design applications.
Claims for foreign priority not presented within the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.55 are considered to have been waived. If a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or386(a)
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-95
§ 214.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
or (b) is presented after the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if it includes the required identification information and is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept the unintentionally delayed claim for priority. See MPEP § 214.02 for the treatment of unintentionally delayed priority claims.
For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1) requires the claim for priority to be presented in an application data sheet. For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to September 16, 2012, unless provided in an application data sheet, the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 must identify the foreign application for patent or inventor’s certificate for which priority is claimed under 37 CFR 1.55, and any foreign applications having a filing date before that of the application on which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country, day, month, and year of its filing. See 37 CFR 1.55(n).
214.02 Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claims [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(e) Delayed priority claim. Unless such claim is accepted in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) not presented in the manner required by paragraph (d) or (m) of this section during pendency and within the time period provided by paragraph (d) of this section (if applicable) is considered to have been waived. If a claim for priority is considered to have been waived under this section, the claim may be accepted if the priority claim was unintentionally delayed. A petition to accept a delayed claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) must be accompanied by:
(1) The priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, unless previously submitted;
(2) A certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section applies;
(3) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and
(4) A statement that the entire delay between the date the priority claim was due under this section and the date the priority claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may
require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
*****
Where a priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55(g) was not timely made, 37 CFR 1.55(g) allows the priority claim and the certified copy required under 37 CFR 1.55 to be filed pursuant to a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) even if the application is not pending (e.g., a patented application). Thus, a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) may be filed along with request for a certificate of correction after patent grant. See MPEP § 216.01.
If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the priority claim was unintentionally delayed. In all applications, a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority must include: (1) the claim (i.e., the claim required by 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) and 37 CFR 1.55) for priority to the prior foreign application, unless previously submitted; (2) a certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), or (j) applies; (3) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (4) a statement that the entire delay between the date the claim was due and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
37 CFR 1.55(e)(2) requires that a petition to accept a delayed claim for priority be accompanied by a certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), or (j) applies. 37 CFR 1.55(h) contains provisions relating to when the requirement for a certified copy will be considered satisfied based on a certified copy filed in another U.S. patent or application (see also MPEP § 215, subsection III); 37 CFR 1.55(i) contains provisions relating to the priority document exchange agreement (see also MPEP §§ 215.01 and 215.02(a)); and 37 CFR 1.55(j) contains provisions relating to the filing of an interim copy of a foreign application (see also MPEP § 215.02(b)).
200-96Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 214.02
Priority claims and certified copies of foreign applications filed after payment of the issue fee and before the patent grant will be placed in the application file but will not be reviewed.
Before May 13, 2015, no procedures were established for accepting an unintentionally delayed priority claim in a design application. Effective May 13, 2015, 37 CFR 1.55(e) provides for the filing of a petition for acceptance of an unintentionally delayed priority claim in a design application where the foreign priority claim was not submitted during the pendency of the design application. Thus, a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) may be filed along with request for a certificate of correction after patent grant in utility, plant, and design applications. See MPEP § 216.01.
214.03 Office Acknowledgement of Priority Claims [R-07.2015]
I. UNTIMELY CLAIM FOR PRIORITY
If the foreign priority claim in an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application) is submitted after the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55 and without a petition under 37 CFR 1.55, the examiner may use form paragraph 2.21.01 to notify applicant that the foreign priority claim will not be entered
¶ 2.21.01 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) Foreign Priority Claim is Untimely
The foreign priority claim filed on [1] was not entered because the foreign priority claim was not filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55. For original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application) on or after November 29, 2000, the time period is during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. In addition, if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). For national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). If applicant desires priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon a prior foreign application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55(e). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 identifying the prior foreign
application to which priority is claimed, unless previously submitted; (2) a certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception under 37 CFR 1.55 applies; (3) the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (4) a statement that the entire delay between the date the claim was due under 37 CFR 1.55 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph only for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after November 29, 2000 and for national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371. DO NOT use for design applications.
2. In bracket 1, insert the date the amendment or paper containing the foreign priority claim was filed.
II. NO IRREGULARITIESAND PRIORITY CLAIM TIMELY
When the claim for foreign priority and the certified copy of the foreign application are received within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, if applicable, they are entered into the application file history. Assuming that the papers are timely and regular in form and that there are no irregularities in dates, the examiner in the next Office action will advise the applicant that the papers have been received on form PTOL-326 or by use of form paragraph 2.26.
¶ 2.26 Claimed Foreign Priority - Certified Copy Filed
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Where the foreign priority papers have been filed in a parent application, use form paragraph 2.27.
¶ 2.27 Acknowledge Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Paper in Parent
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. [1], filed on [2].
Examiner Note:
1. For problems with foreign priority, see form paragraphs 2.18 to 2.24.
2. In bracket 1, insert series code and serial no. of parent.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-97
§ 214.03TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
III. FOREIGNAPPLICATION FILED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE EARLIEST EFFECTIVE U.S. FILING
Where the earlier foreign application was filed more than 12 months prior to the U.S. application and priority has not been restored under PCT Rule 26bis.3 for an international application or upon a granted petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c), use form paragraph 2.23.
¶ 2.23 Foreign Filing More Than 12 Months Earlier, No Petition to Restore Priority Granted
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in [1] on [2]. The claim for priority cannot be based on said application, because the subsequent nonprovisional or international application designating the United States was filed more than twelve months thereafter and no petition under 37 CFR 1.55 or request under PCT Rule 26 bis.3 to restore the right of priority has been granted.
Applicant may wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority if the subsequent application was filed within two months from the expiration of the twelve-month period and the delay was unintentional. A petition to restore the right of priority must include: (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) in an application data sheet, identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing (unless previously submitted); (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (3) a statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the twelve-month period was unintentional. The petition to restore the right of priority must be filed in the subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph only for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after November 29, 2000 and for national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371. DO NOT use for design applications.
2. In bracket 1, insert the country name.
3. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the foreign application.
IV. SOME FOREIGN APPLICATIONS FILED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE U.S. FILING
For example, where a British provisional specification was filed more than a year before a U.S. application, but the British complete application was filed within the year, and certified copies of both were submitted, language similar to the following should be used: “Receipt is acknowledged of papers filed on September 18, 1979, purporting to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). It is not seen how the claim for priority can be based on the British specification filed January 23, 1978, because the instant application was filed more than one year thereafter. However, the printed heading of the patent will note the claimed priority date based on the complete specification; i.e., November 1, 1978, for such subject matter as was not disclosed in the provisional specification.”
V. APPLICATION IN ISSUE
When the claim for foreign priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date of payment of the issue fee but prior to the date of grant of the patent, the foreign priority claim or certified copy will be placed in the file record but there will be no review of the papers and the patent when published will not include the priority claim. A certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 can be filed to have the foreign priority claim or certified copy considered after publication of the patent. In addition, for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under 37 CFR 1.55 must be filed with the certificate of correction. See MPEP § 216.01.
214.04 Proper Identification of Priority Application in Foreign Priority Claim [R-07.2015]
To ensure an accurate and complete citation of a foreign priority application, applicants should review the list of the various intellectual property offices and the recommended presentation of a foreign application number for each, which can be found in the tables of the online WIPO Handbook on
200-98Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 214.04
Industrial Property Information and Documentation (www.wipo.int/standards/en/), Part 7: Examples and Industrial Property Offices Practices (www.wipo.int/standards/en/part_07.html), including Part 7.2.1: Presentation of Application N u m b e r s (www.wipo.int/standards/en/pdf/07-02-01.pdf).The tables should enable applicants, examiners and others to extract from the various formats the minimum required data which comprises a proper citation. The “Minimum Significant Part of the Number” identified in the tables should be used in United States Patent and Trademark Office records. Proper identification of priority applications is essential to
establishing accurate and complete relationships among various patent documents, especially in the context of electronic priority document exchange programs (see MPEP § 215.01).
The tables set forth below include only a partial list of recommended presentations of foreign application numbers. A complete updated list of the recommended presentation of a foreign application number based on the numbering system used by the foreign intellectual property office is maintained by the WIPO and can be found in the online WIPO Handbook on Industrial Property Information and Documentation as explained above.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-99
§ 214.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
200-100Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 214.04
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-101
§ 214.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
200-102Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 214.04
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-103
§ 214.04TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
200-104Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 214.04
215 Certified Copy of Foreign Application [R-07.2015]
I. REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFIED COPY
35 U.S.C. 119(b)(3) authorizes the Office to require the applicant to furnish a certified copy of the foreign priority application, and the Office requires such a copy pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55. The filing of the foreign priority papers under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) makes the record of the file of the United States patent complete. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not normally examine the papers to determine whether the applicant is in fact entitled to the right of priority and does not grant or refuse the right of priority, except when the application is involved in an interference or derivation proceeding, when necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner, or when deemed necessary by the examiner. See MPEP § 216. When the claim to priority and the certified copy of the foreign application are received while the application is pending before the examiner, the examiner should review the certified copy to see that it contains no obvious formal defects and that it corresponds in number, date and country to the application identified in the application data sheet for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, or oath or declaration or application data sheet for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012.
II. MEANING OF “CERTIFIED COPY”
The certified copy which must be filed is a copy of the original foreign application with a certification by the patent office of the foreign country in which it was filed. Certified copies ordinarily consist of a copy of the specification and drawings of the applications as filed with a certificate of the foreign patent office giving certain information. Certified copies include those retrieved by the Office in accordance with a priority document exchange program. See MPEP § 215.01. “Application” in this connection is not considered to include formal papers such as a petition. A copy of the foreign patent as issued does not comply since the application as filed is required; however, a copy of the printed specification and drawing of the foreign patent is sufficient if the certification indicates that it corresponds to the application as filed.
III. CERTIFIED COPY FILED IN PARENT OR RELATED APPLICATION
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(h) Certified copy in another U.S. patent or application. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied in a reissue application if the patent for which reissue is sought satisfies the requirement of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application and such patent is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application will also be considered satisfied in an application if a prior-filed nonprovisional application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains a certified copy of the foreign application and such prior-filed nonprovisional application is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application.
*****
Where the benefit of a foreign filing date based on a foreign application is claimed in a later filed application (i.e., continuation, continuation-in-part, division) or in a reissue application, and a certified copy of the foreign application has been filed in a parent or related application, it is not necessary to file an additional certified copy in the later application. See 37 CFR 1.55(h). A reminder of this provision is found in form paragraph 2.20. The applicant when making such claim for priority may simply identify the application containing the certified copy. In such cases, the examiner should acknowledge the claim on form PTOL-326. Note copy in MPEP § 707.
If the applicant fails to call attention to the fact that the certified copy is in the parent or related application and the examiner is aware of the fact that a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) was made in the parent application, the examiner should call applicant’s attention to these facts in an Office action, so that if a patent issues on the later or reissue application, the priority data will appear in the patent. In such cases, the language of form paragraph 2.20 should be used.
¶ 2.20 Certified Copies of Priority Papers in Parent or Related (Reissue Situation) - Application
Applicant is reminded that in order for a patent issuing on the instant application to obtain priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b), based on priority papers
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-105
§ 215TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
filed in a parent or related Application No. [1] (to which the present application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c)), or 386(c) or is a reissue application of a patent issued on the related application), a claim for such foreign priority must be timely made in this application. To satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.55 for a certified copy of the foreign application, applicant may simply identify the parent nonprovisional application or patent for which reissue is sought containing the certified copy.
Where the benefit of a foreign filing date, based on a foreign application, is claimed in a later filed application or in a reissue application and a certified copy of the foreign application, as filed, has not been filed in a parent or related application, a claim for priority may be made in the later application. In re Tangsrud, 184 USPQ 746 (Comm’r Pat. 1973). When such a claim is made in the later application and a certified copy of the foreign application is placed therein, the examiner should acknowledge the claim on form PTOL-326. Note copy in MPEP § 707.
IV. FOREIGN PRIORITY DOCUMENT INCONSISTENT WITH A TIMELY FOREIGN PRIORITY CLAIM OR NO CLAIM FOR FOREIGN PRIORITY
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, any foreign priority claim must be identified in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet. Where applicant has filed a certified copy that does not correspond to the foreign application identified in the foreign priority claim by its application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day month, and year of its filing, the applicant should be notified by using form paragraph 2.22. Applicant must submit an application data sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76(c), (or, for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, a supplemental application data sheet or a new oath or declaration) that correctly sets forth the priority claim. See MPEP §§ 601.05(a) and (b). If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority.
Where applicant has filed a certified copy of a foreign application but has not made a claim for foreign priority, applicant should be notified using form paragraph 2.22.
¶ 2.22 Certified Copy Filed, But Proper Claim Not Made
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application [1], however the present application does not properly claim priority to the submitted foreign application. If this copy is being filed to obtain priority to the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), applicant must also file a claim for such priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or 365(b), and 37 CFR 1.55. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the priority claim must be made in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet.
If the application being examined is an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). If the application being examined is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) not presented within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 is considered to have been waived. If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph only for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after November 29, 2000 and for national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371. DO NOT use for design applications.
2. In bracket 1, insert the application number of the foreign application.
NOTE: Where the applicant’s accompanying letter states that the certified copy is filed for priority purposes or for the convention date, it is accepted as a claim for priority, but such claim is not in compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 and either 37 CFR 1.76 or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63.
200-106Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 215
V. APPLICATION IN ISSUE
When the claim for foreign priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date of payment of the issue fee but prior to the date of grant of the patent, the foreign priority claim or certified copy will be placed in the file record but there will be no review of the papers and the patent when published will not include the priority claim. A certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 can be filed to have the foreign priority claim or certified copy considered after publication of the patent. In addition, for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under 37 CFR 1.55 must be filed with the certificate of correction. See MPEP § 216.01.
VI. NO CERTIFIED COPY
Where priority is claimed but no certified copy of the foreign application has been filed, use form paragraph 2.25.
¶ 2.25 Claimed Foreign Priority, No Papers Certified Copy Filed
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in [1] on [2]. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the [3] application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the country name.
2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the foreign application.
3. In bracket 3, insert the application number of the foreign application.
Any unusual situation may be referred to the Technology Center (TC) Director.
VII. RETURN OF CERTIFIED COPY
Certified copies that have been entered into the application file will not be returned to applicant.
215.01 Electronic Priority Document Exchange [R-07.2015]
Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) agreements provide for the electronic transmission of priority documents to and from participating foreign intellectual property offices. The Office treats a proper priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55 to an application filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office as a request that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from the participating intellectual property office. A separate written request may be used when the applicant wishes the Office to retrieve a foreign application from a foreign intellectual property office that becomes a participating foreign intellectual property office after the foreign priority has been claimed, so long as the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55 has not expired. A separate written request is required in the situation where the foreign application is not originally filed in a participating office, but a certified copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office. Applicants can use Form PTO/SB/38 (Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application(s)) to file such a request.
An improper, incomplete, or inconsistent citation of a foreign priority application and/or its filing date will result in a delay or prevent retrieval under the Priority Document Exchange program. In particular, any foreign priority claim that is incomplete will prevent successful electronic retrieval of the priority application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to cite the foreign application using an acceptable format (see MPEP § 214.04) and use proper and consistent citation format throughout the U.S. application.
In general, an attempt to retrieve an eligible foreign application to which priority is claimed in a U.S. application will be made by the USPTO at approximately 19 months from the filing date of that foreign application. However, an electronic retrieval attempt by the USPTO will be initiated earlier than
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-107
§ 215.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
19 months in the following situations: applications granted accelerated examination status; applications in which a petition has been granted under the Patent Prosecution Highway program; and, when an Office action by the examiner is mailed prior to 19 months from the foreign priority date. In any case the USPTO will not attempt electronic retrieval until the Office of Patent Application Processing has completed its review of the application. Applicants are encouraged to check the Patent Application and Information Retrieval (PAIR) to determine whether the foreign priority application has been successfully retrieved. A successful request to retrieve an electronic foreign priority application takes approximately 1 week to complete.
The Office will not send a notice setting a time period for filing a certified copy of the priority document. Upon receipt of a Notice of Allowance, applicants should check to see whether the Office has received a copy of the foreign application under the priority document exchange program because successful retrieval of priority documents cannot be guaranteed. To be entitled to priority, the Office must receive a copy of the foreign application from the participating foreign intellectual property office within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted, or receive a paper certified copy of the foreign application during that time period. If a certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, it must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), but the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. See MPEP § 215.02(a) for information pertaining to meeting the timeliness requirement for filing a certified copy by using PDX.
The Office website provides additional information concerning the priority document exchange program (www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international- protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx). This information includes the intellectual property offices that participate in the priority document exchange program, as well as the information necessary for each participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application.
APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NOT PDX ELIGIBLE
The Office cannot obtain a copy of a design application to which priority is claimed, or a foreign application to which priority is claimed in a design application, through the priority document exchange program. In addition, note that the Office can obtain a PCT application to which priority is claimed through the priority document exchange program for PCT applications filed in a limited number of PCT Receiving Offices (currently, RO/DK (Denmark), RO/FI (Finland), RO/IB (International Bureau), and RO/SE (Sweden)).
215.02 Time For Filing Certified Copy – Application Filed On orAfter March 16, 2013 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 215.03 for information regarding the time for filing a certified copy in an application filed before March 16, 2013.]
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority *****
(f) Time for filing certified copy of foreign application—
(1) Application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, in an original application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed on or after March 16, 2013, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section. The time period in this paragraph does not apply in a design application.
(2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed during the international stage in an international application in which the national stage commenced on or after December 18, 2013, a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section.
(3) If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed within the time period specified [in] paragraph (f)(1) of this section in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or within the period specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, and an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section is not applicable, the certified copy of the foreign
200-108Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 215.02
application must be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
*****
For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after March 16, 2013, 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) sets forth the time period for filing a certified copy of the foreign application. The time period in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) does not apply in design applications. 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) requires that a certified copy of the foreign application be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application with three exceptions. For international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, 37 CFR 1.55(f)(2) sets forth the time period for filing a certified copy of the foreign application. 37 CFR 1.55(f)(2) requires a certified copy of the foreign application be filed within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT, and if a certified copy is not filed during international stage in an international application in which the national stage commenced on or after December 18, 2013, a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application with three exceptions. As provided in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), or (j), the time period requirement in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1)or (f)(2) does not apply if:
(1) a prior-filed nonprovisional application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) contains a certified copy of the foreign application and such prior-filed nonprovisional application is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application, or in the case of a reissue application, if the patent for which reissue is sought satisfies the requirement for a certified copy and such patent is identified as containing the certified copy (see 37 CFR 1.55(h) and MPEP § 215, subsection III);
(2) the priority application was filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, or if a copy of the foreign application was filed in an
application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy, and the Office either receives a copy of the foreign application from the participating foreign intellectual property office or a certified copy of the foreign application during the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted (see 37 CFR 1.55(i) and MPEP § 215.02(a)); or
(3) the applicant provides an interim copy of the original foreign application within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, and files a certified copy of the foreign application within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted (see 37 CFR 1.55(j) and MPEP § 215.02(b)).
Because U.S. patent application publications (as well as U.S. patents) will have a prior art effect as of the earliest priority date (for subject matter disclosed in the priority application) with respect to applications subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, the Office needs to ensure that it has a copy of the priority application by the time of publication. The time period of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application is consistent with the international norm for when the certified copy of the foreign application needs to be filed in an application. See PCT Rule 17.1(a).
If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed within the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) or (f)(2), as appropriate, and the exceptions in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), and (j) are not applicable, the certified copy of the foreign application must be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g). This provision for the belated filing of a certified copy of the foreign application obviates the need for a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 to waive or suspend a requirement of the regulations in such a situation. 37 CFR 1.55(f) provides a lower standard (good and sufficient cause versus an extraordinary situation) and lower fee ($200 petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) versus the $400 petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f)) than petitions under 37 CFR 1.183.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-109
§ 215.02TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
See MPEP § 213.06 for additional information regarding filing a certified copy in a national stage application (35 U.S.C. 371).
215.02(a) Timeliness Requirement – Met By Priority Document Exchange [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(i) Foreign intellectual property office participating in a priority document exchange agreement. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth therein will be considered satisfied if:
(1) The foreign application was filed in a foreign intellectual property office participating with the Office in a bilateral or multilateral priority document exchange agreement (participating foreign intellectual property office), or a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy;
(2) The claim for priority is presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and the applicant provides the information necessary for the participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application;
(3) The copy of the foreign application is received by the Office from the participating foreign intellectual property office, or a certified copy of the foreign application is filed, within the period specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section; and
(4) The applicant files in a separate document a request that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from a participating intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy where, although the foreign application was not filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy. The request must identify the participating intellectual property office and the subsequent application by the application number, day, month, and year of its filing in which a copy of the foreign application was filed. The request must be filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), or four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or the request must be accompanied by a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section.
*****
37 CFR 1.55(i) provides that the requirement in 37 CFR 1.55(f) and (g) for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f) and (g) will be considered satisfied if the Office receives a copy of the priority document through the priority document exchange program during the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted. 37 CFR 1.55(i) specifically provides that this requirement for a timely filed certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied if: (1) The foreign application was filed in a foreign intellectual property office participating with the Office in a bilateral or multilateral priority document exchange agreement (participating foreign intellectual property office); (2) the claim for priority is presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and including the information necessary for the participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application; and (3) the copy of the foreign application is received by the Office from the participating foreign intellectual property office, or a certified copy of the foreign application is filed, within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1)).
37 CFR 1.55(i) also provides that if the foreign application was not filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, but a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy, the applicant must also file a request in a separate document that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from the participating intellectual property office. This request must identify the participating intellectual property office and the application number and filing date of the subsequent application in which a copy of the foreign application was filed, and be filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application or four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), within four months from the later of the date of commencement (37 CFR 1.491(a)) or the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an application
200-110Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 215.02(a)
entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or (f). Applicants can use Form PTO/SB/38 (Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application(s)) to file such a request.
The Office website provides information concerning the priority document exchange program ( www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international- protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx). See also MPEP § 215.01. This information includes the intellectual property offices that participate in the priority document exchange program, as well as the information necessary for each participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application. The Office appreciates that an applicant may discover that the Office will not receive a copy of a foreign application through the priority document exchange program until after the expiration of the time frame specified in 37 CFR 1.55(f). In this situation, an applicant who otherwise meets the conditions of 37 CFR 1.55(i) may satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.55(i)(3) by filing a certified copy of the foreign application in the Office within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted.
Note that the Office cannot obtain a copy of a design application to which priority is claimed, or a foreign application to which priority is claimed in a design application, through the priority document exchange program. In addition, note that the Office can obtain a PCT application to which priority is claimed through the priority document exchange program for PCT applications filed in a limited number of PCT Receiving Offices (currently, RO/DK (Denmark), RO/FI (Finland), RO/IB (International Bureau), and RO/SE (Sweden)).
Applicants continue to bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the priority document is filed during the pendency of the application and before the patent is issued. Accordingly, applicants are encouraged to check as necessary to confirm receipt by the Office of appropriate documents. Priority documents retrieved from a participating foreign intellectual property office will bear the document description: ‘‘Priority documents electronically retrieved by USPTO from a participating IP Office.’’ Furthermore, 37 CFR
1.55(i)(4) provides that, under specified conditions, if the foreign application was not filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, the applicant can file a request in a separate document that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from a participating intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy. Applicants can use Form PTO/SB/38 (Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application(s)) to file such a request. If the Office receives a copy of the foreign application from the participating foreign intellectual property office within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted, the applicant need not file a certified paper copy of the foreign application. As a specific example, Germany is not currently a participating foreign intellectual property office, however a DE application may be retrieved via the priority document exchange program if it is identified in the claim for priority on the application data sheet, a subsequent application filed in the European Patent Office (EPO) or the Japan Patent Office (JPO) contains a certified copy of the DE application, and the applicant timely files a separate request for the Office to obtain from the EPO or JPO a copy of the certified copy of the DE application, wherein the request identifies the DE application and the subsequent EP or JP application by their application number, country, day, month, and year of their filing.
The Office treats a proper priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55 to an application filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office as a request that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from the participating intellectual property office. A separate written request may be used when the applicant wishes the Office to retrieve a foreign application from a foreign intellectual property office that becomes a participating foreign intellectual property office after the foreign priority has been claimed, so long as the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55(f) has not expired. A separate written request is required in the situation where the foreign application is not originally filed in a participating office, but a certified copy of the foreign application
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-111
§ 215.02(a)TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office.
215.02(b) Timeliness Requirement – Met By Interim Copy of Foreign Application [R-07.2015]
I. TRUE COPY OF FOREIGN APPLICATION AS FILED
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(j) Interim copy. The requirement in paragraph (f) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth therein will be considered satisfied if:
(1) A copy of the original foreign application clearly labeled as "Interim Copy," including the specification, and any drawings or claims upon which it is based, is filed in the Office together with a separate cover sheet identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and stating that the copy filed in the Office is a true copy of the original application as filed in the foreign country (or intellectual property authority);
(2) The copy of the foreign application and separate cover sheet are filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section; and
(3) A certified copy of the foreign application is filed within the period specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
*****
37 CFR 1.55(j) permits an applicant to provide an ‘‘interim copy’’ of the original foreign application from the applicant’s own records to provide for the situation in which the applicant cannot obtain a certified copy of the foreign application within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f), although there is no requirement that an applicant be unable to obtain a certified copy of the foreign application within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f) to use 37 CFR 1.55(j). The requirement for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f) will be considered satisfied if the applicant files a copy of the original foreign application clearly labeled as ‘‘Interim Copy,’’ including the specification, and
any drawings or claims upon which it is based with the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.55(j). 37 CFR 1.55(j) also provides that the interim copy of the foreign application must be filed together with a separate cover sheet identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and stating that the copy filed in the Office is a true copy of the original application as filed in the foreign country (or intellectual property authority). 37 CFR 1.55(i) also provides that the interim copy of the foreign application and cover sheet must be filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application or four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), within four months from the later of the date of commencement (37 CFR 1.491(a)) or the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or (f). 37 CFR 1.55(j) finally provides that a certified copy of the foreign application ultimately must be filed within the period specified in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1). Thus, providing an interim copy of a foreign application under 37 CFR 1.55(j) satisfies the requirement for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f), but a certified copy of the foreign application must still be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e), (f), or (g) as appropriate.
An interim copy of a foreign priority application will be entered into the file wrapper of the application in which it was filed and labeled as “Interim copy of Foreign Priority Document.”
II. FILING INTERIM COPY VIA EFS-WEB
If not provided as a single paper document, the main parts of the interim copy of the foreign priority application, i.e., Abstract, Drawings, Specification, Claims, and where applicable, Sequence Listing or Computer Program Listings, along with the separate cover sheet required by 37 CFR 1.55(j), may be filed as a single PDF file via EFS-Web. The PDF file will be stored in the Image File Wrapper of the application, and applicants must select the document description “Interim Copy of the Foreign Priority
200-112Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 215.02(b)
Application” to index this document when filing online.
Application parts that were filed in a foreign patent office only as plain text computer files (e.g. TXT file), such as a Sequence Listing, lengthy Tables(s), or Computer Program Listing appendix, may be filed as a TXT file via EFS-Web (or on compact disc). When filing online via EFS-Web, applicants must select the document description “Interim Copy of the Foreign Priority (text file)” to index a plain text file part of the application. See MPEP § 502.05 for additional information regarding filing documents via EFS-Web.
215.03 Time For Filing Certified Copy – Application Filed Before March 16, 2013 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 215.02 for information regarding the time for filing a certified copy in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013.]
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(g) Requirement for filing priority claim, certified copy of foreign application, and translation in any application.
(1) The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323.
(2) The Office may require that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application be filed earlier than otherwise provided in this section:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When deemed necessary by the examiner.
(3) An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When specifically required by the examiner.
(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
*****
35 U.S.C. 119(b)(3) authorizes the Office to require the applicant to furnish a certified copy of priority papers. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55, applicants are required to submit the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 before the patent is granted. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. See 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1). Certification by the authority empowered under a bilateral or multilateral treaty to receive applications which give rise to a right of priority under Article 4A(2) of the Paris Convention will be deemed to satisfy the certification requirement. See MPEP § 214.01 for the time period for claiming priority to a foreign application.
If a claim for foreign priority has been made, the latest time at which the certified copy of the foreign application may be filed in order for the patent to include the priority claim without the need for a certificate of correction is the date of the payment of the issue fee. Under certain circumstances, the certified copy may be required at an earlier date. These circumstances are specified in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(2) as:
(A) when the application is involved in an interference or derivation proceeding;
(B) when necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied on by the examiner; and
(C) when specifically required by the examiner.
The claim for foreign priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-113
§ 215.03TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed before the patent is granted. If the claim for foreign priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date of payment of the issue fee but prior to the date of grant of the patent, the priority claim or certified copy will be placed in the file record but there will be no review of the papers and the patent when published will not include the priority claim. A certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 can be filed to have the priority claim or certified copy considered after publication of the patent. In addition, for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), where the priority claim was not timely filed, a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under 37 CFR 1.55(e) must also be filed with the certificate of correction. Furthermore, where the priority claim was timely filed but was not included on the patent because the certified copy was not submitted, a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(f) or, in the case of a design application, a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) must also be filed with the certificate of correction unless the exception in 37 CFR 1.55(h) is applicable. See MPEP § 216.01.
In view of the shortened periods for prosecution leading to allowances, it is recommended that priority papers be filed as early as possible. Although 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1) permits the filing of priority papers up to and including the date for payment of the issue fee, it is advisable that such papers be filed promptly after filing the application. Frequently, priority papers are found to be deficient in material respects, such as for example, the failure to include the correct certified copy, and applicants should ensure that there is sufficient time to remedy any defects. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, where the priority claim is presented in the oath or declaration, a new oath or declaration may be necessary where the original oath or declaration omits the reference to the foreign filing date for which the benefit is claimed. The early filing of priority papers would thus be advantageous to applicants in that it would afford time to explain any inconsistencies that exist or to supply any additional documents that may be necessary. It is important to note that for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be
presented in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(b)(6)).
It is suggested that a pencil notation of the application number of the corresponding U.S. application be placed on the priority papers. Such notation should be placed directly on the priority papers themselves even where a cover letter is attached bearing the U.S. application data. Experience indicates that cover letters and priority papers occasionally become separated, and without the suggested pencil notations on the priority papers, correlating them with the corresponding U.S. application becomes exceedingly difficult, frequently resulting in severe problems for both the Office and applicant. Adherence to the foregoing suggestion for making a pencil notation on the priority document of the U.S. application data will result in a substantial lessening of the problem.
216 Entitlement to Priority [R-07.2015]
When the claim to priority and the certified copy of the foreign application are received while the application is pending before the examiner, the examiner generally makes no examination of the papers except to see that they contain no obvious formal defects and correspond in number, date and country to the application identified in the application data sheet for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, or oath or declaration or application data sheet for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012. In addition, for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than design applications) and international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, the examiner should make sure that the claim for foreign priority is timely. Examiners may use form paragraph 2.21.01 to notify applicant that the foreign priority claim is untimely. See also MPEP § 214.03.
The subject matter of the application is not examined to determine whether the applicant is actually entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date on the basis of the disclosure thereof. The only times during ex parte prosecution that the examiner considers the merits of an applicant’s claim of priority is when a reference is found with an effective date between the date of the foreign filing and the date of filing in the United States and when an interference
200-114Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 216
situation is under consideration. If at the time of making an action the examiner has found such an intervening reference, he or she simply rejects whatever claims may be considered unpatentable thereover, without paying any attention to the priority date (assuming the certified copy of the priority papers has not yet been filed). The applicant in his or her reply may argue the rejection if it is of such a nature that it can be argued, or present the foreign papers for the purpose of overcoming the date of the reference. If the applicant argues the reference, the examiner, in the next action in the application, may specifically require the foreign papers to be filed in addition to repeating the rejection if it is still considered applicable, or he or she may merely continue the rejection.
Form paragraph 2.19 may be used in this instance.
¶ 2.19 Overcome Rejection by Translation
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Examiner Note:
This paragraph should follow a rejection based on an intervening reference.
In those cases where the applicant files the certified copy of the foreign application for the purpose of overcoming the effective date of a reference, a translation is required if the certified copy is not in the English language. When the examiner requires the filing of the certified copy, the translation should also be required at the same time. This translation must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. When the necessary certified copy and translation are filed to overcome the date of the reference, the examiner’s action, if he or she determines that the applicant is not entitled to the priority date, is to repeat the rejection on the reference, stating the reasons why the applicant is not considered entitled to the date. If it is determined that the applicant is entitled to the date, the rejection is withdrawn in view of the priority date.
If the certified copy, and translation if necessary, is already in the file when the examiner finds a
reference with the intervening effective date, the examiner will study the certified copy, if it is in the English language, to determine if the applicant is entitled to the priority date. If the applicant is found to be entitled to the priority date, the reference is not relied upon as prior art, but may be cited to applicant on form PTO-892. If the applicant is found not entitled to the date, the unpatentable claims are rejected on the reference with an explanation. If the certified copy is not in the English language and there is no translation, the examiner may reject the unpatentable claims and at the same time require an English translation for the purpose of determining the applicant’s right to rely on the foreign filing date.
The foreign application may have been filed by and in the name of the assignee or legal representative or agent of the inventor, as applicant. In such cases, if the certified copy of the foreign application corresponds with the one identified in an application data sheet, or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, in an application data sheet or in the oath or declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.63 (see 37 CFR 1.55(n)) and no discrepancies appear, it may be assumed that the nonprovisional application is entitled to claim priority to the foreign application. If the nonprovisional application and the certified copy of the foreign application do not name the same inventor or do not have at least one joint inventor in common, the priority date should be refused until the inconsistency is resolved. See also MPEP § 213.02.
The most important aspect of the examiner’s action pertaining to a right of priority is the determination of the identity of invention between the U.S. and the foreign applications. The foreign application may be considered in the same manner as if it had been filed in this country on the same date that it was filed in the foreign country, and the applicant is ordinarily entitled to any claims based on such foreign application that he or she would be entitled to under U.S. laws and practice. The foreign application must be examined for the question of sufficiency of the disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 as well as to determine if there is a basis for the claims sought.
In applications filed from the United Kingdom there may be submitted a certified copy of the “provisional specification,” which may also in some cases be
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-115
§ 216TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
accompanied by a copy of the “complete specification.” The nature and function of the United Kingdom provisional specification is described in an article in the Journal of the Patent Office Society of November 1936, pages 770-774. According to United Kingdom law the provisional specification need not contain a complete disclosure of the invention in the sense of 35 U.S.C. 112, but need only describe the general nature of the invention, and neither claims nor drawings are required. Consequently, in considering such provisional specifications, the question of completeness of disclosure is important. If it is found that the United Kingdom provisional specification is insufficient for lack of disclosure, reliance may then be had on the complete specification and its date, if one has been presented, the complete specification then being treated as a different application than the provisional specification. In some instances, the specification and drawing of the foreign application may have been filed at a date subsequent to the filing of the petition in the foreign country. Even though the petition is called the application and the filing date of this petition is the filing date of the application in a particular country, the date accorded here is the date on which the specification and drawing were filed.
A nonprovisional application may be found entitled to the filing date of the foreign application with respect to some claims and not with respect to others. In addition, an applicant may rely on two or more different foreign applications and may be entitled to the filing date of one of them with respect to certain claims and to another with respect to other claims.
216.01 Perfecting Claim for Priority Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) After Issuance of a Patent [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 119 Benefit of Earlier Filing Date; Right of Priority.
*****
(b)(1) No application for patent shall be entitled to this right of priority unless a claim is filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number on that foreign application, the intellectual property authority or country in or for which the application was filed, and the date of filing the application, at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.
(2) The Director may consider the failure of the applicant to file a timely claim for priority as a waiver of any such claim. The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under this section.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
*****
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority. *****
(e) Delayed priority claim. Unless such claim is accepted in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) not presented in the manner required by paragraph (d) or (m) of this section during pendency and within the time period provided by paragraph (d) of this section (if applicable) is considered to have been waived. If a claim for priority is considered to have been waived under this section, the claim may be accepted if the priority claim was unintentionally delayed. A petition to accept a delayed claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) must be accompanied by:
(1) The priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b) in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, unless previously submitted;
(2) A certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section applies;
(3) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m); and
(4) A statement that the entire delay between the date the priority claim was due under this section and the date the priority claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
(f) Time for filing certified copy of foreign application—
(1) Application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, in an original application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed on or after March 16, 2013, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section. The time period in this paragraph does not apply in a design application.
200-116Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 216.01
(2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed during the international stage in an international application in which the national stage commenced on or after December 18, 2013, a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section.
(3) If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed within the time period specified [in] paragraph (f)(1) of this section in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or within the period specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, and an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section is not applicable, the certified copy of the foreign application must be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
(g) Requirement for filing priority claim, certified copy of foreign application, and translation in any application.
(1) The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323.
*****
The failure to perfect a claim to foreign priority prior to issuance of the patent may be cured via a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323, provided the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 are met, or by filing a reissue application.
I. PERFECTING PRIORITY CLAIM VIA CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
Effective May 13, 2015, 37 CFR 1.55(g) provides that the claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e), (f), or (g) as appropriate. 37 CFR 1.55(g) eliminates the need in
many instances to file a reissue application in order to perfect a claim for foreign priority. Specifically,
(A) Where the priority claim required under 37 CFR 1.55 was timely filed in the application but was not included on the patent because the requirement under 37 CFR 1.55 for a certified copy was not satisfied, the patent may be corrected to include the priority claim via a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323, accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(f) or, in the case of a design application, a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g). In this situation, a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim is not needed. A grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(f) or (g) must include the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) and a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application; and
(B) Where a priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55 was not timely made, 37 CFR 1.55(g) allows the priority claim and the certified copy required under 37 CFR 1.55 to be filed pursuant to a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) even if the application is not pending (e.g., a patented application).
37 CFR 1.55(h) provides that the requirement for a certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied in an application if a prior-filed nonprovisional application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains a certified copy of the foreign application and the prior-filed nonprovisional application is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application. Thus, applicant may request a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 where the prior-filed nonprovisional application is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application and where the priority claim was timely made in the application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and the certified copy of the foreign application was timely filed in the parent application.
As an example of when a request to issue a certificate of correction may be used in order to perfect a claim to foreign priority benefits, see In re Van Esdonk, 187 USPQ 671 (Comm’r Pat. 1975). In In re Van Esdonk, a claim to foreign priority benefits had not been filed in the application prior
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-117
§ 216.01TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
to issuance of the patent. However, the application was a continuation of an earlier application in which the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Commissioner held that the “applicants’ perfection of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 in the parent application will satisfy the statute with respect to their continuation application.”
Although In re Van Esdonk involved the patent of a continuation application filed under former 37 CFR 1.60, it is proper to apply the holding of that case in similar factual circumstances to any patented application having benefits under 35 U.S.C. 120. This is primarily because a claim to foreign priority benefits in a continuing application, where the claim has been perfected in the parent application, constitutes in essence a mere affirmation of the applicant’s previously expressed desire to receive benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) for subject matter common to the foreign, parent, and continuing applications.
In summary, a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 may be requested and issued in order to perfect a claim for foreign priority benefit in a patent if (1) the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had been satisfied in the patented application or in a parent application prior to issuance of the patent, and (2) the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 are met.
II. PERFECTING PRIORITY CLAIMVIA REISSUE
As an alternative to requesting a certificate of correction, a claim to foreign priority benefits can be perfected by way of a reissue application in accordance with the rationale set forth in Brenner v. State of Israel, 400 F.2d 789, 158 USPQ 584 (D.C. Cir. 1968). In circumstances where a claim to foreign priority benefits cannot be perfected via a certificate of correction because the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) had not been satisfied in the patented application, or its parent, prior to issuance, and the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 are not met, the claim to foreign priority benefits can be perfected only by way of a reissue application. Note that 37 CFR 1.55(h) provides that the requirement for a certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied in a reissue application if the
patent for which reissue is sought satisfies the requirement for a certified copy of the foreign application and such patent is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application.
217 Incorporation by Reference Under 37 CFR 1.57(b) [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.57 Incorporation by reference. *****
(b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, or international application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or § 1.78 shall also be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s).
(1) The application must be amended to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by § 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The applicant is also required to:
(i) Supply a copy of the prior-filed application, except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111;
(ii) Supply an English language translation of any prior-filed application that is in a language other than English; and
(iii) Identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings can be found in the prior-filed application.
(2) Any amendment to an international application pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be effective only as to the United States, and shall have no effect on the international filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international application designating the United States will be acted upon by the Office prior to the entry and commencement of the national stage (§ 1.491) or the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit of the international application. Any omitted portion of the international application which applicant desires to be effective as to all designated States, subject to PCT Rule 20.8(b), must be submitted in accordance with PCT Rule 20.
(3) If an application is not otherwise entitled to a filing date under § 1.53(b), the amendment must be by way of a
200-118Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 217
petition pursuant to § 1.53(e) accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(f).
(4) Any amendment to an international design application pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be effective only as to the United States and shall have no effect on the filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international design application will be acted upon by the Office prior to the international design application becoming a nonprovisional application.
*****
I. IN GENERAL
37 CFR 1.57(b) (formerly 37 CFR 1.57(a)) provides that if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international, or international design application that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim for priority or benefit shall be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings.
The purpose of 37 CFR 1.57(b) is to provide a safeguard for applicants when a page(s) of the specification, or a portion thereof, or a sheet(s) of the drawing(s), or a portion thereof, is (are) inadvertently omitted from an application, such as through a clerical error. It allows inadvertently omitted material to be added to the application by way of a later-filed amendment if the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application even though there is no explicit incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application. For a discussion of explicit incorporation by reference statements, see MPEP § 608.01(p).
II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF 37 CFR 1.57(b)
The following conditions and requirements need to be met for an applicant to add omitted material to an application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b):
(A) the application must have been filed on or after September 21, 2004;
(B) all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) must have been inadvertently omitted from the application;
(C) a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international, or international design application, must have been present on the filing date of the application;
(D) the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) must be completely contained in the prior-filed application;
(E) applicant must file an amendment to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by 37 CFR 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier;
(F) if the application is not otherwise entitled to a filing date, applicant must also file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f);
(G) applicant must supply a copy of the prior-filed application, except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111;
(H) applicant must supply an English language translation of any prior-filed application that is in a language other than English; and
(I) applicant must identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) can be found in the prior-filed application.
A. Application Filed On or After September 21, 2004
The provisions set forth in 37 CFR 1.57(b) became effective on September 21, 2004 and apply to
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-119
§ 217TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
applications filed on or after that date. Thus, an application that inadvertently omits material must have been filed on or after September 21, 2004 in order for 37 CFR 1.57(b) to apply. Applicants may, however, rely on prior-filed applications filed before September 21, 2004 to supply inadvertently omitted material to applications filed on or after September 21, 2004.
B. Material Must Be Inadvertently Omitted
There is no requirement for applicant to submit a declaration stating that the omission was inadvertent or to submit proof that a particular omission was inadvertent at the time of filing of the application. If applicant submits an amendment to add the omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b), it would constitute a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b) that the omission was inadvertent. The Office, however, may inquire as to inadvertence where the record raises such issue.
C. Claim Under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 Present on Filing Date
The priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55 or the benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78 of the prior-filed application must be present on the filing date of the later-filed application in order for it to be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application under 37 CFR 1.57(b). The later-filed application claiming benefit of the prior-filed application can be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application of the prior-filed application.
D. Omitted Material Completely Contained in Prior-filed Application
The phrase “completely contained” in 37 CFR 1.57(b) requires that the material to be added to the later-filed application under 37 CFR 1.57(b) must be expressly, as opposed to implicitly, disclosed in the prior-filed application. Furthermore, the material to be added must be completely contained in the prior-filed application as filed since it is the prior application as filed which is being incorporated under 37 CFR 1.57(b).
E. Amendment to Add Inadvertently Omitted Material
The application must be amended to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined in 37 CFR 1.114(b), or the abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. If the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) mails a “Notice of Omitted Item(s)” indicating that a portion of the specification or drawings have been omitted, any amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b) should be submitted within the two month time period set in the notice and should be identified as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b) and 1.121. See MPEP § 601.01(d) and § 601.01(g). While an amendment to include inadvertently omitted material may be submitted in reply to a final Office action which first raises the issue of the omitted material, such an amendment does not have a right of entry as it would be considered as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.116. If the application is abandoned or the prosecution is closed, applicant may file a petition to revive an application under 37 CFR 1.137 and/or a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, as appropriate, in order to restore the application to pending status and/or reopen prosecution in the application. If, however, an application has been patented, a certificate of correction or a reissue application could not be used to add inadvertently omitted material to that patent via 37 CFR 1.57(b).
In order for the omitted material to be included in the application, and hence considered to be part of the disclosure, the application must be amended to include the omitted portion. Therefore, applicants can still intentionally omit material contained in the prior-filed application from the application containing the priority or benefit claim without the material coming back in by virtue of the incorporation by reference of 37 CFR 1.57(b). Applicants can maintain their intent by simply not amending the application to include the intentionally omitted material.
In addition to filing the amendment to add the inadvertently omitted material, applicant is also required to: (A) supply a copy of the prior-filed
200-120Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 217
application, except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111; (B) supply an English-language translation of any prior-filed application that is in a language other than English; and (C) identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings can be found in the prior-filed application.
F. Petition Requirement
If an application is not otherwise entitled to a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(b), the amendment must be by way of petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f). If OPAP mails a “Notice of Incomplete Application” indicating that the application lacks a specification or drawings, applicant should file a petition under 37 CFR 1.57(b) in response to the notice if applicant wants to rely on 37 CFR 1.57(b). See MPEP § 601.01(d) and § 601.01(f).
G. International Applications
Any amendment to an international application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(1) will be effective only as to the United States and shall have no effect on the international filing date of the application. The incorporation by reference relief provided in 37 CFR 1.57(b) cannot be relied upon to accord an international filing date to an international application that is not otherwise entitled to a filing date under PCT Article 11, and it cannot be relied upon to alter the international filing date accorded under PCT Article 11. In addition, no request to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international application designating the United States will be acted upon by the Office prior to the entry and commencement of the national stage (37 CFR 1.491) or the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit of the international application.
H. International Design Applications
Any amendment to an international design application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b)(1) will be effective only as to the United States and shall have no effect on the filing date of the application. In addition, no request to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an
international design application will be acted upon by the Office prior to the international design application becoming a nonprovisional application.
III. EXAMPLES
Example 1:
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) noticed that Figure 3 was omitted from the application during the initial review of the application although the specification included a description of Figure 3. The application as originally filed contained a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed application that included the appropriate Figure 3. OPAP mailed a Notice of Omitted Item(s) notifying the applicant of the omission of Figure 3 and providing a two-month period for reply.
Applicant may rely on the incorporation by reference provided by 37 CFR 1.57(b) to amend the application to add Figure 3. Applicant, however, must file the amendment to add the inadvertently omitted drawing figure in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b) within the time period set forth in the Notice of Omitted Item(s).
Example 2:
Applicant discovered that the last page of the specification is inadvertently omitted after the prosecution of the application has been closed (e.g., a final Office action, an Ex Parte Quayle action, or a notice of allowance has been mailed to the applicant). The application, as originally filed, contained a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed application that included the last page of the specification.
If applicant wishes to amend the specification to include the inadvertently omitted material, applicant must reopen the prosecution by filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 accompanied by the appropriate fee and an amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b) within the time period for reply set forth in the last Office action (e.g., prior to payment of the issue fee, unless applicant also files a petition to withdraw the application from issue).
Example 3:
Applicant filed a (third) application that includes a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a (second) prior-filed application and a (first) prior-filed application. The second application was a continuation application of the first application and the second application was abandoned after the filing of the third application. Subsequently, the applicant discovered the last page of the specification was inadvertently omitted from the third application and the second application.
If the benefit of the filing date of first application for the omitted subject matter is required (for example, the omitted material is required to provide support for the claimed subject matter of the third application and there is an intervening reference that has a prior art date prior to the filing date of the third application,
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015200-121
§ 217TYPES, CROSS-NOTING, AND STATUS OF APPLICATION
but after the filing date of the first application), applicant must amend the specification of the second application and the specification of the third application to include the inadvertently omitted material in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b) (note: the second and third applications must be filed on or after September 21, 2004. Since the second application is abandoned, applicant must file a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 in the second application only for the purpose of correcting the specification under 37 CFR 1.57(b) along with the amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b).
IV. FORM PARAGRAPHS
Examiners may use form paragraph 6.19.02 set forth below to notify applicant that an amendment to add inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b) is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b). If the amendment is made to the specification and/or drawings and introduces new matter into the disclosure, form paragraph 7.28 must also be used to object to the new matter added to the disclosure, and if the amendment adds new matter to the claims or affects the claims, form paragraph 7.31.01 must also be used to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
¶ 6.19.02 Amendment Not in Compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b)
The amendment to add inadvertently omitted material pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b) filed [1] is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b) because [2].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the date the amendment was filed.
2. In bracket 2, insert the reason why the amendment has not been entered. For example: (1) the present application was filed before September 21, 2004, the effective date of the provisions now in 37 CFR 1.57(b) (the provisions were formerly in 37 CFR 1.57(a)); (2) the claim for priority/benefit of the prior-filed application was not present on the filing date of the present application; (3) the inadvertently omitted portion is not completely contained in the prior-filed application; (4) a copy of the prior-filed application (except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111) was not submitted; (5) an English language translation of the prior-filed non-English language application was not submitted; or (6) applicant did not identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings can be found in the prior-filed application.
3. This form paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 7.28, where the amendment is made to the specification and/or drawings and introduces new matter into the disclosure, and/or form paragraph 7.31.01, where the amendment adds new matter to the claims or affects the claims.
4. If the amendment is an after-final amendment, an advisory action should be issued indicating that the amendment raises new issues because it is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b).
5. This form paragraph should not be used if there is an express incorporation by reference since applicant would not need to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b).
200-122Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 217
Chapter 300 Ownership and Assignment
Ownership/Assignability of Patents and Applications
301
Accessibility of Assignment Records301.01 Recording of Assignment Documents302
Assignment Document Must Be Copy for Recording
302.01
Translation of Assignment Document302.02 Identifying Patent or Application302.03 Foreign Assignee May Designate Domestic Representative
302.04
Address of Assignee302.05 Fee for Recording302.06 Assignment Document Must Be Accompanied by a Cover Sheet
302.07
Mailing Address for Submitting Assignment Documents
302.08
Facsimile Submission of Assignment Documents
302.09
Electronic Submission of Assignment Documents
302.10
Assignment Documents Not Endorsed on Pending Applications
303
[Reserved]304-305 Assignment of Division, Continuation, Substitute, and Continuation-in-Part in Relation to Parent Application
306
Assignment of an Application Claiming the Benefits of a Provisional Application
306.01
Issue to Non-Applicant Assignee307 Issue to Applicant308 Restrictions Upon Employees of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
309
Government License Rights to Contractor-Owned Inventions Made
310
Under Federally Sponsored Research and Development Filing of Notice of Arbitration Awards311 [Reserved]312 Recording of Licenses, Security Interests, and Documents Other Than Assignments
313
Certificates of Change of Name or of Merger
314
Indexing Against a Recorded Certificate
315
[Reserved]316 Handling of Documents in the Assignment Division
317
Recording Date317.01
Correction of Unrecorded Returned Documents and Cover Sheets
317.02
Effect of Recording317.03 Documents Not to be Placed in Files318 [Reserved]319 Title Reports320 [Reserved]321-322 Procedures for Correcting Errors in Recorded Assignment Document
323
Correction of Error in Recorded Cover Sheet
323.01
Typographical Errors in Cover Sheet
323.01(a)
Typographical Errors in Recorded Assignment Document
323.01(b)
Assignment or Change of Name Improperly Filed and Recorded
323.01(c)
by Another Person Against Owner’s Application or Patent Expungement of Assignment Records
323.01(d)
Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
324
Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012
325
301 Ownership/Assignability of Patents and Applications [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 261 Ownership; assignment.
Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property. The Patent and Trademark Office shall maintain a register of interests in patents and applications for patents and shall record any document related thereto upon request, and may require a fee therefor.
Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.
A certificate of acknowledgment under the hand and official seal of a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States, or, in a foreign country, of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States or an officer authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-1
United States, shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of an assignment, grant, or conveyance of a patent or application for patent.
An interest that constitutes an assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.
35 U.S.C. 262 Joint owners.
In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.
37 CFR 3.1 Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
Application means a national application for patent, an international patent application that designates the United States of America, an international design application that designates the United States of America, or an application to register a trademark under section 1 or 44 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 or 15 U.S.C. 1126, unless otherwise indicated.
Assignment means a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent, patent application, registered mark or a mark for which an application to register has been filed.
Document means a document which a party requests to be recorded in the Office pursuant to § 3.11 and which affects some interest in an application, patent, or registration.
Office means the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Recorded document means a document which has been recorded in the Office pursuant to § 3.11.
Registration means a trademark registration issued by the Office.
I. OWNERSHIP
Ownership of a patent gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the United States the invention claimed in the patent. 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1). Ownership of the patent does not furnish the owner with the right to make, use, offer for sale,
sell, or import the claimed invention because there may be other legal considerations precluding same (e.g., existence of another patent owner with a dominant patent, failure to obtain FDA approval of the patented invention, an injunction by a court against making the product of the invention, or a national security related issue).
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the original applicant is presumed to be the initial owner of an application for an original patent. See 37 CFR 3.73(a). For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the ownership of the patent (or the application for the patent) initially vests in the named inventors of the invention of the patent. See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp., 990 F.2d 1237, 1248, 26 USPQ2d 1572, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A patent or patent application is assignable by an instrument in writing, and the assignment of the patent, or patent application, transfers to the assignee(s) an alienable (transferable) ownership interest in the patent or application. 35 U.S.C. 261.
II. ASSIGNMENT
“Assignment,” in general, is the act of transferring to another the ownership of one’s property, i.e., the interest and rights to the property. In 37 CFR 3.1, assignment of patent rights is defined as “a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent [or] patent application....” An assignment of a patent, or patent application, is the transfer to another of a party’s entire ownership interest or a percentage of that party’s ownership interest in the patent or application. In order for an assignment to take place, the transfer to another must include the entirety of the bundle of rights that is associated with the ownership interest, i.e., all of the bundle of rights that are inherent in the right, title and interest in the patent or patent application.
III. LICENSING
As compared to assignment of patent rights, the licensing of a patent transfers a bundle of rights which is less than the entire ownership interest, e.g., rights that may be limited as to time, geographical area, or field of use. A patent license is, in effect, a contractual agreement that the patent owner will not sue the licensee for patent infringement if the
300-2Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 301
licensee makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, or imports the claimed invention, as long as the licensee fulfills its obligations and operates within the bounds delineated by the license agreement.
An exclusive license may be granted by the patent owner to a licensee. The exclusive license prevents the patent owner (or any other party to whom the patent owner might wish to sell a license) from competing with the exclusive licensee, as to the geographic region, the length of time, and/or the field of use, set forth in the license agreement.
A license is not an assignment of the patent. Even if the license is an exclusive license, it is not an assignment of patent rights in the patent or application.
IV. INDIVIDUAL AND JOINT OWNERSHIP
Individual ownership - An individual entity may own the entire right, title and interest of the patent property. This occurs where there is only one inventor, and the inventor has not assigned the patent property. Alternatively, it occurs where all parties having ownership interest (all inventors and assignees) assign the patent property to one party.
Joint ownership - Multiple parties may together own the entire right, title and interest of the patent property. This occurs when any of the following cases exist:
(A) Multiple partial assignees of the patent property;
(B) Multiple inventors who have not assigned their right, title and interest; or
(C) A combination of partial assignee(s), and inventor(s) who have not assigned their right, title and interest.
Each individual inventor may only assign the interest he or she holds; thus, assignment by one joint inventor renders the assignee a partial assignee. A partial assignee likewise may only assign the interest it holds; thus, assignment by a partial assignee renders a subsequent assignee a partial assignee. All parties having any portion of the ownership in the patent property must act together as a composite entity in patent matters before the Office.
V. MAKING THE ASSIGNMENT OF RECORD
An assignment can be made of record in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) in two different ways, for two different purposes. The differences are important to note:
(A) An assignment can be made of record in the assignment records of the Office as provided for in 37 CFR Part 3. Recordation of the assignment provides legal notice to the public of the assignment. It should be noted that recording of the assignment is merely a ministerial act; it is not an Office determination of the validity of the assignment document or the effect of the assignment document on the ownership of the patent property. See 37 CFR 3.54 and MPEP § 317.03. For a patent to issue to an assignee, the assignment must have been recorded or filed for recordation in accordance with 37 CFR 3.11. See 37 CFR 3.81(a).
(B) An assignment can be made of record in the file of a patent application, patent, or other patent proceeding (e.g., reexamination proceeding). This step may be necessary to permit the assignee to “take action” in the application, patent, or other patent proceeding under the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.46 and 37 CFR 3.81(a) and MPEP § 325 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or under the conditions set forth in pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73 and MPEP § 324 (for applications filed before September 16, 2012). Recordation of an assignment in the assignment records of the Office does not, by itself, permit the assignee to take action in the application, patent, or other patent proceeding.
Additionally, for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012, an assignment may contain the statements required to be made in an oath or declaration (“assignment-statement”), and if the assignment is made of record in the assignment records of the Office, then the assignment may be utilized as the oath or declaration. See 35 U.S.C. 115(e), 37 CFR 1.63(e), and MPEP §§ 302.07, 317, and MPEP § 602.01(a).
301.01 Accessibility of Assignment Records [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.12 Assignment records open to public inspection.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-3
§ 301.01OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
(a)(1) Separate assignment records are maintained in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for patents and trademarks. The assignment records, relating to original or reissue patents, including digests and indexes (for assignments recorded on or after May 1, 1957), and published patent applications are open to public inspection at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and copies of patent assignment records may be obtained upon request and payment of the fee set forth in § 1.19 of this chapter. See § 2.200 of this chapter regarding trademark assignment records.
(2) All records of assignments of patents recorded before May 1, 1957, are maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The records are open to public inspection. Certified and uncertified copies of those assignment records are provided by NARA upon request and payment of the fees required by NARA.
(b) Assignment records, digests, and indexes relating to any pending or abandoned patent application, which is open to the public pursuant to § 1.11 or for which copies or access may be supplied pursuant to § 1.14, are available to the public. Copies of any assignment records, digests, and indexes that are not available to the public shall be obtainable only upon written authority of an inventor, the applicant, the assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest, or a patent practitioner of record, or upon a showing that the person seeking such information is a bona fide prospective or actual purchaser, mortgagee, or licensee of such application, unless it shall be necessary to the proper conduct of business before the Office or as provided in this part.
(c) Any request by a member of the public seeking copies of any assignment records of any pending or abandoned patent application preserved in confidence under § 1.14, or any information with respect thereto, must:
(1) Be in the form of a petition including the fee set forth in § 1.17(g); or
(2) Include written authority granting access to the member of the public to the particular assignment records from an inventor, the applicant, the assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest, or a patent practitioner of record.
(d) An order for a copy of an assignment or other document should identify the reel and frame number where the assignment or document is recorded. If a document is identified without specifying its correct reel and frame, an extra charge as set forth in § 1.21(j) will be made for the time consumed in making a search for such assignment.
Assignment documents relating to patents, published patent applications, registrations of trademarks, and applications for registration of trademarks are open to public inspection. Records related to assignments of patents, and patent applications that have been published as patent application publications are available on the USPTO website. To view the recorded assignment document itself, members of
the public must place an order pursuant to 37 CFR 1.12(d).
The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open. Thus, if a document covers either a trademark or a patent in addition to one or more patent applications, it will be available to the public ab initio; and if it covers a number of patent applications, it will be so available as soon as any one of them is published or patented. Documents relating only to one or more pending applications for patent which have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) will not be open to public inspection.
Copies of assignment records relating to pending or abandoned patent applications which are open to the public pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or for which copies or access may be supplied pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14 are available to the public. For pending or abandoned applications which are not open to the public pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or for which copies or access may not be supplied pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14, information related thereto is only obtainable upon a proper showing of written authority. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the written authority must be from (A) an inventor, (B) the applicant, (C) the assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest, (D) a patent practitioner of record, or (E) a person with written authority from (A), (B), or (C) or (D). See 37 CFR 1.12. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the written authority must be from the applicant or applicant’s assignee or from the attorney or agent of either, or upon a showing that the person seeking such information is a bona fide prospective or actual purchaser, mortgagee, or licensee of such application. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.12.
If the application on which a patent was granted is a division, continuation, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the assignment records of that earlier application will be open to public inspection because copies or access may be supplied to the earlier application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14.
300-4Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 301.01
Assignment records relating to reissue applications are open to public inspection because reissue applications are open to public inspection pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11(b).
Requests for abstracts of title for assignments of patents recorded after May 1, 1957, are provided by the Certification Division upon request and payment of fee required in 37 CFR 1.19. Requests for copies of pre-1957 records for patents should be directed to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Since these records are maintained by NARA, it is more expeditious to request copies directly from NARA, rather than from the Office, which would then have to route the requests to NARA. Payment of the fees required by NARA should accompany all requests for copies.
All assignment records from 1837 to April 30, 1957 for patents are now maintained and are open for public inspection in the National Archives Research Room located at the Washington National Records Center Building, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746. Assignment documents recorded before 1837 are maintained at the Civilian Records Division of the National Archives at College Park, 8601Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001.
302 Recording of Assignment Documents [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 3.11 Documents which will be recorded.
(a) Assignments of applications, patents, and registrations, and other documents relating to interests in patent applications and patents, accompanied by completed cover sheets as specified in § 3.28 and § 3.31, will be recorded in the Office. Other documents, accompanied by completed cover sheets as specified in § 3.28 and § 3.31, affecting title to applications, patents, or registrations, will be recorded as provided in this part or at the discretion of the Director.
(b) Executive Order 9424 of February 18, 1944 (9 FR 1959, 3 CFR 1943-1948 Comp., p. 303) requires the several departments and other executive agencies of the Government, including Government-owned or Government-controlled corporations, to forward promptly to the Director for recording all licenses, assignments, or other interests of the Government in or under patents or patent applications. Assignments and other documents affecting title to patents or patent applications and documents not affecting title to patents or patent applications required by Executive Order 9424 to be filed will be recorded as provided in this part.
(c) A joint research agreement or an excerpt of a joint research agreement will also be recorded as provided in this part.
37 CFR 3.58 Governmental registers.
(a) The Office will maintain a Departmental Register to record governmental interests required to be recorded by Executive Order 9424. This Departmental Register will not be open to public inspection but will be available for examination and inspection by duly authorized representatives of the Government. Governmental interests recorded on the Departmental Register will be available for public inspection as provided in § 1.12.
(b) The Office will maintain a Secret Register to record governmental interests required to be recorded by Executive Order 9424. Any instrument to be recorded will be placed on this Secret Register at the request of the department or agency submitting the same. No information will be given concerning any instrument in such record or register, and no examination or inspection thereof or of the index thereto will be permitted, except on the written authority of the head of the department or agency which submitted the instrument and requested secrecy, and the approval of such authority by the Director. No instrument or record other than the one specified may be examined, and the examination must take place in the presence of a designated official of the Patent and Trademark Office. When the department or agency which submitted an instrument no longer requires secrecy with respect to that instrument, it must be recorded anew in the Departmental Register.
37 CFR Part 3 sets forth Office rules on recording assignments and other documents relating to interests in patent applications and patents and the rights of an assignee.
37 CFR 3.11(c) provides that the Office will record a joint research agreement or an excerpt of a joint research agreement.
302.01 Assignment Document Must Be Copy for Recording [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 3.24 Requirements for documents and cover sheets relating to patents and patent applications.
(a) For electronic submissions: Either a copy of the original document or an extract of the original document may be submitted for recording. All documents must be submitted as digitized images in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) or another form as prescribed by the Director. When printed to a paper size of either 21.6 by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 inches by 11 inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4), the document must be legible and a 2.5 cm (one-inch) margin must be present on all sides.
(b) For paper or facsimile submissions: Either a copy of the original document or an extract of the original document must be submitted for recording. Only one side of each page
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-5
§ 302.01OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
may be used. The paper size must be either 21.6 by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 inches by 11 inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4), and in either case, a 2.5 cm (one-inch) margin must be present on all sides. For paper submissions, the paper used should be flexible, strong white, non-shiny, and durable. The Office will not return recorded documents, so original documents must not be submitted for recording.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office will accept and record only a copy of an original assignment or other document. See MPEP § 317. The document submitted for recordation will not be returned to the submitter. If the copy submitted for recordation is illegible, the recorded document will be illegible. Accordingly, applicants and patent owners should ensure that only a legible copy is submitted for recordation.
302.02 Translation of Assignment Document [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 3.26 English language requirement.
The Office will accept and record non-English language documents only if accompanied by an English translation signed by the individual making the translation.
The assignment document, if not in the English language, will not be recorded unless accompanied by an English translation signed by the translator.
302.03 Identifying Patent or Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 3.21 Identification of patents and patent applications.
An assignment relating to a patent must identify the patent by the patent number. An assignment relating to a national patent application must identify the national patent application by the application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number; e.g., 07/123,456). An assignment relating to an international patent application which designates the United States of America must identify the international application by the international application number; e.g., PCT/US2012/012345. An assignment relating to an international design application which designates the United States of America must identify the international design application by the international registration number or by the U.S. application number assigned to the international design application. If an assignment of a patent application filed under § 1.53(b) of this chapter is executed concurrently with, or subsequent to, the execution of the patent application, but before the patent application is filed, it must identify the patent application by the name of each inventor and the title of the invention so that there can be no mistake as to the patent application intended. If an assignment
of a provisional application under § 1.53(c) of this chapter is executed before the provisional application is filed, it must identify the provisional application by the name of each inventor and the title of the invention so that there can be no mistake as to the provisional application intended.
The patent or patent application to which an assignment relates must be identified by patent number or application number unless the assignment is executed concurrently with or subsequent to the execution of the application but before the application is filed. Then, the application must be identified by the name(s) of the inventors, and the title of the invention. If an assignment of a provisional application is executed before the provisional application is filed, it must identify the provisional application by name(s) of the inventors and the title of the invention.
The Office makes every effort to provide applicants with the application numbers for newly filed patent applications as soon as possible. It is suggested, however, that an assignment be written to allow entry of the identifying number after the execution of the assignment. An example of acceptable wording is:
“I hereby authorize and request my attorney, (Insert name), of (Insert address), to insert here in parentheses (Application number , filed ) the filing date and application number of said application when known.”
302.04 Foreign Assignee May Designate Domestic Representative [R-11.2013]
35 U.S.C. 293 Nonresident patentee; service and notice.
Every patentee not residing in the United States may file in the Patent and Trademark Office a written designation stating the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the patent or rights thereunder. If the person designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, or if no person has been designated, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia shall have jurisdiction and summons shall be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The court shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting the patent or rights thereunder that it would have if the patentee were personally within the jurisdiction of the court.
37 CFR 3.61 Domestic representative.
300-6Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 302.02
If the assignee of a patent, patent application, trademark application or trademark registration is not domiciled in the United States, the assignee may designate a domestic representative in a document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The designation should state the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the application, patent or registration or rights thereunder.
An assignee of a patent or patent application who is not domiciled in the United States may, by written document signed by such assignee, designate a domestic representative. The designation of domestic representative should always be a paper separate from any assignment document, in order that the paper of designation can be retained in the appropriate application or patent file. Also, there should be a separate paper of designation of representative for each patent or application, so that a designation paper can be placed in each file. The designation of a domestic representative should be directed to the Office of Public Records for processing.
302.05 Address of Assignee [R-08.2012]
The address of the assignee may be recited in the assignment document and must be given in the required cover sheet. See MPEP § 302.07.
302.06 Fee for Recording [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 3.41 Recording fees.
(a) All requests to record documents must be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a fee is required for each application, patent and registration against which the document is recorded as identified in the cover sheet. The recording fee is set in § 1.21(h) of this chapter for patents and in § 2.6(b)(6) of this chapter for trademarks.
(b) No fee is required for each patent application and patent against which a document required by Executive Order 9424 is to be filed if:
(1) The document does not affect title and is so identified in the cover sheet (see § 3.31(c)(2)); and
(2) The document and cover sheet are either: Faxed or electronically submitted as prescribed by the Director, or mailed to the Office in compliance with § 3.27.
The recording fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.21(h) is charged for each patent application and patent identified in the required cover sheet except as provided in 37 CFR 3.41(b).
302.07 Assignment Document Must Be Accompanied by a Cover Sheet [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 3.28 Requests for recording.
Each document submitted to the Office for recording must include a single cover sheet (as specified in § 3.31) referring either to those patent applications and patents, or to those trademark applications and registrations, against which the document is to be recorded. If a document to be recorded includes interests in, or transactions involving, both patents and trademarks, then separate patent and trademark cover sheets, each accompanied by a copy of the document to be recorded, must be submitted. If a document to be recorded is not accompanied by a completed cover sheet, the document and the incomplete cover sheet will be returned pursuant to § 3.51 for proper completion, in which case the document and a completed cover sheet should be resubmitted.
37 CFR 3.31 Cover sheet content.
(a) Each patent or trademark cover sheet required by § 3.28 must contain:
(1) The name of the party conveying the interest;
(2) The name and address of the party receiving the interest;
(3) A description of the interest conveyed or transaction to be recorded;
(4) Identification of the interests involved:
(i) For trademark assignments and trademark name changes: Each trademark registration number and each trademark application number, if known, against which the Office is to record the document. If the trademark application number is not known, a copy of the application or a reproduction of the trademark must be submitted, along with an estimate of the date that the Office received the application; or
(ii) For any other document affecting title to a trademark or patent application, registration or patent: Each trademark or patent application number or each trademark registration number or patent against which the document is to be recorded, or an indication that the document is filed together with a patent application;
(5) The name and address of the party to whom correspondence concerning the request to record the document should be mailed;
(6) The date the document was executed;
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-7
§ 302.07OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
(7) The signature of the party submitting the document. For an assignment document or name change filed electronically, the person who signs the cover sheet must either:
(i) Place a symbol comprised of letters, numbers, and/or punctuation marks between forward slash marks ( e.g. /Thomas O’Malley III/) in the signature block on the electronic submission; or
(ii) Sign the cover sheet using some other form of electronic signature specified by the Director.
(8) For trademark assignments, the entity and citizenship of the party receiving the interest. In addition, if the party receiving the interest is a domestic partnership or domestic joint venture, the cover sheet must set forth the names, legal entities, and national citizenship (or the state or country of organization) of all general partners or active members that compose the partnership or joint venture.
(b) A cover sheet should not refer to both patents and trademarks, since any information, including information about pending patent applications, submitted with a request for recordation of a document against a trademark application or trademark registration will become public record upon recordation.
(c) Each patent cover sheet required by § 3.28 seeking to record a governmental interest as provided by § 3.11(b) must:
(1) Indicate that the document relates to a Government interest; and
(2) Indicate, if applicable, that the document to be recorded is not a document affecting title (see § 3.41(b)).
(d) Each trademark cover sheet required by § 3.28 seeking to record a document against a trademark application or registration should include, in addition to the serial number or registration number of the trademark, identification of the trademark or a description of the trademark, against which the Office is to record the document.
(e) Each patent or trademark cover sheet required by § 3.28 should contain the number of applications, patents or registrations identified in the cover sheet and the total fee.
(f) Each trademark cover sheet should include the citizenship of the party conveying the interest.
(g) The cover sheet required by § 3.28 seeking to record a joint research agreement or an excerpt of a joint research agreement as provided by § 3.11(c) must:
(1) Identify the document as a “joint research agreement” (in the space provided for the description of the interest conveyed or transaction to be recorded if using an Office-provided form);
(2) Indicate the name of the owner of the application or patent (in the space provided for the name and address of the party receiving the interest if using an Office-provided form);
(3) Indicate the name of each other party to the joint research agreement party (in the space provided for the name of the party conveying the interest if using an Office-provided form); and
(4) Indicate the date the joint research agreement was executed.
(h) The assignment cover sheet required by § 3.28 for a patent application or patent will be satisfied by the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Applicant or Owner Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of a License/ Cancellation of the Recordation of a License Form, Patent Law Treaty Model Certificate of Transfer Form or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of a Security Interest/ Cancellation of the Recordation of a Security Interest Form, as applicable, except where the assignment is also an oath or declaration under § 1.63 of this chapter. An assignment cover sheet required by § 3.28 must contain a conspicuous indication of an intent to utilize the assignment as an oath or declaration under § 1.63 of this chapter.
Each assignment document submitted to the Office for recording must be accompanied by a cover sheet as required by 37 CFR 3.28. The cover sheet for patents or patent applications must contain:
(A) The name of the party conveying the interest;
(B) The name and address of the party receiving the interest;
(C) A description of the interest conveyed or transaction to be recorded;
(D) Each patent application number or patent number against which the document is to be recorded, or an indication that the document is filed together with a patent application;
(E) The name and address of the party to whom correspondence concerning the request to record the document should be mailed;
(F) The date the document was executed; and
(G) The signature of the party submitting the document.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, if the assignment document is also intended to serve as the required oath or declaration, the cover sheet must also contain a conspicuous indication of an intent to utilize the assignment as the required oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. See 37 CFR 3.31(h).
If the document submitted for recordation is a joint research agreement or an excerpt of a joint research
300-8Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 302.07
agreement, the cover sheet must clearly identify the document as a “joint research agreement” (in the space provided for the description of the interest conveyed if using Form PTO-1595). The date the joint research agreement was executed must also be identified. The cover sheet must also identify the name(s) of the owner(s) of the application or patent (in the space provided for the name and address of the party receiving the interest if using Form PTO-1595). The name(s) of every other party(ies) to the joint research agreement must also be identified (in the space provided for the name of the party conveying the interest if using Form PTO-1595).
Each patent cover sheet should contain the number of patent applications or patents identified in the cover sheet and the total fee.
Examples of the type of descriptions of the interest conveyed or transaction to be recorded that can be identified are:
(A) assignment;
(B) security agreement;
(C) merger;
(D) change of name;
(E) license;
(F) foreclosure;
(G) lien;
(H) contract; and
(I) joint research agreement.
Cover sheets required by 37 CFR 3.28 seeking to record a governmental interest must also (1) indicate that the document relates to a governmental interest and (2) indicate, if applicable, that the document to be recorded is not a document affecting title.
A patent cover sheet may not refer to trademark applications or registrations.
Form PTO-1595, Recordation Form Cover Sheet, may be used as the cover sheet for recording documents relating to patent(s) and/or patent application(s) in the Office.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-9
§ 302.07OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
300-10Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 302.07
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-11
§ 302.07OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
300-12Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 302.07
302.08 Mailing Address for Submitting Assignment Documents [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 3.27 Mailing address for submitting documents to be recorded.
Documents and cover sheets submitted by mail for recordation should be addressed to Mail Stop Assignment Recordation Services, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450, unless they are filed together with new applications.
37 CFR 3.27 sets out how documents submitted for recording should be addressed to the Office. In order to ensure prompt and proper processing, documents and their cover sheets should be addressed to the Mail Stop Assignment Recordation Services, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, unless they are filed together with new applications. Requests for recording documents which accompany new applications should be addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
302.09 Facsimile Submission of Assignment Documents [R-11.2013]
Assignments and other documents affecting title may be submitted to the Office via facsimile (fax). See the USPTO website or MPEP § 1730 for the facsimile number. This process allows customers to submit their documents directly into the automated Patent and Trademark Assignment System and receive the resulting recordation notice at their fax machine. The customer’s fax machine should be connected to a dedicated line because recordation notices will be returned automatically to the sending fax number through the Patent and Trademark Assignment System. If the Office system is unable to complete transmission of the recordation notice, the notice will be printed and mailed to the sender by U.S. Postal Service first class mail. Recorded documents will not be returned with the “Notice of Recordation.”
Any assignment-related document for patent matters submitted by facsimile must include:
(A) an identified application or patent number;
(B) one cover sheet to record a single transaction; and
(C) payment of the recordation fee by a credit card (use of the Credit Card form, PTO-2038 (see MPEP § 509), is required for the credit card information to be kept separate from the assignment records) or a USPTO Deposit Account.
The following documents cannot be submitted via facsimile:
(A) Assignments submitted concurrently with newly filed patent applications;
(B) Documents with two or more cover sheets (e.g., a single document with one cover sheet to record an assignment, and a separate cover sheet to record separately a license relating to the same property); and
(C) Requests for “at cost” recordation services.
The date of receipt accorded to an assignment document sent to the Office by facsimile transmission is the date the complete transmission is received in the Office. See MPEP § 502.01. The benefits of a certificate of transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 are available.
If a document submitted by fax is determined not to be recordable, the entire document, with its associated cover sheet, and the Office “Notice of Non-Recordation” will be transmitted via fax back to the sender. Once corrections are made, the initial submission, amended, may then be resubmitted by mailing the corrected submission to the address set forth in 37 CFR 3.27. Timely resubmission will provide the sender with the benefit of the initial receipt date as the recordation date in accordance with 37 CFR 3.51.
The Patent and Trademark Assignment System assigns reel and frame numbers and superimposes recordation stampings on the processed and stored electronic images. Accordingly, copies of all recorded documents will have the reel and frame numbers and recordation stampings.
302.10 Electronic Submission of Assignment Documents [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 3.31 Cover sheet content.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-13
§ 302.10OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
(a) *****
(7) The signature of the party submitting the document. For an assignment document or name change filed electronically, the person who signs the cover sheet must either:
(i) Place a symbol comprised of letters, numbers, and/or punctuation marks between forward slash marks ( e.g. /Thomas O’ Malley III/) in the signature block on the electronic submission; or
(ii) Sign the cover sheet using some other form of electronic signature specified by the Director.
*****
37 CFR 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature requirements.
*****
(d) *****
(2) S-signature. An S-signature is a signature inserted between forward slash marks, but not a handwritten signature as defined by paragraph (d)(1) of this section. An S-signature includes any signature made by electronic or mechanical means, and any other mode of making or applying a signature other than a handwritten signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Correspondence being filed in the Office in paper, by facsimile transmission as provided in § 1.6(d), or via the Office electronic filing system as an attachment as provided in § 1.6(a)(4), for a patent application, patent, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding may be S-signature signed instead of being personally signed ( i.e., with a handwritten signature) as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The requirements for an S-signature under this paragraph (d)(2) of this section are as follows.
(i) The S-signature must consist only of letters, or Arabic numerals, or both, with appropriate spaces and commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens for punctuation, and the person signing the correspondence must insert his or her own S-signature with a first single forward slash mark before, and a second single forward slash mark after, the S-signature ( e.g., /Dr. James T. Jones, Jr./); and
(ii) A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1)), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.
(iii) The signer’s name must be:
(A) Presented in printed or typed form preferably immediately below or adjacent the S-signature, and
(B) Reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized.
(3) Electronically submitted correspondence. Correspondence permitted via the Office electronic filing system may be signed by a graphic representation of a handwritten signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section or a graphic representation of an S-signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(2) of this section when it is submitted via the Office electronic filing system.
(4) Certifications—
(i) Certification as to the paper presented. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this subchapter. Violations of § 11.18(b)(2) of this subchapter by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) of this subchapter. Any practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this subchapter may also be subject to disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) of this subchapter.
(ii) Certification as to the signature. The person inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section in a document submitted to the Office certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is his or her own signature. A person submitting a document signed by another under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the person whose signature is present on the document was actually inserted by that person, and should retain evidence of authenticity of the signature. Violations of the certification as to the signature of another or a person’s own signature as set forth in this paragraph may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) and (d) of this chapter.
(5) Forms. The Office provides forms for the public to use in certain situations to assist in the filing of correspondence for a certain purpose and to meet certain requirements for patent applications and proceedings. Use of the forms for purposes for which they were not designed is prohibited. No changes to certification statements on the Office forms (e.g., oath or declaration forms, terminal disclaimer forms, petition forms, and nonpublication request forms) may be made. The existing text of a form, other than a certification statement, may be modified, deleted, or added to, if all text identifying the form as an Office form is removed. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any Office form with text identifying the form as an Office form by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this chapter that the existing text and any certification statements on the form have not been altered other than permitted by EFS-Web customization.
*****
Assignments and other documents affecting title may be submitted to the Office via the Office’s Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS). See
300-14Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 302.10
the USPTO website at http://epas.uspto.gov for additional information regarding EPAS.
Any assignment related document submitted by EPAS must include:
(A) an identified application or patent number;
(B) one cover sheet to record a single transaction which cover sheet is to be completed on-line; and
(C) payment of the recordation fee by a credit card (use of the Credit Card form, PTO-2038 (see MPEP § 509), is required for the credit card information to be kept separate from the assignment records), electronic fund transfer (EFT) or a USPTO Deposit Account.
For an assignment document filed electronically, the signature of the person who signs the cover sheet must comply with 37 CFR 3.31(a)(7) or 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2).
The date of receipt accorded to an assignment document sent to the Office by EPAS is the date the complete transmission is received in the Office.
If a document submitted by EPAS is determined not to be recordable, the entire document, with its associated cover sheet, and the Office "Notice of Non-Recordation" will be transmitted via fax back to the sender. Once corrections are made, the initial submission, as amended, may then be resubmitted by mailing the corrected submission to the address set forth in 37 CFR 3.27. Timely submission will provide the sender with the benefit of the initial receipt date as the recordation date in accordance with 37 CFR 3.51.
The Patent and Trademark Assignment System assigns reel and frame numbers and superimposes recordation stampings on the processed and stored electronic images. Accordingly, copies of all recorded documents will have the reel and frame numbers and recordation stampings.
303 Assignment Documents Not Endorsed on Pending Applications [R-08.2012]
Certified copies of patent applications as filed do not include an indication of assignment documents.
Applicants desiring an indication of assignment documents of record should request separately certified copies of assignment documents and submit the fees required by 37 CFR 1.19.
When the assignment condition of an application is significant, such as when applications of different inventors contain conflicting claims or there is a question as to who should direct prosecution, it is necessary for the examiner to obtain assignment information from PALM. See MPEP § 320.
304-305 [Reserved]
306 Assignment of Division, Continuation, Substitute, and Continuation-in-Part in Relation to Parent Application [R-07.2015]
In the case of a division or continuation application, a prior assignment recorded against the original application is applied (effective) to the division or continuation application because the assignment recorded against the original application gives the assignee rights to the subject matter common to both applications. Although the assignment recorded against an original application is applied to the division or continuation application, the Office’s assignment records will only reflect an assignment of a division or continuation application (or any other application) if a request for recordation in compliance with 37 CFR 3.28, accompanied by the required fee (37 CFR 3.41), is filed.
In the case of a substitute or continuation-in-part application, a prior assignment of the original application is not applied (effective) to the substitute or continuation-in-part application because the assignment recorded against the original application gives the assignee rights to only the subject matter common to both applications. Substitute or continuation-in-part applications require the recordation of a new assignment if they are to be issued to an assignee, unless the substitute or continuation-in-part application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the assignee is the original
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-15
§ 306OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
applicant therein. See 37 CFR 3.81. See also MPEP § 307 and § 308.
306.01 Assignment of an Application Claiming the Benefits of a Provisional Application [R-07.2015]
If an application which claims the benefit of the earlier filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) includes only subject matter which formed a part of the provisional application, an assignment recorded against the provisional application will be effective in the later application, similar to the practice with respect to continuations and divisions filed under 35 U.S.C. 120. See MPEP § 306. If an application claiming the benefit of the earlier filing date of a provisional application includes subject matter that is not common with subject matter of the provisional application, new assignment papers must be recorded for the application claiming the benefit of the provisional application, unless the later application is filed on or after September 16, 2012 and the assignee is the original applicant therein. This is similar to the practice with respect to continuations-in-part filed under 35 U.S.C. 120. See MPEP § 306, § 307, and § 308.
307 Issue to Non-Applicant Assignee [R-11.2013]
35 U.S.C. 152 Issue of patent to assignee.
Patents may be granted to the assignee of the inventor of record in the Patent and Trademark Office, upon the application made and the specification sworn to by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title.
37 CFR 3.81 Issue of patent to assignee.
(a) With payment of the issue fee: An application may issue in the name of the assignee consistent with the application’s assignment where a request for such issuance is submitted with payment of the issue fee, provided the assignment has been previously recorded in the Office. If the assignment has not been previously recorded, the request must state that the document has been filed for recordation as set forth in § 3.11.
(b) After payment of the issue fee: Any request for issuance of an application in the name of the assignee submitted after the date of payment of the issue fee, and any request for a patent to be corrected to state the name of the assignee, must state that the assignment was submitted for recordation as set forth in § 3.11 before issuance of the patent, and must include a request for a certificate of correction under § 1.323 of this chapter
(accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.20(a)) and the processing fee set forth in § 1.17 (i) of this chapter.
(c) Partial assignees.
(1) If one or more assignee, together with one or more inventor, holds the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of the assignee and the inventor.
(2) If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all the inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.
Normally, for a patent to issue to an assignee (other than an assignee who is the applicant in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012), a request for issuance of the application in the name of the assignee must be filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) at a date not later than the day on which the issue fee is paid. Such a request must indicate that the assignment has been previously recorded in the Office. If the assignment has not been previously recorded in the Office, the request must state that the document has been filed for recordation as set forth in 37 CFR 3.11. See 37 CFR 3.81(a). See MPEP § 308 for information regarding issuance of a patent to an assignee who is the applicant in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.
If a request for issuance to an assignee pursuant to 37 CFR 3.81(b) is submitted after the day on which the issue fee is paid, the request under 37 CFR 3.81(b) must include a request for a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.323 (accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(a)) and the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The request under 37 CFR 3.81(b) must state that the assignment was submitted for recordation as set forth in 37 CFR 3.11 before issuance of the patent. The Office will issue a certificate of correction to reflect that the patent issued to the assignee provided the requirements of 37 CFR 3.81(b) and 37 CFR 1.323 are complied with.
Only the first appearing name of an assignee will be printed on the patent where multiple names for the same party are identified on the Fee(s) Transmittal form, PTOL-85B. Such multiple names may occur when both a legal name and an “also known as” or “doing business as” name is also included. This printing practice will not, however, affect the
300-16Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 306.01
existing practice of recording assignments with the Office in the Assignment Division. The assignee entry on form PTOL-85B should still be completed to indicate the assignment data as recorded in the Office. For example, the assignment filed in the Office and, therefore, the PTOL-85B assignee entry might read “Smith Company doing business as (d.b.a.) Jones Company.” The assignee entry on the printed patent will read “Smith Company.”
Unless an assignee’s name and address are identified in item 3 of the Fee(s) Transmittal form PTOL-85B, the patent will issue to the applicant. Assignment data printed on the patent will be based solely on the information so supplied. Assignment information printed on a patent is not updated after a patent is issued, and may not be reflective of the assignment recorded in the Office subsequent to the issuance of the patent. Detailed assignment information can be found by performing an assignment search on the USPTO website and by inspecting the recorded assignment documents.
A request for a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.323 (see MPEP §§ 1481 and 1485) arising from incomplete or erroneous assignee’s name furnished, or a missing assignee’s name, in item 3 of PTOL-85B will not be granted unless a request under 37 CFR 3.81(b) has been granted and the assignment was submitted for recordation as set forth in 37 CFR 3.11 before the patent issued. Any such request under 37 CFR 3.81(b) should be directed to the Office of Petitions and should include:
(A) the processing fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(i);
(B) a request for issuance of the application in the name of the assignee, or a request that a patent be corrected to state the name of the assignee;
(C) a statement that the assignment was submitted for recordation as set forth in 37 CFR 3.11 before the issuance of the patent; and
(D) a request for a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.323 accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(a).
308 Issue to Applicant [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
35 U.S.C. 118 Filing by other than inventor.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 118 for the law otherwise applicable.]
A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. If the Director grants a patent on an application filed under this section by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest and upon such notice to the inventor as the Director considers to be sufficient.
37 CFR 1.46 Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.
[Editor Note: Applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), 363,or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. See pre-Hague 37 CFR 1.46 or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.46 for the rule otherwise applicable.]
*****
(b) If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under paragraph (a) of this section, the application must contain an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter. If an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or a nonprovisional international design application, is applied for by a person other than the inventor under paragraph (a) of this section, the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter must have been identified as the applicant for the United States in the international stage of the international application or as the applicant in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3).
(1) If the applicant is the assignee or a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, documentary evidence of ownership ( e.g., assignment for an assignee, employment agreement for a person to whom the
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-17
§ 308OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention) should be recorded as provided for in part 3 of this chapter no later than the date the issue fee is paid in the application.
(2) If the applicant is a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, such applicant must submit a petition including:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g);
(ii) A showing that such person has sufficient proprietary interest in the matter; and
(iii) A statement that making the application for patent by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter on behalf of and as agent for the inventor is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.
*****
(e) If a patent is granted on an application filed under this section by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest. Otherwise, the patent may be issued to the assignee or jointly to the inventor and the assignee as provided in § 3.81. Where a real party in interest has filed an application under § 1.46, the applicant shall notify the Office of any change in the real party in interest no later than payment of the issue fee. The Office will treat the absence of such a notice as an indication that there has been no change in the real party in interest.
35 U.S.C. 118 and 37 CFR 1.46(e) provide that where the Director grants a patent on an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 118 by a person other than the inventor, the Office must grant the patent to the real party in interest. Therefore, the Office is requiring applicants other than the inventor to notify the Office of any change in the real party in interest in a reply to a notice of allowance. Absent any such notification, the Office will presume no change has occurred and will grant the patent to the real party in interest of record.
Applicants other than the inventor can notify the Office of a change in the real party in interest by providing the real party in interest in Box 3 of the PTOL-85B. See MPEP § 307.
Applicants other than the inventor should record the documentary evidence of ownership (e.g., assignment for an assignee, employment agreement for a person to whom the inventor is under an
obligation to assign the invention) before payment of the issue fee.
309 Restrictions Upon Employees of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 4 Restrictions on officers and employees as to interests in patents.
Officers and employees of the Patent and Trademark Office shall be incapable, during the period of their appointments and for one year thereafter, of applying for a patent and of acquiring, directly or indirectly, except by inheritance or bequest, any patent or any right or interest in any patent, issued or to be issued by the Office. In patents applied for thereafter they shall not be entitled to any priority date earlier than one year after the termination of their appointment.
See MPEP § 1701 for additional restrictions on Office employees.
310 Government License Rights to Contractor-Owned Inventions Made Under Federally Sponsored Research and Development [R-07.2015]
Where a Government contractor retains U.S. domestic patent rights, the contractor is under an obligation by virtue of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6) to include the following statement at the beginning of the application and any patents issued thereon:
“This invention was made with government support under (identify the contract) awarded by (identify the Federal agency). The government has certain rights in the invention.”
If reference is made in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title to related applications, the above “Government License Rights” statement should follow immediately as the second paragraph of the specification. If there is no such reference to related applications, the “Government License Rights” statement should
300-18Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 309
appear as the first paragraph of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(1)-(3).
311 Filing of Notice of Arbitration Awards [R-11.2013]
35 U.S.C. 294 Voluntary arbitration.
(a) A contract involving a patent or any right under a patent may contain a provision requiring arbitration of any dispute relating to patent validity or infringement arising under the contract. In the absence of such a provision, the parties to an existing patent validity or infringement dispute may agree in writing to settle such dispute by arbitration. Any such provision or agreement shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except for any grounds that exist at law or in equity for revocation of a contract.
(b) Arbitration of such disputes, awards by arbitrators, and confirmation of awards shall be governed by title 9, to the extent such title is not inconsistent with this section. In any such arbitration proceeding, the defenses provided for under section 282 shall be considered by the arbitrator if raised by any party to the proceeding.
(c) An award by an arbitrator shall be final and binding between the parties to the arbitration but shall have no force or effect on any other person. The parties to an arbitration may agree that in the event a patent which is the subject matter of an award is subsequently determined to be invalid or unenforceable in a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction from which no appeal can or has been taken, such award may be modified by any court of competent jurisdiction upon application by any party to the arbitration. Any such modification shall govern the rights and obligations between such parties from the date of such modification.
(d) When an award is made by an arbitrator, the patentee, his assignee or licensee shall give notice thereof in writing to the Director. There shall be a separate notice prepared for each patent involved in such proceeding. Such notice shall set forth the names and addresses of the parties, the name of the inventor, and the name of the patent owner, shall designate the number of the patent, and shall contain a copy of the award. If an award is modified by a court, the party requesting such modification shall give notice of such modification to the Director. The Director shall, upon receipt of either notice, enter the same in the record of the prosecution of such patent. If the required notice is not filed with the Director, any party to the proceeding may provide such notice to the Director.
(e) The award shall be unenforceable until the notice required by subsection (d) is received by the Director.
37 CFR 1.335 Filing of notice of arbitration awards.
(a) Written notice of any award by an arbitrator pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 294 must be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office by the patentee, or the patentee’s assignee or licensee. If the award involves more than one patent a separate notice must be filed for placement in the file of each patent. The notice must set forth the patent number, the names of the inventor and patent
owner, and the names and addresses of the parties to the arbitration. The notice must also include a copy of the award.
(b) If an award by an arbitrator pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 294 is modified by a court, the party requesting the modification must file in the Patent and Trademark Office, a notice of the modification for placement in the file of each patent to which the modification applies. The notice must set forth the patent number, the names of the inventor and patent owner, and the names and addresses of the parties to the arbitration. The notice must also include a copy of the court’s order modifying the award.
(c) Any award by an arbitrator pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 294 shall be unenforceable until any notices required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. If any required notice is not filed by the party designated in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, any party to the arbitration proceeding may file such a notice.
The written notices required by this section should be directed to the attention of the Office of the Solicitor. The Office of the Solicitor will be responsible for processing such notices.
312 [Reserved]
313 Recording of Licenses, Security Interests, and Documents Other Than Assignments [R-07.2015]
In addition to assignments and documents required to be recorded by Executive Order 9424, upon request, assignments of applications, patents, and registrations, and other documents relating to interests in patent applications and patents will be recorded in the Office. See 35 U.S.C. 261 and 37 CFR 3.11. Other documents affecting title to applications, patents, and registrations will be recorded as provided in 37 CFR Part 3 or at the discretion of the Director. 37 CFR 3.11(a).
In addition to documents that constitute a transfer or change of title, other documents relating to interests in patents or applications will generally be recorded. Typical of these documents which are accepted for recording are license agreements and agreements which convey a security interest. Such documents are recorded in the public interest in order to give third parties notification of equitable interests or other matters relevant to the ownership of a patent or application. Documents that are not accepted for
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-19
§ 313OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
recording include attorney's liens against patents or patent applications. See In re Refusal of Assignment Branch to Record Attorney's Lien, 8 USPQ2d 1446 (Comm'r Pat. 1988).
Any document returned unrecorded, which the sender nevertheless believes represents an unusual case which justifies recordation, may be submitted to the Office of Petitions with a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 requesting recordation of the document.
The recordation of a document is not a determination of the effect of the document on the chain of title. The determination of what, if any, effect a document has on title will be made by the Office at such times as ownership must be established to permit action to be taken by the purported assignee in connection with a patent or an application. See MPEP § 324 and § 325.
314 Certificates of Change of Name or of Merger [R-08.2012]
Certificates issued by appropriate authorities showing a change of name of a business or a merger of businesses are recordable. Although a mere change of name does not constitute a change in legal entity, it is properly a link in the chain of title. Documents of merger are also proper links in the chain of title. They may represent a change of entity as well as a change of name.
315 Indexing Against a Recorded Certificate [R-11.2013]
The Office does not process requests for “indexing” or “cross-referencing” additional patent numbers or application numbers against a document, other than an assignment, previously recorded in the Assignment Division. Such requests do not comply with 37 CFR 3.11, 3.28, and 3.31, which require that each request for recordation include the document to be recorded and a cover sheet.
Therefore, even where a document has already been recorded in the Assignment Division in connection with a patent or patent application, a party that wishes recordation of that document with respect to
additional patents and/or patent applications must submit the following to the Assignment Division:
(A) a copy of the original document (which may consist of the previously recorded papers on which the Assignment Division has stamped the reel and frame numbers at which they are recorded, or a copy of such papers);
(B) a completed cover sheet (see 37 CFR 3.31 and MPEP § 302.07); and
(C) the appropriate recording fee (see 37 CFR 1.21(h) and 3.41).
The Office will assign a new recording date to that submission, update the assignment database, and include the cover sheet and document as part of the official record.
316 [Reserved]
317 Handling of Documents in the Assignment Division [R-11.2013]
All documents and cover sheets submitted for recording are examined for formal requirements in the Assignment Division in order to separate documents which are recordable from those which are not recordable.
Documents and cover sheets that are considered not to be recordable are returned to the sender by the Assignment Division with an explanation. If the sender disagrees or believes that the document represents an unusual case which justifies recordation, the sender may present the question to the Director by way of petition under 37 CFR 1.181, filed with the Office of Petitions.
After an assignment and cover sheet have been recorded, notification will be sent to the name and address indicated on the cover sheet to receive correspondence, showing the reel and frame number.
317.01 Recording Date [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 3.51 Recording date.
The date of recording of a document is the date the document meeting the requirements for recording set forth in this part is
300-20Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 314
filed in the Office. A document which does not comply with the identification requirements of § 3.21 will not be recorded. Documents not meeting the other requirements for recording, for example, a document submitted without a completed cover sheet or without the required fee, will be returned for correction to the sender where a correspondence address is available. The returned papers, stamped with the original date of receipt by the Office, will be accompanied by a letter which will indicate that if the returned papers are corrected and resubmitted to the Office within the time specified in the letter, the Office will consider the original date of filing of the papers as the date of recording of the document. The procedure set forth in § 1.8 or § 1.10 of this chapter may be used for resubmissions of returned papers to have the benefit of the date of deposit in the United States Postal Service. If the returned papers are not corrected and resubmitted within the specified period, the date of filing of the corrected papers will be considered to be the date of recording of the document. The specified period to resubmit the returned papers will not be extended.
The date of recording of a document is the date the document meeting the requirements for recording set forth in the regulations is filed in the Office. A document which does not comply with the identification requirements of 37 CFR 3.21 will not be recorded. Documents not meeting the other requirements for recording, for example, a document submitted without a completed cover sheet or without the required fee, will be returned for correction to the sender when a correspondence address is available.
317.02 Correction of Unrecorded Returned Documents and Cover Sheets [R-07.2015]
Assignment documents and cover sheets, or copies of the same, which are returned by Assignment Division will be stamped with the original date of receipt by the Office and will be accompanied by a letter which will indicate that if the returned papers are corrected and resubmitted to the Office within the time specified in the letter, the Office will consider the original date of receipt of the papers as the date of recording of the document. See 37 CFR 3.51. The certification procedure under 37 CFR 1.8
(see MPEP § 512) or the “Priority Mail Express®” procedure under 37 CFR 1.10 (see MPEP § 513) may be used for resubmissions of returned papers to obtain the benefit of the date of deposit in the United States Postal Service to establish that the papers were returned within the time period specified. If the returned papers are not corrected
and resubmitted within the specified period, the date of receipt of the corrected papers will be considered to be the date of recording of the document. The specified period to resubmit the returned papers will not be extended.
317.03 Effect of Recording [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 3.54 Effect of recording.
The recording of a document pursuant to § 3.11 is not a determination by the Office of the validity of the document or the effect that document has on the title to an application, a patent, or a registration. When necessary, the Office will determine what effect a document has, including whether a party has the authority to take an action in a matter pending before the Office.
37 CFR 3.56 Conditional assignments.
Assignments which are made conditional on the performance of certain acts or events, such as the payment of money or other condition subsequent, if recorded in the Office, are regarded as absolute assignments for Office purposes until canceled with the written consent of all parties or by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Office does not determine whether such conditions have been fulfilled.
The recording of a document is not a determination by the Office of the validity of the document or the effect that document has on the title to an application or patent. When necessary, the Office will determine what effect a document has, including whether a party has the authority to take an action in a matter pending before the Office. See MPEP §§ 324 and 325.
37 CFR 3.56 provides that an assignment, which at the time of its execution is conditional on a given act or event, will be treated by the Office as an absolute assignment. This rule serves as notification as to how a conditional assignment will be treated by the Office in any proceeding requiring a determination of the owner of an application, patent, or registration. Since the Office will not determine whether a condition has been fulfilled, the Office will treat the submission of such an assignment for recordation as signifying that the act or event has occurred. A security agreement that does not convey
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-21
§ 317.03OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
the right, title, and interest of a patent property is not a conditional assignment.
318 Documents Not to be Placed in Files [R-08.2012]
Assignment documents submitted for recording should not be placed directly in application or patent files, but should be forwarded to Assignment Division for recording.
319 [Reserved]
320 Title Reports [R-08.2012]
The “title report” is a form which can be used under certain circumstances by the Assignment Division to report to someone within the Office the name of the owner of an application or patent as shown by the Assignment Division records on the date the title report is made. For example, a title report is requested by the Reexamination Preprocessing Staff when a request for reexamination is filed. Title reports may not be ordered by applicants or attorneys.
Information as to the title is not normally required by the examiner to examine an application. It is only in limited circumstances when the ownership becomes an issue and an examiner needs a title report. See MPEP § 303. Examiners may obtain a title report using the PALM Intranet (select “General Information,” insert the appropriate application number, select “Search,” select “Assignments”). The screen resulting from the search may be printed to yield the copy of the title report.
NOTE: The public can request a certified abstract of title. The fee for this service is set forth at 37 CFR
1.19(b)(4). See MPEP § 301.01 for a discussion of which assignment records are publicly available.
321-322 [Reserved]
323 Procedures for Correcting Errors in RecordedAssignment Document [R-08.2012]
An error in a recorded assignment document will be corrected by Assignment Division provided a “corrective document” is submitted. The “corrective document” must include the following:
(A) A copy of the original assignment document with the corrections made therein. The corrections must be initialed and dated by the party conveying the interest; and
(B) A new Recordation Form Cover Sheet (form PTO-1595) (See MPEP § 302.07).
The new recordation form cover sheet must identify the submission as a “corrective document” submission and indicate the reel and frame number where the incorrectly recorded assignment document appears. The original cover sheet should be submitted with the corrective document. The corrective document will be recorded and given a new reel and frame number and recording date. The recording fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.21(h) is required for each patent application and patent against which the corrective document is being recorded. See MPEP § 302.06.
Corrections may be made on the original assignment document, for example, by lining out an incorrect patent or application number in a merger or change of name (see MPEP § 314).
Office policy regarding recordation of assignment documents is directed toward maintaining a complete history of claimed interests in property and, therefore, recorded assignment documents will not be expunged even if subsequently found to be invalid. See In re Ratny, 24 USPQ2d 1713 (Comm’r Pat. 1992). Once a document is recorded with the Assignment Services Division, the Assignment Services Division will not remove the papers from
300-22Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 318
the record relating to that application or patent. See MPEP § 323.01(d).
323.01 Correction of Error in Recorded Cover Sheet [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 3.34 Correction of cover sheet errors.
(a) An error in a cover sheet recorded pursuant to § 3.11 will be corrected only if:
(1) The error is apparent when the cover sheet is compared with the recorded document to which it pertains and
(2) A corrected cover sheet is filed for recordation.
(b) The corrected cover sheet must be accompanied by a copy of the document originally submitted for recording and by the recording fee as set forth in § 3.41.
Any alleged error in a recorded cover sheet will only be corrected if the error is apparent from a comparison with the recorded assignment document. The corrected cover sheet should be directed to Assignment Division.
During the recording process, the Assignment Services Division will check to see that a cover sheet is complete and record the data exactly as it appears on the cover sheet. The Assignment Services Division does not compare the cover sheet with the assignment document (or other document affecting title). Once the document is recorded, the Office will issue a notice of recordation.
The party recording the document should carefully review the notice of recordation.
Typographical errors made by the Office will be corrected promptly and without charge upon written request directed to theAssignment Services Division. For any other error, the party recording the document is responsible for filing the papers and paying the recordation fees necessary to correct the error, using
the procedures set forth in MPEP §§ 323.01(a) through 323.01(c).
323.01(a) Typographical Errors in Cover Sheet [R-08.2012]
A party who wishes to correct a typographical error on a recorded cover sheet must submit the following to the Assignment Services Division:
(A) a copy of the originally recorded assignment document (or other document affecting title);
(B) a corrected cover sheet; and
(C) the required fee for each application or patent to be corrected (37 CFR 3.41).
See 37 CFR 3.34. The party requesting correction should also submit a copy of the original cover sheet, to facilitate comparison of the corrected cover sheet with the originally recorded document.
The party filing the corrected cover sheet should check the box titled “Other” in the area of the sheet requesting “Nature of Conveyance,” and indicate that the submission is to correct an error in a cover sheet previously recorded. The party should also identify the reel and frame numbers (if known), and the nature of the correction (e.g., “correction to the spelling of assignor’s name” or “correction of application number or patent number”). The Office will then compare the corrected cover sheet with the original cover sheet and the originally recorded assignment document (or other document affecting title) to determine whether the correction is typographical in nature. If the error is typographical in nature, the Assignment Services Division will record the corrected cover sheet and correct the Assignment Historical Database.
I. TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN COVER SHEET THAT DO NOTAFFECT TITLE TOAPPLICATION OR PATENT
If the original cover sheet contains a typographical error that does not affect title to the application or patent against which the original assignment or name change is recorded, the Assignment Services Division will correct the Assignment Historical Database and permit the recording party to keep the original date of recordation.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-23
§ 323.01(a)OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
II. TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN COVER SHEET THAT DO AFFECT TITLE TO APPLICATION OR PATENT
If the original cover sheet contains a typographical error that affects title to the application or patent against which the assignment or name change is recorded, the recording party will not be entitled to keep the original date of recordation. Rather, the Assignment Services Division will correct its automated records and change the date of recordation to the date the corrected cover sheet was received in the Office.
323.01(b) Typographical Errors in Recorded Assignment Document [R-08.2012]
If there is an error in the recorded assignment document (or other document affecting title) rather than in the cover sheet, the party responsible for an erroneous document (e.g., the assignor) must either create and record a new document or make corrections to the original document and re-record it. If an assignor is not available to correct an original document or execute a new one, the assignee may submit an affidavit or declaration in which the assignee identifies the error and requests correction. The affidavit or declaration must be accompanied by a copy of the originally recorded papers, a cover sheet, and the required fee for each application or patent to be corrected (37 CFR 3.41). See In re Abacab International Computers Ltd., 21 USPQ2d 1078 (Comm’r Pat. 1987).
323.01(c) Assignment or Change of Name Improperly Filed and Recorded by Another Person Against Owner’s Application or Patent [R-07.2015]
When the owner of an application or registration discovers that another party has improperly recorded an assignment or name change against the owner’s application or patent, the owner must correct the error by having a corrected cover sheet filed with the Assignment Services Division.
The owner should contact the party who recorded the papers with the erroneous information and request that such party record corrective papers.
However, if the party cannot be located or is unwilling to file corrective papers, then the true owner must record the necessary papers with the Assignment Services Division to correct the error.
Specifically, the owner should submit the following to the Assignment Services Division:
(A) a completed cover sheet identifying the application or patent against which the assignment was improperly recorded;
(B) an affidavit or declaration (1) identifying itself as the correct owner, (2) stating that the previously recorded document was submitted with erroneous information, and (3) providing the reel and frame number of the previously recorded document; and
(C) the required fee (37 CFR 3.41) for each application or patent to be corrected.
The affidavit or declaration should include a summary of the true chain of title to make it clear that the chain of title for the application or patent identified should not be considered altered by the incorrect assignment or name change, and a statement that the original applicant or patentee or last correct assignee has been, and continues to be, the owner of the application, or patent at issue.
On the corrected cover sheet, the owner should check the box titled “Other” in the area of the cover sheet requesting the “Nature of Conveyance,” and indicate that the submission is to correct an error made in a previously recorded document that erroneously affects the identified application(s), or patent(s). The party should also write the name of the correct owner in both the box requesting the name of the conveying party and the box requesting the name and address of the receiving party; this is to make it clear that ownership never changed and that any assignment or name change recorded against the application(s) or patent(s) was erroneous.
323.01(d) Expungement of Assignment Records [R-07.2015]
Petitions to correct, modify or “expunge” assignment records are rarely granted and will not result in the removal of a document from the assignment records.
300-24Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 323.01(b)
Such petitions are granted only if the petitioner can prove that:
(A) the normal corrective procedures outlined in MPEP § 323.01(a) through § 323.01(c) will not provide the petitioner with adequate relief; and
(B) the integrity of the assignment records will not be affected by granting the petition.
Assignment records are recognized as distinct from application file records. Even if a petition to “expunge” a document is granted with respect to a particular application or patent, the image of the recorded document will remain in the records of the Assignment Services Division at the same reel and frame number, and the image will appear when someone views that reel and frame number. The Office will, however, delete the links to the application or patent that was the subject of the petition, so that no information about the recorded document will appear when someone searches for that application or patent number in the Assignment Historical Database. A redacted version of the "expunged" document must be recorded and will appear in the assignment records instead of the "expunged" document upon the granting of the petition. An additional assignment of the “correct” document may be recorded in addition to the redacted version where the redacted version is incomplete or the original document was not correct.
324 Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action inApplication Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 325 for establishing the right of assignee to take action in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 3.71 (pre-AIA) Prosecution by assignee.
[Editor Note: Not applicable to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), 363 or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. See 37 CFR 3.71 for the rule otherwise applicable.]
(a) Patents — conducting of prosecution. One or more assignees as defined in paragraph (b) of this section may, after becoming of record pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, conduct prosecution of a national patent application or a reexamination proceeding to the exclusion of either the inventive entity, or the assignee(s) previously entitled to conduct prosecution.
(b) Patents — assignee(s) who can prosecute. The assignee(s) who may conduct either the prosecution of a national application for patent or a reexamination proceeding are:
(1) A single assignee. An assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined who is of record, or
(2) Partial assignee(s) together or with inventor(s). All partial assignees, or all partial assignees and inventors who have not assigned their right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined, who together own the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined. A partial assignee is any assignee of record having less than the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined.
(c) Patents — Becoming of record. An assignee becomes of record either in a national patent application or a reexamination proceeding by filing a statement in compliance with § 3.73(b) that is signed by a party who is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee.
(d) Trademarks. The assignee of a trademark application or registration may prosecute a trademark application, submit documents to maintain a trademark registration, or file papers against a third party in reliance on the assignee’s trademark application or registration, to the exclusion of the original applicant or previous assignee. The assignee must establish ownership in compliance with § 3.73(b).
37 CFR 3.73 (pre-AIA) Establishing right of assignee to take action.
[Editor Note: Not applicable to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. See 37 CFR 3.73 for the rule otherwise applicable.]
(a) The inventor is presumed to be the owner of a patent application, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment. The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of a trademark application or registration, unless there is an assignment.
(b)(1) In order to request or take action in a patent or trademark matter, the assignee must establish its ownership of the patent or trademark property of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the Director. The establishment of ownership by the assignee may be combined with the paper that requests or takes the action. Ownership is established by submitting to the Office a signed statement identifying the assignee, accompanied by either:
(i) Documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee (e.g., copy of an executed assignment). For trademark matters only, the documents submitted to establish ownership may be required to be recorded pursuant to § 3.11 in the assignment records of the Office as a condition to permitting the assignee to take action in a matter pending before the Office. For patent matters only, the submission of the documentary evidence must be accompanied by a statement affirming that the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was or
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-25
§ 324OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
concurrently is being submitted for recordation pursuant to § 3.11; or
(ii) A statement specifying where documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee is recorded in the assignment records of the Office ( e.g., reel and frame number).
(2) The submission establishing ownership must show that the person signing the submission is a person authorized to act on behalf of the assignee by:
(i) Including a statement that the person signing the submission is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee; or
(ii) Being signed by a person having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the assignee, e.g., an officer of the assignee.
(c) For patent matters only:
(1) Establishment of ownership by the assignee must be submitted prior to, or at the same time as, the paper requesting or taking action is submitted.
(2) If the submission under this section is by an assignee of less than the entire right, title and interest, such assignee must indicate the extent (by percentage) of its ownership interest, or the Office may refuse to accept the submission as an establishment of ownership.
The owner or assignee (other than a juristic entity) of a patent property based on an application filed before September 16, 2012, can take action in a patent application or patent proceeding in numerous instances. The owner or assignee can sign a reply to an Office action (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3) and (4)), a request for a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (MPEP § 201.06(d)), a terminal disclaimer (MPEP § 1490), Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B) (MPEP § 1306), or a request for status of an application (MPEP § 102). The owner or assignee can file an application under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) (MPEP § 409.03(b)), appoint its own registered patent practitioner to prosecute an application (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.32 and MPEP § 402.07), and grant a power to inspect an application (MPEP § 104). The owner or assignee consents to the filing of a reissue application (MPEP § 1410.01), and to the correction of inventorship (MPEP § 602.01(c) or MPEP § 1481).
Effective September 16, 2012, an owner or assignee who is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.31. Juristic entities may sign small entity assertions under 37 CFR 1.27
(MPEP § 509.03), disclaimers under 37 CFR 1.321 (MPEP § 1490), submissions under 37 CFR 3.73 to establish ownership, powers of attorney under 37 CFR 1.32 (MPEP § 402) and powers to inspect under 37 CFR 1.14 (MPEP § 104). However, any other paper submitted on behalf of a juristic entity on or after September 16, 2012, must be signed by a patent practitioner.
See subsection VI below for a discussion of when ownership must be established to take action in a patent matter, and subsection VII below for a discussion of when ownership need not be established to sign certain papers.
I. THE ASSIGNEE/OWNER THAT CAN TAKE ACTION IN PATENT MATTERS
The provisions of pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71(b)(1) and(2) identify the owner or assignee that can take action in patent matters, e.g., the assignee which may conduct the prosecution of a U.S. national application for a patent (35 U.S.C. 111(a)), or any other patent proceeding (e.g., a reexamination proceeding, an interference proceeding). A national patent application is owned by one of the following individual or composite entities:
(A) the inventor(s);
(B) an assignee or multiple assignees of the inventor(s); or
(C) some combination of the assignee(s), and inventor(s) who have not assigned away their right, title and interest in the application.
Pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b), a party must be established as the assignee by satisfying the requirements of that subsection, in order to be recognized as an owner or part owner, for purposes of taking action in patent matters before the Office.
As discussed in subsection II below, all parties having any portion of the ownership must join in “taking action” (i.e., act together as a composite entity) in order to be entitled to conduct the prosecution in patent matters.
300-26Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 324
A. Individual and Partial Assignees
If there is a single assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the patent application, pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71(b)(1) provides that the single assignee (i.e., individual assignee) may act alone to conduct the prosecution of an application or other patent proceeding (upon complying with pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b)).
If there is no assignee of the entire right, title and interest of the patent application, then two possibilities exist:
(A) The application has not been assigned, and ownership resides solely in the inventor(s) (i.e., the applicant(s)). In this situation, pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71 does not apply, since there is no assignee, and the combination of all inventors is needed to conduct the prosecution of an application.
(B) The application has been assigned by at least one of the inventors, and there is thus at least one “partial assignee.” As defined in pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71(b)(2), a partial assignee is any assignee of record who has less than the entire right, title and interest in the application. The application is owned by the combination of all partial assignees and all inventors who have not assigned away their right, title and interest in the application.
Where at least one inventor retains an ownership interest together with the partial assignee(s), the combination of all partial assignees and inventors retaining ownership interest is needed to conduct the prosecution of an application, unless one or more inventors have refused to join in the filing of the application and a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 has been granted. If a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 has been granted, then the assignee need only be the assignee of the entire interest of the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 applicant to sign a power of attorney. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.32(b)(4). Where an applicant retains an ownership interest, the combination of all partial assignees and the applicant with the ownership interest is needed to conduct the prosecution of an application.
Where a reissue application is filed to correct inventorship in the patent by the deletion of the name of inventor X and inventor X has not assigned his/her
rights to the patent, inventor X has an ownership interest in the patent. Inventor X must consent to the filing of the reissue application, even though inventor X is being deleted and need not sign the reissue oath or declaration. If inventor X has assigned his/her rights to the patent, then inventor X’s assignee must consent to the filing of the reissue application.
B. Example
Inventors A and B invent a process and file their application, signing the declaration for the patent application. Inventors A and B together may conduct prosecution of the application. Inventor A then assigns all his/her rights in the application to Corporation X. As soon as Corporation X (now a partial assignee as per pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71(b)(2)) is made of record in the application as a partial assignee (by filing a statement pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) stating Corporation X is an assignee of an undivided interest in the entirety of the application), Corporation X and Inventor B together may conduct prosecution of the application. Corporation X and Inventor B then both assign their rights in the application to Corporation Y. As soon as Corporation Y (now an assignee of the entire right, title and interest) is made of record in the application as the assignee (by filing a statement pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) stating it is assignee of the entire right, title and interest), CorporationY is then the sole (one hundred percent) owner and thus may, by itself, conduct prosecution of the application.
II. ESTABLISHING OWNERSHIP
When an assignee first seeks to take action in a matter before the Office with respect to a patent application filed before September 16, 2012, or a with respect to a patent or a reexamination proceeding relating to a patent that issued from an application that was filed before September 16, 2012, the assignee must establish its ownership of the property to the satisfaction of the Director. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b). The assignee’s ownership may be established under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) by submitting to the Office, in the Office file related to the matter in which action is sought to be taken:
(A) documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee (e.g., copy
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-27
§ 324OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
of an executed assignment submitted for recording) and a statement affirming that the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was, or concurrently is, submitted for recordation pursuant to 37 CFR 3.11; or
(B) a statement specifying, by reel and frame number, where such evidence is recorded in the Office.
Documents submitted to establish ownership are required to be recorded, or submitted for recordation pursuant to 37 CFR 3.11, as a condition to permitting the assignee to take action in a matter pending before the Office.
The action taken by the assignee, and the pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) submission establishing that the assignee is the appropriate assignee to take such action, can be combined in one paper.
The establishment of ownership by the assignee must be submitted prior to, or at the same time as, the paper requesting or taking action is submitted. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(c). If the submission establishing ownership is not present, the action sought to be taken will not be given effect. If the submission establishing ownership is submitted at a later date, that date will be the date of the request for action or the date of the assignee’s action taken.
The submission establishing ownership by the assignee must be signed by a party who is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See discussion below. Once pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) is complied with by an assignee, that assignee may continue to take action in that application, patent, or reexamination proceeding without filing a pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) submission each time, provided that ownership has not changed.
The submission establishing ownership by the assignee pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) is generally referred to as the “statement under 37 CFR 3.73(b)” or the “37 CFR 3.73(b) statement.” A duplicate copy of the pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) statement is not required and should not be submitted. See 37 CFR 1.4(b) and MPEP § 502.04.
III. CONTINUING APPLICATIONS
When an assignee files a continuation or divisional application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) before September 16, 2012, the application papers must:
(A) contain a copy of a statement filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) in the parent application; or
(B) contain a newly executed statement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b).
When a continuation-in-part application is filed before September 16, 2012 by an assignee, a newly executed statement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) must be filed. When in a design application, a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is filed, the statement filed under 37 CFR 3.73(b) in the parent application will serve as the statement for the CPA.
IV. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION
Where a Request for Continued Examination of an application is filed under 37 CFR 1.114, the application is not considered to be abandoned; rather the finality of the Office action is withdrawn and the prosecution continues. Thus, the statement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) in the application will continue to serve as the statement establishing ownership.
V. PARTY WHO MUST SIGN
The submission establishing ownership must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. The submission under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) may be signed on behalf of the assignee in the following manner if the assignee is an organization (e.g., corporation, partnership, university, government agency, etc.):
(A) The submission may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b)(2)(ii). An officer (chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. Modifications of these
300-28Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 324
basic titles are acceptable, such as vice-president for sales, executive vice-president, assistant treasurer, vice-chairman of the board of directors. In foreign countries, a person who holds the title “Manager” or “Director” is normally an officer and is presumed to have the authority to sign on behalf of the organization. A person having a title (administrator, general counsel) that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.32(b)(4)) to a patent practitioner to prosecute a patent application executed by the applicant or the assignee of the entire interest does not make that practitioner an official of an assignee or empower the practitioner to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee.
(B) The submission may be signed by any person, if the submission sets forth that the person signing is authorized (or empowered) to act on behalf of the assignee, i.e., to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b)(2)(i).
(C) The submission may be signed by a person empowered by an organizational resolution (e.g., corporate resolution, partnership resolution) to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee, if a copy of the resolution is, or was previously, submitted in the record.
Where a submission does not comply with (A), (B), or (C) above, evidence of the person’s authority to sign will be required.
VI. WHEN OWNERSHIP MUST BE ESTABLISHED
Examples of situations where ownership must be established under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) are when the assignee: signs a request for status of an application or gives a power to inspect an application (MPEP §§ 102 and 104); appoints its own registered attorney or agent to prosecute an application (pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71 and MPEP § 402.07); signs a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 (MPEP § 1490); consents to the filing of a reissue application (MPEP § 1410.01); consents to the correction of inventorship in a patent (MPEP § 1481); or signs a Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B) (MPEP § 1306). Effective September 16, 2012, a juristic entity (e.g., organizational assignee) must be represented by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.31.
VII. WHEN OWNERSHIP NEED NOT BE ESTABLISHED
Examples of situations where ownership need not be established under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) are when the assignee: signs a small entity statement (MPEP § 509.03); signs a statement of common ownership of two inventions (MPEP § 706.02(l)(2)); signs a NASA or DOE property rights statement (MPEP § 151); signs an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131(a) where the inventor is unavailable (MPEP § 715.04); signs a certificate under 37 CFR 1.8 (MPEP § 512); or files a request for reexamination of a patent under 37 CFR 1.510 (MPEP § 2210).
VIII. MULTIPLE ASSIGNEES
When an assignee seeks to take action in a matter before the Office with respect to a patent application, patent, or reexamination proceeding and the right, title, and interest therein is held by more than one assignee, each partial assignee must provide a submission under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b). In each submission, the extent of each assignee’s interest must be set forth so that the Office can determine whether it has obtained action by the entirety of the right, title and interest holders (owners). Pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(c)(2). If the extent of the partial assignee’s ownership interest is not set forth in the submission under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b), the Office may refuse to accept the submission as an establishment of ownership interest.
IX. CONFLICTING PRE-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) STATEMENTS
Where there are two or more conflicting pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) statements in an application or other Office proceeding, the statement with the latest date of submission to the Office will normally control as to establishment of the assignee. If, however, the ownership established as controlling is contested on the record by another party who has submitted a conflicting pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) statement, then the application or other proceeding shall be forwarded by the Office official in charge of the application or other proceeding to the Office of Patent Legal Administration for resolving any procedural issues. Generally, where there are two or more conflicting pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) statements
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-29
§ 324OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
in an application, the ownership entity that filed that application will be permitted to conduct the prosecution, and the other party that submitted a pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) statement to establish its ownership may wish to consider filing its own application.
X. FORMS
Form PTO/SB/96 may be used to establish ownership under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b).
300-30Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 324
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-31
§ 324OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
300-32Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 324
325 Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 324 for establishing the right of assignee to take action in an application filed before September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 3.71 Prosecution by assignee.
[Editor Note: Applicable to patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71 for the rule otherwise applicable.]
(a) Patents—conducting of prosecution. One or more assignees as defined in paragraph (b) of this section may conduct prosecution of a national patent application as the applicant under § 1.46 of this title, or conduct prosecution of a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding, to the exclusion of the inventor or previous applicant or patent owner. Conflicts between purported assignees are handled in accordance with § 3.73(c)(3).
(b) Patents—assignee(s) who can prosecute. The assignee(s) who may conduct either the prosecution of a national application for patent as the applicant under § 1.46 of this title or a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding are:
(1) A single assignee. An assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent, or
(2) Partial assignee(s) together or with inventor(s). All partial assignees, or all partial assignees and inventors who have not assigned their right, title and interest in the application or patent, who together own the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent. A partial assignee is any assignee of record having less than the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent. The word "assignee" as used in this chapter means with respect to patent matters the single assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent if there is such a single assignee, or all of the partial assignees, or all of the partial assignee and inventors who have not assigned their interest in the application or patent, who together own the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent.
(c) Patents—Becoming of record. An assignee becomes of record as the applicant in a national patent application under § 1.46 of this title, and in a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding, by filing a statement in compliance with § 3.73(c) that is signed by a party who is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee.
(d) Trademarks. The assignee of a trademark application or registration may prosecute a trademark application, submit documents to maintain a trademark registration, or file papers against a third party in reliance on the assignee’s trademark application or registration, to the exclusion of the original applicant or previous assignee. The assignee must establish ownership in compliance with § 3.73(b).
37 CFR 3.73 Establishing right of assignee to take action.
[Editor Note: Applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), 363 or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73 for the rule otherwise applicable.]
(a) The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of an application for an original patent, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment. The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of a trademark application or registration, unless there is an assignment.
(b) In order to request or take action in a trademark matter, the assignee must establish its ownership of the trademark property of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the Director. The establishment of ownership by the assignee may be combined with the paper that requests or takes the action. Ownership is established by submitting to the Office a signed statement identifying the assignee, accompanied by either:
(1) Documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee ( e.g., copy of an executed assignment). The documents submitted to establish ownership may be required to be recorded pursuant to § 3.11 in the assignment records of the Office as a condition to permitting the assignee to take action in a matter pending before the Office; or
(2) A statement specifying where documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee is recorded in the assignment records of the Office ( e.g., reel and frame number).
(c)(1) In order to request or take action in a patent matter, an assignee who is not the original applicant must establish its ownership of the patent property of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the Director. The establishment of ownership by the assignee may be combined with the paper that requests or takes the action. Ownership is established by submitting to the Office a signed statement identifying the assignee, accompanied by either:
(i) Documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee ( e.g., copy of an executed assignment). The submission of the documentary evidence must be accompanied by a statement affirming that the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was or concurrently is being submitted for recordation pursuant to § 3.11; or
(ii) A statement specifying where documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee is recorded in the assignment records of the Office ( e.g., reel and frame number).
(2) If the submission is by an assignee of less than the entire right, title and interest ( e.g., more than one assignee exists) the Office may refuse to accept the submission as an establishment of ownership unless:
(i) Each assignee establishes the extent (by percentage) of its ownership interest, so as to account for the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent by all parties including inventors; or
(ii) Each assignee submits a statement identifying the parties including inventors who together own the entire right,
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-33
§ 325OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
title and interest and stating that all the identified parties own the entire right, title and interest.
(3) If two or more purported assignees file conflicting statements under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Director will determine which, if any, purported assignee will be permitted to control prosecution of the application.
(d) The submission establishing ownership under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section must show that the person signing the submission is a person authorized to act on behalf of the assignee by:
(1) Including a statement that the person signing the submission is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee;
(2) Being signed by a person having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the assignee; or
(3) For patent matters only, being signed by a practitioner of record.
The owner or assignee of a patent property can take action in a patent application as the applicant. However, an owner or assignee that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.31 and 1.33(b)(3).
An assignee who is not the original applicant must become the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(a) in order to request or take action in a patent application. A request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2) must be filed and must be accompanied by an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the applicant in the applicant information section and comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 37 CFR 3.73.
As the applicant, the owner or assignee that is not a juristic entity can sign a reply to an Office action (37 CFR 1.33(b)(3)), a request for a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (MPEP § 201.06(d)), a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 (MPEP § 1490), Fee(s) Transmittal (PTOL-85B) (MPEP § 1306), or a request for status of an application (MPEP § 102). The owner or assignee can file an application under 37 CFR 1.46, appoint its own registered patent practitioner to prosecute an application (37 CFR 1.32), and grant a power to inspect an application (MPEP § 104). The owner or assignee can consent to the filing of a reissue application (MPEP § 1410.01), and to the correction of inventorship (MPEP § 602.01(c) or MPEP § 1481).
Effective September 16, 2012, juristic entities may sign small entity assertions under 37 CFR 1.27 (MPEP § 509.03 ), disclaimers under 37 CFR 1.321 (MPEP § 1490), submissions under 37 CFR 3.73 to establish ownership, powers of attorney under 37 CFR 1.32 (MPEP § 402) and powers to inspect under 37 CFR 1.14 (MPEP § 104). However, any other paper submitted on behalf of a juristic entity on or after September 16, 2012, must be signed by a patent practitioner.
See subsection VI below for a discussion of when ownership must be established to take action in a patent matter, and subsection VII below for a discussion of when ownership need not be established to sign certain papers.
I. THE ASSIGNEE/OWNER THAT CAN TAKE ACTION IN PATENT MATTERS
The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of an application for an original patent, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment. 37 CFR 3.73(a).
The provisions of 37 CFR 3.71(b) provide that the assignee(s) who may conduct either the prosecution of a national application for patent as the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 or a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding are:
(1) a single assignee who is the assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent, or
(2) all partial assignees, or all partial assignees and inventors who have not assigned their right, title and interest in the application or patent, who together own the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent.
As discussed in subsection II below, all parties having any portion of the ownership must join in “taking action” (i.e., act together as a composite entity) in order to be entitled to conduct the prosecution in patent matters. For a discussion of the applicant for patent, see MPEP § 409 et seq. and § 605 et seq.
300-34Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 325
A. Individual and Partial Assignees
If there is a single assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the patent application, 37 CFR 3.71(b)(1) provides that the single assignee (i.e., individual assignee) may act alone to conduct the prosecution of an application or other patent proceeding. If the assignee is not already the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 in the patent application, then the assignee must file a request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2).
If there is no assignee of the entire right, title and interest of the patent application, then either:
(1) The application has not been assigned, 37 CFR 3.71 is not applicable, and the prosecution must be conducted by the applicant. The word "applicant" refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in 37 CFR 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46. See MPEP § 409 et seq. and § 605 et seq.
(2) The application has been assigned by at least one of the inventors, and there is thus at least one “partial assignee.” As defined in 37 CFR 3.71(b)(2), a partial assignee is any assignee of record who has less than the entire right, title and interest in the application. The application is owned by the combination of all partial assignees and all inventors who have not assigned away their right, title and interest in the application.
Where at least one inventor retains an ownership interest together with the partial assignee(s), the combination of all partial assignees and inventors retaining ownership interest is needed to conduct the prosecution of an application, unless one or more inventors have refused to join in the filing of the application and a petition under 37 CFR 1.46(b)(2) has been granted.
Where a reissue application is filed to correct inventorship in the patent by the deletion of the name of inventor X and inventor X has not assigned his/her rights to the patent, inventor X has an ownership interest in the patent. Inventor X must consent to the filing of the reissue application, even though inventor X is being deleted; however, inventor X need not sign the reissue oath or declaration. If inventor X has assigned his/her rights to the patent, then
inventor X’s assignee must consent to the filing of the reissue application.
B. Example
Inventors A and B invent a process and file a patent application as the applicant, naming both inventors. Inventors A and B together may conduct prosecution of the application.
Inventor A then assigns all his/her rights in the application to Corporation X. Corporation X and Inventor B together may conduct prosecution of the application only if Corporation X (now a partial assignee as per 37 CFR 3.71(b)(2)) is made of record in the application as a partial assignee and the applicant is changed under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2) to Corporation X and Inventor B. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2), an application data sheet must be filed specifying the applicant (i.e., Corporation X and Inventor B) in the applicant information section, and a statement pursuant to 37 CFR 3.73(c) must be filed establishing that Corporation X is an assignee of an undivided interest in the entirety of the application.
Corporation X and Inventor B then both assign their rights in the application to Corporation Y. CorporationY is then the sole (one hundred percent) owner and may, by itself, conduct prosecution of the application after Corporation Y (now an assignee of the entire right, title and interest) is made of record in the application as the applicant (by filing a request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2), an application data sheet pursuant to 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the applicant as Corporation Y, and a statement pursuant to 37 CFR 3.73(c) establishing that Corporation Y is assignee of the entire right, title and interest).
II. ESTABLISHING OWNERSHIP
An assignee who is not the original applicant must become the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 in order to request or take action in a patent application. When an assignee who is not the original applicant first seeks to take action in a matter before the Office with respect to a patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012, the assignee must establish its ownership of the property to the satisfaction of the Director. 37 CFR 3.73(c). The assignee must also
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-35
§ 325OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
file a request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2) and an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the applicant in the application information section. When an assignee who was not the original applicant or patent owner first seeks to take action in a matter before the Office with respect to a reissue patent application, patent, reexamination proceeding or supplemental examination proceeding for a patent that issued from an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, the assignee must establish its ownership of the property to the satisfaction of the Director. 37 CFR 3.73(c).
The statement establishing assignee’s ownership under 37 CFR 3.73(c) must be filed in the Office file related to the matter in which action is sought to be taken, and must contain:
(A) documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee (e.g., copy of an executed assignment submitted for recording) and a statement affirming that the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was, or concurrently is, submitted for recordation pursuant to 37 CFR 3.11; or
(B) a statement specifying, by reel and frame number, where such evidence is recorded in the Office.
Documents submitted to establish ownership are required to be recorded, or submitted for recordation pursuant to 37 CFR 3.11, as a condition to permitting the assignee to take action in a matter pending before the Office.
The action taken by the assignee, and the 37 CFR 3.73(c) submission establishing that the assignee is the appropriate assignee to take such action, can be combined in one paper.
The establishment of ownership by the assignee (and the request for change of applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2)) must be submitted prior to, or at the same time as, the paper requesting or taking action is submitted. 37 CFR 3.73(c). If the submission establishing ownership and the request for change of applicant are not present, the action sought to be taken will not be given effect. If the submission establishing ownership is submitted at a later date,
that date will be the date of the request for action or the date of the assignee’s action taken.
The submission establishing ownership by the assignee must be signed by a party who is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee or a patent practitioner of record. See discussion below. Once 37 CFR 3.73(c) is complied with by an assignee, that assignee may continue to take action in that application, patent, or reexamination proceeding without filing a 37 CFR 3.73(c) submission each time, provided that ownership has not changed.
Where there is more than one assignee (i.e., partial assignees) or a combination of partial assignees and inventors who have not assigned away their right, title and interest in the application, each owner must submit a statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c) that either:
(A) Specifies (by percentage) the extent of its ownership interest, so as to account for the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent by all parties. 37 CFR 3.73(c)(2)(i); or
(B) Identifies the parties including inventors who together own the entire right, title and interest and state that all the identified parties own the entire right, title and interest. 37 CFR 3.73(c)(2)(ii).
The submission establishing ownership by the assignee pursuant to 37 CFR 3.73(c) is generally referred to as the “statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c)” or the “37 CFR 3.73(c) statement.” A duplicate copy of the 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement is not required and should not be submitted. See 37 CFR 1.4(b)and MPEP § 502.04.
III. CONTINUING APPLICATIONS
When an assignee files a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), the application papers must:
(A) contain a copy of a statement filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) or under 37 CFR 3.73(c) in the parent application; or
(B) contain a newly executed statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c).
When a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is filed in a design application, the statement filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) or under 37 CFR 3.73(c) in the
300-36Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 325
parent application will serve as the statement for the CPA.
IV. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION
Where a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of an application is filed under 37 CFR 1.114, the application is not considered to be abandoned; rather the finality of the Office action is withdrawn and the prosecution continues. Thus, the statement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) or under 37 CFR 3.73(c) in the application will continue to serve as the statement establishing ownership.
V. PARTY WHO MUST SIGN
The submission establishing ownership must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. The submission under 37 CFR 3.73(c) may be signed on behalf of the assignee in the following manner if the assignee is an organization (e.g., corporation, partnership, university, government agency, etc.):
(A) The submission may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. 37 CFR 3.73(d)(2). An officer (chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. Modifications of these basic titles are acceptable, such as vice-president for sales, executive vice-president, assistant treasurer, vice-chairman of the board of directors. In foreign countries, a person who holds the title “Manager” or “Director” is normally an officer and is presumed to have the authority to sign on behalf of the organization. A person having a title (administrator, general counsel) that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32(b)(4)) to a patent practitioner to prosecute a patent application executed by the applicant or the assignee of the entire interest does not make that practitioner an official of an assignee or empower the practitioner to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee.
(B) The submission may be signed by any person, if the submission sets forth that the person signing is authorized (or empowered) to act on behalf of the assignee, i.e., to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. 37 CFR 3.73(d)(1) .
(C) The submission may be signed by a patent practitioner of record. 37 CFR 3.73(d)(3). A patent practitioner will be considered “of record” where the patent practitioner was appointed in a power of attorney already of record, or where the 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement is accompanied by a power of attorney that appoints the patent practitioner who signed the statement.
(D) The submission may be signed by a person empowered by an organizational resolution (e.g., corporate resolution, partnership resolution) to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee, if a copy of the resolution is, or was previously, submitted in the record.
Where a submission does not comply with (A), (B), (C) or (D) above, evidence of the person’s authority to sign will be required.
VI. WHEN OWNERSHIP MUST BE ESTABLISHED
Examples of situations where ownership must be established under 37 CFR 3.73(c) are when the assignee who is not the applicant: signs a request for status of an application or gives a power to inspect an application (MPEP § 102 and § 104); appoints its own registered attorney or agent to prosecute an application (37 CFR 3.71 and MPEP § 402.07 ); signs a disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 (MPEP § 1490); consents to the filing of a reissue application (MPEP § 1410.01); or signs a Fee Transmittal (PTOL-85B) (MPEP § 1306 ). Effective September 16, 2012, a juristic entity (e.g., organizational assignee) must be represented by a patent practitioner.
VII. WHEN OWNERSHIP NEED NOT BE ESTABLISHED
Examples of situations where ownership need not be established under 37 CFR 3.73(c) are when the assignee: signs a small entity statement under 37 CFR 1.27 (MPEP § 509.03); signs a statement of common ownership of two inventions ( MPEP § 706.02(l)(2)); signs a NASA or DOE property rights
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-37
§ 325OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
statement (MPEP § 151 ); signs an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131(a) where the inventor is unavailable (MPEP § 715.04); signs a certificate under 37 CFR 1.8 (MPEP § 512); or files a request for reexamination of a patent under 37 CFR 1.510 (MPEP § 2210).
VIII. MULTIPLE ASSIGNEES
When an assignee seeks to take action in a matter before the Office with respect to a patent application, patent, or reexamination proceeding and the right, title, and interest therein is held by more than one assignee, each partial assignee must provide a submission under 37 CFR 3.73(c). In each submission, the extent of each assignee’s interest must be set forth so that the Office can determine whether it has obtained action by the entirety of the right, title and interest holders (owners). 37 CFR 3.73(c)(2)(i). Where there are unspecified percentages of ownership, each partial assignee must submit a statement identifying the parties including inventors who together own the entire right, title and interest and state that all the identified parties own the entire right, title and interest. 37 CFR 3.73(c)(2)(ii). If the extent of the partial assignee’s ownership interest is not set forth in the submission under 37 CFR 3.73(c), the Office may refuse to
accept the submission as an establishment of ownership interest.
IX. CONFLICTING 37 CFR 3.73(c) STATEMENTS
Where two or more purported assignees file conflicting 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements in an application or other Office proceeding, the Director will determine which, if any, purported assignee will be permitted to control prosecution of the application. 37 CFR 3.73(c)(3). Additionally, if the ownership established as controlling is contested on the record by another party who has submitted a conflicting 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement, then the application or other proceeding shall be forwarded by the Office official in charge of the application or other proceeding to the Office of Patent Legal Administration for resolving any procedural issues. Generally, where there are two or more conflicting 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements in an application, the applicant will be permitted to conduct the prosecution, and the other party that submitted a 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement to establish its ownership may wish to consider filing its own application.
X. FORMS
Form PTO/AIA/96 may be used to establish ownership under 37 CFR 3.73(c).
300-38Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 325
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-39
§ 325OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
300-40Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 325
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015300-41
§ 325OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGNMENT
Chapter 400 Representative of Applicant or Owner
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Cannot Aid in Selection of Patent Practitioner
401
Power of Attorney; Naming Representative
402
Limited Recognition in Patent Matters402.01 Appointment of Power of Attorney402.02
Appointment inApplication Filed On or After September 16, 2012
402.02(a)
Appointment inApplication Filed Before September 16, 2012
402.02(b)
Signature Requirements for Papers Filed in an Application
402.03
[Reserved]402.04 Revocation of Power of Attorney402.05
Applicant Revocation - Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012
402.05(a)
Applicant Revocation - Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
402.05(b)
Attorney or Agent Withdraws402.06 Assignee Revocation of Power of Attorney of Applicant and
402.07
Appointment of New Power of Attorney Application in Interference or Derivation Proceeding
402.08
International Application402.09 Appointment/Revocation by Less Than All Applicants or Owners
402.10
Correspondence — With Whom Held; Customer Number Practice
403
[Reserved]403.01 Correspondence in Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012
403.01(a)
Correspondence in Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012
403.01(b)
Two Patent Practitioners for Same Application
403.02
[Reserved]404 Interviews With Patent Practitioner Not of Record
405
Death of Patent Practitioner406 Suspended or Excluded Patent Practitioner
407
Interviews With Patent Practitioner of Record
408
Death, Legal Incapacity, or Unavailability of Inventor
409
[Reserved]409.01 Deceased or Legally Incapacitated Inventor -
409.01(a)
Application Filed on or After September 16, 2012 Deceased or Legally Incapacitated Inventor-
409.01(b)
Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
Unavailable Joint Inventor – Application Filed on or after September 16, 2012
409.02
Unavailability of Inventor - Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
409.03
At Least One Joint Inventor Available
409.03(a)
No Inventor Available409.03(b) Unavailable Legal Representative of Deceased Inventor
409.03(c)
Proof of Unavailability or Refusal409.03(d) Statement of Last Known Address
409.03(e)
Proof of Proprietary Interest409.03(f) Proof of Irreparable Damage409.03(g) Processing and Acceptance of a Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 Application
409.03(h)
Rights of the Nonsigning Inventor409.03(i) Action Following Acceptance of a Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 Application
409.03(j)
[Reserved]409.04 Application For Patent by an Assignee, Obligated Assignee, or a
409.05
Person Who Otherwise Shows Sufficient Proprietary Interest – Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012
Representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
410
401 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office CannotAid in Selection of Patent Practitioner [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.31 Applicant may be represented by one or more patent practitioners or joint inventors.
An applicant for patent may file and prosecute the applicant's own case, or the applicant may give power of attorney so as to be represented by one or more patent practitioners or joint
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-1
inventors, except that a juristic entity (e.g., organizational assignee) must be represented by a patent practitioner even if the juristic entity is the applicant. The Office cannot aid in the selection of a patent practitioner.
An applicant who is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner. An applicant for patent, other than a juristic entity (e.g., organizational assignee), may file and prosecute his or her own application, and thus act as his or her own representative (pro se ) before the Office. See 37 CFR 1.31. In presenting (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) papers to the Office, a pro se applicant is making the certifications under 37 CFR 11.18(b), and may be subject to sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c) for violations of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2). See 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4). See also MPEP §§ 402.03 and 410.
If patentable subject matter appears to be disclosed in a pro se application and it is apparent that the applicant is unfamiliar with the proper preparation and prosecution of patent applications, the examiner may suggest to the applicant that it may be desirable to employ a registered patent attorney or agent. It is suggested that form paragraph 4.10 be incorporated in an Office action if the use of an attorney or agent is considered desirable and if patentable subject matter exists in the application.
¶ 4.10 Employ Services of Attorney or Agent
An examination of this application reveals that applicant is unfamiliar with patent prosecution procedure. While an applicant may prosecute the application (except that a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner, 37 CFR 1.31), lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting an attorney or agent.
A listing of registered patent attorneys and agents is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by writing to the Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Examiner Note:
The examiner should not suggest that applicant employ an attorney or agent if the application appears to contain no patentable subject matter.
402 Power of Attorney; Naming Representative [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.32 Power of attorney. *****
(c) A power of attorney may only name as representative:
(1) One or more joint inventors (§ 1.45);
(2) Those registered patent practitioners associated with a Customer Number;
(3) Ten or fewer patent practitioners, stating the name and registration number of each patent practitioner. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, the Office will not recognize more than ten patent practitioners as being of record in an application or patent. If a power of attorney names more than ten patent practitioners, such power of attorney must be accompanied by a separate paper indicating which ten patent practitioners named in the power of attorney are to be recognized by the Office as being of record in the application or patent to which the power of attorney is directed.
*****
I. NAMING REPRESENTATIVE IN A POWER OF ATTORNEY
An applicant may give a power of attorney to one or more patent practitioners or one or more joint inventors. A power of attorney to a joint inventor will be recognized even though the one to whom it is given is not a registered practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.31 and 37 CFR 1.32(c)(1).
Powers of attorney naming firms of attorneys or agents filed in patent applications will not be recognized. Furthermore, a power of attorney that names more than ten patent practitioners will only be entered if Customer Number practice is used or if such power of attorney is accompanied by a separate paper indicating which ten patent practitioners named in the power of attorney are to be recognized by the Office as being of record in the application or patent to which the power of attorney is directed. If a power of attorney is not entered because more than ten patent practitioners were named, a copy of the power of attorney should be refiled with the separate paper as set forth in 37 CFR 1.32(c)(3).
400-2Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402
Powers of attorney naming joint inventors, one or more registered individuals, or all registered practitioners associated with a Customer Number, may be made. See MPEP § 403 for Customer Number practice. Where a power of attorney is given to ten or fewer patent practitioners, 37 CFR 1.32(c)(3) requires the name and registration number of each patent practitioner to be stated in the power of attorney. If the name submitted on the power of attorney does not match the name associated with the registration number provided in the Office of Enrollment and Discipline records for patent practitioners, the person that the Office will recognize as being of record will be the person associated with the registration number provided, because the Office enters the registration number, not the name, when making the practitioner of record. Accordingly, if the wrong registration number is provided, a new power of attorney will be required to correct the error.
See MPEP § 601.03(a) for change of correspondence address in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012; see MPEP § 601.03(b) for change of correspondence address in applications filed before September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 201.06(c), 402.02(a), and 402.02(b) for change in the power of attorney in continuation or divisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). See MPEP § 403 for the addition and/or deletion of a practitioner from the list of practitioners associated with a Customer Number. For a representative of a requester of reexamination, see MPEP § 2213.
II. REGISTERED PRACTITIONERS
For a power of attorney to be valid, the attorney or agent appointed must be registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in accordance with 37 CFR 11.6. Note that under 37 CFR 11.6(c), certain foreigners who are in good standing before the patent office of the country in which they reside and practice may be registered as a patent agent to practice before the Office for the limited purpose of presenting and prosecuting patent applications of applicants located in such country.
Any power of attorney given to a practitioner who has been suspended or disbarred by the Office is ineffective, and does not authorize the person to
practice before the Office or to represent applicants or patentees in patent matters.
III. INEFFECTIVE POWER OF ATTORNEY
When an application for patent is filed accompanied by a power of attorney to a person who is neither registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office nor named as the inventor or a joint inventor in the application, the Office of Patent Application Processing will send the official filing receipt directly to the first named applicant, together with an explanatory letter. A copy of the letter will be sent to the person named in the power and a copy placed in the file without being given a paper number. The name of the unregistered person will not be added to the list of patent practitioners of record for the application in the Office’s electronic records.
Form paragraph 4.09 may be used to notify applicant that the attorney or agent is not registered.
¶ 4.09 Unregistered Attorney or Agent
An examination of this application reveals that applicant has attempted to appoint an attorney or agent who is neither registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in patent matters nor named as an inventor in the application, contrary to the Code of Federal Regulations, 37 CFR 1.31 and 1.32. Therefore, the appointment is void, ab initio, and the Office will not recognize the appointment. All communications from the Office will be addressed to the first named applicant, unless specific instructions to the contrary are supplied by the applicant(s) for patent or owner(s).
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, in the absence of the appointment of a registered practitioner, all papers filed in the application must be signed: (1) by all named applicants unless one named applicant has been given a power of attorney to sign on behalf of the remaining applicants, and the power of attorney is of record in the application; or (2) if there is an assignee of record of an undivided part interest, by all named applicants retaining an interest and such assignee; or (3) if there is an assignee of the entire interest, by such assignee; or (4) by a registered patent attorney or agent not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all papers must be signed by: (1) a patent practitioner of record; (2) a patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34; or (3) the applicant, except that papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity applicant must be signed by a patent practitioner.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-3
§ 402REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
While an applicant (other than a juristic entity) may prosecute the application, lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicant is, therefore, encouraged to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent (i.e., registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) to prosecute the application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skillful preparation and prosecution.
The Office cannot aid you in selecting a registered attorney or agent, however, a list of attorneys and agents registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. For assistance locating this information, contact the Office of Enrollment and Discipline at (571) 272-4097 or call the Inventors Assistance Center toll-free number, 1(800)786-9199.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is to be used ONLY after ensuring that the named representative is not registered with the Office. A PALM inquiry should be first made and if no listing is given, the Office of Enrollment and Discipline should be contacted to determine the current “recognition” status of the individual named by the applicant in a “power of attorney.” If the named individual is NOT registered or otherwise recognized by the Office, the correspondence address of record should be promptly changed to that of the first named applicant unless applicant specifically provides a different “correspondence address.” A copy of the Office communication incorporating this form paragraph should also be mailed to the unregistered individual named by the applicant in the “power of attorney.”
402.01 Limited Recognition in Patent Matters [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 11.9 Limited recognition in patent matters.
(a) Any individual not registered under §11.6 may, upon a showing of circumstances which render it necessary or justifiable, and that the individual is of good moral character and reputation, be given limited recognition by the OED Director to prosecute as attorney or agent a specified patent application or specified patent applications. Limited recognition under this paragraph shall not extend further than the application or applications specified. Limited recognition shall not be granted while individuals who have passed the examination or for whom the examination has been waived are awaiting registration to practice before the Office in patent matters.
(b) A nonimmigrant alien residing in the United States and fulfilling the provisions of §11.7(a) and (b) may be granted limited recognition if the nonimmigrant alien is authorized by the United States Government to be employed or trained in the United States in the capacity of representing a patent applicant by presenting or prosecuting a patent application. Limited recognition shall be granted for a period consistent with the terms of authorized employment or training. Limited recognition shall not be granted or extended to a non-United States citizen residing abroad. If granted, limited recognition shall
automatically expire upon the nonimmigrant alien’s departure from the United States.
(c) An individual not registered under §11.6 may, if appointed by an applicant, prosecute an international patent application only before the United States International Searching Authority and the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority, provided that the individual has the right to practice before the national office with which the international application is filed as provided in PCT Art. 49, Rule 90 and § 1.455 of this subchapter, or before the International Bureau when the USPTO is acting as Receiving Office pursuant to PCT Rules 83.1 bis and 90.1.
If a request for limited recognition under 37 CFR 11.9 accompanies the application, the Office of Patent Application Processing will forward the file to the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
See MPEP § 1807 for representation in international applications (PCT) and MPEP § 2911 for representation in international design applications.
402.02 Appointment of Power of Attorney [R-11.2013]
For appointment of a power of attorney in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, see MPEP § 402.02(a). For appointment of a power of attorney in applications filed before September 16, 2012, see MPEP § 402.02(b).
Note that effective June 25, 2004, the associate power of attorney practice was eliminated. See Revision of Power of Attorney and Assignment
Practice, 69 FR 29865 (May 2004). The Office no longer accepts a power of attorney signed by a principal to name an associate power of attorney. An appointment of an associate power of attorney filed on or after June 25, 2004 will not be accepted. See also MPEP § 406.
402.02(a) Appointment in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 402.02(b) for information pertaining to appointment of a power of attorney in an application filed before September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.32 Power of attorney. *****
400-4Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402.01
(b) A power of attorney must:
(1) Be in writing;
(2) Name one or more representatives in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) Give the representative power to act on behalf of the principal; and
(4) Be signed by the applicant for patent (§ 1.42) or the patent owner. A patent owner who was not the applicant under § 1.46 must appoint any power of attorney in compliance with §§ 3.71 and 3.73 of this chapter.
*****
(d) A power of attorney from a prior national application for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in a continuing application may have effect in the continuing application if a copy of the power of attorney from the prior application is filed in the continuing application unless:
(1) The power of attorney was granted by the inventor; and
(2) The continuing application names an inventor who was not named as an inventor in the prior application.
(e) If the power of attorney was granted by the originally named inventive entity, and an added inventor pursuant to § 1.48 does not provide a power of attorney consistent with the power of attorney granted by the originally named inventive entity, the addition of the inventor results in the loss of that power of attorney upon grant of the § 1.48 request. This provision does not preclude a practitioner from acting pursuant to § 1.34, if applicable.
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERS OF ATTORNEY
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.32(b)(4) sets forth that a power of attorney must be signed by the applicant for patent or the patent owner (for reissue applications, reexamination proceedings and supplemental examination proceedings). An assignee who is not an applicant cannot revoke or appoint power of attorney in a patent application.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.42, the word “applicant” refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors or to the person applying for a patent as provided in 37 CFR 1.43 (legal representative of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor), 1.45 (joint inventor(s) on behalf of themselves and an omitted inventor) or 1.46 (assignee, obligated assignee, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest). As set forth in 37 CFR 1.42(b), if a person is applying for a patent as provided in 37 CFR 1.46, that person
(which may be a juristic entity), and not the inventor, is the applicant. In this situation the Office would not accept a power of attorney from the inventor. An assignee or obligated assignee who is the applicant may appoint an effective power of attorney without the need to establish the right to take action under 37 CFR 3.71. See also MPEP § 325. Persons who otherwise show sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may supply a power of attorney along with a petition under 37 CFR 1.46(b)(2), which power would be effective once the petition is granted.
An assignee who is not the applicant may sign a power of attorney only if the assignee becomes the applicant per 37 CFR 1.46(c) (which requires compliance with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73). See MPEP § 325. A patent owner who was not the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 must appoint any power of attorney in compliance with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73. This covers a patent owner in a reissue application who was not the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 in the application for the original patent, as well as a patent owner in a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding who was not the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46.
The power of attorney must be signed by someone who is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee-applicant (i.e., a person with a title that carries apparent authority, or a person who includes a statement of authorization to act.). A patent practitioner is not authorized to act on behalf of an assignee simply by existence of authority to prosecute an application.
II. POWERS OF ATTORNEY IN CONTINUING APPLICATIONS
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.32(d), a power of attorney from a prior national application for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) , or 386(c) in a continuing application may have effect in the continuing application if a copy of the power of attorney from the prior application is filed in the continuing application unless: (1) The power of attorney was granted by the inventor; and (2) the continuing application names an inventor who was not named as an inventor in the prior application. Thus 37 CFR 1.32(d) specifically requires that a
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-5
§ 402.02(a)REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
copy of the power of attorney from the prior application be filed in the continuing application to have effect (even where a change in power did not occur in the prior application).
III. POWER OF ATTORNEY FORMS FOR APPLICATIONS FILED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
Form PTO/AIA/80 should be used by assignees who want to become the applicant (see 37 CFR 1.46(c)). The form may also be used by assignee-applicants who were named as the applicant when the application was filed, if desired. In either situation, this form must be accompanied by a statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c) (form PTO/AIA/96 or equivalent). Where an assignee gives the practitioner specific authority to act on behalf of the assignee (e.g., authority given by organizational resolution), a practitioner may sign the PTO/AIA/80 on behalf of the assignee. Where an assignee is named as the applicant in the patent application (i.e., in a signed Application Data Sheet, form PTO/AIA/14 or equivalent), the assignee-applicant can appoint a power of attorney using the PTO/AIA/82 form. The forms are available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. These forms should only be used in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.
Note that the Office does not recommend that practitioners use a combined declaration and power of attorney document, and no longer provides such a form on the USPTO website.
402.02(b) Appointment in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 402.02(a) for information pertaining to appointment of a power of attorney in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERS OF ATTORNEY
37 CFR 1.32 (pre-AIA) Power of attorney. *****
(b) A power of attorney must:
(1) Be in writing;
(2) Name one or more representatives in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) Give the representative power to act on behalf of the principal; and
(4) Be signed by the applicant for patent (§ 1.41(b)) or the assignee of the entire interest of the applicant.
*****
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.32(b) sets forth that a power of attorney must be signed by the applicant for patent or the assignee of the entire interest of the applicant.
Pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(b), the word “applicant” refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors or to the person applying for a patent in place of the inventor under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42 (legal representative of deceased inventor), 1.43 (legal representative of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor), 1.47(a) (joint inventor(s) on behalf of themselves and joint inventor(s) who refuse to join or cannot be reached or found after diligent effort) or 1.47(b) (by assignee, obligated assignee, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest whenever all of the inventors refuse to sign or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort). Note that the Office does not recommend that practitioners use a combined declaration and power of attorney document, and no longer provides a combined declaration and power of attorney form on the USPTO website.
While a power of attorney may be signed by the inventor(s), the power of attorney should be signed by the assignee of the entire interest where one exists. Otherwise, the assignee may be paying the bill, while the inventor is providing the power of attorney, thereby possibly raising an issue as to who is the practitioner’s client. Additionally, relationships between an assignee and the inventors may deteriorate. It is not uncommon in these situations for inventors to stop cooperating and in some cases file powers of attorney in an attempt to control prosecution of the application. A power of attorney by the assignee of the entire interest revokes all powers given by the applicant and prior assignees if the assignee establishes their right to take action as provided in pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b). See MPEP § 324.
400-6Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402.02(b)
II. POWERS OF ATTORNEY IN CONTINUING APPLICATIONS
When filing a continuation or divisional application with a copy of a declaration from the parent application in accordance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d), applicants are required to identify in the continuation or divisional application any change in power of attorney that occurred after the filing of the parent application. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)(4). The Office suggests doing so by submitting a copy of the most recent power of attorney from the parent application in the continuing application to ensure that the Office recognizes the correct power of attorney.
III. POWER OF ATTORNEY FORMS FOR APPLICATIONS FILED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
Form PTO/SB/80 or PTO/SB/81 (available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms) should be used for powers of attorney in applications filed before September 16, 2012. Note that the Office does not recommend that practitioners use a combined declaration and power of attorney document, and no longer provides such a form on the USPTO website.
402.03 Signature Requirements for Papers Filed in an Application [R-07.2015]
I. SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATE
37 CFR 11.18 Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Office.
(a) For all documents filed in the Office in patent, trademark, and other non-patent matters, and all documents filed with a hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding, except for correspondence that is required to be signed by the applicant or party, each piece of correspondence filed by a practitioner in the Office must bear a signature, personally signed or inserted by such practitioner, in compliance with § 1.4(d) or § 2.193(a) of this chapter.
(b) By presenting to the Office or hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) any paper, the party presenting such paper, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, is certifying that—
(1) All statements made therein of the party’s own knowledge are true, all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to be true, and all statements made therein are made with the knowledge that whoever, in any matter within
the jurisdiction of the Office, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or knowingly and willfully makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be subject to the penalties set forth under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and any other applicable criminal statute, and violations of the provisions of this section may jeopardize the probative value of the paper; and
(2) To the best of the party’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
(i) The paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass someone or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office;
(ii) The other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(iii) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(iv) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Violations of any of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section are, after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to such sanctions or actions as deemed appropriate by the USPTO Director, which may include, but are not limited to, any combination of—
(1) Striking the offending paper;
(2) Referring a practitioner’s conduct to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action;
(3) Precluding a party or practitioner from submitting a paper, or presenting or contesting an issue;
(4) Affecting the weight given to the offending paper; or
(5) Terminating the proceedings in the Office.
(d) Any practitioner violating the provisions of this section may also be subject to disciplinary action.
37 CFR 11.18(a) emphasizes that every paper filed by a practitioner must be personally signed by the practitioner, except those required to be signed by the applicant or party.
37 CFR 11.18(b) provides that, by presenting any paper to the Office, the party presenting such paper (whether a practitioner or nonpractitioner) is: (1)
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-7
§ 402.03REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
certifying that the statements made therein are subject to the declaration clause of 37 CFR 1.68; and (2) making the certifications required for papers filed in a federal court under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See MPEP § 410. 37 CFR 11.18(d) provides that any practitioner violating the provisions of 37 CFR 11.18 may also be subject to disciplinary action, thus clarifying that a practitioner may be subject to disciplinary action in lieu of, or in addition to, the sanctions set forth in 37 CFR 11.18(c) for violations of 37 CFR 11.18. See also 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4).
The certifications in 37 CFR 11.18(b) apply to all papers filed in the Office, including allegations of improper conduct made by a registered practitioner in any Office proceeding.
II. ACTING IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY
37 CFR 1.34 Acting in a representative capacity
When a patent practitioner acting in a representative capacity appears in person or signs a paper in practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in a patent case, his or her personal appearance or signature shall constitute a representation to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that under the provisions of this subchapter and the law, he or she is authorized to represent the particular party on whose behalf he or she acts. In filing such a paper, the patent practitioner must set forth his or her registration number, his or her name and signature. Further proof of authority to act in a representative capacity may be required.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.34, a paper filed by a registered patent attorney or agent in an application in which he or she is not of record must include his or her name and registration number with his or her signature. Acceptance of papers filed in patent applications and reexamination proceedings by registered attorneys and agents upon a representation that the attorney or agent is authorized to act in a representative capacity is for the purpose of facilitating replies on behalf of applicants in patent applications and, further, to obviate the need for filing powers of attorney in individual applications or patents when there has been a change in composition of law firms or corporate patent staffs.
See MPEP § 408 for information concerning interviews with an attorney or agent not of record.
Except as noted below, a person acting in a representative capacity may not sign (A) a power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32), (B) a document granting access to an application, (C) a change of correspondence address)), (D) a terminal disclaimer (37 CFR 1.321(b)(1)(iv)), or (E) a request for an express abandonment without filing a continuing application (37 CFR 1.138(b)). In an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, a person acting in a representative capacity may sign a document granting access to an application or a change of correspondence address if (1) a power of attorney has not been appointed under 37 CFR 1.32(b) and (2) the patent practitioner was named in the application transmittal papers. See 37 CFR 1.14(c) and 1.33(a). In an application filed before September 16, 2012, a person acting in a representative capacity may sign a document granting access to an application or a change of correspondence address if (1) an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 has not been filed and (2) the patent practitioner was named in the application transmittal papers. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.14(c) and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a).
402.04 [Reserved]
402.05 Revocation of Power of Attorney [R-11.2013]
Revocation of a power of attorney becomes effective on the date that the revocation is RECEIVED in the Office (not on the date of ACCEPTANCE). Upon revocation of the power of attorney, appropriate notification is sent by the Office. While an application is involved in an interference or derivation proceeding, any power of attorney or revocation of power of attorney should be forwarded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for consideration. See MPEP § 402.08.
See MPEP § 402.05(a) for applicant revocation of powers of attorney in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 402.05(b) for applicant revocation of powers of attorney in applications filed before September 16, 2012. See
400-8Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402.04
MPEP § 402.07 for assignee revocation of a power of attorney.
402.05(a) Applicant Revocation - Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.36 Revocation of power of attorney; withdrawal of patent attorney or agent.
(a) A power of attorney, pursuant to § 1.32(b), may be revoked at any stage in the proceedings of a case by the applicant or patent owner. A power of attorney to the patent practitioners associated with a Customer Number will be treated as a request to revoke any powers of attorney previously given. Fewer than all of the applicants (or fewer than all patent owners in a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding) may revoke the power of attorney only upon a showing of sufficient cause, and payment of the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(f). A patent practitioner will be notified of the revocation of the power of attorney. Where power of attorney is given to the patent practitioners associated with a Customer Number (§ 1.32(c)(2)), the practitioners so appointed will also be notified of the revocation of the power of attorney when the power of attorney to all of the practitioners associated with the Customer Number is revoked. The notice of revocation will be mailed to the correspondence address for the application (§ 1.33) in effect before the revocation. An assignment will not of itself operate as a revocation of a power previously given, but the assignee may become the applicant under § 1.46(c) and revoke any previous power of attorney and grant a power of attorney as provided in § 1.32(b).
*****
A power of attorney may be revoked only by the applicant or patent owner. An assignee who is not the applicant may revoke a power of attorney only if the assignee becomes the applicant per 37 CFR 1.46(c) (which requires compliance with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73).
If the power of attorney was granted by the originally named inventive entity and an added inventor pursuant to § 1.48 does not provide a power of attorney consistent with the power of attorney granted by the originally named inventive entity, the addition of the inventor results in the loss of that power of attorney upon grant of the § 1.48 request. This provision does not preclude a practitioner from acting pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34, if applicable. See MPEP § 402.03 for information pertaining to acting in a representative capacity.
A nonsigning inventor or legal representative may subsequently join in the application by submitting an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. However, 37 CFR 1.64(f) provides that the submission of an oath or declaration by a nonsigning inventor or legal representative in an application filed under 37 CFR 1.43, 1.45 or 1.46 will not permit the nonsigning inventor or legal representative to revoke or grant a power of attorney.
See MPEP § 402.02(a) for appointment of a new power of attorney in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.
When an original power of attorney is filed giving power of attorney to attorneys A, B, and C, and the same principal subsequently files another power of attorney, giving power of attorney to D without revoking all prior powers of attorney, the subsequently filed power of attorney will be treated as a revocation of the original power of attorney. Similarly, if the applicant signed the original power of attorney, and an assignee of the entire interest of the applicant later takes action and files a new power of attorney, the original power of attorney is revoked and replaced by the power of attorney filed by the assignee. In addition, if a power of attorney is given to the practitioners associated with a Customer Number, and a (second) power of attorney is later received giving power of attorney to patent practitioners associated with a different Customer Number, the second power of attorney will be processed, with the first Customer Number being replaced with the second. The power of attorney to the practitioners associated with the first Customer Number is automatically revoked in this situation. In all of these situations, the most recently filed power of attorney will control.
402.05(b) Applicant Revocation - Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.36 (pre-AIA) Revocation of power of attorney; withdrawal of patent attorney or agent.
(a) A power of attorney, pursuant to § 1.32(b), may be revoked at any stage in the proceedings of a case by an applicant for patent (§ 1.41(b)) or an assignee of the entire interest of the applicant, or the owner of the entire interest of a patent. A power of attorney to the patent practitioners associated with a Customer Number will be treated as a request to revoke any powers of
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-9
§ 402.05(b)REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
attorney previously given. Fewer than all of the applicants (or fewer than all of the assignees of the entire interest of the applicant or, in a reexamination proceeding, fewer than all the owners of the entire interest of a patent) may revoke the power of attorney only upon a showing of sufficient cause, and payment of the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(f). A patent practitioner will be notified of the revocation of the power of attorney. Where power of attorney is given to the patent practitioners associated with a Customer Number (§ 1.32(c)(2)), the practitioners so appointed will also be notified of the revocation of the power of attorney when the power of attorney to all of the practitioners associated with the Customer Number is revoked. The notice of revocation will be mailed to the correspondence address for the application (§ 1.33) in effect before the revocation. An assignment will not of itself operate as a revocation of a power previously given, but the assignee of the entire interest of the applicant may revoke previous powers of attorney and give another power of attorney of the assignee’s own selection as provided in § 1.32(b).
*****
See MPEP § 402.07 for revocation of a power attorney by the assignee. Form PTO/SB/81 may be used to revoke a power of attorney in an application filed before September 16, 2012. See also MPEP § 402.02(b).
If the power of attorney was granted by the originally named inventive entity and an added inventor pursuant to § 1.48 does not provide a power of attorney consistent with the power of attorney granted by the originally named inventive entity, the addition of the inventor results in the loss of that power of attorney upon grant of the § 1.48 request. This provision does not preclude a practitioner from acting pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34, if applicable. See MPEP § 402.03 for information pertaining to acting in a representative capacity.
When an original power of attorney is filed giving power of attorney to attorneys A, B, and C, and the same principal subsequently files another power of attorney, giving power of attorney to D without revoking all prior powers of attorney, the subsequently filed power of attorney will be treated as a revocation of the original power of attorney. Similarly, if the applicant signed the original power of attorney, and an assignee of the entire interest of the applicant later takes action and files a new power of attorney, the original power of attorney is revoked and replaced by the power of attorney filed by the assignee. In addition, if a power of attorney is given to the practitioners associated with a Customer Number, and a (second) power of attorney is later
received giving power of attorney to patent practitioners associated with a different Customer Number, the second power of attorney will be processed, with the first Customer Number being replaced with the second. The power of attorney to the practitioners associated with the first Customer Number is automatically revoked in this situation. In all of these situations, the most recently filed power of attorney will control.
A nonsigning inventor may subsequently join in a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 application by submitting an oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63. However, even if the nonsigning inventor joins in the application, he or she cannot revoke or give a power of attorney without agreement of the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 applicant.
402.06 Attorney or Agent Withdraws [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.36 Revocation of power of attorney; withdrawal of patent attorney or agent.
*****
(b) A registered patent attorney or patent agent who has been given a power of attorney pursuant to § 1.32(b) may withdraw as attorney or agent of record upon application to and approval by the Director. The applicant or patent owner will be notified of the withdrawal of the registered patent attorney or patent agent. Where power of attorney is given to the patent practitioners associated with a Customer Number, a request to delete all of the patent practitioners associated with the Customer Number may not be granted if an applicant has given power of attorney to the patent practitioners associated with the Customer Number in an application that has an Office action to which a reply is due, but insufficient time remains for the applicant to file a reply. See § 41.5 of this title for withdrawal during proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
37 CFR 11.116 Declining or terminating representation.
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c) of this section, a practitioner shall not represent a client, or where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) The representation will result in violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(2) The practitioner’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the practitioner’s ability to represent the client; or
(3) The practitioner is discharged.
(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c) of this section, a practitioner may withdraw from representing a client if:
400-10Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402.06
(1) Withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) The client persists in a course of action involving the practitioner’s services that the practitioner reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) The client has used the practitioner’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) A client insists upon taking action that the practitioner considers repugnant or with which the practitioner has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) The client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the practitioner regarding the practitioner’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the practitioner will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(6) The representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the practitioner or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) Other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) A practitioner must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a practitioner shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Upon termination of representation, a practitioner shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The practitioner may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.
See MPEP § 402.05(a) for applicant revocation of power of attorney in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. For revocation of power of attorney in applications filed before September 16, 2012, see MPEP § 402.05(b) for revocation by the applicant and MPEP § 402.07 for revocation by the assignee. See 37 CFR 11.116 for information regarding permissive and mandatory withdrawal. When filing a request to withdraw as attorney or agent of record, the patent attorney or agent should briefly state the reason(s) for which he or she is withdrawing so that the Office can determine whether to grant the request. Among several scenarios addressed in 37 CFR 11.116(b), subsections (5) and (6) permit withdrawal when after reasonable warning the client fails to compensate the practitioner, or when the representation “has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client.” When preparing a request for withdrawal for such reasons, the practitioner should also be mindful of 37 CFR
11.106, which requires a practitioner to maintain the confidentiality of client information (except in limited circumstances). Where withdrawal is predicated upon such reasons, the practitioner, rather than divulging confidential or secret information about the client, should identify the reason(s) for requesting to withdraw as being based on “irreconcilable differences.” An explanation of and the evidence supporting “irreconcilable differences” should be submitted as proprietary material in accordance with MPEP § 724.02 to ensure that the client’s confidences are maintained.
In the event that a notice of withdrawal is filed by the attorney or agent of record, the file will be forwarded to the appropriate official for decision on the request. The withdrawal is effective when approved rather than when received.
Each attorney of record must sign the notice of withdrawal, or the notice of withdrawal must contain a clear indication of one attorney signing on behalf of himself or herself and another. A withdrawal of another attorney or agent of record, without also withdrawing the attorney or agent signing the request is a revocation, not a withdrawal.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 11.116(c), when terminating a representation a practitioner must provide notice to, or request permission from, a tribunal when required by applicable law. Pursuant to 37 CFR 11.116(d), a practitioner is required to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred.
The Request for Withdrawal As Attorney or Agent and Change of Correspondence Address forms (PTO/SB/83 or PTO/AIA/83, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms) provide a section wherein practitioners may certify the completion of activities necessary for the request to withdraw from representation to be granted. A Request for Withdrawal As Attorney or Agent may alternatively be filed as a Web-based e-petition (see www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/ epetitions/epetitions-faqs for more information).
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-11
§ 402.06REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
When the correspondence address will change as a result of withdrawal, the withdrawing practitioner(s) must request that the Office direct all future correspondence to (i) the first named inventor or assignee that has properly made itself of record pursuant to 37 CFR 3.71 (for applications filed before September 16, 2012), or (ii) the applicant (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or (iii) the assignee of record (for proceedings involving issued patents). Practitioners may do so by specifying either the correspondence address of, or the address associated with the Customer Number of, any appropriate party as specified above. Withdrawing practitioner(s) cannot change the correspondence address to the address associated with the Customer Number of another law firm, or any other address except as noted above.
As long as the Request is filed prior to the expiration date of a time period for reply or the expiration date of a time period which can be obtained by a petition and fee for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a), the Office will review the Request and render a decision, even if the decision on the Request is decided after the stated period for reply, after the application is abandoned, or after proceedings have terminated. In contrast, the Office will not decide requests to withdraw from representation as practitioner of record which are filed after the expiration date of a time period for reply or the expiration date of a time period which can be obtained by a petition and fee for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a). These Requests will be
placed in the application but will not be treated on their merits. In a similar situation, a revocation of power of attorney filed after the expiration date of a time period for reply or the expiration date of a time period which can be obtained by a petition and fee for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 will simply be placed in the application file. The only exception will be a revocation and power of attorney accompanied with a petition to revive.
For withdrawal during reexamination proceedings, see MPEP § 2223. Requests for withdrawal filed after a patent has issued will be placed in the file but will generally not be treated on their merits.
The Office will not approve requests from practitioners to withdraw from applications where the requesting practitioner is acting, or has acted, in a representative capacity pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34. In these situations, the practitioner is responsible for the correspondence the practitioner files in the application while acting in a representative capacity. As such, there is no need for the practitioner to obtain the Office's permission to withdraw from representation. However, practitioners acting in a representative capacity, like practitioners who have a power of attorney in the application, remain responsible for noncompliance with 37 CFR 1.56, as well as 37 CFR 11.18, with respect to documents they file.
Form PTO/AIA/83 may be used to request withdrawal of attorney or agent of record.
400-12Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402.06
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-13
§ 402.06REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
400-14Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402.06
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-15
§ 402.06REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
402.07 Assignee Revocation of Power of Attorney of Applicant and Appointment of New Power of Attorney [R-07.2015]
I. APPLICATION FILED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
In applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, any power of attorney must be signed by the applicant or patent owner. See 37 CFR 1.32(b). For an assignee to revoke a previously given power of attorney and/or grant a power of attorney, the assignee must become the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c). See MPEP §§ 402.02(a) and 402.05(a). See MPEP § 325 for details pertaining to establishing the right of an assignee to take action in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.
II. APPLICATION FILED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
In applications filed before September 16, 2012, the assignee of record of the entire interest can revoke the power of attorney of the applicant unless an “irrevocable” right to prosecute the application had been given as in some government owned applications.
37 CFR 3.71 (pre-AIA) Prosecution by assignee.
(a) Patents — conducting of prosecution. One or more assignees as defined in paragraph (b) of this section may, after becoming of record pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, conduct prosecution of a national patent application or a reexamination proceeding to the exclusion of either the inventive entity, or the assignee(s) previously entitled to conduct prosecution.
(b) Patents — assignee(s) who can prosecute. The assignee(s) who may conduct either the prosecution of a national application for patent or a reexamination proceeding are:
(1) A single assignee. An assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined who is of record, or
(2) Partial assignee(s) together or with inventor(s). All partial assignees, or all partial assignees and inventors who have not assigned their right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined, who together own the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined.
A partial assignee is any assignee of record having less than the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined.
(c) Patents — Becoming of record. An assignee becomes of record either in a national patent application or a reexamination proceeding by filing a statement in compliance with § 3.73(b) that is signed by a party who is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee.
(d) Trademarks. The assignee of a trademark application or registration may prosecute a trademark application, submit documents to maintain a trademark registration, or file papers against a third party in reliance on the assignee’s trademark application or registration, to the exclusion of the original applicant or previous assignee. The assignee must establish ownership in compliance with § 3.73(b).
See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.36 in MPEP § 402.05(b).
A power of attorney by the assignee of the entire interest revokes all powers given by the applicant and prior assignees if the assignee establishes their right to take action as provided in pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b). See MPEP § 324. Ordinarily, the applicant will still have access to the application (MPEP § 106).
In an application that has been accorded status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(a), or for which status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(a) has been requested, a power of attorney given by the inventors who have signed the declaration (available inventors) may be revoked by an assignee of the entire interest of the available inventors (i.e., the applicant). See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.32(b)(4). Rights of the assignee to take action may be established as provided in pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) and MPEP § 324.
Form PTO/SB/80 may be used by an assignee of the entire interest of the applicant to revoke a power of attorney and appoint a new power of attorney. The assignee would sign the power of attorney, and a newly appointed practitioner, having authority to take action on behalf of the assignee would sign a statement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) for the application in which the general power of attorney is to be used.
400-16Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402.07
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-17
§ 402.07REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
400-18Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 402.07
402.08 Application in Interference or Derivation Proceeding [R-11.2013]
While an application is involved in an interference or derivation proceeding, any power of attorney of or revocation of power of attorney should be forwarded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for consideration.
402.09 International Application [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 11.9 Limited recognition in patent matters.
(a) Any individual not registered under § 11.6 may, upon a showing of circumstances which render it necessary or justifiable, and that the individual is of good moral character and reputation, be given limited recognition by the OED Director to prosecute as attorney or agent a specified patent application or specified patent applications. Limited recognition under this paragraph shall not extend further than the application or applications specified. Limited recognition shall not be granted while individuals who have passed the examination or for whom the examination has been waived are awaiting registration to practice before the Office in patent matters.
(b) A nonimmigrant alien residing in the United States and fulfilling the provisions of § 11.7(a) and (b) may be granted limited recognition if the nonimmigrant alien is authorized by the United States Government to be employed or trained in the United States in the capacity of representing a patent applicant by presenting or prosecuting a patent application. Limited recognition shall be granted for a period consistent with the terms of authorized employment or training. Limited recognition shall not be granted or extended to a non-United States citizen residing abroad. If granted, limited recognition shall automatically expire upon the nonimmigrant alien’s departure from the United States.
(c) An individual not registered under § 11.6 may, if appointed by an applicant, prosecute an international patent application only before the United States International Searching Authority and the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority, provided that the individual has the right to practice before the national office with which the international application is filed as provided in PCT Art. 49, Rule 90 and § 1.455 of this subchapter, or before the International Bureau when the USPTO is acting as Receiving Office pursuant to PCT Rules 83.1 bis and 90.1.
37 CFR 1.455 Representation in international applications.
(a) Applicants of international applications may be represented by attorneys or agents registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office or by an applicant appointed as a common representative (PCT Art. 49, Rules 4.8 and 90 and § 11.9). If applicants have not appointed an attorney or agent or one of the applicants to represent them, and there is more than one applicant, the applicant first named in the request and who is entitled to file in the U.S. Receiving Office shall be considered to be the common representative of all the applicants.
An attorney or agent having the right to practice before a national office with which an international application is filed and for which the United States is an International Searching Authority or International Preliminary Examining Authority may be appointed to represent the applicants in the international application before that authority. An attorney or agent may appoint an associate attorney or agent who shall also then be of record (PCT Rule 90.1(d)). The appointment of an attorney or agent, or of a common representative, revokes any earlier appointment unless otherwise indicated (PCT Rule 90.6(b) and (c)).
(b) Appointment of an agent, attorney or common representative (PCT Rule 4.8) must be effected either in the Request form, signed by applicant, in the Demand form, signed by applicant, or in a separate power of attorney submitted either to the United States Receiving Office or to the International Bureau.
(c) Powers of attorney and revocations thereof should be submitted to the United States Receiving Office until the issuance of the international search report.
(d) The addressee for correspondence will be as indicated in section 108 of the Administrative Instructions.
For representation in international applications, see MPEP § 1807.
402.10 Appointment/Revocation by Less Than All Applicants or Owners [R-11.2013]
Papers giving or revoking a power of attorney in an application generally require signature by all the applicants or owners of the application. Papers revoking a power of attorney in an application (or giving a power of attorney) will not be accepted by the Office when signed by less than all of the applicants or owners of the application unless they are accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.36(a) and fee under 37 CFR 1.17(f) with a showing of sufficient cause (if revocation), or a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 and fee under 37 CFR 1.17(f) (if appointment) demonstrating the extraordinary situation where justice requires waiver of the requirement of 37 CFR 1.32(b)(4). The petition should be directed to the Office of Petitions. The appointment and/or revocation are not accepted until the petition under 37 CFR 1.36(a) or 1.183 is granted. Therefore, the attorney or agent newly appointed by such papers is not permitted to submit any documents (such as an information disclosure statement (IDS)) into the application file until the petition under 37 CFR 1.36(a) or 1.183 is granted. The acceptance of such papers by petition under 37 CFR 1.36(a) or 1.183 will result in more than one
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-19
§ 402.10REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
attorney, agent, applicant, or owner prosecuting the application at the same time. Therefore, each of these parties must sign all subsequent replies submitted to the Office. See In re Goldstein, 16 USPQ2d 1963 (Dep. Assist. Comm’r Pat. 1988). In an application filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(a), an assignee of the entire interest of the available inventors (i.e., the applicant) who has signed the declaration may appoint or revoke a power of attorney without a petition under 37 CFR 1.36(a) or 1.183. See MPEP § 402.07. However, in applications accepted under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47, such a petition under 37 CFR 1.36(a) or 1.183 submitted by a previously nonsigning inventor who has now joined in the application will not be granted. See MPEP § 409.03(i). Upon accepting papers appointing and/or revoking a power of attorney that are signed by less than all of the applicants or owners, the Office will indicate to applicants who must sign subsequent replies. Dual correspondence will still not be permitted. Accordingly, when the acceptance of such papers results in an attorney or agent and at least one applicant or owner prosecuting the application, correspondence will be mailed to the attorney or agent. When the acceptance of such papers results in more than one attorney or agent prosecuting the application, the correspondence address will continue to be that of the attorney or agent first named in the application, unless all parties agree to a different correspondence address. Each attorney or agent signing subsequent papers must indicate whom he or she represents.
The following are examples of who must sign replies when there is more than one person responsible for prosecuting the application:
(A) If coinventor A has given a power of attorney to a patent practitioner and coinventor B has not, replies must be signed by the patent practitioner of A and by coinventor B.
(B) If coinventors A and B have each appointed their own patent practitioner, replies must be signed by both patent practitioners.
403 Correspondence — With Whom Held; Customer Number Practice [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.33 states that when an attorney or agent has been duly appointed to prosecute an application,
correspondence will be held with the attorney or agent unless some other correspondence address has been given. If an attorney or agent of record assigns a correspondence address which is different than an address where the attorney or agent normally receives mail, the attorney or agent is reminded that 37 CFR 11.106 requires the attorney or agent to keep information obtained by attorney/agent – client relationship in confidence. Double correspondence with an applicant and his or her attorney, or with two representatives, will not be undertaken. See MPEP §§ 403.01(a), 403.01(b), 403.02, and 714.01(d).
If double correspondence is attempted, form paragraph 4.01 should be included in the next Office action.
¶ 4.01 Dual Correspondence
Applicant has appointed an attorney or agent to conduct all business before the Patent and Trademark Office. Double correspondence with an applicant and applicant's attorney or agent will not be undertaken. Accordingly, applicant is required to conduct all future correspondence with this Office through the attorney or agent of record. See 37 CFR 1.33.
Examiner Note:
1. The first time a reply is received directly from applicant, include this paragraph in the Office action and send a copy of the action to the applicant. See MPEP §§ 403 and 714.01.
2. Should applicant file additional replies, do not send copies of subsequent Office actions to the applicant.
3. Status letters from the applicant may be acknowledged in isolated instances.
See MPEP § 403.01(a) for additional information pertaining to correspondence in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 403.01(b) for additional information pertaining to correspondence in applications filed before September 16, 2012.
I. CUSTOMER NUMBER PRACTICE
A Customer Number (previously a “Payor Number”) may be used to:
(A) designate the correspondence address of a patent application or patent such that the correspondence address for the patent application or patent would be the address associated with the Customer Number (37 CFR 1.32(a)(5)(i));
400-20Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 403
(B) designate the fee address (37 CFR 1.363) of a patent such that the fee address for the patent would be the address associated with the Customer Number (37 CFR 1.32(a)(5)(ii)); and
(C) submit a list of practitioners such that those practitioners associated with the Customer Number would have power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32(a)(5)(iii)).
Thus, a Customer Number may be used to designate the address associated with the Customer Number as the correspondence address of an application (or patent) or the fee address of a patent, and may also be used to submit a power of attorney in the application (or patent) to the registered practitioners associated with the Customer Number.
Applicant may use either the same or different customer number(s) for the correspondence address, the fee address and/or a list of practitioners. The customer number associated with the correspondence address is the Customer Number used to obtain access to the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system at http://pair.uspto.gov. See MPEP § 1730 for additional information regarding PAIR.
The following forms are suggested for use with the Customer Number practice:
(A) the “Request for Customer Number” (PTO/SB/125) to request a Customer Number;
(B) the “Request for Customer Number Data Change” (PTO/SB/124) to request a change in the data (address or list of practitioners) associated with an existing Customer Number;
(C) the “Change of Correspondence Address, Application” (PTO/SB/122) to change the correspondence address of an individual application to the address associated with a Customer Number; and
(D) the “Change of Correspondence Address, Patent” (PTO/SB/123) to change the correspondence address of an individual patent to the address associated with a Customer Number.
The Office will also accept requests on electronic storage media submitted electronically to change the correspondence address of a list of applications or patents or the fee address for a list of patents to the
address associated with a Customer Number. Instructions for submitting such requests are available on the “Customer Number Upload S p r e a d s h e e t ” a v a i l a b l e a t www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers /patent-electronic-business-center.
Such electronic requests must comply with the requirements set forth in the Notice entitled “Extension of the Payor Number Practice (through “Customer Numbers”) to Matters Involving Pending Patent Applications,” published in the Federal Register at 61 FR 54622, 54623-24 (October 21, 1996), and in the Official Gazette at 1191 O. G. 187, 188-89 (October 29, 1996).
With Customer Number practice, a patentee is also able to designate a “fee address” for the receipt of maintenance fee correspondence, and a different address for the receipt of all other correspondence. The designation of a “fee address” by reference to a Customer Number will not affect or be affected by the designation of a correspondence address by reference to another Customer Number, in that the Office will send maintenance fee correspondence to the address associated with the Customer Number designated as the “fee address” and will send all other correspondence to the address associated with the Customer Number designated as the correspondence address.
The association of a list of practitioners with a Customer Number will permit an applicant to appoint all of the practitioners associated with the Customer Number merely by reference to the Customer Number in the Power of Attorney (i.e., without individually listing the practitioners in the Power of Attorney). The addition and/or deletion of a practitioner from the list of practitioners associated with a Customer Number by submitting a corresponding “Request for Customer Number Data Change” (PTO/SB/124) will result in the addition or deletion of such practitioner from the list of persons authorized to represent any applicant or assignee of the entire interest of the applicant who appointed all of the practitioners associated with such Customer Number. This will avoid the necessity for the filing of additional papers in each patent application affected by a change in the practitioners of the law firm prosecuting the application. The
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-21
§ 403REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
appointment of practitioners associated with a Customer Number is optional, in that any applicant may continue to individually name those practitioners to represent the applicant in a patent application, so long as fewer than ten patent practitioners are named. See 37 CFR 1.32(c)(3).
The Customer Number practice does not affect the prohibition against, and does not amount to, an appointment of a law firm (rather than specified practitioners). The Office prohibits an appointment of a specified law firm because the Office cannot ascertain from its records whether a particular practitioner submitting a paper to the Office is associated with the law firm specified in an appointment. The Office will permit an appointment of all of the practitioners associated with a specified Customer Number because the Office can ascertain from its records for the specified Customer Number whether a particular practitioner is associated with that Customer Number.
As the Office will not recognize more than one correspondence address (37 CFR 1.33(a)), any inconsistencies between the correspondence address resulting from a Customer Number being provided in an application for the correspondence address and any other correspondence address provided in that application will generally be resolved in favor of the address of the Customer Number or the application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(d)). Due to the prohibition against dual correspondence in an application (37 CFR 1.33(a)), an applicant will be permitted to provide only a single number at a time as the Customer Number for the correspondence address.
Where an applicant appoints all of the practitioners associated with a Customer Number as well as a list of individually named practitioners, such action would be treated as only an appointment of all of the practitioners associated with a Customer Number due to the potential for confusion and data entry errors in entering registration numbers from plural sources. Furthermore, Office computer systems do not allow for entry of both a power of attorney to a list of practitioners associated with a Customer Number and a list of practitioners.
Although Customer Numbers are designed to designate both a correspondence address and to
associate one or more patent practitioners with an application, one Customer Number may be used for the correspondence address, and another Customer Number may be used for the power of attorney.
Applicants are strongly cautioned not to attempt to appoint more than one Customer Number for a particular purpose (e.g., correspondence address) in a single communication, as such action will not have a cumulative effect.
The Office has created a Mail Stop designation for correspondence related to a Customer Number (“Mail Stop EBC”), and all correspondence related to a Customer Number (e.g., requests for a Customer Number) should be addressed to this mail stop designation.
The following persons are authorized to change the information associated with an established Customer Number: (1) a registered practitioner associated with the Customer Number; and (2) the person who requested the Customer Number (signed the Request for Customer Number, Form PTO/SB/125).
II. PATENT APPLICATION FILED WITHOUT CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
In accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53, a filing date is granted to a nonprovisional application for patent filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, if it includes at least a specification prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 containing a description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75, and any drawing required by 37 CFR 1.81(a). If a nonprovisional application which has been accorded a filing date does not include the appropriate basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, or inventor’s oath or declaration, the applicant will be so notified and given a period of time within which to file the missing parts to complete the application and to pay the surcharge as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f) in order to prevent abandonment of the application. If a provisional application which has been accorded a filing date does not include the appropriate filing fee, or the cover sheet, the applicant will be so notified and given a period of time within which to file the missing parts to complete the application and
400-22Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 403
to pay the surcharge as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(g) in order to prevent abandonment of the application.
In order for the Office to so notify the applicant, a correspondence address must also be provided by the applicant. The address may be different from the post office address of the applicant. For example, the address of the applicant’s registered attorney or agent may be used as the correspondence address. If the applicant fails to provide the Office with a correspondence address, the Office will be unable to provide the applicant with notification to complete the application and to pay the surcharge as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f) for nonprovisional applications and 37 CFR 1.16(g) for provisional applications. In such a case, the applicant will be considered to have constructive notice as of the filing date that the application must be completed and the applicant will have 2 months from the filing date in which to do so before abandonment occurs.
The periods of time within which the applicant must complete the application may be extended under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136. Applications which are not completed in a timely manner will be abandoned.
403.01 [Reserved]
403.01(a) Correspondence in Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.33 Correspondence respecting patent applications, reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings.
(a) Correspondence address and daytime telephone number. When filing an application, a correspondence address must be set forth in either an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or elsewhere, in a clearly identifiable manner, in any paper submitted with an application filing. If no correspondence address is specified, the Office may treat the mailing address of the first named inventor (if provided, see §§ 1.76(b)(1) and 1.63(b)(2)) as the correspondence address. The Office will direct, or otherwise make available, all notices, official letters, and other communications relating to the application to the person associated with the correspondence address. For correspondence submitted via the Office's electronic filing system, however, an electronic acknowledgment receipt will be sent to the submitter. The Office will generally not engage in double correspondence with an applicant and a patent practitioner, or with more than one patent practitioner except as deemed necessary by the Director. If more than one correspondence address is specified, the Office will select one of the specified addresses for use as
the correspondence address and, if given, may select the address associated with a Customer Number over a typed correspondence address. For the party to whom correspondence is to be addressed, a daytime telephone number should be supplied in a clearly identifiable manner and may be changed by any party who may change the correspondence address. The correspondence address may be changed by the parties set forth in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(3) of this section. Prior to the appointment of any power of attorney under § 1.32(b), the correspondence address may also be changed by any patent practitioner named in the application transmittal papers who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34.
(b) Amendments and other papers. Amendments and other papers, except for written assertions pursuant to § 1.27(c)(2)(iii) or (c)(2)(iv), filed in the application must be signed by:
(1) A patent practitioner of record;
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34; or
(3) The applicant (§ 1.42). Unless otherwise specified, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner.
(c) All notices, official letters, and other communications for the patent owner or owners in a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding will be directed to the correspondence address in the patent file. Amendments filed in a reexamination proceeding, and other papers filed in a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, on behalf of the patent owner must be signed by the patent owner, or if there is more than one owner by all the owners, or by an attorney or agent of record in the patent file, or by a registered attorney or agent not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34. Double correspondence with the patent owner or owners and the patent owner’s attorney or agent, or with more than one attorney or agent, will not be undertaken.
(d) A “correspondence address” or change thereto may be filed with the Patent and Trademark Office during the enforceable life of the patent. The “correspondence address” will be used in any correspondence relating to maintenance fees unless a separate “fee address” has been specified. See § 1.363 for “fee address” used solely for maintenance fee purposes.
(e) A change of address filed in a patent application or patent does not change the address for a patent practitioner in the roster of patent attorneys and agents. See § 11.11 of this title.
(f) Where application papers from a prior application are used in a continuing application and the correspondence address was changed during the prosecution of the prior application, an application data sheet or separate paper identifying the correspondence address to be used for the continuing application must be submitted. Otherwise, the Office may not recognize the change of correspondence address effected during the prosecution of the prior application.
(g) A patent practitioner acting in a representative capacity whose correspondence address is the correspondence address of record in an application may change the correspondence address after the patent has issued, provided that the change of
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-23
§ 403.01(a)REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
correspondence address is accompanied by a statement that notice has been given to the patentee or owner.
37 CFR 1.33(a) specifies that if an applicant provides more than one correspondence address (in a single paper or in different papers), the Office will select one of the specified addresses for use as the correspondence address and, if given, may select the correspondence address associated with a Customer Number over a typed correspondence address. However, the hierarchy provided in 37 CFR 1.76(d) for inconsistencies between an application data sheet and other documents will still apply.
37 CFR 1.33(a) also provides that the correspondence address may be changed by the parties set forth in 37 CFR 1.33(b)(1) (a patent practitioner of record) or 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3) (the applicant under 37 CFR 1.42)). Prior to the appointment of any power of attorney under 37 CFR 1.32(b), the correspondence address may also be changed by any patent practitioner named in the application transmittal papers who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34. While a practitioner acting in a representative capacity cannot change the correspondence address in an application after a power of attorney has been appointed, 37 CFR 1.33(g) provides that a practitioner acting in a representative capacity whose correspondence address is the correspondence address of record in an application may change the correspondence address after the patent has issued, provided that the change of correspondence address is accompanied by a statement that notice has been given to the patentee or owner.
Amendments and other papers, except for written assertions pursuant to 37 CFR 1.27(c)(2)(iii) or (c)(2)(iv), filed in the application must be signed by: (1) A patent practitioner of record; (2) a patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34; or (3) the applicant (37 CFR 1.42). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), unless otherwise specified (e.g., terminal disclaimers and 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements; see MPEP § 325), all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner, as 37 CFR 1.31 provides that a juristic entity may prosecute a patent application only through a patent practitioner.
Where application papers (e.g., the inventor’s oath or declaration) from a prior application are used in a continuing application and the correspondence address was changed during the prosecution of the prior application, an application data sheet or separate paper identifying the correspondence address to be used for the continuing application must be submitted. See 37 CFR 1.33(f). Otherwise, the Office may not recognize the change of correspondence address effected during the prosecution of the prior application.
403.01(b) Correspondence in Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.33 (pre-AIA) Correspondence respecting patent applications, reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings.
(a) Correspondence address and daytime telephone number. When filing an application, a correspondence address must be set forth in either an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or elsewhere, in a clearly identifiable manner, in any paper submitted with an application filing. If no correspondence address is specified, the Office may treat the mailing address of the first named inventor (if provided, see §§ 1.76(b)(1) and 1.63(c)(2)) as the correspondence address. The Office will direct, or otherwise make available, all notices, official letters, and other communications relating to the application to the person associated with the correspondence address. For correspondence submitted via the Office’s electronic filing system, however, an electronic acknowledgment receipt will be sent to the submitter. The Office will generally not engage in double correspondence with an applicant and a patent practitioner, or with more than one patent practitioner except as deemed necessary by the Director. If more than one correspondence address is specified in a single document, the Office will select one of the specified addresses for use as the correspondence address and, if given, will select the address associated with a Customer Number over a typed correspondence address. For the party to whom correspondence is to be addressed, a daytime telephone number should be supplied in a clearly identifiable manner and may be changed by any party who may change the correspondence address. The correspondence address may be changed as follows:
(1) Prior to filing of § 1.63 oath or declaration by any of the inventors. If a § 1.63 oath or declaration has not been filed by any of the inventors, the correspondence address may be changed by the party who filed the application. If the application was filed by a patent practitioner, any other patent practitioner named in the transmittal papers may also change the correspondence address. Thus, the inventor(s), any patent practitioner named in the transmittal papers accompanying the original application, or a party that will be the assignee who filed the application, may change the correspondence address in that application under this paragraph.
(2) Where a § 1.63 oath or declaration has been filed by any of the inventors. If a § 1.63 oath or declaration has been
400-24Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 403.01(b)
filed, or is filed concurrent with the filing of an application, by any of the inventors, the correspondence address may be changed by the parties set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, except for paragraph (b)(2).
(b) Amendments and other papers. Amendments and other papers, except for written assertions pursuant to § 1.27(c)(2)(ii) of this part, filed in the application must be signed by:
(1) A patent practitioner of record appointed in compliance with § 1.32(b);
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34;
(3) An assignee as provided for under § 3.71(b) of this chapter; or
(4) All of the applicants (§ 1.41(b)) for patent, unless there is an assignee of the entire interest and such assignee has taken action in the application in accordance with § 3.71 of this chapter.
(c) All notices, official letters, and other communications for the patent owner or owners in a reexamination proceeding will be directed to the correspondence address. Amendments and other papers filed in a reexamination proceeding on behalf of the patent owner must be signed by the patent owner, or if there is more than one owner by all the owners, or by an attorney or agent of record in the patent file, or by a registered attorney or agent not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34. Double correspondence with the patent owner or owners and the patent owner’s attorney or agent, or with more than one attorney or agent, will not be undertaken.
(d) A “correspondence address” or change thereto may be filed with the Patent and Trademark Office during the enforceable life of the patent. The “correspondence address” will be used in any correspondence relating to maintenance fees unless a separate “fee address” has been specified. See § 1.363 for “fee address” used solely for maintenance fee purposes.
(e) A change of address filed in a patent application or patent does not change the address for a patent practitioner in the roster of patent attorneys and agents. See § 11.11 of this title.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a) provides for an applicant to supply an address to receive correspondence from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office so that the Office may direct mail to any address of applicant’s selection, such as a corporate patent department, a firm of attorneys or agents, or an individual attorney, agent, or other person.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a) provides that when filing a patent application the applicant must specify a correspondence address to which the Office will send notices, letters and other communications relating to the application. The correspondence address must appear either in an application data
sheet (37 CFR 1.76) or in a clearly identifiable manner elsewhere in any papers submitted with an application filing. Where more than one correspondence address is specified, the Office will select one of the correspondence addresses for use as the correspondence address. This is intended to cover, for example, the situation where an application is submitted with multiple addresses, such as one correspondence address being given in the application transmittal letter, and a different one in an accompanying pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration, or other similar situations. The Office will select which of the multiple correspondence addresses to use according to the following order: (A) application data sheet (ADS); (B) application transmittal; (C) oath or declaration (unless power of attorney is more current); and (D) power of attorney. If more than one correspondence address is specified in a single document, the Office will select the address associated with a Customer Number over a typed correspondence address.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a) requests the submission of a daytime telephone number of the party to whom correspondence is to be addressed. While business is to be conducted on the written record (37 CFR 1.2), a daytime telephone number would be useful in initiating contact that could later be reduced to writing. The telephone number would be changeable by any party who could change the correspondence address.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(1) provides that any party filing the application and setting forth a correspondence address could later change the correspondence address provided that a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 oath/declaration by any of the inventors has not been submitted. If one joint inventor filed an application, the person who may change the correspondence address would include only the one inventor who filed the application, even if another inventor was identified on the application transmittal letter. If two of three inventors filed the application, the two inventors filing the application would be needed to change the correspondence address. Additionally, any registered practitioner named in the application transmittal letter, or a person who has the authority to act on behalf of the party that will be the assignee (if the application was filed by the party that will be the assignee), could change the
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-25
§ 403.01(b)REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
correspondence address. A registered practitioner named in a letterhead would not be sufficient, but rather a clear identification of the individual as being a representative would be required. A company (to whom the invention has been assigned, or to whom there is an obligation to assign the invention) who files an application, is permitted to designate the correspondence address, and to change the correspondence address, until such time as a (first) pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 oath/declaration is filed. The mere filing of a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 oath/declaration that does not include a correspondence address does not affect any correspondence address previously established on the filing of the application, or changed per pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(a)(1), even if the application was filed by a company that is only a partial assignee. The expression “party that will be the assignee,” rather than assignee, is used in that until a declaration is submitted, inventors have only been identified, and any attempted assignment, or partial assignment, cannot operate for Office purposes until the declaration is supplied. Hence, if the application transmittal letter indicates that the application is being filed on behalf of XYZ company, with an assignment to be filed later, XYZ company would be allowed to change the correspondence address without resort to pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73 (b) until an executed oath or declaration is filed, and with resort to pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) after the oath or declaration is filed.
Where a correspondence address was set forth or changed pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(1) (prior to the filing of a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration), that correspondence address remains in effect upon filing of a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 declaration and can then only be changed pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(2).
In a joint application with no power of attorney to either a registered practitioner or joint inventor, the applicant whose name first appears in the papers receives the correspondence, unless other instructions are given. All applicants must sign the replies. See MPEP §§ 402 and 714.01(a). If the assignee of the entire interest of the applicant is prosecuting the application (MPEP § 402.07), the assignee may specify a correspondence address.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(c) relates to which address communications for the patent owner will be sent in reexamination proceedings. See also MPEP § 2224.
Powers of attorney to firms are not recognized by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. See MPEP § 402. However, the firm’s address may be used for the correspondence address. The address should appear as follows:
John Doe (inventor) In care of Able, Baker, and Charlie (firm) 1234 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, Virginia 22202
Patent practitioners are reminded that the attorney and agent roster must be updated separately from and in addition to any change of address filed in individual patent applications.
See MPEP § 601.03 for change of correspondence address.
See MPEP § 201.06(c) regarding change of correspondence address in continuation or divisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b).
403.02 Two Patent Practitioners for Same Application [R-11.2013]
If the applicant simultaneously appoints two patent practitioners, applicant should indicate with whom correspondence is to be conducted by specifying a correspondence address. See MPEP §§ 403, 403.01(a), and MPEP § 403.01(b).
If, after one patent practitioner is appointed, a second patent practitioner is later appointed without revocation of the power of the first patent practitioner, correspondence will be mailed to the
400-26Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 403.02
latest correspondence address of record. See 37 CFR 1.33 and 1.76
404 [Reserved]
405 Interviews With Patent Practitioner Not of Record [R-07.2015]
Papers may be filed in patent applications and reexamination proceedings by registered attorneys or agents not of record under 37 CFR 1.34. Filing of such papers is considered to be a representation that the attorney or agent is authorized to act in a representative capacity on behalf of applicant. See MPEP § 402.03. Interviews may be conducted with a registered practitioner who has proper authority from the applicant or attorney or agent of record in the form of a power of attorney or authorization to act in a representative capacity, whether or not the
practitioner has a copy of the application file. See MPEP § 713.05. Registered practitioners, when acting in a representative capacity, can alternatively show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A). See MPEP §§ 713.01 and 713.05. This eliminates the need to file a power of attorney or authorization to act in a representative capacity before having an interview. However, an interview concerning an application that has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) with an attorney or agent not of record who obtains authorization through use of the interview request form will be conducted based on the information and files supplied by the attorney or agent in view of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122(a). Such a paper may be a Form/PTO/SB/84, "Authorization to Act in a Representative Capacity," which is available from the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/forms/sb0084.pdf.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-27
§ 405REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
400-28Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 405
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-29
§ 405REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
See MPEP § 402.03 for information regarding when a change of correspondence address or a document granting access (i.e., a power to inspect) may be signed by an attorney or agent who is not of record.
406 Death of Patent Practitioner [R-11.2013]
The power of attorney of a patent practitioner will be revoked or terminated by his or her death. The patent practitioner may not appoint a “substitute” and any attempt by the patent practitioner to appoint a “substitute” patent practitioner whose power is intended to survive his or her own will not be recognized by the Office.
If notification of the death of the sole practitioner of record is received by the Office, correspondence continues to be held with the office of the deceased practitioner but a copy of the Office action is also mailed to the person who originally appointed the practitioner. In such an Office action, the examiner should add form paragraph 4.03.
¶ 4.03 Death of Patent Practitioner
Notice of the death of the attorney or agent of record has come to the attention of this Office. Since the power of attorney is therefore terminated, this action is being mailed to the office of the patent practitioner and to the party who originally appointed the deceased patent practitioner. A new registered attorney or agent may be appointed.
Note MPEP § 405.
407 Suspended or Excluded Patent Practitioner [R-11.2013]
Any power of attorney given to a practitioner who has been suspended or disbarred by the Office is ineffective, and does not authorize the person to practice before the Office or to represent applicants or patentees in patent matters.
See MPEP § 105.
Form paragraphs 4.07, and 4.08 should be used where power of attorney is given to an attorney or agent who has been suspended from practice before the Office.
¶ 4.07 Attorney/Agent Suspended (Sole Practitioner)
The instant application contains a power of attorney to [1] who has been [2] from practice before the Patent and Trademark Office (Office). The Office does not communicate with attorneys or agents who have been suspended or excluded from practice. Accordingly, the Office action is being mailed to the address of the applicant first named in the application. Applicant(s) may file a new power of attorney in the application to have a registered attorney or agent represent them before the Office.
In the absence of an attorney or agent of record, for applications filed before September 16, 2012, all papers filed in the application must be signed: (1) by all named applicants unless one named applicant has been given a power of attorney to sign on behalf of the remaining applicants, and the power of attorney is of record in the application; or (2) if there is an assignee of record of an undivided part interest, by all named applicants retaining an interest and such assignee; or (3) if there is an assignee of the entire interest, by such assignee; or (4) by a registered patent attorney or agent not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all papers must be signed by: (1) a patent practitioner of record; (2) a patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34; or (3) the applicant, except that papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity applicant must be signed by a patent practitioner.
Applicants may obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by consulting the USPTO website, https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/, or by calling the Office of Enrollment and Discipline at (571) 272-4097.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the name of the suspended or excluded practitioner.
2. In bracket 2, insert either --suspended-- or --excluded--.
3. This form paragraph should be used when the suspended or excluded practitioner is the only practitioner of record.
4. The Office action is to be mailed only to the applicant first named in the application at that applicant’s current address of record.
¶ 4.08 Attorney/Agent Suspended (Plural Practitioners)
The present application was filed containing a power of attorney to [1] and [2]. A correspondence address was supplied for [3]. No address was supplied for [4].
[5] was [6] from practice before the Patent and Trademark Office (Office). The Office does not communicate with attorneys or agents who have been suspended or excluded from practice.
As a correspondence address, other than to [7], is not of record, this Office action is being mailed to [8] at his/her last known
400-30Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 406
address as listed on the register of patent attorneys and agents. To ensure that a copy of this Office action is received in a timely manner to allow for a timely reply, a copy of the Office action is being mailed directly to the address of the applicant first named in the application. Any reply by applicant(s) should be by way of the remaining practitioner(s) of record and should include a new correspondence address.
Examiner Note:
1. In brackets 1, 3, 5 and 7 insert the name of the suspended or excluded practitioner.
2. In brackets 2, 4 and 8, insert the name of the first named unsuspended (unexcluded) registered practitioner of record.
3. In bracket 6, insert either --suspended-- or --excluded--.
4. This form paragraph should be used when there is at least one registered practitioner still of record who has not been suspended or excluded from practice. Use form paragraph 4.07 if there are no remaining registered attorneys or agents of record.
5. The Office action is to be mailed both to the first named registered attorney or agent of record (who is not suspended or excluded) at the address currently listed in the Attorney’s Roster, and to the applicant first named in the application at that applicant’s current address of record.
408 Interviews With Patent Practitioner of Record [R-07.2015]
The Office encourages the use of interviews to expedite prosecution. When the examiner believes the progress of the application would be advanced by an interview, he or she may contact the patent practitioner of record in the application (in accordance with MPEP § 502.03) and suggest a telephonic, personal, or video conference interview. Registered attorneys or agents not of record in a patent application and acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 should not be contacted for restriction requirements or approval of examiner's amendments. In addition, non-registered representatives of the practitioner of record should not be contacted for such actions, even if apparently authorized by the attorney or agent of record. See MPEP § 812.01 for telephone restriction practice. See MPEP § 405 for interviews with a patent practitioner not of record. See also MPEP §§ 101-104 for information regarding access to application information by persons other than a patent practitioner of record.
When applicant is initiating a request for an interview, an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request” form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the
examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. See MPEP §§ 713.01 and 713.05.
409 Death, Legal Incapacity, or Unavailability of Inventor [R-11.2013]
For information regarding applications for patent filed on or after September 16, 2012 on behalf of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor, see MPEP § 409.01(a). For information regarding applications for patent filed on or after September 16, 2012 where the inventor or at least one joint inventor is unavailable, see MPEP § 409.02, 604, and 605.
For information regarding applications for patent filed before September 16, 2012 on behalf of a deceased inventor or legally incapacitated inventor, see MPEP § 409.01(b). For information regarding applications for patent filed before September 16, 2012 where at least one inventor is unavailable, see MPEP §§ 409.03 – 409.03(j).
409.01 [Reserved]
409.01(a) Deceased or Legally Incapacitated Inventor - Application Filed on or After September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 409.01(b) for information pertaining to a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor in an application filed before September 16, 2012.]
35 U.S.C. 117 Death or incapacity of inventor.
Legal representatives of deceased inventors and of those under legal incapacity may make application for patent upon compliance with the requirements and on the same terms and conditions applicable to the inventor.
37 CFR 1.43 Application for patent by a legal representative of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor.
If an inventor is deceased or under legal incapacity, the legal representative of the inventor may make an application for patent
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-31
§ 409.01(a)REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
on behalf of the inventor. If an inventor dies during the time intervening between the filing of the application and the granting of a patent thereon, the letters patent may be issued to the legal representative upon proper intervention. See § 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by a legal representative in lieu of an oath or declaration.
If an inventor is deceased or under legal incapacity, the legal representative of the inventor may make an application for patent on behalf of the inventor. If an inventor dies during the time intervening between the filing of the application and the granting of a patent thereon, the letters patent may be issued to the legal representative upon proper intervention. See 35 U.S.C. 117. See 37 CFR 1.64 and MPEP § 604 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by a legal representative in lieu of an oath or declaration.
409.01(b) Deceased or Legally Incapacitated Inventor-Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 409.01(a) for information pertaining to a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
35 U.S.C. 117 Death or incapacity of inventor.
Legal representatives of deceased inventors and of those under legal incapacity may make application for patent upon compliance with the requirements and on the same terms and conditions applicable to the inventor.
37 CFR 1.42 (pre-AIA) When the inventor is dead.
In case of the death of the inventor, the legal representative (executor, administrator, etc.) of the deceased inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent. Where the inventor dies during the time intervening between the filing of the application and the granting of a patent thereon, the letters patent may be issued to the legal representative upon proper intervention.
37 CFR 1.43 (pre-AIA)When the inventor is insane or legally incapacitated.
In case an inventor is insane or otherwise legally incapacitated, the legal representative (guardian, conservator, etc.) of such inventor may make the necessary oath or declaration, and apply for and obtain the patent.
I. TERMINATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY – DECEASED INVENTOR
Unless a power of attorney is coupled with an interest (i.e., a patent practitioner is assignee or part-assignee), the death of the inventor (or one of the joint inventors) terminates the power of attorney given by the deceased inventor in an application filed before September 16, 2012. A new power from the heirs, administrators, executors, or assignees is necessary if the deceased inventor is the sole inventor or all powers of attorney in the application have been terminated. See also pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.422.
II. PROSECUTION BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR
When an inventor becomes legally incapacitated prior to the filing of an application and prior to executing the oath or declaration required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and no legal representative has been appointed, one must be appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of execution of the oath or declaration of the application.
One who has reason to believe that he or she will be appointed legal representative of a deceased inventor may apply for a patent as legal representative in accordance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42.
Application may be made by the heirs of the inventor, as such, if there is no will or the will did not appoint an executor and the estate was under the sum required by state law for the appointment of an administrator. The heirs should identify themselves as the legal representative of the deceased inventor in the oath or declaration submitted pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and 1.64.
III. PROOF OF AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR
The Office no longer requires proof of authority of the legal representative of a deceased or incapacitated inventor. Although the Office does not require proof of authority to be filed, any person acting as a legal representative of a deceased or
400-32Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 409.01(b)
incapacitated inventor should ensure that he or she is properly acting in such a capacity.
IV. AFTER ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR HAS BEEN DISCHARGED
When an administrator or executor has performed his or her functions and has been discharged and it is desired to make an application for an invention of the deceased, it is necessary for the administrator or executor to take out new letters of administration in order that he or she may file a new application for an invention of the deceased inventor.
V. EXCEPTION IN SOME FOREIGN COUNTRIES
The terms “Executor” and “Administrator” do not have exact counterparts in all foreign countries, and therefore, those terms must be construed to fit the circumstances of the case. Hence, the person or persons having authority corresponding to that of executor or administrator are permitted to make application as, for example, the heirs in the Federal Republic of Germany where no existing executor or administrator has been or will be appointed.
VI. IF INVENTOR OF ASSIGNED APPLICATION DIES
When an inventor who has prosecuted an application after assignment, dies, the administrator of the deceased inventor’s estate may carry on the prosecution upon filing letters of administration unless and until the assignee intervenes (see MPEP § 402.07).
VII. INTERVENTION OF EXECUTOR NOT COMPULSORY
When an inventor dies after filing an application and executing the oath or declaration required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63, the executor or administrator should intervene, but the allowance of the application will not be withheld nor the application withdrawn from issue if the executor or administrator does not intervene.
This practice is applicable to an application which has been placed in condition for allowance or passed
to issue prior to notification of the death of the inventor. See MPEP § 409.01.
When a joint inventor of a pro se application dies after filing the application, the living joint inventor(s) must submit proof that the other joint inventor is dead. Upon submission of such proof, only the signatures of the living joint inventors are required on the papers filed with the USPTO if the legal representative of the deceased inventor does not intervene. If the legal representative of the deceased inventor wishes to intervene, the legal representative must submit an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and 1.64 (e.g., stating that he or she is the legal representative of the deceased inventor and his or her residence, citizenship and post office address). Once the legal representative of the deceased inventor intervenes in the pro se application, the signatures of the living joint inventors and the legal representative are required on the papers filed with the USPTO.
409.02 Unavailable Joint Inventor – Application Filed on or after September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 409.03 et seq. for information pertaining to the unavailability of an inventor in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.45 Application for patent by joint inventors.
(a) Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly, and each must make an inventor's oath or declaration as required by § 1.63, except as provided for in § 1.64. If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the other joint inventor or inventors may make the application for patent on behalf of themselves and the omitted inventor. See § 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by the other joint inventor or inventors in lieu of an oath or declaration.
*****
Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly, and each joint inventor must make the inventor’s oath or declaration required by 37 CFR 1.63, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64. See 35 U.S.C. 116(a) (“[w]hen an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title.”). 37 CFR 1.45(a) provides
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-33
§ 409.02REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
that if a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the other joint inventor(s) may make the application for patent on behalf of themselves and the omitted inventor. 37 CFR 1.45(a) also cross-references 37 CFR 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by the other joint inventor(s) in lieu of an oath or declaration. See MPEP § 604 for additional information pertaining to substitute statements
409.03 Unavailability of Inventor - Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: MPEP §§409.03 – 409.03(j) are not applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), 363, or 35 U.S.C. 385 on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 409.02 for information pertaining to the unavailability of an inventor in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
35 U.S.C. 116 (pre-AIA) Inventors.
When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.
If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself and the omitted inventor. The Director, on proof of the pertinent facts and after such notice to the omitted inventor as he prescribes, may grant a patent to the inventor making the application, subject to the same rights which the omitted inventor would have had if he had been joined. The omitted inventor may subsequently join in the application.
Whenever through error a person is named in an application for patent as the inventor, or through an error an inventor is not named in an application, and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part, the Director may permit the application to be amended accordingly, under such terms as he prescribes.
35 U.S.C. 118 (pre-AIA) Filing by other than inventor.
Whenever an inventor refuses to execute an application for patent, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, a person to whom the inventor has assigned or agreed in writing
to assign the invention or who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter justifying such action, may make application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties or to prevent irreparable damage; and the Director may grant a patent to such inventor upon such notice to him as the Director deems sufficient, and on compliance with such regulations as he prescribes.
37 CFR 1.47 (pre-AIA) Filing when an inventor refuses to sign or cannot be reached.
(a) If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself or herself and the nonsigning inventor. The oath or declaration in such an application must be accompanied by a petition including proof of the pertinent facts, the fee set forth in § 1.17(g), and the last known address of the nonsigning inventor. The nonsigning inventor may subsequently join in the application by filing an oath or declaration complying with § 1.63 .
(b) Whenever all of the inventors refuse to execute an application for patent, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, a person to whom an inventor has assigned or agreed in writing to assign the invention, or who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter justifying such action, may make application for patent on behalf of and as agent for all the inventors. The oath or declaration in such an application must be accompanied by a petition including proof of the pertinent facts, a showing that such action is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties or to prevent irreparable damage, the fee set forth in § 1.17(g), and the last known address of all of the inventors. An inventor may subsequently join in the application by filing an oath or declaration complying with § 1.63.
(c) The Office will send notice of the filing of the application to all inventors who have not joined in the application at the address(es) provided in the petition under this section, and publish notice of the filing of the application in the Official Gazette. The Office may dispense with this notice provision in a continuation or divisional application, if notice regarding the filing of the prior application was given to the nonsigning inventor(s).
Application papers submitted pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 are forwarded by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) to the Office of Petitions for a determination of whether the papers are proper, complete, and acceptable under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 and for a decision on the petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 before the application is sent to the Technology Center. Since an application without an oath or declaration executed by all of the inventors may be an incomplete application, an examiner should not mail an Office action in an application without a fully executed oath or
400-34Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 409.03
declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 unless the application has been accorded status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 in a written decision on the petition.
A bona fide attempt must be made to comply with the provisions of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 at the time the oath or declaration is first submitted. If the oath or declaration, and evidence submitted with the oath or declaration, are not acceptable, the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 applicant will be notified of the reasons why the papers are not acceptable. The pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 applicant may request reconsideration and file supplemental evidence in a case where a bona fide attempt was made to comply with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 from the outset.
A decision granting a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 does not alter the ownership interest or title of the application. If the nonsigning inventor has not signed an assignment document which has been recorded in the USPTO, then the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 applicant (the company that files the petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) and establishes proprietary interest in the application) is NOT the assignee of the entire interest of the application.
409.03(a) At Least One Joint Inventor Available [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 116, second paragraph, requires all available joint inventors to file an application “on behalf of” themselves and on behalf of a joint inventor who “cannot be found or reached after diligent effort” or who refuses to “join in an application.”
In addition to other requirements of law (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 115), an application deposited in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(a) must meet the following requirements:
(A) All the available joint inventors must (1) make oath or declaration on their own behalf as required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.175 (see MPEP §§ 602, 605.01, 602.09, and 1414) and (2)
make oath or declaration on behalf of the nonsigning joint inventor as required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64. An oath or declaration signed by all the available joint inventors with the signature block of the nonsigning inventor(s) left blank may be treated as having been signed by all the available joint inventors on behalf of the nonsigning inventor(s), unless otherwise indicated.
(B) The application must be accompanied by proof that the nonsigning inventor (1) cannot be found or reached after diligent effort or (2) refuses to execute the application papers. See MPEP § 409.03(d).
(C) The last known address of the nonsigning joint inventor must be stated. See MPEP § 409.03(e).
409.03(b) No Inventor Available [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
Filing under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 118 is permitted only when no inventor is available to make application. These provisions allow a “person” with a demonstrated proprietary interest to make application “on behalf of and as agent for” an inventor who “cannot be found or reached after diligent effort” or who refuses to sign the application oath or declaration. The word “person” has been construed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to include juristic entities, such as a corporation. Where pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(a) is available, application cannot be made under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b).
In addition to other requirements of law (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 115), an application deposited pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) must meet the following requirements:
(A) The pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant must make the oath required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and 1.64 or 1.175. Where a corporation is the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant, an officer (President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, or Chief Executive Officer) thereof should normally sign the necessary oath or declaration. A corporation may authorize any person, including an attorney or agent registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, to sign the application oath or
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-35
§ 409.03(b)REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
declaration on its behalf. Where an oath or declaration is signed by a registered attorney or agent on behalf of a corporation, either proof of the attorney's or agent's authority in the form of a statement signed by an appropriate corporate officer must be submitted, or the attorney or agent may simply state that he or she is authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation. Where the oath or declaration is being signed on behalf of an assignee, see MPEP § 324. An inventor may not authorize another individual to act as his or her agent to sign the application oath or declaration on his or her behalf. Staeger v. Commissioner, 189 USPQ 272 (D.D.C. 1976), In re Striker, 182 USPQ 507 (Comm'r Pat. 1973). Where an application is executed by one other than the inventor, the declaration required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 must state the full name, residence, post office address, and citizenship of the nonsigning inventor. Also, the title or position of the person signing must be stated if signing on behalf of a corporation under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b).
(B) The pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant must state his or her relationship to the inventor as required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64.
(C) The application must be accompanied by proof that the inventor (1) cannot be found or reached after a diligent effort or (2) refuses to execute the application papers. See MPEP § 409.03(d).
(D) The last known address of the inventor must be stated. See MPEP § 409.03(e).
(E) The pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant must make out a prima facie case (1) that the invention has been assigned to him or her or (2) that the inventor has agreed in writing to assign the invention to him or her or (3) otherwise demonstrate a proprietary interest in the subject matter of the application. See MPEP § 409.03(f).
(F) The pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant must prove that the filing of the application is necessary (1) to preserve the rights of the parties or (2) to prevent irreparable damage. See MPEP § 409.03(g).
409.03(c) Unavailable Legal Representative of Deceased Inventor [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 should not be considered an alternative to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 117 since the language “cannot be found or reached after diligent effort” has no reasonable application to a deceased inventor. In re Application Papers Filed September 10, 1954, 108 USPQ 340 (Comm’r Pat. 1955). See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42 and MPEP § 409.01. However, pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 does apply where a known legal representative of a deceased inventor cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, or refuses to make application. In such cases, the last known address of the legal representative must be given (see MPEP § 409.03(e)).
409.03(d) Proof of Unavailability or Refusal [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
I. INVENTOR CANNOT BE REACHED
Where inability to find or reach a nonsigning inventor “after diligent effort” is the reason for filing under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47, a statement of facts should be submitted that fully describes the exact facts which are relied on to establish that a diligent effort was made.
The fact that a nonsigning inventor is on vacation or out of town and is therefore temporarily unavailable to sign the declaration is not an acceptable reason for filing under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47.
Furthermore, the fact that an inventor is hospitalized and/or is not conscious is not an acceptable reason for filing under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.43 may be available under these circumstances. See MPEP § 409.01(b). Such a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 will be dismissed as inappropriate.
The statement of facts must be signed, where at all possible, by a person having firsthand knowledge of the facts recited therein. Statements based on hearsay will not normally be accepted. Copies of documentary evidence such as Internet searches, certified mail return receipts, cover letters of
400-36Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 409.03(c)
instructions, telegrams, that support a finding that the nonsigning inventor could not be found or reached should be made part of the statement. The steps taken to locate the whereabouts of the nonsigning inventor should be included in the statement of facts. It is important that the statement contain facts as opposed to conclusions.
II. REFUSAL TO JOIN
A refusal by an inventor to sign an oath or declaration when the inventor has not been presented with the application papers does not itself suggest that the inventor is refusing to join the application unless it is clear that the inventor understands exactly what he or she is being asked to sign and refuses to accept the application papers. A copy of the application papers should be sent to the last known address of the nonsigning inventor, or, if the nonsigning inventor is represented by counsel, to the address of the nonsigning inventor’s attorney. The fact that an application may contain proprietary information does not relieve the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 applicant of the responsibility to present the application papers to the inventor if the inventor is willing to receive the papers in order to sign the oath or declaration. It is noted that the inventor may obtain a complete copy of the application, unless the inventor has assigned his or her interest in the application, and the assignee has requested that the inventor not be permitted access. See MPEP § 106. It is reasonable to require that the inventor be presented with the application papers before a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 is granted since such a procedure ensures that the inventor is apprised of the application to which the oath or declaration is directed. In re Gray, 115 USPQ 80 (Comm’r Pat. 1956).
Where a refusal of the inventor to sign the application papers is alleged, the circumstances of the presentation of the application papers and of the refusal must be specified in a statement of facts by the person who presented the inventor with the application papers and/or to whom the refusal was made. Statements by a party not present when an oral refusal is made will not be accepted.
Proof that a bona fide attempt was made to present a copy of the application papers (specification,
including claims, drawings, and oath or declaration) to the nonsigning inventor for signature, but the inventor refused to accept delivery of the papers or expressly stated that the application papers should not be sent, may be sufficient. When there is an express oral refusal, that fact along with the time and place of the refusal must be stated in the statement of facts. When there is an express written refusal, a copy of the document evidencing that refusal must be made part of the statement of facts. The document may be redacted to remove material not related to the inventor’s reasons for refusal.
When it is concluded by the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 applicant that a nonsigning inventor’s conduct constitutes a refusal, all facts upon which that conclusion is based should be stated in the statement of facts in support of the petition or directly in the petition. If there is documentary evidence to support facts alleged in the petition or in any statement of facts, such evidence should be submitted. Whenever a nonsigning inventor gives a reason for refusing to sign the application oath or declaration, that reason should be stated in the petition. See also MPEP § 1702.
409.03(e) Statement of Last Known Address [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
An application filed pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 must state the last known address of the nonsigning inventor.
That address should be the last known address at which the inventor customarily receives mail. See MPEP § 602.08(a). Ordinarily, the last known address will be the last known residence of the nonsigning inventor.
Inasmuch as a nonsigning inventor is notified that an application pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 has been filed on his or her behalf, other addresses at
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-37
§ 409.03(e)REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
which the nonsigning inventor may be reached should also be given.
409.03(f) Proof of Proprietary Interest [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP §§ 325, 409.05, and 605 for information pertaining to applications for patent filed on or after September 16, 2012 by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.]
When an application is deposited pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b), the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant must prove that
(A) the invention has been assigned to the applicant, or
(B) the inventor has agreed in writing to assign the invention to the applicant, or
(C) the applicant otherwise has sufficient proprietary interest in the subject matter to justify the filing of the application.
If the application has been assigned, a copy of the assignment (in the English language) must be submitted. The assignment must clearly indicate that the invention described in the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) application was assigned to the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant. A statement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) by the assignee must also be submitted (see MPEP § 324). An assignment of an application and any “reissue, division, or continuation of said application” does not itself establish an assignment of a continuation-in-part application. In re Gray, 115 USPQ 80 (Comm’r Pat. 1956). An assignment to a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant for the sole purpose of obtaining a filing date for a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) application is not considered an assignment within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 118 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b).
When an inventor has agreed in writing to assign an invention described in an application deposited pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b), a copy of that agreement should be submitted. If an agreement to
assign is dependent on certain specified conditions being met, it must be established by a statement of facts by someone with first hand knowledge of the circumstances in which those conditions have been met. A typical agreement to assign is an employment agreement where an employee (nonsigning inventor) agrees to assign to his or her employer (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant) all inventions made during employment. When such an agreement is relied on, it must be established by a statement of a person having firsthand knowledge of the facts that the invention was made by the employee while employed by the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant.
If the invention has not been assigned, or if there is no written agreement to assign, the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant must demonstrate that he or she otherwise has a sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.
A proprietary interest obtained other than by assignment or agreement to assign may be demonstrated by an appropriate legal memorandum to the effect that a court of competent jurisdiction (federal, state, or foreign) would by the weight of authority in that jurisdiction award title of the invention to the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant. The facts in support of any conclusion that a court would award title to the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant should be made of record by way of an affidavit or declaration of the person having firsthand knowledge of same. The legal memorandum should be prepared and signed by an attorney at law familiar with the law of the jurisdiction involved. A copy (in the English language) of a statute (if other than the United States statute) or a court decision (if other than a reported decision of a federal court or a decision reported in the United States Patents Quarterly) relied on to demonstrate a proprietary interest should be made of record.
409.03(g) Proof of Irreparable Damage [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
Irreparable damage may be established by a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant by a showing (a statement)
400-38Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 409.03(f)
that a filing date is necessary to preserve the rights of the party or to prevent irreparable damage.
409.03(h) Processing and Acceptance of a Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 Application [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
A filing date is assigned to an application deposited pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 provided the requirements of 37 CFR 1.53(b) are met. A filing receipt will be sent to the applicant and the application , or an electronic message concerning the petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47, will be forwarded to the Office of Petitions, for consideration of the petition filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47.
When papers deposited pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 are found acceptable, the Office of Petitions enters a decision to that effect in the file. A notice will be published in the Official Gazette identifying the application number, filing date, the title of the invention and the name(s) of the nonsigning inventor(s). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will notify the nonsigning inventor(s) or, if the inventor is deceased, the legal representative(s), of the filing of an application under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 by sending a letter to the last known address of the nonsigning inventor(s) or legal representative(s). In a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) of an application accorded status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47, if a copy of a declaration from a prior application and a copy of a decision according status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 are filed as permitted by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)(3)(i), the notice will not be repeated. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(c). In addition, the notice is not repeated in continued prosecution applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
409.03(i) Rights of the Nonsigning Inventor [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
The nonsigning inventor (also referred to as an “inventor designee”) may protest his or her designation as an inventor. The nonsigning inventor is entitled to inspect any paper in the application, order copies thereof at the price set forth in 37 CFR 1.19, and make his or her position of record in the file wrapper of the application. Alternatively, the nonsigning inventor may arrange to do any of the preceding through a registered patent attorney or agent.
While the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will grant the nonsigning inventor access to the application, inter partes proceedings will not be instituted in a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 case. In re Hough, 108 USPQ 89 (Comm'r Pat. 1955). A nonsigning inventor is not entitled to a hearing (Cogar v. Schuyler, 464 F.2d 747, 173 USPQ 389 (D.C. Cir. 1972)), and is not entitled to prosecute the application if status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 has been accorded, or if proprietary interest of the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) applicant has been shown to the satisfaction of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
A nonsigning inventor may join in a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 application. To join in the application, the nonsigning inventor must file an appropriate pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration. Even if the nonsigning inventor joins in the application, he or she cannot revoke or give a power of attorney without agreement of the 37 CFR 1.47 applicant. See MPEP § 402.10.
The rights of a nonsigning inventor are protected by the fact that the patent resulting from an application filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 118 must issue to the inventor, and in an application filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(a) and 35 U.S.C. 116, the inventor has the same rights that he or she would have if he or she had joined in the application. In re Hough, 108 USPQ 89 (Comm'r Pat. 1955).
If a nonsigning inventor feels that he or she is the sole inventor of an invention claimed in a pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 application naming him or her as a joint inventor, the nonsigning inventor may file his or her own application and request that his or her application be placed in interference with the
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-39
§ 409.03(i)REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 application. If the claims in both the nonsigning inventor's application and the pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 application are otherwise found allowable, an interference may be declared.
409.03(j) Action Following Acceptance of a Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 Application [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
After an application deposited pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 is found acceptable by the Office, the examiner will act on the application in the usual manner. Papers filed by an inventor who did not originally join in the application, and papers relating to its pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 status, will be placed in the file wrapper.
In the event the previously nonsigning inventor decides to join in the application by filing an executed oath or declaration complying with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63, the oath or declaration will be placed in the application file.
When an examiner receives an application in which a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 has been filed, he or she must check the file to determine that the petition has been decided by the Office of Petitions. If the petition has not been decided by the Office of Petitions, the application, or an electronic message concerning the petition, must be forwarded to the Office of Petitions for appropriate action.
An application filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 can be published as a Statutory Invention Registration (provided the request for a Statutory Invention Registration was filed before March 16, 2013).
409.04 [Reserved]
409.05 Application For Patent by an Assignee, Obligated Assignee, or a Person Who Otherwise Shows Sufficient Proprietary
Interest – Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.46 Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.
(a) A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.
(b) If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under paragraph (a) of this section, the application must contain an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter. If an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or a nonprovisional international design application, is applied for by a person other than the inventor under paragraph (a) of this section, the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter must have been identified as the applicant for the United States in the international stage of the international application or as the applicant in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3).
(1) If the applicant is the assignee or a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, documentary evidence of ownership (e.g., assignment for an assignee, employment agreement for a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention) should be recorded as provided for in part 3 of this chapter no later than the date the issue fee is paid in the application.
(2) If the applicant is a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, such applicant must submit a petition including:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g)
(ii) A showing that such person has sufficient proprietary interest in the matter; and
(iii) A statement that making the application for patent by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter on behalf of and as agent for the inventor is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.
37 CFR 1.64 Substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration.
(a) An applicant under § 1.43, 1.45 or 1.46 may execute a substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration under §
400-40Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 409.03(j)
1.63 if the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, has refused to execute the oath or declaration under § 1.63, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort.
(b) A substitute statement under this section must:
(1) Comply with the requirements of § 1.63(a), identifying the inventor or joint inventor with respect to whom a substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration is executed, and stating upon information and belief the facts which such inventor is required to state;
(2) Identify the person executing the substitute statement and the relationship of such person to the inventor or joint inventor with respect to whom the substitute statement is executed, and unless such information is supplied in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, the residence and mailing address of the person signing the substitute statement;
(3) Identify the circumstances permitting the person to execute the substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration under § 1.63, namely whether the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, cannot be found or reached after a diligent effort was made, or has refused to execute the oath or declaration under § 1.63; and
(4) Unless the following information is supplied in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, also identify:
(i) Each inventor by his or her legal name; and
(ii) The last known mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and last known residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, for each inventor who is not deceased or under a legal incapacity.
I. ASSIGNEE OR OBLIGATED ASSIGNEE
An assignee or obligated assignee may file a patent application as the applicant. An assignee or obligated assignee doing so should record documentary evidence of ownership (e.g., assignment for an assignee, employment agreement for an obligated assignee) as provided for in 37 CFR part 3 no later than the date the issue fee is paid in the application. See 37 CFR 1.46(b)(1).
See 37 CFR 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by an assignee or obligated assignee in lieu of an inventor’s oath or declaration (available when an inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, cannot be found or reached after a diligent effort was made, or has refused to execute the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63). See also MPEP § 604.
II. SUFFICIENT PROPRIETARY INTEREST
37 CFR 1.46(a) provides that a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. The ability for a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter to make an application for patent is not limited to situations in which all of the inventors refuse to execute the application, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort.
Section 1.46(b)(2) provides that if the applicant is a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, such applicant must submit a petition including: (1) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g); (2) a showing that such person has sufficient proprietary interest in the matter; and (3) a statement that making the application for patent by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest on behalf of and as agent for the inventor is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. See 37 CFR 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter in lieu of an inventor’s oath or declaration. See also MPEP § 604.
A proprietary interest obtained other than by assignment or agreement to assign may be demonstrated by an appropriate legal memorandum to the effect that a court of competent jurisdiction (federal, state, or foreign) would by the weight of authority in that jurisdiction award title of the invention to the 37 CFR 1.46 applicant. The facts in support of any conclusion that a court would award title to the 37 CFR 1.46 applicant should be made of record by way of an affidavit or declaration of the person having firsthand knowledge of same. The legal memorandum should be prepared and signed by an attorney at law familiar with the law of the jurisdiction involved. A copy (in the English language) of a statute (if other than the United States statute) or a court decision (if other than a reported decision of a federal court or a decision reported in the United States Patents Quarterly) relied on to
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-41
§ 409.05REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
demonstrate a proprietary interest should be made of record.
410 Representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature requirements.
*****
(d)
*****
(4) Certifications—
(i) Certification as to the paper presented. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this subchapter. Violations of § 11.18(b)(2) of this subchapter by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) of this subchapter. Any practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this subchapter may also be subject to disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) of this subchapter.
(ii) Certification as to the signature. The person inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section in a document submitted to the Office certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is his or her own signature. A person submitting a document signed by another under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the person whose signature is present on the document was actually inserted by that person, and should retain evidence of authenticity of the signature. Violations of the certification as to the signature of another or a person’s own signature as set forth in this paragraph may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) and (d) of this chapter.
(5) Forms. The Office provides forms for the public to use in certain situations to assist in the filing of correspondence for a certain purpose and to meet certain requirements for patent applications and proceedings. Use of the forms for purposes for which they were not designed is prohibited. No changes to certification statements on the Office forms (e.g., oath or declaration forms, terminal disclaimer forms, petition forms, and nonpublication request forms) may be made. The existing text of a form, other than a certification statement, may be modified, deleted, or added to, if all text identifying the form as an Office form is removed. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any Office form with text identifying the form as an Office form by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 37 CFR 11.18(b) of this chapter that the existing text and any certification statements on the form have not been altered other than permitted by EFS-Web customization.
(e) The following correspondence must be submitted with an original handwritten signature personally signed in permanent dark ink or its equivalent:
(1) Correspondence requiring a person's signature and relating to registration to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office in patent cases, enrollment and disciplinary investigations, or disciplinary proceedings; and
(2) Payments by credit cards where the payment is not being made via the Office's electronic filing systems.
*****
37 CFR 11.18 Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Office.
(a) For all documents filed in the Office in patent, trademark, and other non-patent matters, and all documents filed with a hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding, except for correspondence that is required to be signed by the applicant or party, each piece of correspondence filed by a practitioner in the Office must bear a signature, personally signed or inserted by such practitioner, in compliance with § 1.4(d) or § 2.193(a) of this chapter.
(b) By presenting to the Office or hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) any paper, the party presenting such paper, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, is certifying that—
(1) All statements made therein of the party’s own knowledge are true, all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to be true, and all statements made therein are made with the knowledge that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Office, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or knowingly and willfully makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be subject to the penalties set forth under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and any other applicable criminal statute, and violations of the provisions of this section may jeopardize the probative value of the paper; and
(2) To the best of the party’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
(i) The paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass someone or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office;
(ii) The other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(iii) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(iv) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
400-42Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 410
(c) Violations of any of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section are, after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to such sanctions or actions as deemed appropriate by the USPTO Director, which may include, but are not limited to, any combination of—
(1) Striking the offending paper;
(2) Referring a practitioner’s conduct to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action;
(3) Precluding a party or practitioner from submitting a paper, or presenting or contesting an issue;
(4) Affecting the weight given to the offending paper; or
(5) Terminating the proceedings in the Office.
(d) Any practitioner violating the provisions of this section may also be subject to disciplinary action.
37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and (5) provide that the presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper or Office form by a party, whether a practitioner or nonpractitioner, constitutes a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b), and that violations of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) may subject the party to sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c). Thus, by presenting to the Office a paper or Office form, the party is making the certifications set forth in 37 CFR 11.18(b), and is subject to sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c) for violations of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2), regardless of whether the party is a practitioner or nonpractitioner. A practitioner violating 37 CFR 11.18(b) may also be subject to disciplinary action in lieu of or in addition to sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c) for violations of 37 CFR 11.18(b). See 37 CFR 11.18(d).
Additional certifications provided in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and (5) include that a person inserting a signature into a document under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is his or her own signature. Also, a person filing a document signed by another under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the signature present on the document was actually inserted by that person. The person filing the document should retain evidence of the authenticity of the signature. See 37 CFR 1.4(h).
37 CFR 11.18(b) provides that, by presenting any paper to the USPTO, the party presenting such paper is making two certifications: (1) the first certification is that the statements made therein are subject to the
declaration clause of 37 CFR 1.68; (2) the second certification is the certification required for papers filed in a federal court under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 37 CFR 1.4(d)(5) makes clear that presenting a completed Office form to the USPTO constitutes a specific certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b).
The first certification has permitted the USPTO to eliminate the separate verification requirement previously contained in several rules for statements of facts by persons who are not registered to practice before the USPTO. As statements submitted to the USPTO by any person are now, by operation of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(1), verified statements, a separate verification requirement is no longer necessary. The USPTO, however, has retained the verification requirement for a statement to be submitted under oath or declaration (37 CFR 1.68) in a number of sections (e.g., 37 CFR 1.63, 1.64, 1.130, 1.131, 1.132, 1.495(f), and 5.25).
The second certification is based upon Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2007). This provision is promulgated pursuant to the Director’s authority under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) to establish regulations for the conduct of proceedings in the USPTO, and is intended to discourage the filing of frivolous papers by practitioners or non-practitioners in the USPTO. Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Representations to Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-43
§ 410REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
(3)the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2007).
37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) includes the same substantive requirements as Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The advisory committee notes to the 1993 revision of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) provide, in part, that:
[Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and (c)] restate the provisions requiring attorneys and pro se litigants to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts before signing pleadings, written motions, and other documents, and prescribing sanctions for violations of these obligations. The [1993] revision in part expands the responsibilities of litigants to the court, while providing greater constraints and flexibility in dealing with infractions of the rule. The rule continues to require litigants to “stop-and-think” before initially making legal or factual contentions. It also, however, emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable and by generally providing protection against sanctions if they withdraw or correct contentions after a potential violation is called to their attention. The rule applies only to assertions contained in papers filed with or submitted to the court. It does not cover matters arising for the first time during oral presentations to the court, when counsel may make statements that would not have been made if there had been more time for study and reflection. However, a litigant's obligations with respect to the contents of these papers are not measured solely as of the time they are filed with or submitted to the court, but include reaffirming to the court and advocating positions contained in those pleadings and motions after learning that they
cease to have any merit. For example, an attorney who during a pretrial conference insists on a claim or defense should be viewed as “presenting to the court” that contention and would be subject to the obligations of [Rule 11(b)] measured as of that time. Similarly, if after a notice of removal is filed, a party urges in federal court the allegations of a pleading filed in state court (whether as claims, defenses, or in disputes regarding removal or remand), it would be viewed as “presenting”-- and hence certifying to the district court under Rule 11--those allegations. The certification with respect to allegations and other factual contentions is revised in recognition that sometimes a litigant may have good reason to believe that a fact is true or false but may need discovery, formal or informal, from opposing parties or third persons to gather and confirm the evidentiary basis for the allegation. Tolerance of factual contentions in initial pleadings by plaintiffs or defendants when specifically identified as made on information and belief does not relieve litigants from the obligation to conduct an appropriate investigation into the facts that is reasonable under the circumstances; it is not a license to join parties, make claims, or present defenses without any factual basis or justification. Moreover, if evidentiary support is not obtained after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, the party has a duty under the rule not to persist with that contention. [Rule 11(b)] does not require a formal amendment to pleadings for which evidentiary support is not obtained, but rather calls upon a litigant not thereafter to advocate such claims or defenses. The certification is that there is (or likely will be) “evidentiary support” for the allegation, not that the party will prevail with respect to its contention regarding the fact. That summary judgment is rendered against a party does not necessarily mean, for purposes of this certification, that it had no evidentiary support for its position. On the other hand, if a party has evidence with respect to a contention that would suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment based thereon, it would have
400-44Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 410
sufficient “evidentiary support” for purposes of Rule 11. Denials of factual contentions involve somewhat different considerations. Often, of course, a denial is premised upon the existence of evidence contradicting the alleged fact. At other times a denial is permissible because, after an appropriate investigation, a party has no information concerning the matter or, indeed, has a reasonable basis for doubting the credibility of the only evidence relevant to the matter. A party should not deny an allegation it knows to be true; but it is not required, simply because it lacks contradictory evidence, to admit an allegation that it believes is not true. The changes in [Rule 11(b)(3) and (4)] will serve to equalize the burden of the rule upon plaintiffs and defendants, who under Rule 8(b) are in effect allowed to deny allegations by stating that from their initial investigation they lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation. If, after further investigation or discovery, a denial is no longer warranted, the defendant should not continue to insist on that denial. While sometimes helpful, formal amendment of the pleadings to withdraw an allegation or denial is not required by [Rule 11(b)]. Arguments for extensions, modifications, or reversals of existing law or for creation of new law do not violate [Rule 11(b)(2)] provided they are “nonfrivolous.” This establishes an objective standard, intended to eliminate any “empty-head pure-heart” justification for patently frivolous arguments. However, to the extent to which a litigant has researched the issues and found some support for its theories even in minority opinions, in law review articles, or through consultation with other attorneys should certainly be taken into account in determining whether [Rule 11(b)(2)] has been violated.Although arguments for a change in law are not required to be specifically so identified, a contention that is so identified should be viewed with greater tolerance under [Rule 11].
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at 50-53 (1993). An “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” requirement of 37 CFR 10.18(b)(2)
is identical to that in Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The Federal courts have stated in regard to the “reasonable inquiry” requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11:
In requiring reasonable inquiry before the filing of any pleading in a civil case in federal district court, Rule 11 demands “an objective determination of whether a sanctioned party's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.” In effect it imposes a negligence standard, for negligence is a failure to use reasonable care. The equation between negligence and failure to conduct a reasonable precomplaint inquiry is . . . that “the amount of investigation required by Rule 11 depends on both the time available to investigate and on the probability that more investigation will turn up important evidence; the Rule does not require steps that are not cost-justified.”
Hays v. Sony Corp. of Am., 847 F.2d 412, 418, 7 USPQ2d 1043, 1048 (7th. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (decided prior to the 1993 amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, but discussing a “reasonable under the circumstances” standard).
37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and (5) and 11.18 do not require a practitioner to advise the client (or third party) providing information of this certification effect (or the sanctions applicable to noncompliance), or question the client (or third party) when such information or instructions are provided. When a practitioner is submitting information (e.g., a statement of fact) from the applicant or a third party, or relying upon information from the applicant or a third party in his/her arguments, the Office will consider a practitioner's “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” duty under 37 CFR 11.18 met so long as the practitioner has no knowledge of information that is contrary to the information provided by the applicant or third party or would otherwise indicate that the information provided by the applicant or third party was so provided for the purpose of a violation of 37 CFR 11.18 (e.g., was submitted to cause unnecessary delay).
Nevertheless, it is highly advisable for a practitioner to advise a client or third party that any information
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-45
§ 410REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
so provided must be reliable and not misleading. The submission by an applicant of misleading or inaccurate statements of facts during the prosecution of applications for patent has resulted in the patents issuing on such applications being held unenforceable. See, e.g. , Refac Int'l Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 38 USPQ2d 1665 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Laboratories, Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir 1993); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chem. Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 200 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); Ott v. Goodpasture, 40 USPQ2d 1831 (D.N. Tex. 1996); Herman v. William Brooks Shoe Co., 39 USPQ2d 1773 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Golden Valley Microwave Food Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., 837 F. Supp. 1444, 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992), aff'd, 11 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(table), cert.
denied, 511 U.S. 1128 (1994). Likewise, false statements by a practitioner in a paper submitted to the Office during the prosecution of an application for patent have resulted in the patent issuing on such application also being held unenforceable. See General Electro Music Corp. v. Samick Music Corp., 19 F.3d 1405, 30 USPQ2d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(false statement in a petition to make an application special constitutes inequitable conduct, and renders the patent issuing on such application unenforceable).
An applicant has no duty to conduct a prior art search as a prerequisite to filing an application for patent. See Nordberg, Inc. v. Telsmith, Inc., 82 F.3d 394, 397, 38 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (Fed. Cir. 1996); FMC Corp. v. Hennessy Indus., Inc., 836 F.2d 521, 526 n.6, 5 USPQ2d 1272, 1275-76 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1987); FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., 835 F.2d 1411, 1415, 5 USPQ2d 1112, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 1987); American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1362, 220 USPQ 763, 772 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821, 224 USPQ 520 (1984). Thus, the “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” requirement of 37 CFR 11.18 does not create any new duty on the part of an applicant for patent to conduct a prior art search. See MPEP § 609; cf. Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780, 42 USPQ2d 1300 (Fed. Cir 1997)(the failure to obtain and examine the accused infringing device prior to bringing a civil action for infringement violates the 1983 version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). The “inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances” requirement of 37 CFR 11.18, however, will require an inquiry into the underlying facts and circumstances when a practitioner provides conclusive statements to the Office (e.g., a statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(a) was unintentional).
37 CFR 11.18(c) specifically provides that violations of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(1) may jeopardize the validity of the application or document, or the validity or enforceability of any patent, trademark registration, or certificate resulting therefrom, and that violations of any of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)(i) through (iv) are, after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to such sanctions as deemed appropriate by the USPTO Director, which may include, but are not limited to, any combination of:
(1) Striking the offending paper;
(2) Referring a practitioner’s conduct to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action;
(3) Precluding a party or practitioner from submitting a paper, or presenting or contesting an issue;
(4) Affecting the weight given to the offending paper; or
(5) Terminating the proceedings in the Office
The Office has amended 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and 11.18 with the objective of discouraging the filing of frivolous or clearly unwarranted correspondence in the Office, not to routinely review correspondence for compliance with 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) and impose sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c).
Where the circumstances of an application or other proceeding warrant a determination of whether there has been a violation of 37 CFR 11.18(b), the file or the application or other proceeding will be forwarded to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) for a determination of whether there has been a violation of 37 CFR 11.18(b). In the event that OED determines that a provision of 37 CFR 11.18(b) has been violated, the USPTO Director will determine what (if any) sanction(s) under 37 CFR 11.18(c) is to be imposed in the application or other proceeding.
400-46Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 410
In addition, if OED determines that a provision of 37 CFR 11.18(b) has been violated by a practitioner, OED will determine whether such practitioner is to be subject to disciplinary action (see 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and 11.18(d)). That is, OED will provide a determination of whether there has been a violation of 37 CFR 11.18(b), and if such violation is by a practitioner, whether such practitioner is to be subject to disciplinary action; however, OED will not be responsible for imposing sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c) in an application or other proceeding.
37 CFR 11.18(d) provides that any practitioner violating the provisions of this section may also be subject to disciplinary action. 37 CFR 11.18(d) (and the corresponding provision of 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4)) clarifies that a practitioner may be subject to disciplinary action in lieu of, or in addition to, the sanctions set forth in 37 CFR 11.18(c) for violations of 37 CFR 11.18.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015400-47
§ 410REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT OR OWNER
Chapter 500 Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers
Filing Papers With the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
501
Depositing Correspondence502 Correspondence Transmitted by Facsimile
502.01
Correspondence Signature Requirements
502.02
Communications via Internet Electronic Mail (email)
502.03
Duplicate Copies of Correspondence502.04 Correspondence Transmitted by EFS-Web
502.05
Application Number and Filing Receipt503 Assignment of Application for Examination
504
Date of Receipt Stamp505 Completeness of Original Application506
[Reserved]506.01 Review of Refusal To Accord Filing Date
506.02
Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing
507
Distribution508 [Reserved]508.01 Papers Received After Patenting or Abandonment
508.02
[Reserved]508.03 Unlocatable Patent or Application Files
508.04
Payment of Fees509 Deposit Accounts509.01 Small Entity Status — Definitions509.02 Claiming Small Entity Status509.03 Micro Entity Status — Definitions509.04
Gross Income Basis for Micro Entity Status
509.04(a)
Institution of Higher Education Basis for Micro Entity Status
509.04(b)
Parties Who Can Sign the Micro Entity Certification
509.04(c)
Continued Obligation to Determine Micro Entity Qualification
509.04(d)
Notification of Loss of Entitlement to Micro Entity Status
509.04(e)
Correcting Errors in Micro Entity Status
509.04(f)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Business Hours
510
Postal Service Interruptions and Emergencies
511
Certificate of Mailing or Transmission512 Deposit as Priority Mail Express® with U.S. Postal Service
513
501 Filing Papers With the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.1 Addresses for non-trademark correspondence with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(a) In general. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii) and (d)(1) of this section, all correspondence intended for the United States Patent and Trademark Office must be addressed to either “Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450” or to specific areas within the Office as set out in paragraphs (a)(1), and (a)(3)(iii) of this section. When appropriate, correspondence should also be marked for the attention of a particular office or individual.
(1) Patent correspondence.
(i) In general. All correspondence concerning patent matters processed by organizations reporting to the Commissioner for Patents should be addressed to: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
(ii) Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See § 41.10 or § 42.6 of this title. Notices of appeal, appeal briefs, reply briefs, requests for oral hearing, as well as all other correspondence in an application or a patent involved in an appeal to the Board for which an address is not otherwise specified, should be addressed as set out in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Office of General Counsel correspondence.—
(i) Litigation and service. Correspondence relating to pending litigation or otherwise within the scope of part 104 of this title shall be addressed as provided in § 104.2.
(ii) Disciplinary proceedings. Correspondence to counsel for the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline relating to disciplinary proceedings pending before a Hearing Officer or the Director shall be mailed to: Mail Stop 8, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
(iii) Solicitor, in general. Correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor not otherwise provided for shall be addressed to: Mail Stop 8, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
(iv) General Counsel. Correspondence to the Office of the General Counsel not otherwise provided for, including correspondence to the General Counsel relating to disciplinary proceedings, shall be addressed to: General Counsel, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-1
(v) Improper correspondence. Correspondence improperly addressed to a Post Office Box specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section will not be filed elsewhere in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and may be returned.
(4) Office of Public Records correspondence.
(i) Assignments. All patent-related documents submitted by mail to be recorded by Assignment Services Division, except for documents filed together with a new application, should be addressed to: Mail Stop Assignment Recordation Services, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. See § 3.27.
(ii) Documents. All requests for certified or uncertified copies of patent documents should be addressed to: Mail Stop Document Services, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
(5) Office of Enrollment and Discipline correspondence. All correspondence directed to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline concerning enrollment, registration, and investigation matters should be addressed to Mail Stop OED, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
(b) Patent Cooperation Treaty. Letters and other communications relating to international applications during the international stage and prior to the assignment of a national serial number should be additionally marked “Mail Stop PCT.”
(c) For reexamination or supplemental examination proceedings.
(1) All correspondence concerning ex parte reexamination, other than correspondence to the Office of the General Counsel pursuant to § 1.1(a)(3) and § 102.04 of this chapter, should be additionally marked “Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam.”
(2) All correspondence concerning inter partes reexamination, other than correspondence to the Office of the General Counsel pursuant to § 1.1(a)(3) and § 102.4 of this chapter, should be additionally marked ‘‘Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam.’’
(3) Requests for supplemental examination (original and corrected request papers) and any other paper filed in a supplemental examination proceeding, should be additionally marked ‘‘Mail Stop Supplemental Examination.’’
(4) All correspondence concerning a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental reexamination proceeding, other than correspondence to the Office of the General Counsel pursuant to § 1.1(a)(3) and § 102.4 of this chapter should be additionally marked “Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam.”
(d) Payments of maintenance fees in patents not submitted electronically over the Internet, and correspondence related to maintenance fees may be addressed to: Director of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Attn: Maintenance Fee, 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
(e) Patent term extension. All applications for extension of patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156 and any communications relating thereto intended for the United States Patent and Trademark Office should be additionally marked “Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE.” When appropriate, the communication should also be marked to the attention of a particular individual, as where a decision has been rendered.
(f) [Reserved]
37 CFR 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature requirements.
(a) Correspondence with the Patent and Trademark Office comprises:
(1) Correspondence relating to services and facilities of the Office, such as general inquiries, requests for publications supplied by the Office, orders for printed copies of patents, orders for copies of records, transmission of assignments for recording, and the like, and
(2) Correspondence in and relating to a particular application or other proceeding in the Office. See particularly the rules relating to the filing, processing, or other proceedings of national applications in subpart B of this part; of international applications in subpart C of this part; of ex parte reexaminations of patents in subpart D of this part; of supplemental examination of patents in subpart E of this part; of extension of patent term in subpart F of this part; of inter partes reexaminations of patents in subpart H of this part; of international design applications in subpart I of this part; and of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in parts 41 and 42 of this chapter.
(b) Since each file must be complete in itself, a separate copy of every paper to be filed in a patent, patent file, or other proceeding must be furnished for each file to which the paper pertains, even though the contents of the papers filed in two or more files may be identical. The filing of duplicate copies of correspondence in the file of an application, patent, or other proceeding should be avoided, except in situations in which the Office requires the filing of duplicate copies. The Office may dispose of duplicate copies of correspondence in the file of an application, patent, or other proceeding.
(c) Since different matters may be considered by different branches or sections of the Office, each distinct subject, inquiry or order must be contained in a separate paper to avoid confusion and delay in answering papers dealing with different subjects. Subjects provided for on a single Office or World Intellectual Property Organization form may be contained in a single paper.
(d)(1) Handwritten signature. Each piece of correspondence, except as provided in paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e) and (f) of this section, filed in an application, patent file, or other proceeding in the Office which requires a person’s signature, must:
(i) Be an original, that is, have an original handwritten signature personally signed, in permanent dark ink or its equivalent, by that person; or
500-2Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 501
(ii) Be a direct or indirect copy, such as a photocopy or facsimile transmission (§ 1.6(d)), of an original. In the event that a copy of the original is filed, the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity. If a question of authenticity arises, the Office may require submission of the original.
(2) S-signature. An S-signature is a signature inserted between forward slash marks, but not a handwritten signature as defined by paragraph (d)(1) of this section. An S-signature includes any signature made by electronic or mechanical means, and any other mode of making or applying a signature other than a handwritten signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Correspondence being filed in the Office in paper, by facsimile transmission as provided in § 1.6(d), or via the Office electronic filing system as an attachment as provided in § 1.6(a)(4), for a patent application, patent, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding may be S-signature signed instead of being personally signed (i.e., with a handwritten signature) as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The requirements for an S-signature under this paragraph (d)(2) of this section are as follows.
(i) The S-signature must consist only of letters, or Arabic numerals, or both, with appropriate spaces and commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens for punctuation, and the person signing the correspondence must insert his or her own S-signature with a first single forward slash mark before, and a second single forward slash mark after, the S-signature ( e.g., /Dr. James T. Jones, Jr./); and
(ii) A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1)), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.
(iii) The signer’s name must be:
(A) Presented in printed or typed form preferably immediately below or adjacent the S-signature, and
(B) Reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized.
(3) Electronically submitted correspondence. Correspondence permitted via the Office electronic filing system may be signed by a graphic representation of a handwritten signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section or a graphic representation of an S-signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(2) of this section when it is submitted via the Office electronic filing system.
(4) Certifications—
(i) Certification as to the paper presented. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this subchapter. Violations of § 11.18(b)(2) of this subchapter by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) of
this subchapter. Any practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this subchapter may also be subject to disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) of this subchapter.
(ii) Certifications as to the signature. The person inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section in a document submitted to the Office certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is his or her own signature. A person submitting a document signed by another under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the person whose signature is present on the document was actually inserted by that person, and should retain evidence of authenticity of the signature. Violations of the certification as to the signature of another or a person’s own signature as set forth in this paragraph may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) and (d) of this chapter.
(5) Forms. The Office provides forms for the public to use in certain situations to assist in the filing of correspondence for a certain purpose and to meet certain requirements for patent applications and proceedings. Use of the forms for purposes for which they were not designed is prohibited. No changes to certification statements on the Office forms (e.g., oath or declaration forms, terminal disclaimer forms, petition forms, and nonpublication request forms) may be made. The existing text of a form, other than a certification statement, may be modified, deleted, or added to, if all text identifying the form as an Office form is removed. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any Office form with text identifying the form as an Office form by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this chapter that the existing text and any certification statements on the form have not been altered other than permitted by EFS-Web customization.
(e) The following correspondence must be submitted with an original handwritten signature personally signed in permanent dark ink or its equivalent:
(1) Correspondence requiring a person's signature and relating to registration to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office in patent cases, enrollment and disciplinary investigations, or disciplinary proceedings; and
(2) Payments by credit cards where the payment is not being made via the Office's electronic filing systems.
(f) When a document that is required by statute to be certified must be filed, a copy, including a photocopy or facsimile transmission, of the certification is not acceptable.
(g) An applicant who has not made of record a registered attorney or agent may be required to state whether assistance was received in the preparation or prosecution of the patent application, for which any compensation or consideration was given or charged, and if so, to disclose the name or names of the person or persons providing such assistance. Assistance includes the preparation for the applicant of the specification and amendments or other papers to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as other assistance in such matters, but does not include merely making drawings by draftsmen or stenographic services in typing papers.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-3
§ 501RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(h) Ratification/confirmation/evidence of authenticity: The Office may require ratification, confirmation (which includes submission of a duplicate document but with a proper signature), or evidence of authenticity of a signature, such as when the Office has reasonable doubt as to the authenticity (veracity) of the signature, e.g., where there are variations of a signature, or where the signature and the typed or printed name, do not clearly identify the person signing.
I. GENERAL MAILING ADDRESSES
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Office) has three separate general mailing addresses. The addresses are as follows:
A. For Patent Applications and Patent-Related Papers
Correspondence in patent-related matters under the direction of the Commissioner for Patents should be addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Such correspondence includes: patent applications, replies to notices of informality, requests for extension of time, notices of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board), briefs in support of an appeal to the Board, requests for oral hearing before the Board, applications for extensions of term of patent, requests for reexamination, requests for supplemental examination, statutory disclaimers, certificates of correction, petitions to the Commissioner for Patents, submission of information disclosure statements, petitions to revive abandoned patent applications, and other correspondence related to patent applications and patents which is processed by organizations reporting to the Commissioner for Patents.
Certain patent-related correspondence requires immediate Office attention. Examples are:
(A) Petitions for express abandonment to avoid publication under 37 CFR 1.138(c);
(B) Petitions to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c);
(C) Request for expedited examination of a design application (rocket docket); and
(D) Papers required by the Office of Data Management to be hand-carried or faxed to the Office of Data Management.
Applicants are encouraged to transmit these types of correspondence by facsimile transmission (see MPEP § 502.01) or, where permitted (items B and D only), hand-carry them to the appropriate area of the Office for processing. (see MPEP § 502).
B. For Trademark Applications and Trademark-Related Papers
Correspondence in trademark-related matters under the direction of the Commissioner for Trademarks or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board should be addressed to:
Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Such correspondence includes all trademark applications and other trademark-related mail, except for trademark documents sent to the Assignment Division for recordation, correspondence for the Office’s Madrid Processing Unit, requests for certified and uncertified copies of trademark documents, and filings submitted electronically. See 37 CFR 2.190.
Correspondence to be delivered by the United States Postal Service to the Office’s Madrid Processing Unit must be mailed to:
Commissioner for Trademarks Madrid Processing Unit 600 Dulany St., MDE 7B87 Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
C. For Other Correspondence
Patent and trademark documents sent to the Assignment Division for recordation (Mail Stop Assignment Recordation Services), requests for certified or uncertified copies of patent and trademark documents (Mail Stop Document Services), and for correspondence for which an address is not otherwise specified in 37 CFR 1.1 or 2.190, should be addressed to:
500-4Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 501
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
II. SEPARATE MAILING ADDRESSES FOR CERTAIN CORRESPONDENCE
The Office has separate mailing addresses for certain correspondence:
(A) Certain court-related correspondence (e.g., summons and complaint) being delivered to the Office via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) must be addressed: General Counsel United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
(B) Correspondence directed to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) Director relating to disciplinary proceedings pending before a Hearing Officer or the Director must be addressed: Mail Stop 8 Office of the Solicitor United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
(C) Maintenance fee payments not electronically submitted over the Internet and correspondence related to maintenance fees may be addressed to: Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Attn: Maintenance Fees 2051 Jamieson Ave., Ste. 300 Alexandria, VA 22314
(D) A payment to replenish a deposit account may be addressed to: Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Attn: Deposit Accounts 2051 Jamieson Ave., Ste. 300 Alexandria, VA 22314
Persons filing correspondence with the Office should check the rules of practice, the Official Gazette, or the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov) to determine the appropriate mailing address for such correspondence.
III. HAND-DELIVERY OF PAPERS
Patent-related papers may be hand-carried to the Office. If the correspondence is hand-carried to the Office, with limited exceptions (see subsection I.A., above) it must be delivered to:
Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314
See MPEP § 502.
Trademark-related papers may be filed at the “walk-up” window located in the Trademark Assistance Center, Madison East, Concourse Level, Room C55, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.4(c), matters that are to be considered by different branches or sections of the USPTO must be contained in separate papers. The following form paragraph may be used to notify the applicant of this requirement when the applicant has filed a single paper containing distinct subjects, inquiries, or orders.
¶ 5.01.01 Separate Paper Required
The [1] submitted [2] should have been submitted as a separate paper as required by 37 CFR 1.4(c). The paper has been entered. However, all future correspondence must comply with 37 CFR 1.4.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, indicate the item required to be separately submitted, such as an affidavit, petition, or other appropriate document.
2. If the applicant is a pro se inventor, include a copy of the rule.
Those who correspond with the USPTO are strongly encouraged not to include correspondence which will have to be directed to different areas (e.g., Patents and Trademarks) of the Office in a single envelope. Including multiple papers in a single envelope increases the likelihood that one or more of the papers will be delayed before reaching the appropriate area. Placing the papers in separately addressed envelopes will reduce the number of actions being performed by the USPTO unnecessarily or inappropriately.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-5
§ 501RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1, non-trademark correspondence intended for the USPTO must be mailed to P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, except as otherwise provided. Except for certain mail addressed incorrectly to the Office of the General Counsel (see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3)(v)), there will be no penalty for addressing a document to the wrong area within the Office, as long as one of the approved addresses is used. Use of the specific addresses listed within 37 CFR 1.1 is strongly encouraged because it will facilitate the process both for the Office and the filer. Accordingly, a new application incorrectly addressed to the Director will be treated the same as if the application was addressed to the specific Commissioner.
All mailed communications are received by the Incoming-Mail Section of the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP), which opens and processes all official mail.
Special mail stops have been established to allow the forwarding of particular types of correspondence to appropriate areas of the Office as quickly as possible. A list of these mail stops is published weekly in the Official Gazette. Only the specified type of document for a particular mail stop should be placed in an envelope addressed to that mail stop.
If any documents other than the specified type identified for each department are addressed to that department, they will be significantly delayed in reaching the appropriate area for which they were intended.
502 Depositing Correspondence [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.5 Identification of patent, patent application, or patent-related proceeding.
(a) No correspondence relating to an application should be filed prior to receipt of the assigned application number (i.e., U.S. application number, international application number, or international registration number as appropriate). When correspondence directed to the Patent and Trademark Office concerns a previously filed application for a patent, it must identify on the top page in a conspicuous location, the application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number; e.g., 07/123,456), or the serial number and filing date assigned to that application by the Patent and Trademark Office, or the international application number of the international application, or the international registration number of an international design application. Any correspondence not containing such identification will be returned to the sender
where a return address is available. The returned correspondence will be accompanied with a cover letter which will indicate to the sender that if the returned correspondence is resubmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office within two weeks of the mail date on the cover letter, the original date of receipt of the correspondence will be considered by the Patent and Trademark Office as the date of receipt of the correspondence. Applicants may use either the Certificate of Mailing or Transmission
procedure under § 1.8 or the Priority Mail Express® procedure under § 1.10 for resubmissions of returned correspondence if they desire to have the benefit of the date of deposit in the United States Postal Service. If the returned correspondence is not resubmitted within the two-week period, the date of receipt of the resubmission will be considered to be the date of receipt of the correspondence. The two-week period to resubmit the returned correspondence will not be extended. In addition to the application number, all correspondence directed to the Patent and Trademark Office concerning applications for patent should also state the name of the first listed inventor, the title of the invention, the date of filing the same, and if known, the group art unit or other unit within the Patent and Trademark Office responsible for considering the correspondence and the name of the examiner or other person to which it has been assigned.
(b) When the letter concerns a patent other than for purposes of paying a maintenance fee, it should state the number and date of issue of the patent, the name of the patentee, and the title of the invention. For letters concerning payment of a maintenance fee in a patent, see the provisions of § 1.366(c).
(c) Correspondence relating to a trial proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (part 42 of this title) are governed by § 42.6 of this title.
(d) A letter relating to a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding should identify it as such by the number of the patent undergoing reexamination or supplemental examination, the request control number assigned to such proceeding, and, if known, the group art unit and name of the examiner to which it been assigned.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) When a paper concerns a provisional application, it should identify the application as such and include the application number.
37 CFR 1.6 Receipt of correspondence.
(a) Date of receipt and Priority Mail Express® date of deposit. Correspondence received in the Patent and Trademark Office is stamped with the date of receipt except as follows:
(1) The Patent and Trademark Office is not open for the filing of correspondence on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. Except for correspondence transmitted by facsimile under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, or filed electronically under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, no correspondence is received in the Office on Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays within the District of Columbia.
(2) Correspondence filed in accordance with § 1.10 will be stamped with the date of deposit as Priority Mail
Express® with the United States Postal Service.
500-6Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502
(3) Correspondence transmitted by facsimile to the Patent and Trademark Office will be stamped with the date on which the complete transmission is received in the Patent and Trademark Office unless that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, in which case the date stamped will be the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia.
(4) Correspondence may be submitted using the Office electronic filing system only in accordance with the Office electronic filing system requirements. Correspondence submitted to the Office by way of the Office electronic filing system will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date the correspondence is received at the correspondence address for the Office set forth in § 1.1 when it was officially submitted.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Correspondence delivered by hand. In addition to being mailed, correspondence may be delivered by hand during hours the Office is open to receive correspondence.
(d) Facsimile transmission. Except in the cases enumerated below, correspondence, including authorizations to charge a deposit account, may be transmitted by facsimile. The receipt date accorded to the correspondence will be the date on which the complete transmission is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, unless that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See paragraph (a)(3) of this section. To facilitate proper processing, each transmission session should be limited to correspondence to be filed in a single application or other proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application number of a patent application, the control number of a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the interference number of an interference proceeding, the trial number of a trial proceeding before the Board, or the patent number of a patent should be entered as a part of the sender's identification on a facsimile cover sheet. Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and, if submitted, will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations:
(1) Correspondence as specified in § 1.4(e), requiring an original signature;
(2) Certified documents as specified in § 1.4(f);
(3) Correspondence that cannot receive the benefit of the certificate of mailing or transmission as specified in § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) through (D),(F), (I), and (K), and § 1.8(a)(2)(iii)(A), except that a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d) may be transmitted to the Office by facsimile;
(4) Color drawings submitted under §§ 1.81, 1.83 through 1.85, 1.152, 1.165, 1.173, 1.437 , or 1.1026;
(5) A request for reexamination under § 1.510 or § 1.913 , or a request for supplemental examination under § 1.610 ;
(6) Correspondence to be filed in an application subject to a secrecy order under §§ 5.1 through 5.5 of this chapter and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application;
(7) In contested cases and trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, except as the Board may expressly authorize.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) Facsimile transmission of a patent application under § 1.53(d). In the event that the Office has no evidence of receipt of an application under § 1.53(d) (a continued prosecution application) transmitted to the Office by facsimile transmission, the party who transmitted the application under § 1.53(d) may petition the Director to accord the application under § 1.53(d) a filing date as of the date the application under § 1.53(d) is shown to have been transmitted to and received in the Office,
(1) Provided that the party who transmitted such application under § 1.53(d):
(i) Informs the Office of the previous transmission of the application under § 1.53(d) promptly after becoming aware that the Office has no evidence of receipt of the application under § 1.53(d);
(ii) Supplies an additional copy of the previously transmitted application under § 1.53(d); and
(iii) Includes a statement which attests on a personal knowledge basis or to the satisfaction of the Director to the previous transmission of the application under § 1.53(d) and is accompanied by a copy of the sending unit’s report confirming transmission of the application under § 1.53(d) or evidence that came into being after the complete transmission and within one business day of the complete transmission of the application under § 1.53(d).
(2) The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the application under § 1.53(d) was transmitted to and received in the Office on the date in question.
(g) Submission of the national stage correspondence required by § 1.495 via the Office electronic filing system. In the event that the Office has no evidence of receipt of the national stage correspondence required by § 1.495, which was submitted to the Office by the Office electronic filing system, the party who submitted the correspondence may petition the Director to accord the national stage correspondence a receipt date as of the date the correspondence is shown to have been officially submitted to the Office.
(1) The petition of this paragraph (g) requires that the party who submitted such national stage correspondence:
(i) Informs the Office of the previous submission of the correspondence promptly after becoming aware that the Office has no evidence of receipt of the correspondence under § 1.495;
(ii) Supplies an additional copy of the previously submitted correspondence;
(iii) Includes a statement that attests on a personal knowledge basis, or to the satisfaction of the Director, that the correspondence was previously officially submitted; and
(iv) Supplies a copy of an acknowledgment receipt generated by the Office electronic filing system, or equivalent
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-7
§ 502RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
evidence, confirming the submission to support the statement of paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this section.
(2) The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the national stage correspondence was submitted to the Office on the date in question.
All applications (provisional and nonprovisional) may be sent to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by mail using the United States Postal Service (see MPEP § 501), or they may be hand-carried to the Customer Service Window. However, applicants should consider filing new patent applications (as well as patent-related correspondence) via the Office electronic filing system (EFS-Web) whenever permitted. See the EFS-Web Guidance and Resources page of the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/ applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources) for additional information. See also MPEP § 502.05. New applications cannot be transmitted by facsimile and are not entitled to the benefit of a Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8. A request for a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available only for design applications) may be transmitted to the Office by facsimile (37 CFR 1.6(d)(3)); however, it is not entitled to the benefit of a Certificate of Transmission (see 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A)). See 37 CFR 1.6(d) and MPEP § 502.01.
See 37 CFR 2.190 and MPEP § 501 for addresses pertaining to trademark correspondence.
All correspondence related to a national patent application already filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must include the identification of the application number or the serial number and the filing date assigned to the application by the Office. Any correspondence not containing the proper identification set forth in 37 CFR 1.5(a) will be returned to the sender by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). Each paper should be inspected to assure that the papers being returned contain either an “Office Date” stamp indicating the date of receipt. If there is a minor obvious error in the identification of the application such that the Office readily recognizes both the existence of the error and the appropriate correction, the error can be corrected by the Office. The Office often
experiences difficulty in matching incoming papers with the application file to which they pertain because insufficient or erroneous information is given. This applies especially to amendments, powers of attorney, changes of address, status letters, petitions for extension of time, and other petitions.
It would be of great assistance to the Office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
(A) Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
(B) Art Unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
(C) Filing date.
(D) Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
(E) Title of invention.
(F) Confirmation number (see MPEP § 503).
Applicants may be reminded of this by including form paragraph 5.01.
¶ 5.01 Proper Heading for Incoming Papers
It would be of great assistance to the Office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
1. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
2. Art Unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
3. Filing date.
4. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
5. Title of invention.
6. Confirmation number (seeMPEP § 503).
The Office prefers identifying indicia to be provided on the drawings. If such identifying indicia is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet of drawings within the top margin. See 37 CFR 1.84(c). The identifying indicia should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, application number, and confirmation number (see MPEP §
500-8Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502
503). If the Office has not yet assigned an application number and confirmation number to the application, the docket number (if any) used by the applicant to track the application should be provided.
When the Office receives replacement sheets of drawings for patent applications after the application has been filed, a cover letter identifying the drawings by application number should accompany them. The application number and other identifying indicia should be placed on each sheet of drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(c). Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of the application must be identified as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
It is requested that the submission of additional or supplemental papers on a newly filed application be deferred until an application number has been received.
Documents which have no particular time or order of submission requirements should be filed in the Office with materials submitted in reply to the statutory or regulatory requirements. Examples are certified copies of foreign documents to support priority in patent applications, changes of power of attorney, or changes in mailing address following first action.
All letters relating to a reexamination proceeding should identify the proceeding involved by patent number and reexamination request control number.
All letters relating to a supplemental examination proceeding should identify the proceeding involved by patent number and supplemental examination request control number.
I. PRIORITY MAIL EXPRESS® (FORMERLY “EXPRESS MAIL”) SERVICE
Effective July 28, 2013, the United States Postal Service (USPS) changed the name of “Express Mail”
to Priority Mail Express®. All characteristics of the
Priority Mail Express® service are the same as those of the former “Express Mail” service (although the mailing labels differ).
The addresses that should be used for Priority Mail
Express® sent to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 (see MPEP § 501).
The Office does not have resources for picking up any mail. Therefore mail should NOT be sent using the “Hold for Pickup” service option (whereby the mail is retained at the destination postal facility for retrieval by the addressee). Mail sent using the “Hold for pickup” service will not reach the Office.
See MPEP § 513 for the use of the Priority Mail
Express® mailing procedures of 37 CFR 1.10.
II. POST ALLOWANCE CORRESPONDENCE
All post allowance correspondence, except for petitions under 37 CFR 1.313(c), should be addressed “Mail Stop Issue Fee.” Any petition filed under 37 CFR 1.313(c) to withdraw an application from issue after payment of the issue fee should be clearly marked “Petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)” and be either filed as a Web-based ePetition (see www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying- online/epetition-resource-page), hand-carried to the Office of Petitions or submitted by facsimile to the Office of Petitions at (571) 273-0025. See MPEP § 1308, subsection I.B. All other types of petitions, if transmitted by facsimile transmission to the Office, must be directed to the central facsimile number ((571) 273-8300).
Any paper filed after receiving the Issue notification should include the indicated patent number.
Since an allowed application may be issued as a patent within about four weeks of payment of the issue fee, all post allowance correspondence should be filed prior to the date of issue fee payment to ensure the papers reach the appropriate USPTO official for consideration before the date the application issues as a patent. See MPEP § 2732 for a discussion of the patent term adjustment impact of submitting amendments or other papers after a notice of allowance has been mailed.
If the above suggestions are adopted, the processing of both new and allowed applications could proceed
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-9
§ 502RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
more efficiently and promptly through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
III. HAND-DELIVERY OF PAPERS
No official paper which relates to a pending application may be personally delivered to a TC except papers that are directed to an application subject to a secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 181, or are national security classified and that are directed to Licensing and Review. All official patent application related correspondence for organizations reporting to the Commissioner for Patents (e.g., TCs, the Office of Data Management, and the Office of Petitions) that is hand-carried (or delivered by other delivery services) must be delivered to the Customer Service Window, with a few exceptions.
Correspondence for Which Centralized Delivery of Hand-Carried Papers Is Not Required
The following types of patent application related correspondence may be delivered to the specific location where they are processed instead of the Customer Service Window. Before hand-carrying papers to a specific location or a particular office within the USPTO, the office should be called to obtain its current location. Applicants should check the USPTO website for the current telephone number. Any such correspondence carried to the Customer Service Window will be accepted and routed to the appropriate office, thereby incurring a delay before being processed. Correspondence which is not related to a specific patent or patent application, such as questions on policy, on employment, or other general inquiry may be hand-carried to the current designated locations depending on the substance of the correspondence.
(A) Access Requests - Requests for access to patent application files may be hand-carried to the
File Information Unit (FIU) on the 3rd floor of Randolph Square, 2800 South Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22206. Requests for access to patent application files that are maintained in the Image File Wrapper system and that have not yet been published may be hand-carried to the Public Search
Facility on the 1st floor of the Madison East Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
(B) Patent Term Extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156 - Applications for patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. 156 may be hand-carried to the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) in the Madison West Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. At the guard station in Madison West, the security guard should call OPLA at (571) 272-7701 or (571) 272-7746 for delivery assistance.
(C) Assignments to be Recorded - Assignments may be hand-carried to the Office of Public Records
Customer Service Window Randolph Square, 3rd
floor, 2800 South Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22206.
(D) Office of General Counsel - Correspondence for the Office of General Counsel may be hand-carried to the Office of General Counsel in Room 10C20 of the Madison East Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. At the guard station in Madison East, the security guard should call the Office of General Counsel at (571) 272-7000 for delivery assistance.
(E) Solicitor’s Office - Correspondence for the Solicitor’s Office may be hand-carried to the Solicitor’s Office in Room 8C43-A of the Madison West Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. At the guard station in Madison West, the security guard should call the Solicitor’s Office at (571) 272-9035 for delivery assistance.
(F) Interference and Trial Related Correspondence - Correspondence relating to
interferences may be hand-carried to the 1st floor lobby of Madison East Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, where a drop-off box for hand-carried documents to be filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) is located. Customers need to pass through the magnetometer and have the materials passed through the x-ray sensor before placing them in the drop-off box. The drop-off box is for interference related correspondence only. Boxes are not permitted in the drop-off box. Box materials should be hand-carried to Madison East, Room 9B55-A using the following procedures. At the guard station in Madison East, the security guard should call the Board at (571) 272-9797 to obtain authorization to allow entry into the building for delivery to Room 9B55-A. Access to Room 9B55-A is available from 8:30 am to 4:45 pm only. Documents/boxes hand-carried to the drop-off box or to Room 9B55-A after 4:45 pm will
500-10Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502
receive the next day’s filing date. Customers desiring a stamped return receipt for their filing need to personally bring their filing and postcard to Room 9B55-A during the hours stated above, or leave the postcard with the filing (postcard must include correct postage mail stamp and the address where the postcard is to be mailed). The Board will stamp the filing date and mail the postcard to the customer. Correspondence related to contested cases may only be hand-carried as authorized by the Board.
(G) Secrecy Order - Applications subject to a secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 181, or that are national security classified, and correspondence related thereto, may be hand-carried to Licensing and Review in Room 4B31 of the Knox Building, 501 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. At the guard station in Knox, the security guard should call Licensing and Review at (571) 272-8203 for delivery assistance.
(H) Expedited Foreign Filing License Petitions - Petitions for foreign filing license pursuant to 37 CFR 5.12(b) for which expedited handling is requested and petitions for retroactive license under 37 CFR 5.25 may be hand-carried to a drop-off box located at the guard station at the lobby of the Knox Building, 501 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Upon approaching the guard station, the delivery personnel should state their desire to drop off the request. Correspondence packages will be inspected/scanned before being placed in the drop-off box. All requests should identify a fax number, telephone number and mailing address. All responses to the request will be sent by fax, followed by a mailed copy. If a fax number is not available, a hardcopy will be mailed to the mailing address provided.
(I) Petitions to Withdraw from Issue - Petitions to withdraw from issue may be hand-carried to the
Office of Petitions on the 7th floor of the Madison West Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. At the guard station in Madison West, the security guard should call the Office of Petitions at (571) 272-3282 for delivery assistance. Hand-carried papers will be accepted between the hours of 8:30 am to 3:45 pm.
(J) Documents Requested by the Office of Data Management - Documents requested by the Office of Data Management may be hand-carried to the
Office of Data Management, Randolph Square, 9th
floor, 2800 South Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22206, during business hours.
(K) Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) – Correspondence for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline may be hand-carried to the receptionist at Room 8C43-B of the Madison West Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. At the guard station in Madison West, the security guard should call the Office of Enrollment and Discipline at 571-272-4097 for delivery assistance.
(L) Office of Finance – Refund requests, deposit account replenishments, and maintenance fee payments may be hand-carried to the Office of Finance receptionist in Suite 300 of the Carlyle Place Building, 2051 Jamieson Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314. Hand-carried correspondence will only be accepted, and not processed. Although the receptionist will not process any correspondence, if the correspondence is delivered with an itemized postcard, the receptionist will provide a delivery receipt by date stamping the postcard. Depending on whether the correspondence is a refund request, deposit account related (e.g., a deposit account replenishment), or maintenance fee related (e.g., a maintenance fee payment), the correspondence should be placed in an envelope with REFUND, DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, or MAINTENANCE FEE written in dark ink across the envelope.
(M) Office of Public Records – Requests for certified copies of Office records including patent and trademark copies, applications-as-filed, file wrappers and contents, and assignment records may be hand-carried to the Office of Public Records’
Customer Service Window on the 3rd floor of Randolph Square, 2800 South Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22206, during business hours.
502.01 Correspondence Transmitted by Facsimile [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.6 Receipt of correspondence. *****
(d) Facsimile transmission. Except in the cases enumerated below, correspondence, including authorizations to charge a deposit account, may be transmitted by facsimile. The receipt date accorded to the correspondence will be the date on which the complete transmission is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, unless that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See paragraph (a)(3) of this section. To facilitate proper processing, each transmission session should be limited to correspondence
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-11
§ 502.01RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
to be filed in a single application or other proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application number of a patent application, the control number of a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the interference number of an interference proceeding, the trial number of a trial proceeding before the Board, or the patent number of a patent should be entered as a part of the sender's identification on a facsimile cover sheet. Facsimile transmissions are not permitted and, if submitted, will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations:
(1) Correspondence as specified in § 1.4(e), requiring an original signature;
(2) Certified documents as specified in § 1.4(f);
(3) Correspondence which cannot receive the benefit of the certificate of mailing or transmission as specified in § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) through (D), (F), (I) and (K), § 1.8(a)(2)(iii)(A), except that a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d) may be transmitted to the Office by facsimile;
(4) Color drawings submitted under §§ 1.81, 1.83 through 1.85, 1.152, 1.165, 1.173, 1.437, or 1.1026;
(5) A request for reexamination under § 1.510 or § 1.913 or a request for supplemental examination under § 1.610;
(6) Correspondence to be filed in an application subject to a secrecy order under §§ 5.1 through 5.5 of this chapter and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application;
(7) In contested cases and trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, except as the Board may expressly authorize.
*****
The date of receipt accorded to any correspondence permitted to be sent by facsimile transmission, including a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), (for design applications only) is the date the complete transmission is received by an Office facsimile unit, unless the transmission is completed on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. Correspondence for which transmission was completed on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, will be accorded a receipt date of the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. For example, a facsimile transmission to the Office from California starting on a Friday at 8:45 p.m. Pacific time and taking 20 minutes, would be completed at 9:05 p.m. Pacific time. The complete transmission would be received in the Office around 12:05 a.m. Eastern time on Saturday. The receipt date accorded to the correspondence is the date of the following business day, which in this case, would be Monday (assuming that Monday was not a Federal holiday within the
District of Columbia). Note, however, that if the Certificate of Transmission is available (for documents not proscribed by 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)), then the above facsimile may be considered timely filed on Friday if it contains a Certificate of Transmission and is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)(i)(B) and (ii).
37 CFR 1.6(d) specifies the types of correspondence which may be transmitted by facsimile. These would include CPAs filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available for design applications only), amendments, declarations, petitions, information disclosure statements (IDS), terminal disclaimers, notices of appeal and appeal briefs, requests for continued examination (RCEs) under 37 CFR 1.114, assignment documents, issue fee transmittals and authorizations to charge deposit accounts. The situations where transmissions by facsimile are prohibited are identified in 37 CFR 1.6(d)(1)-(7). Prohibitions cover situations where originals are required as specified in 37 CFR 1.4(e) and (f), and situations where accepting a facsimile transmission would be unduly burdensome on the Office. As a courtesy, the Office will attempt to notify senders whenever correspondence is sent to the Office by facsimile transmission that falls within one of these prohibitions. Senders are cautioned against submitting correspondence by facsimile transmission which is not permitted under 37 CFR 1.6(d) since such correspondence will not be accorded a receipt date.
An applicant filing a CPA (for a design application only) by facsimile transmission must include an authorization to charge the basic filing fee to a deposit account or to a credit card, or the application will be treated under 37 CFR 1.53(f) as having been filed without the basic filing fee (as fees cannot otherwise be transmitted by facsimile).
There is a special receipt procedure for filing a CPA by fax, whereby the Office will fax back a receipt of the CPA filing if applicant submits the Office receipt form along with the CPA filing.
37 CFR 1.6 Receipt of correspondence. *****
(f) Facsimile transmission of a patent application under § 1.53(d). In the event that the Office has no evidence of receipt of an application under § 1.53(d) (a continued prosecution
500-12Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.01
application) transmitted to the Office by facsimile transmission, the party who transmitted the application under § 1.53(d) may petition the Director to accord the application under § 1.53(d) a filing date as of the date the application under § 1.53(d) is shown to have been transmitted to and received in the Office,
(1) Provided that the party who transmitted such application under § 1.53(d):
(i) Informs the Office of the previous transmission of the application under § 1.53(d) promptly after becoming aware that the Office has no evidence of receipt of the application under § 1.53(d);
(ii) Supplies an additional copy of the previously transmitted application under § 1.53(d); and
(iii) Includes a statement which attests on a personal knowledge basis or to the satisfaction of the Director to the previous transmission of the application under § 1.53(d) and is accompanied by a copy of the sending unit’s report confirming transmission of the application under § 1.53(d) or evidence that came into being after the complete transmission and within one business day of the complete transmission of the application under § 1.53(d).
(2) The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the application under § 1.53(d) was transmitted to and received in the Office on the date in question.
37 CFR 1.6(f) provides for the situation in which the Office has no evidence of receipt of a CPA transmitted to the Office by facsimile transmission. 37 CFR 1.6(f) requires a petition be filed requesting that the CPA be accorded a filing date as of the date the CPA is shown to have been transmitted to and received in the Office. The showing must include,
inter alia, a copy of the sending unit’s report confirming transmission of the application or evidence that came into being after the complete transmission of the application and within one business day of the complete transmission of the application.
I. CENTRALIZED FACSIMILE NUMBER FOR OFFICIAL PATENT APPLICATION RELATED CORRESPONDENCE
A. Central Number
All patent application related correspondence transmitted by facsimile must be directed to the central facsimile number, with a few exceptions below. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Replies to Office actions including after-final amendments that are transmitted by
facsimile must be directed to the central facsimile number. Correspondence such as draft proposed amendments for interviews may continue to be transmitted by facsimile to the Technology Centers (TCs) and should be made of record as part of the interview summary record. See MPEP § 713.04. Office personnel should not use their personal facsimile numbers for official application related correspondence. Office personnel that inadvertently receive official application related correspondence on a personal facsimile number must either route (do not forward) the correspondence to the official central facsimile number or they may, with applicant’s (or applicant’s representative) permission, make the facsimile amendment part of an examiner’s amendment.
B. Correspondence Which May Be Sent by Facsimile to Other Than the Central Facsimile Number
For each Office location listed below, only the particular type of correspondence indicated may be transmitted to the specific facsimile number at that Office location. All other types of facsimile transmitted correspondence must be sent to the central facsimile number ((571) 273-8300).
(1) PCT Operations and International Patent Legal Administration. Correspondence subsequent to filing in an international application before the U.S. Receiving Office, the U.S. International Searching Authority, or the U.S. International Preliminary Examining Authority:
-- Papers in international applications may be submitted by facsimile to (571) 273-3201.
-- Responses to Decisions on Petition may be submitted by facsimile to (571) 273-0459.
Note: An international application for patent or a copy of the international application and the basic national fee necessary to enter national stage, as specified in 37 CFR 1.495(b), may not be submitted by facsimile. See 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) (referencing 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)(i)(D) and (F)). Subsequent correspondence may be transmitted by facsimile in an application before the U.S. Receiving Office, the U.S. International Searching Authority, or the U.S. International Preliminary Examining Authority, but it will not receive the benefit of any certificate of transmission (or mailing). See 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)(i)(E). Correspondence filed during the national stage, subsequent to entry, is handled in the same manner as a U.S. to national application.
-- PCT Help Desk contact information:
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-13
§ 502.01RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Telephone number: (571) 272-4300.
Facsimile number: (571) 273-0419.
(2) Office of Data Management. Payment of an issue fee and any required publication fee by authorization to charge a deposit account or credit card, and drawings may be submitted to facsimile number (571) 273-2885.
Note: Although submission of drawings by facsimile may reduce the quality of the drawings, the Office will generally print the drawings as received.
Office of Data Management telephone numbers to check on receipt of payment: (571) 272-4200 or 1-888-786-0101.
(3) Electronic Business Center (EBC). Requests for Customer Number Data Change (PTO/SB/124), and Requests for a Customer Number (PTO/SB/125) may be submitted via facsimile to (571) 273-0177.
Note: The EBC may also be reached by email at: ebc@uspto.gov. EBC telephone number for customer service and assistance: 866-217-9197.
(4) Assignment Branch. Assignments or other documents affecting title may be submitted via facsimile to (571) 273-0140.
Note: Only documents with an identified patent application or patent number, a single cover sheet to record a single type of transaction, and the fee paid by an authorization to charge a USPTO deposit account or credit card may be submitted via facsimile. Customers may submit documents directly into the automated Patent and Trademark Assignment System and receive the resulting recordation notice at their facsimile machine. (Assignment documents submitted through the Electronic PatentAssignment System also permit the recordation notice to be faxed to customers.) Credit card payments to record assignment documents are acceptable, and use of the Credit Card form (PTO-2038) is required for the credit card information to be separated from the assignment records.
Assignment Branch telephone number for assistance: (571) 272-3350.
(5) Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). Ex parte and Inter partes reexamination correspondence, except for the initial request: (571) 273-9900 facsimile number.
Note: Correspondence related to reexamination proceedings will be separately scanned in the CRU.
CRU telephone number for customer service and inquiries: (571) 272-7705.
(6) Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Correspondence related to contested cases and trials permitted to be transmitted by facsimile (only where expressly authorized, see 37 CFR 1.6(d)(7)): (571) 273-0042 facsimile number.
(7) Office of the General Counsel. Correspondence permitted to be transmitted by facsimile to the Office of the General Counsel: (571) 273-0099 facsimile number.
(8) Office of the Solicitor. Correspondence permitted to be transmitted by facsimile to the Office of the Solicitor: (571) 273-0373 facsimile number.
(9) Licensing and Review. Petitions for a foreign filing license pursuant to 37 CFR 5.12(b), including a petition for a foreign filing license where there is no corresponding U.S. application (37 CFR 5.13): (571) 273-0185 facsimile number.
Note: Correspondence to be filed in a patent application subject to a secrecy order under 37 CFR 5.1 to 5.5 and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application may not be transmitted via facsimile. See 37 CFR 1.6(d)(6).
(10) Office of Petitions. Petitions to withdraw from issue: (571) 273-0025 facsimile number
Note: All other types of petitions must be directed to the central facsimile number (571) 273-8300. Petitions sent to the central facsimile number should be marked "Special Processing Submission."
(11) Office of the Enrollment and Discipline Correspondence permitted to be transmitted to the Office of the Enrollment and Discipline: (571) 273-0074 facsimile number.
(12) Office of Finance. Refund requests, deposit account inquiries, and maintenance fee payments: (571) 273-6500 facsimile number. Office of Finance telephone number for customer service and inquiries: (571) 272-6500.
(13) Office of Public Records. Requests for certified copies of Office records may be transmitted to: (571) 273-3250 facsimile number. The Office of Public Records’ Patent and Trademark Copy Fulfillment Branch telephone number for customer service and inquiries: (571) 272-3150.
II. CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO PATENTS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS WHERE FILING
500-14Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.01
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IS NOT PERMITTED
As set forth in 37 CFR 1.6(d), facsimile transmissions are not permitted and, if submitted, will not be accorded a date of receipt in the following situations:
(A) A document that is required by statute to be certified (see 37 CFR 1.4(f));
(B) A national patent application specification and drawing (provisional or nonprovisional) or other correspondence for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date, other than a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d);
(C) An international application for patent;
(D) An international design application;
(E) A copy of the international application and the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage, as specified in 37 CFR 1.495(b);
(F) A third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.290;
(G) Correspondence relating to registration to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office in patent cases, enrollment and disciplinary investigations, or disciplinary proceedings;
(H) Color drawings submitted under 37 CFR 1.81, 1.83-1.85, 1.152, 1.165, 1.173, 1.437 , or 1.1026;
(I) A request for reexamination under 37 CFR 1.510 or 37 CFR 1.913;
(J) A request for supplemental examination under 37 CFR 1.610;
(K) Correspondence to be filed in a patent application subject to a secrecy order under 37 CFR 5.1 - 5.5 and directly related to the secrecy order content of the application; and
(L) Correspondence to be filed in a contested case or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, except as the Board may expressly authorize.
Applicants are reminded that the facsimile process may reduce the quality of the drawings, and the Office will generally print the drawings as received.
See MPEP § 1834.01 for a discussion concerning facsimile transmissions in PCT applications.
502.02 Correspondence Signature Requirements [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature requirements.
*****
(d)(1) Handwritten signature. Each piece of correspondence, except as provided in paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e) and (f) of this section, filed in an application, patent file, or other proceeding in the Office which requires a person’s signature, must:
(i) Be an original, that is, have an original handwritten signature personally signed, in permanent dark ink or its equivalent, by that person; or
(ii) Be a direct or indirect copy, such as a photocopy or facsimile transmission (§ 1.6(d)), of an original. In the event that a copy of the original is filed, the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity. If a question of authenticity arises, the Office may require submission of the original.
(2) S-signature. An S-signature is a signature inserted between forward slash marks, but not a handwritten signature as defined by paragraph (d)(1) of this section. An S-signature includes any signature made by electronic or mechanical means, and any other mode of making or applying a signature other than a handwritten signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Correspondence being filed in the Office in paper, by facsimile transmission as provided in § 1.6(d), or via the Office electronic filing system as an attachment as provided in § 1.6(a)(4), for a patent application, patent, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding may be S-signature signed instead of being personally signed ( i.e., with a handwritten signature) as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The requirements for an S-signature under this paragraph (d)(2) of this section are as follows.
(i) The S-signature must consist only of letters, or Arabic numerals, or both, with appropriate spaces and commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens for punctuation, and the person signing the correspondence must insert his or her own S-signature with a first single forward slash mark before, and a second single forward slash mark after, the S-signature ( e.g., /Dr. James T. Jones, Jr./); and
(ii) A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1)), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.
(iii) The signer’s name must be:
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-15
§ 502.02RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(A) Presented in printed or typed form preferably immediately below or adjacent the S-signature, and
(B) Reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized.
(3) Electronically submitted correspondence. Correspondence permitted via the Office electronic filing system may be signed by a graphic representation of a handwritten signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(1) of this section or a graphic representation of an S-signature as provided for in paragraph (d)(2) of this section when it is submitted via the Office electronic filing system.
(4) Certifications—
(i) Certification as to the paper presented. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this subchapter. Violations of § 11.18(b)(2) of this subchapter by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) of this subchapter. Any practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this subchapter may also be subject to disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) of this subchapter.
(ii) Certification as to the signature. The person inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section in a document submitted to the Office certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is his or her own signature. A person submitting a document signed by another under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the person whose signature is present on the document was actually inserted by that person, and should retain evidence of authenticity of the signature. Violations of the certification as to the signature of another or a person’s own signature as set forth in this paragraph may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) and (d) of this chapter.
(5) Forms. The Office provides forms to the public to use in certain situations to assist in the filing of correspondence for a certain purpose and to meet certain requirements for patent applications and proceedings. Use of the forms for purposes for which they were not designed is prohibited. No changes to certification statements on the Office forms (e.g., oath or declaration forms, terminal disclaimer forms, petition forms, and nonpublication request forms) may be made. The existing text of a form, other than a certification statement, may be modified, deleted, or added to, if all text identifying the form as an Office form is removed. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any Office form with text identifying the form as an Office form by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this chapter that the existing text and any certification statements on the form have not been altered other than permitted by EFS-Web customization.
(e) The following correspondence must be submitted with an original handwritten signature personally signed in permanent dark ink or its equivalent:
(1) Correspondence requiring a person's signature and relating to registration to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office in patent cases, enrollment and disciplinary investigations, or disciplinary proceedings; and
(2) Payments by credit cards where the payment is not being made via the Office's electronic filing systems.
(f) When a document that is required by statute to be certified must be filed, a copy, including a photocopy or facsimile transmission, of the certification is not acceptable.
*****
(h) Ratification/confirmation/evidence of authenticity: The Office may require ratification, confirmation (which includes submission of a duplicate document but with a proper signature), or evidence of authenticity of a signature, such as when the Office has reasonable doubt as to the authenticity (veracity) of the signature, e.g., where there are variations of a signature, or where the signature and the typed or printed name, do not clearly identify the person signing.
Correspondence filed in the Office, which requires a person’s signature, may be filed with one of two types of signatures: (A) handwritten signature; and (B) “S-signature.” See 37 CFR 1.4(d).
I. HANDWRITTEN SIGNATURE
A person’s handwritten signature may be an original or a copy thereof, except where an original handwritten signature is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.4(e). The word original, as used herein, is defined as correspondence which is personally signed in permanent dark ink or its equivalent by the person whose signature appears thereon. Dark ink or equivalent permits traditional ink and newer non-liquid gel type ink technologies. Since incoming correspondence is electronically stored and scanned as a black and white image, a dark color is required so that the scanned image is legible. Where copies of correspondence are acceptable, photocopies or facsimile transmissions may be filed. For example, a photocopy or facsimile transmission of an original of an amendment, declaration (e.g., under 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67), petition, issue fee transmittal form, and authorization to charge a deposit account or a credit card may be submitted in a patent application. Where copies are permitted, second and further generation copies (i.e., copy of a copy) are acceptable. For example, a client may fax a paper to an attorney and the attorney may then fax the paper to the Office, provided the paper is eligible to be faxed (see MPEP § 502.01). The original, if not
500-16Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.02
submitted to the Office, should be retained as evidence of proper execution in the event that questions arise as to the authenticity of the signature reproduced on the photocopy or facsimile-transmitted correspondence. If a question of authenticity arises, the Office may require submission of the original.
37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) covers all handwritten signatures, except for the handwritten signatures on the types of correspondence covered by 37 CFR 1.4(e). The requirement in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) of permanent dark ink or its equivalent relates to whether a handwritten signature is compliant and is not limiting on the type of handwritten signature that is covered by 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1). Thus, 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) would cover handwritten signatures in red ink or in pencil; although, under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) neither would be acceptable since red ink is not dark, and pencil is not permanent. A scanned image of a document that contains a handwritten signature filed via the Office’s electronic filing system is permitted as a copy under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1)(ii). A signature applied by an electric or mechanical typewriter directly to paper is not a handwritten signature, which is applied by hand. Accordingly, if a typewriter applied signature is used, it must meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2). Adding forward slashes to a handwritten (or hand-printed) ink signature that is personally applied will not cause the signature to be treated under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2). Such a signature will be treated under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) or (e) with the slashes ignored. The end product from a manually applied hand stamp or from a signature replication or transfer means (such as by pen or by screen) appears to be a handwritten signature, but is not actually handwritten, and would be treated under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2). An electronic reproduction of a handwritten signature, e.g., scanned, that is electronically applied to a document is not a personally signed original document under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1)(i) and reproductions of such correspondence cannot be copies under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1)(ii). A graphic representation of a handwritten signature as provided for in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) will be accepted when submitted via the Office electronic filing system, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3).
II. S-SIGNATURE
The second type of signature is an S-signature. See 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2). An S-signature is a signature inserted between forward slash marks, but not a handwritten signature as defined by 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) or (e). An S-signature includes any signature made by electronic or mechanical means, and any other mode of making or applying a signature not covered by either a handwritten signature of 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) or (e). The S-signature can be used with correspondence e.g., oaths and affidavits filed in the Office in paper, by facsimile transmission as provided in 37 CFR 1.6(d), or via the Office electronic filing system as an attachment as provided in 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), for a patent application, a patent, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.4(d) does not authorize filing correspondence by email. The S-signature cannot be used for correspondence that requires a person’s signature and relates to (1) registration to practice before the USPTO, (2) payments by credit card where a paper including the signature is submitted to the USPTO by means other than the Office’s electronic filing systems, and (3) filing a document that is required by statute to be certified. See 37 CFR 1.4(e). A legible electronic image of a handwritten signature inserted, or copied and pasted by the person signing the correspondence into the correspondence may be considered to be an acceptable signature under 1.4(d)(2) provided the signature is surrounded by a first single forward slash mark before the electronic image and a second single forward slash mark after the electronic image and includes the signers name below or adjacent to the signature as required.
An S-signature must consist only of letters, or Arabic numerals, or both, with appropriate spaces and punctuation (i.e., commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens). “Letters” include English and non- English alphabet letters, and text characters (e.g., Kanji). Non-text, graphic characters (e.g., a smiley face created in the True Type Wing Dings font) are not permitted. “Arabic numerals” are the numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, which are the standard numerals used in the United States. To accommodate as many varieties of names as possible, a signer may select any combination of letters, Arabic numerals, or both, for his or her S-signature under 37 CFR
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-17
§ 502.02RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
1.4(d)(2)(i). The person signing the correspondence must insert his or her own S-signature with a first single forward slash mark before, and a second single forward slash mark after, the S-signature (e.g., /Dr. James T. Jones, Jr./). Additional forward slashes are not permitted as part of the S-signature. The presentation of just letters and Arabic numerals as an S-signature without the S-signature being placed between two forward slashes will be treated as an unsigned document.
Commas, periods, apostrophes, and hyphens are often found in names and will therefore be found in many S-signatures. These punctuation marks and appropriate spaces may be used with letters and Arabic numerals in an S-signature. A sample S-signature including punctuation marks and spaces, between two forward slashes, is: /John P. Doe/. Punctuation marks, per se, are not punctuation and are not permitted without proper association with letters and Arabic numerals. An S-signature of only punctuation marks would be improper (e.g., /- - -/). In addition, punctuation marks, such as question marks (e.g., /???/), are often utilized to represent an intent not to sign a document and may be interpreted to be a non- bona fide attempt at a signature, in addition to being improper.
Script fonts are not permitted for any portion of a document except the S-signature. See 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)(ii). Presentation of a typed name in a script font without the typed name being placed between the required slashes does not present the proper indicia manifesting an intent to sign and will be treated as an unsigned document.
37 CFR 1.4(d)(2)(i) also defines who can insert an S-signature into a document. 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2)(i) requires that a person, which includes a practitioner, must insert his or her own signature using letters and/or Arabic numerals, with appropriate commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens as punctuation and spaces. The “must insert his or her own signature” requirement is met by the signer directly typing his or her own signature using a keyboard. The requirement does not permit one person (e.g., a secretary) to type in the signature of a second person (e.g., a practitioner) even if the second person directs the first person to do so. A person physically unable to use a keyboard, however, may, while
simultaneously reviewing the document for signature, direct another person to press the appropriate keys to form the S-signature.
For consistency purposes, and to avoid raising a doubt as to who has signed, the same S-signature should be utilized each time, with variations of the signature being avoided. The signer should review any indicia of identity of the signer in the body of the document, including any printed or typed name and registration number, to ensure that the indicia of identity in the body of the document is consistent with how the document is S-signed. Knowingly adopting an S-signature of another is not permitted.
While an S-signature need not be the name of the signer of the document, the Office strongly suggests that each signer use an S-signature that has his or her full name. The Office expects that where persons do not sign with their name it will be because they are using an S-signature that is the usual S-signature for that person, which is his or her own signature, and not something that is employed to obfuscate or misidentify the signer. Titles may be used with the signer’s S-signature and must be placed between the slash marks (e.g., /Dr. John Doe/), or with the printed or typed version of the name.
37 CFR 1.4(d)(2)(ii) requires that a practitioner (37 CFR 1.32(a)(1)) signing pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(1) or (b)(2) must place his or her registration number, either as part of, or adjacent, his or her S-signature. A number character (#) may only be used in an S-signature if it is prior to a practitioner’s registration number that is part of the S-signature. For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, when a practitioner is signing as an applicant as defined in 37 CFR 1.42 (e.g., as an inventor), a registration number is not required and should not be supplied to avoid confusion as to which basis the practitioner is signing, e.g., as a practitioner or as the applicant. A patent practitioner signing on behalf of a juristic entity applicant (see 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3)) is signing as a patent practitioner and thus must provide his or her registration number. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, when a practitioner is signing as an applicant as defined in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41 or as an assignee a registration number is not required and should not be supplied for the reasons noted above.
500-18Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.02
The signer’s name must be (A) presented in printed or typed form preferably immediately below or adjacent the S-signature, and (B) reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized. See 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2)(iii)(A). The printed or typed name requirement is intended to describe any manner of applying the signer’s name to the document, including by a typewriter or machine printer. It could include a printer (mechanical, electrical, optical, etc.) associated with a computer or a facsimile machine but would not include manual or hand printing. See 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(iv). The printed or typed name may be inserted before or after the S-signature is applied, and it does not have to be inserted by the S-signer. A printed or typed name appearing in the letterhead or body of a document is not acceptable as the presentation of the name of the S-signer. A graphic representation of an S-signature as provided for in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) with be accepted when submitted via the Office electronic filing system, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3).
III. CERTIFICATIONS
37 CFR 1.4(d)(4)(i) establishes that the presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper by a party, whether a practitioner or non- practitioner, constitutes a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b) of this chapter.
37 CFR 1.4(d)(4)(ii) establishes certifications as to the signature of another for a person submitting a document signed by another under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) or 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3) . Thus, the submitting person is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the person whose signature is present on the document actually inserted the signature on the document. Such reasonable basis does not require an actual knowledge but does require some reason to believe the signature is appropriate. For example, where a practitioner emails a 37 CFR 1.63 declaration to an inventor for signature by the inventor and receives an executed declaration by the inventor in return from the inventor, reasonable basis would exist. Evidence of authenticity should be retained. This may involve retaining the emails sent to the inventor and any cover letter or email (with the signed document as an attachment) back to the
practitioner from the inventor in the example relating to execution of a 37 CFR 1.63 declaration.
37 CFR 1.4(d)(4)(ii) further establishes that a person inserting a signature under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) or 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3) in a document submitted to the Office certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is his or her own signature. This is meant to prohibit a first person from requesting a second person to insert the first person’s signature in a document. While the certification is directed at the person inserting another S- signature, the person requesting the inappropriate insertion may also be subject to sanctions.
37 CFR 1.4(d)(4)(ii) additionally establishes that violations of the certifications as to the signature of another or a person’s own signature, set forth in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4)(ii) , may result in the imposition of sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c) and (d).
IV. RATIFICATION, CONFIRMATION, OR EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.4(h), the Office may additionally inquire in regard to a signature so as to identify the signer and clarify the record where the identity of the signer is unclear. An example of when ratification or confirmation of a signature may be required is when there are variations in a signature or whenever a name in an S-signature is not exactly the same as the name indicated as an inventor, or a practitioner of record. Hence, whatever signature is adopted by a signer, that signature should be consistently used on all documents. Also addressed is the treatment of variations in a signature or where a printed or typed name accompanies the S-signature but the identity of the signer is unclear. In such cases, the Office may require ratification or confirmation of a signature. Ratification requires the person ratifying to state he/she personally signed the previously submitted document as well as, if needed, the submission of a compliant format of the signature. Confirmation includes submitting a duplicate document, which is compliantly signed if the previous signature was noncompliant (as opposed to unclear).
In lieu of ratification, the Office may require a resubmission of a properly signed duplicate
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-19
§ 502.02RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
document. Resubmission of a document may be required, for example, where ratification alone is inappropriate, such as where the image of the signature is of such poor quality (e.g., illegible font) that the Office is unable to store or reproduce the document with the signature image.
Ratification or confirmation alone does not provide a means for changing the name of a signer. For example, when an inventor changes her/his name and the inventor desires to change her/his name in the nonprovisional application, such change must be by way of a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f). See MPEP §§ 602.01(c)(2) and 602.08(b).
In addition, the Office may require evidence of authenticity where the Office has reasonable doubt as to the authenticity (veracity) of the signature. Evidence of authenticity may include evidence establishing a chain of custody of a document from the person signing the document to the person filing the document. Proper evidence of a chain of custody will aid in avoiding the impact of repudiation of a signature.
Where there has been a bona fide attempt to follow the rule, but where there is some doubt as to the identity of the signer of a signed document, the Office may require ratification of the signature. Note, ratification would only be an effective remedy if the signer was a proper party to have executed the document to be ratified. For example, a practitioner of record may ratify his or her signature on an amendment, but not the signature of a secretary who is not a practitioner or inventor in the application. A registered practitioner may, however, ratify the amendment made by another registered practitioner but may not ratify a document required to be signed by an inventor, such as a 37 CFR 1.63 declaration. Similarly, an inadvertent typographical error or simple misspelling of a name will be treated as a bona fide attempt to follow the rule, which would
require ratification only where there is some doubt as to the identity of the signer rather than be treated as an unsigned paper requiring resubmission. Where there is an obvious typographical error so that the Office does not have some doubt as to the identity of the signer (and therefore notification to applicant is not needed), further action by applicant would not
be required and, where appropriate, the obvious error will be noted in the record.
The inadvertent failure to follow the format and content of an S-signature will be treated as a bona fide attempt at a signature but the paper will be considered as being unsigned correspondence. Examples of correspondence that will be treated as unsigned are (A) the S-signature is not enclosed in forward slashes, (B) the S-signature is composed of non-text graphic characters (e.g., a smiley face) and not letters and numerals, and (C) the S-signature is not a name and there is no other accompanying name adjacent or below the S-signature so that the identity of the signer cannot be readily recognized.
If the signer, after being required to ratify or resubmit a document with a compliant signature, repeats the same S-signature in reply without appropriate correction, the reply will not be considered to be a bona fide attempt to reply, and no additional time period will be given to submit a properly signed document.
V. CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE
When a statute requires or permits the Director to require a document to be certified (such as the requirement in 37 CFR 1.55 for a certified copy of a foreign patent application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 119 or a certified copy of an international application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 365) a copy of the certification, including a photocopy or facsimile transmission, will not be acceptable. Note that for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), foreign priority documents retrieved by the Office from a foreign intellectual property office that participates with the Office in a priority document exchange (PDX) agreement can serve as the certified copy provided the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55(h) are met. The requirement for an original certification does not apply to certifications such as required
500-20Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.02
under 37 CFR 1.8 since these certifications are not provided for by statute.
502.03 Communications via Internet Electronic Mail (email) [R-07.2015]
The Office published a Patent Internet Usage Policy to :
(A) establish a policy for use of the Internet by the Patent Examining Corps and other organizations within the USPTO,
(B) address use of the Internet to conduct interview-like communications and other forms of formal and informal communications,
(C) publish guidelines for locating, retrieving, citing, and properly documenting scientific and technical information sources on the Internet,
(D) inform the public how the USPTO intends to use the Internet, and
(E) establish a flexible Internet policy framework which can be modified, enhanced, and corrected as the USPTO, the public, and customers learn to use, and subsequently integrate, new and emerging Internet technology into existing business infrastructures and everyday activities to improve the patent application, examining, and granting functions.
See Internet Usage Policy, 64 FR 33056 (June 21, 1999). The Articles of the Patent Internet Usage Policy pertinent to communications via electronic mail are summarized below. See MPEP § 904.02(c) for information pertinent to Internet searching, and MPEP § 707.05(e) for information pertaining to the citation of electronic documents. See also MPEP § 713.04 for recordation of email interviews.
I. CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION (ARTICLE 4)
If security and confidentiality cannot be attained for a specific use, transaction, or activity, then that specific use, transaction, or activity shall NOT be undertaken/conducted.
All use of the Internet by Patent Organization employees, contractors, and consultants shall be conducted in a manner that ensures compliance with
confidentiality requirements in statutes, including 35 U.S.C. 122, and regulations. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant for the USPTO to communicate with the applicant via Internet email, communications via Internet email may be used.
Backup, archiving, and recovery of information sent or received via the Internet is the responsibility of individual users. The OCIO does not, and will not, as a normal practice, provide backup and recovery services for information produced, retrieved, stored, or transmitted to/from the Internet.
II. COMMUNICATIONSVIA THE INTERNETAND AUTHORIZATION (ARTICLE 5)
Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-21
§ 502.03RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn”
Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet email, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. In such case, a printed copy of the Internet email communications MUST be given a paper number, entered into the Patent Application Locating and Monitoring System (PALM) and entered in the patent application file (Doc Code is EMAIL). A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by applicant to the USPTO via Internet email. If such a reply is submitted by applicant via Internet email, a copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED.
USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet email unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant.
If applicant has authorized Internet communications, USPTO employees may respond to Internet email and initiate communications with applicants via Internet email.
All reissue applications are open to public inspection under 37 CFR 1.11(a) and all papers relating to a reexamination proceeding which have been entered of record in the patent or reexamination file are open to public inspection under 37 CFR 1.11(d). USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicant in a reissue
application or a patentee of a reexamination proceeding via Internet email unless written authorization is given by the applicant or patentee.
III. AUTHENTICATION OF SENDER BY A PATENT ORGANIZATION RECIPIENT (ARTICLE 6)
The misrepresentation of a sender’s identity (i.e., spoofing) is a known risk when using electronic communications. Therefore, Patent Organization users have an obligation to be aware of this risk and conduct their Internet activities in compliance with established procedures.
Internet email must be initiated by a registered practitioner, or an applicant in a pro se application, and sufficient information must be provided to show representative capacity in compliance with 37 CFR 1.34. Examples of such information include the attorney registration number, attorney docket number, and patent application number.
Similar to the policy set forth in MPEP 100 for handling telephone calls, when responding to an email, no information should be disclosed until the identity of the requester can be adequately verified. Examiners should verify the identity of the person by checking PALM or the application file, such as checking the email address previously provided in PALM or the application.
IV. USE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL SERVICES (ARTICLE 7)
Once email correspondence has been received from the applicant, as set forth in Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 4, such correspondence must be responded to appropriately. The Patent Examiner may respond to an applicant’s email correspondence by telephone, fax, or other appropriate means.
V. INTERVIEWS (ARTICLE 8)
Internet email and instant messaging shall NOT be used to conduct an exchange of communications similar to those exchanged during telephone or personal interviews unless a written authorization has been given under Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5 to use Internet email. In such cases, a paper
500-22Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.03
copy of the Internet email or instant messaging contents MUST be made and placed in the patent application file, as required by the Federal Records Act, in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form is entered.
USPTO video conferencing tools, such as WebEx , may be used to conduct examiner interviews in both published and unpublished applications under the Patent Internet Usage Policy. Authorization by the practitioner is required and must be obtained prior to sending a meeting invite using Outlook/WebEx. Authorization is required to confirm that the practitioner is able to conduct a WebEx interview and to confirm the email address to which the invitation must be sent. The practitioner’s participation in the interview is considered consent to the use of the video conferencing tool for the interview.
All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools. Video conferencing communications must be hosted by USPTO personnel. No personal phones, email, PDAs, etc. may be used by USPTO employees for Official communications.
VI. POLICY GUIDANCE AND CLARIFICATIONS (ARTICLE 13)
Within the Patent Organization, any questions regarding Internet usage policy should be directed to the user’s immediate supervisor. Non-USPTO personnel should direct their questions to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.
502.04 Duplicate Copies of Correspondence [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature requirements.
*****
(b) Since each file must be complete in itself, a separate copy of every paper to be filed in a patent, patent file, or other proceeding must be furnished for each file to which the paper pertains, even though the contents of the papers filed in two or more files may be identical. The filing of duplicate copies of correspondence in the file of an application, patent, or other proceeding should be avoided, except in situations in which the Office requires the filing of duplicate copies. The Office may
dispose of duplicate copies of correspondence in the file of an application, patent, or other proceeding.
*****
When the Office does not require duplicate copies of a paper, the filing of multiple copies may cause a delay in processing by the Office. Accordingly, the Office may discard duplicate copies of correspondence filed in an application or patent file.
502.05 Correspondence Transmitted by EFS-Web [R-07.2015]
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR EFS-WEB
The April 2011 version of the Legal Framework for EFS-Web is posted on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying- online/legal-framework-efs-web-06april11. The information in this MPEP section is an update to the April 2011 version of the Legal Framework, which was based on the following Federal Register notices with minor editorial changes: Legal Framework for Electronic Filing System - Web (EFS-Web), 74 FR 55200 (October 27, 2009); Revised Procedure for Public Key Infrastructure Certificates, 74 FR 66955 (December 17, 2009); and Electronic Filing System – Web (EFS-Web) Contingency Option, 75 FR 27986 (May 19, 2010)
A. General Information on EFS-Web
EFS-Web is the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) system for electronic filing of patent correspondence. EFS-Web is accessible via the Internet on the USPTO website. The system utilizes standard Web-based screens and prompts to enable users to submit patent documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) directly to the USPTO. Users may electronically submit most patent applications, applications for international registration of industrial designs, reexamination requests, supplemental examination requests, and other patent-related documents securely using EFS-Web. Users may also use EFS-Web to submit Web-based documents such as ePetitions and eTerminal Disclaimers that can be filled out completely online through Web-based screens. ePetitions and eTerminal Disclaimers are auto-processed and granted immediately upon
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-23
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
submission if the petition or request meets all of the requirements. An ePetition or eTerminal Disclaimer document is generated by EFS-Web based on the information entered into EFS-Web. This petition or request and a decision granting the petition or request will be loaded into the electronic application file (i.e., IFW), if the ePetition or eTerminal Disclaimer is approved. If the ePetition, eTerminal Disclaimer or request does not meet all of the requirements, it will not be loaded into the electronic application file (i.e., IFW). Users may also use EFS-Web to submit payments of most patent fees including patent application filing fees. Users need not provide a duplicate copy of any document filed through EFS-Web unless the USPTO specifically requires the filing of a duplicate in a particular situation. Users may review and check their electronic submissions including their attached PDF files, before submitting the documents to the USPTO. After submitting the documents via EFS-Web, the system will display a page that states the USPTO has received the user’s submission and that generally provides an application number. Users of EFS-Web will receive an ElectronicAcknowledgement Receipt of a successful submission received by the USPTO, usually within a few minutes. The processing of fees may delay the issuance of the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt. The Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt is the electronic equivalent of a postcard receipt. See MPEP § 503. Most documents submitted via EFS-Web will be viewable by the user via the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system within an hour after the USPTO receives the documents if the user has associated the application with the user’s customer number. Therefore, users will be able to immediately check the contents of their applications for completeness and accuracy of their electronic submissions. A user may become a registered user by obtaining a PKI digital certificate. See subsection E, below, for more information on PKI digital certificates. A registered user may file most patent applications and follow-on documents in a patent application; a non-registered user may file most patent applications but is only permitted to file limited types of follow-on documents in a patent application. See subsection B, below, for more information.
EFS-Web is a PDF-based filing system. Accordingly, all EFS-Web submissions are required to be in PDF format unless otherwise indicated in the Legal Framework for EFS-Web. EFS-Web permits submission of: (1) the American Standard Code of Information Interchange (ASCII) text files (.TXT) to submit bio-sequence listings, computer program listings, mega tables, and Complex Work Units; (2) PCT-EASY.zip compressed files to submit the Request form generated by PCT-SAFE (operated in PCT-EASY mode) in Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international applications filed with the United States Receiving Office; and (3) JPEG reproductions in international design applications. See subsections L, M, and N below for more information on ASCII text files and electronic filing of PCT international applications, respectively. In addition, the USPTO provides users with PDF EFS-Web fillable forms, such as the Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheet, the Information Disclosure Statement, the Application Data Sheet, Petition to Make Special Under Accelerated Examination Program, Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent, Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Transmittal, and Petition to Make Special Based on Age; ePetitions and eTerminal Disclaimers. When users submit information using an EFS-Web fillable form (not a scanned image (PDF) of a document) or the web-based version of the ADS (AIA/14), the information will directly load into the USPTO databases which will increase accuracy and facilitate faster processing. Users may use other USPTO-created PDF fillable forms available on the USPTO website, or user-created forms, and submit the completed forms via EFS-Web. The information entered on these forms, however, will not be automatically loaded into the USPTO databases.
B. Legal and Document Policies
To the extent that any USPTO regulation is inconsistent with the procedures for EFS-Web, the regulation will be interpreted in a manner to support EFS-Web. USPTO’s policies concerning documents submitted electronically using EFS-Web, including patent applications and requests for reexamination or supplemental examination, as well as follow-on documents in patent applications and reexamination proceedings are set forth below.
500-24Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
1. Types of Patent Applications and Documents Permitted to be Filed via EFS-Web
a. Filings Permitted by Registered and Non-registered Users
EFS-Web permits registered users (who have a PKI digital certificate) and non-registered users to file the following applications, requests for reexamination, and documents:
(1) Provisional patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b).
(2) Nonprovisional utility patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
(3) Nonprovisional design patent applications (see 35 U.S.C. 171) filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
(4) International applications filed under the PCT in the United States Receiving Office (see 35 U.S.C. 361).
(5) Submissions to enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
(6) International design applications filed under the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Design (see 35 U.S.C. 382).
(7) Requests for ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302 for utility or design patents.
(8) Requests for supplemental examination under 35 U.S.C. 257 for utility, design, or plant patents.
(9) Third-Party Preissuance Submissions under 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and 37 CFR 1.290 for utility, design, or plant patent applications.
(10) Citation of prior art and written statements in patent files under 37 CFR 1.501 for utility applications
(11) Petitions to make special based on age under 37 CFR 1.102(c).
(12) Petitions to accept an unintentionally delayed payment of maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.378, and payments of maintenance fees when submitted with the petition.
(13) Petition to make special under accelerated examination program (must be filed with a
nonprovisional utility patent application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)).
(14) Reissue utility patent applications and reissue design patent applications.
b. Filing of Follow-on Documents
Registered users are permitted to file follow-on documents in their applications, reexamination proceedings and supplemental examination proceedings as listed above via EFS-Web. Registered users are not permitted to file follow-on documents in applications, reexamination proceedings and supplemental examination proceedings where they are not of record or acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 unless specifically authorized under the EFS-Web Legal Framework.
Follow-on documents are any documents filed after the initial submission of the application, request for reexamination, or request for supplemental examination. Follow-on documents include, but are not limited to, the following: amendments, information disclosure statements (IDS), replies to Office actions and notices, requests for continued examination (RCEs), continued prosecution applications in design applications (CPAs), evidence, petitions, and terminal disclaimers. In addition, registered users may file a copy of a patent application (e.g., a copy of the amended specification including the claims, and drawings) for the purposes of publication of the application when filed with any of the following pre-grant (eighteen-month) publication requests via EFS-Web: amended publication under 37 CFR 1.215(c), redacted publication under 37 CFR 1.217, early publication under 37 CFR 1.219, and voluntary publication or republication under 37 CFR 1.221(a). See subsection G below for more information on filing these publication requests via EFS-Web. Follow-on documents also include any documents submitted on the same day as the application, but after the initial submission. In reexamination proceedings, both the reexamination requester and the patent owner may file documents via EFS-Web, if they are registered users. Registered users may also file a second or subsequent submission for patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. 156 in a patent file via EFS-Web.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-25
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Non-registered users are not permitted to file follow-on documents via EFS-Web, except those listed in items 9-12 above. Non-registered users may file follow-on documents by mail (with a certificate of mailing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8), Priority
Mail Express® from USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10, or hand delivery.
Any follow-on document must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b) and it must identify on the top page in a conspicuous location, the application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number; e.g., 07/123,456), or the serial number and filing date assigned to that application by the Office, or the international application number of the international application, or the international registration number of the international design registration. See 37 CFR 1.4, 37 CFR 1.33(b) and 37 CFR 1.5.
2. Types of Patent Applications and Documents Not Permitted to be Filed via EFS-Web
The following is a list of submission types that are not permitted to be filed using EFS-Web:
(1) Plant patent applications (see 35 U.S.C. 161) filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and follow-on documents associated with plant patent applications, other than third party preissuance submissions under 37 CFR 1.290.
(2) Requests for Reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302 for plant patents and documents associated with reexamination proceedings for plant patents.
(3) Requests for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 311.
(4) Any third party inquiries, petitions or papers unless specifically authorized by the EFS-Web Legal Framework (e.g., citation of prior art and written statements in patent files under 37 CFR 1.501) and/or provided for via dedicated EFS-Web interface (e.g.,Third Party Preissuance Submissions under 37 CFR 1.290) is improper. See subsection B.1., above. The Office considers inappropriate any third-party inquiry or submission in an application that is not provided for in 37 CFR 1.290 or 37 CFR 1.292. Some examples of third party papers include inquiries into the timing of future actions on an application, disputes over inventorship in an
application, and demands that the Office withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313 on the basis of unpatentability of a claim.
(5) Color drawings and color photographs for international applications that have not entered the national stage.
(6) Initial submissions for patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. 156.
(7) Correspondence concerning registration practice as specified in 37 CFR 1.4(e). See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(1).
(8) Certified documents as specified in 37 CFR 1.4(f). See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(2).
(9) Correspondence to be filed in an application subject to a secrecy order under 37 CFR 5.1 through 37 CFR 5.5. See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(6).
(10) Documents filed in contested cases and trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), except as the PTAB may expressly authorize. See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(7).
(11) Documents filed in contested cases and trials before the PTAB, which are governed by 37 CFR Part 41, Subpart D and Part 42, respectively. See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C).
(12) Correspondence filed in connection with a disciplinary proceeding under 37 CFR part 11. See also 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3).
(13) Maintenance fees submitted under 37 CFR 1.366 that are not submitted with a petition under 37 CFR 1.378(c) (see item 12 in subsection B.1. above). Patent owners may pay electronically using the Office of Finance On-Line Shopping Page at https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/. See MPEP § 2510 for information regarding the proper methods for submitting maintenance fees.
(14) Assignment documents under 35 U.S.C. 261, which may be electronically filed using the Electronic Assignment System (EPAS) or the Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS). Information regarding EPAS is available at: http://epas.uspto.gov. Information regarding ETAS is available at: http://etas.uspto.gov.
(15) Submissions that are not associated with a patent application, international design application, reexamination proceeding, or supplemental examination proceeding.
500-26Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
If any of the documents listed above is submitted via EFS-Web, the document will not be accorded a date of receipt and it will not be considered officially filed in the USPTO. Furthermore, no benefit will be given to a certificate of transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 on the document.
3. Papers That May Be Filed and Processed Electronically
Registered users may use EFS-Web to submit Web-based documents such as ePetitions and eTerminal Disclaimers. ePetitions and eTerminal Disclaimers are auto-processed and granted immediately upon submission if the petition or request meets all of the requirements. See the ePetition Resource Page at www.uspto.gov/ patents-application-process/applying-online/epetition- resource-page for a list of ePetitions. Registered users sign into EFS-Web and fill out Web-based screens. An ePetition or eTerminal Disclaimer document (PDF) is generated by EFS-Web based on the information entered into EFS-Web. This document and a decision granting the petition or request will be loaded into the electronic application file (i.e., IFW), if the ePetition or eTerminal Disclaimer is approved. If the ePetition, eTerminal Disclaimer or request does not meet all of the requirements, it will not be loaded into the electronic application file (i.e., IFW).
EFS-Web permits registered users (who have a PKI digital certificate) to file the following auto-processed ePetitions and eTerminal disclaimers:
1. Request for withdrawal as attorney or agent; 2. ePetition for Revival of an Application for
Patent Abandoned Unintentionally Under 37 CFR 1.137(a);
3. Petition to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313;
4. Petition for revival of an application under 37 CFR 1.137;
5. eTerminal Disclaimers for nonprovisional utility applications under 37 CFR 1.321; and
6. Petition to correct assignee after payment of Issue Fee under 37 CFR 3.81(b).
4. The Official Record of Documents Submitted via EFS-Web
When the USPTO successfully receives PDF documents filed in accordance with the EFS-Web requirements, the USPTO will convert the PDF files submitted by users into Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) image files and then store the TIFF image files in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) as part of the official record, except for those drawings which are stored in the Supplemental Complex Repository for Examiners (SCORE) as part of the official record (i.e., color and grayscale drawings and drawings submitted in design applications). The USPTO also will store JPEG drawing files successfully received in international design applications in accordance with the EFS-Web requirements in SCORE as part of the official record. In addition, certain submissions filed as ASCII text files (e.g., sequence listings or computer program listings), are stored in SCORE as part of the official record. Accordingly, the official record for the patent application, international design application, reexamination proceeding, or supplemental examination proceeding comprises:
(1) ASCII text documents and drawings stored in SCORE as set forth above; and
(2) TIFF images of all other original documents as stored in IFW as well as the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and the Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal, both of which contain information entered via the EFS-Web graphical user interface (GUI) data collection screens and TIFF images stored in IFW in international design applications generated from XML data received from the International Bureau.
The original documents submitted via EFS-Web (e.g., applications and reexamination and supplemental examination proceeding documents) are stored exactly as filed in an independent location. See subsection L. below for more information on ASCII text documents and subsections K. and M.2. below for information on color and grayscale drawings and subsection N for information on international design applications. Submissions for pre-grant (eighteen-month) publication are forwarded to the Pre-Grant Publication Division and are not stored in IFW or SCORE as part of the official
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-27
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
record of the patent application. See subsection G. below for more information on publication requests.
5. How is internally inconsistent information submitted via EFS-Web treated?
When filing a new application via EFS-Web, EFS-Web requires the input of certain application data. This includes the type of application being filed (e.g., 35 U.S.C. 111(a), national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, international application), the title of the application (unless the application is an international design application), the first named inventor or applicant, and a correspondence address. In addition, other application data, such as a docket number, may be provided.
Routing of the submission to the appropriate area of the Office for processing is based on the application type indicted in EFS-Web, and such indication will be treated as an instruction to treat the submission as the selected application type. Where the submission includes conflicting indications as to the type of application being filed, and there is no provision to resolve such conflict (see, e.g., 37 CFR 1.495(g)), the submission may be treated in accordance with the indication provided in EFS-Web, and a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 may be required to correct the error. In the case of other conflicting information in the submission, the conflict will be resolved in accordance with the applicable regulations. For example, inventorship will be determined in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.41. Where no corresponding information is included in the submission, or the corresponding information was not made in accordance with the applicable regulations, the Office may use the application data furnished through EFS-Web for purposes of correspondence until corrected by the applicant. For example, the Office may use the correspondence address associated with a customer number entered through EFS-Web rather than an address furnished in an unsigned paper in the new application submission.
6. Application Size Fee for Applications Submitted via EFS-Web
For patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 (including provisional applications, utility and design
nonprovisional applications, and reissue applications), the paper size equivalent of the specification (including claims) and drawings of an application submitted via EFS-Web will be considered to be seventy-five percent (75%) of the number of sheets of paper present in the specification (including claims) and drawings of the application when entered into IFW after being rendered by EFS-Web for purposes of determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s). See 37 CFR 1.53(f)(2) and MPEP § 607. The paper size equivalency under 37 CFR 1.52(f)(2) for EFS-Web filings does not apply to national stage submissions. See MPEP § 1893.01(c).
Any sequence listing submitted in ASCII text as part of an associated file of the application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96, submitted via EFS-Web will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s). See 37 CFR 1.52(f)(2) and subsections K.2. and M.3., below. Sequence listings or computer program listings submitted as PDF files will not be excluded when determining the application size fee.
7. Fee Payments Submitted via EFS-Web
Non-registered and registered users may submit the filing fees (e.g., the basic filing fee, search and examination fee, and excess claims fee) using the online fee payment in EFS-Web at the time of filing a patent application, request for reexamination, or request for supplemental examination, and may submit fees for third party preissuance submissions under 37 CFR 1.290. Only registered users may submit payment of fees in a previously filed application, reexamination proceeding, or supplemental examination proceeding. EFS-Web permits users to electronically submit the payment of fees with a credit/debit card, USPTO deposit account, or electronic fund transfer. Users may also provide authorizations to charge fees to a deposit account with the documents being submitted electronically via EFS-Web (e.g., a fee transmittal letter or form). However, users should not submit a credit/debit card charge authorization including the Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038) electronically via EFS-Web, because the electronic submission automatically will be loaded into the
500-28Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
application file in IFW, and the credit/debit card information may become part of the record of an application file that is open to public inspection.
When the online fee payment in EFS-Web is unavailable, a deposit account authorization transmittal (e.g., PTO/SB/17) may be included with the documents being submitted via EFS-Web. A credit card authorization transmittal (e.g., PTO-2038) may also be submitted by facsimile transmission to the USPTO central facsimile number (571)
273-8300, or sent via Priority Mail Express® from the United States Postal Service (USPS) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10. Applicants must include the application number from the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt to ensure that the fees are paid in the correct application. Facsimile submission of the basic national fee for national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not accepted. Failure to timely pay the basic national fee prior to the expiration of 30 months from the priority date will result in abandonment of the international application.
If applicant wishes to submit the application filing fees on the filing date of a patent application to avoid the surcharge, the payment of the filing fees must be submitted and received by the USPTO before midnight ET on the filing date of the application. Failure to pay the fees on the filing date of the application will result in a surcharge.
When the online fee payment in EFS-Web is unavailable, the following types of submissions cannot be filed via EFS-Web, since online fee payment must accompany the submission:
(1) Petitions that require a fee for auto-processing by EFS-Web;
(2) Pre-grant publication submissions under 37 CFR 1.211 to 1.221 that require a fee; and
(3) Third-party preissuance submissions under 37 CFR 1.290 that require a fee.
C. Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and Date Of Receipt
The Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt establishes the date of receipt by the USPTO of
documents submitted via EFS-Web. The electronic documents are itemized in the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt, which will contain a full listing of the documents submitted to the USPTO as described by the user during the submission process, including the count of pages and/or byte sizes for each document. Thus, the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt is the electronic equivalent of the postcard receipt described in MPEP § 503.
The official application filing date will be noted on the Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) after the submitted application parts are reviewed for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 111 (or for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371 for entry into the U.S. national stage of an international application). The filing date of an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 via EFS-Web is based on the dates indicated on the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt assuming that, after review, the documents submitted are found to be entitled to an application filing date. Likewise, the official reexamination filing date will be noted on the “Notice of Ex Parte Reexamination Request Filing Date” and the official supplemental examination filing date will be noted on the “Notice of Supplemental Examination Request Filing Date” after Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) review for filing date compliance, and is based on the dates indicated on the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt.
If the official version of any document received by EFS-Web is lost, damaged or rendered unreadable and if it cannot be recovered from the stored files received by electronic submission, then the user will be promptly notified. Such events are expected to be rare. In that situation, the user may have to resubmit any lost document and petition for the original filing date. The user would be required to present: (1) the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt; (2) a copy of the missing files as submitted; and (3) a signed petition accompanied by a statement stating that the attached files are the same as those originally submitted and mentioned in the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt for that application number (e.g., a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) or 37 CFR 1.182 with the appropriate petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(f)).
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-29
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
The Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and statement will serve as prima facie evidence that the resubmitted documents are the same as those submitted on the date of receipt, except when the document description used by the user does not match the document. For example, if an applicant originally filed a specification and a set of claims and used the correct document descriptions for a specification and a set of claims, then the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt will serve as prima facie evidence that the applicant filed the specification and set of claims on the original filing date. However, if the applicant actually filed two sets of claims, the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt will not serve as prima facie evidence that the applicant filed a specification and a set of claims (even though the applicant used the document descriptions for a specification and a set of claims). Note the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt only indicates that the USPTO received what was actually sent, as opposed to what may have been intended to be transmitted. Users should exercise the same care in preparing and preserving a copy of a submission in electronic form as in paper.
1. The Date of Receipt of a Follow-on Document Submitted via EFS-Web
Follow-on documents filed in an application or reexamination proceeding after the initial filing of the application or request for reexamination will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date the follow-on document is received at the USPTO. See 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4).
A follow-on document required to be filed in the USPTO within a set period of time (e.g., a reply to an Office action) will be considered as being timely filed if the follow-on document is submitted in compliance with the procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.8(a):
(1) The follow-on document is submitted via EFS-Web prior to expiration of the set period of time in accordance with the requirements for EFS-Web; and
(2) The document includes a certificate of transmission stating the date of transmission and signed by a person that has reasonable basis to expect that the document would be transmitted on or before
the date of transmission. See 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)(i)(C) and (ii).
However, the certificate of transmission practice under 37 CFR 1.8 does not apply to the documents listed in 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2) (e.g., a document filed for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date).
2. The Date of Receipt of an Application Submitted via EFS-Web
The time and date of receipt of an application filed via EFS-Web is the local time and date of receipt of the application in the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, which is in the Eastern Time zone. Accordingly, the date of receipt of an application officially submitted through EFS-Web will be the date in the Eastern Time zone when the USPTO received the submission. As such, the submission’s “date of receipt,” as shown on the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt, is the Eastern Time zone date that the documents are fully, successfully, and officially received at the USPTO, after the user clicks the SUBMIT button on the Confirm and Submit screen. See 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4). This date is controlling for filing date purposes of a newly filed application. There is no “certificate of transmission” practice for new application filings (37 CFR 1.8).
To be very specific, the EFS-Web system records as the time and date of receipt of documents the local time and date in Alexandria, Virginia. on which the USPTO receives the documents, after the user clicks the SUBMIT button on the Confirm and Submit screen for those documents.
For example, if an applicant in California officially files a patent application with the USPTO through EFS-Web by clicking on the SUBMIT button at 10 p.m. Pacific Time in California on May 1, that application would be officially received by the USPTO at 1 a.m., local time (i.e., Eastern Daylight Time) on May 2. Accordingly, the application would receive a filing date of May 2. However, the applicant could alternatively file the application
using Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 in which case the applicant would have until midnight on May 1 in his
500-30Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
or her local time zone to file the application and obtain a filing date of May 1.
3. EFS-Web Availability
Hours of operation of EFS-Web will be clearly provided in the EFS-Web instructions when users log on to the system. The USPTO will post information on any scheduled down time due to system maintenance in advance. Users may file patent documents electronically during the hours of operation of EFS-Web every day of the week, including weekends and holidays. If the submission is successfully received (even on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia), the USPTO will assign that receipt date to the submission.
If a transmission is attempted during a down time, the USPTO cannot accept it and will, if possible, transmit back a notice that the USPTO is not accepting submissions. No Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt will be sent. Instead a notice will advise the user to use alternative filing
methods, such as Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 or hand delivery of paper to the USPTO, to establish the filing date. Note that applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53, PCT international applications, international design applications, and reexamination requests, cannot be submitted by facsimile transmission (37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) and (5)), and that certificate of mailing procedures do not apply to new applications and reexamination requests (37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) and (D)). Users are strongly advised to transmit their electronic filings sufficiently early in the day to allow time for alternative paper filing when transmission cannot be initiated or correctly completed.
4. EFS-Web Contingency Option
The USPTO will provide EFS-Web Contingency Option to users to file new applications, national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371, requests for reexamination, requests for supplemental examination, and certain petitions when the primary portal to EFS-Web is unavailable during an unscheduled outage. The USPTO will post a notification of any unscheduled outage of the
primary portal to EFS-Web and provide the link to EFS-Web Contingency Option on the EFS-Web Internet page www.uspto.gov/patents- application-process/applying-online/about-efs-web. The EFS-Web Contingency Option has the same functionality as EFS-Web for unregistered e-filers (www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/ applying-online/efs-web-contingency.html). It permits users to sign on as unregistered EFS-Web users to file new applications, national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 submitted with the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage, requests for reexamination, requests for supplemental examination and certain petitions. However, other follow-on documents and fee payments filed after the initial submission of the application, reexamination request, or supplemental examination request (e.g., amendments and replies to Office actions) cannot be filed using EFS-Web Contingency Option.
a. Proper Submissions Under EFS-Web Contingency Option
Specifically, EFS-Web Contingency Option only permits users to electronically file the following items as unregistered EFS-Web users:
(1) Provisional patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b);
(2) Nonprovisional utility patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)
(3) Nonprovisional design patent applications (see 35 U.S.C. 171) filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)
(4) International applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in the United States Receiving Office (see 35 U.S.C. 361);
(5) Submissions to enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371;
(6) International design applications filed under the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (see 35 U.S.C. 382);
(7) Requests for ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302 for utility or design patents;
(8) Requests for supplemental examination under 35 U.S.C. 257 for utility, design, or plant patents;
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-31
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(9) Petitions to make special based on age under 37 CFR 1.102(c) when filed as an e-petition using – the EFS-Web SB130 form, for the automatic processing of the e-petition (for more information see www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ebc/ portal/efs/sb130_instructions.doc);
(10) Petitions to accept an unintentionally delayed payment of maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.378(b) when filed as an e-petition using the EFS-Web SB66 form, for the automatic processing of the e-petition (for more information see www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ebc/portal/efs/ sb0066e_fill.doc);
(11) Petition to make special under the accelerated examination program (must be filed with a nonprovisional utility patent application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)); and
(12) Reissue utility patent applications and reissue design patent applications.
Documents filed via EFS-Web Contingency Option as part of the submissions listed above must meet the same file format requirements established for EFS-Web, e.g., file size and PDF embedded-font requirements. The same file validation performed in EFS-Web will be performed in EFS-Web Contingency Option. Similar to EFS-Web, EFS-Web Contingency Option will provide an Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt that establishes the date of receipt by the USPTO of an application or document submitted via EFS-Web Contingency Option. Applicant is not required to, and should not, resubmit the application or document when the primary portal to EFS-Web is once again available. Any resubmission of an application will result in filing a duplicate application and, if applicant pays the filing fees again when submitting the duplicate application, no refund will be provided.
Applications filed via EFS-Web Contingency Option are protected with the same level of security as EFS-Web for unregistered e-filers by using Transport Layer Security (TLS) to encrypt transmission over the Internet. Registered e-filers who have uploaded documents to a Saved Submission package in EFS-Web will not be able to access those Saved Submission documents in EFS-Web Contingency Option. Applicants can submit on-line fee payments by selecting fees on the fee calculation screen and completing their payment at time of submission (i.e.,
chose the “Yes! I want to pay now” button rather than “No - I will pay later” button).
When the primary portal to EFS-Web is unavailable during an unscheduled outage, applicants may also file new applications, national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 submitted with the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage, reexamination requests, and requests for supplemental examination, by hand-delivery to the
USPTO, or Priority Mail Express® from the United States Postal Service (USPS) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10, to establish the filing date or national stage submission date. New applications, national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 submitted with the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage, reexamination requests, and requests for supplemental examination cannot be submitted by facsimile transmission and certificate of mailing procedures under 37 CFR 1.8 do not apply to these items.
The EFS-Web Contingency Option does not permit follow-on fee payments and follow-on documents other than those listed above. Applicants may file the documents or fee payments by: (1) facsimile transmission in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(d) and 1.8, (2) first class mail with a certificate of mailing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8, (3) hand-delivery
to the USPTO, or (4) Priority Mail Express® from USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10. Documents that are required to establish the filing date of an application (e.g., a missing drawing figure or page of the specification) cannot be submitted by facsimile transmission, and certificate of mailing procedures under 37 CFR 1.8 do not apply to these documents.
b. Improperly Filed Follow-on Documents
As previously stated, EFS-Web Contingency Option and EFS-Web for unregistered e-filers permit users to sign on as unregistered EFS-Web users to file new applications, national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 submitted with the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage, requests for reexamination, requests for supplemental examination, and certain petitions. EFS-Web Contingency and EFS-Web for unregistered e-filers have limited functionality, and do not permit users
500-32Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
to file other follow-on documents and follow-on fee payments after the initial submission of the application, reexamination request, or supplemental examination request (e.g., amendments and replies to Office actions). Note that it is improper for users to file follow-on documents as new applications. The USPTO provides answers to frequently asked questions, and other helpful information on the USPTO website. Users are encouraged to check the USPTO website for more information and contact the Patent Electronic Business Center for questions related to the usage of USPTO electronic systems.
c. Additional Information Regarding National Stage Submissions
The basic national fee is required in order for an international application to enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. See 37 CFR 1.495. Users are permitted to submit the basic national fee with the national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 via EFS-Web and EFS-Web Contingency Option using on-line payment screens that interface with the Revenue Accounting and Management (RAM) system. If the RAM system is unavailable, neither EFS-Web nor EFS-Web Contingency Option will permit users to make payment using the interactive payment screens. Applicant may pay the necessary national stage entry fees by including a written authorization to charge the desired fees together with the national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371,
or sending the payment via Priority Mail Express®
from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 on the same date that the national stage submission is electronically filed.
For any national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 filed via the EFS-Web or EFS-Web Contingency Option, the system automatically checks the Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) system to verify that no previous national stage submission has been made for the particular PCT international application referenced in the initial national stage submission. If the PALM system is unavailable, neither EFS-Web nor EFS-Web Contingency Option can complete the PALM verification, and thus EFS-Web and EFS-Web Contingency Option will not permit any national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 to be filed. Therefore, if PALM is unavailable, applicants may
use hand-delivery or Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 to timely submit documents and fees for national stage entry. However, applicants may not file national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 and the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage via facsimile transmission. See 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F).
See subsection M below for additional information pertaining to the filing of international applications and entry into the national stage.
5. Document Inadvertently Omitted from Application
One advantage of filing a patent application via EFS-Web is that a registered user may view his or her submission in Private PAIR and file a document directly into the application on the same day as the filing date of the application. In certain situations, applicant may correct an error by filing a missing item(s) on the same day as the filing date of the application. Applicant, however, may wish to file another new application in other certain situations.
The following examples describe implications raised when applicant inadvertently omits an item when filing an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 electronically via EFS-Web:
(1) Oath or Declaration - Applicant may file an executed oath or declaration on the same day as the filing date as the application via EFS-Web. The oath or declaration will not be considered late and thus a surcharge for filing a late oath or declaration will not be required.
(2) Filing Fees - Applicant may file the filing fees (e.g., the basic filing fee, search and examination fees, application size fee, or excess claims fee) on the same day as the filing date of the application via EFS-Web. The fees will not be considered late and thus a surcharge for filing the filing fees will not be required.
(3) Nonpublication request - Because 37 CFR 1.213(a)(1) requires any nonpublication request to be filed with the application, applicant cannot simply file the nonpublication request to correct the error. If applicant does not wish to have the application publish, applicant must file: (a) a new
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-33
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
application with a nonpublication request; and (b) in the initial application, a petition for express abandonment to avoid publication under 37 CFR 1.138(c) and fee under 37 CFR 1.17(h) in sufficient time to permit the appropriate officials in the Pre-Grant Publication Division to recognize the abandonment and remove the application from the publication process.
(4) Drawings - Applicant may file missing drawings as a preliminary amendment on the same day as the filing date of the application. The drawings will be considered as part of the original disclosure of the application. See 37 CFR 1.115(a)(1). If the application was filed with the “wrong drawings,” a preliminary amendment could be filed on the same day as the filing date of the application adding the correct drawings and deleting the “wrong drawings.” An amendment adding new drawings and deleting the “wrong drawings,” filed on a day after the filing date of the application may raise new matter issues.
(5) Claims - Applicant may file claims as a preliminary amendment on the same day that applicant filed the application papers and such claims will be considered as part of the original disclosure of the application.
(6) Part of the specification - Applicant may file any missing portion of the written description as a preliminary amendment on the filing date of the application. Such amendment will be considered as part of the original disclosure.
If applicant files a second application to correct an error in the first application, applicant will have filed two applications. Applicant may continue to prosecute the first application that has the error or abandon the first application by filing a petition for express abandonment. Please note that any fees paid in the first application will not be refunded or applied to the second application. Applicant may request refund of the search fee and any excess claims fees (but not the basic filing fee, examination fee, and application size fee) paid in the first application if the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), and the applicant files a petition for express abandonment in accordance with 37 CFR 1.138(d).
6. Legal Consequences of the USPTO’s Accepting Electronic Patent Applications on Saturday and Sunday
Applicants may file patent applications electronically during the hours of operation of EFS-Web every day of the week, including weekends and holidays. EFS-Web will provide applicants with the opportunity to receive a filing date on any day of the week, including Saturday, Sunday, and Federal holidays. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 21(b) states:
When the day, or the last day, for taking any action or paying any fee in the United States Patent and Trademark Office falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the action may be taken, or fee paid, on the next succeeding secular or business day.
Further, 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3) states, in pertinent part:
If the day that is 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the period of pendency of the provisional application shall be extended to the next succeeding secular or business day.
Thus, under United States law, applicants will be permitted to take action on the next business day when the last day for taking action falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, regardless of the mode or form of filing.
However, Article 4 of the Paris Convention addresses the priority period and in Article 4(C)(3) it states:
If the last day of the period is an official holiday, or a day when the Office is not open for the filing of applications in the country where protection is claimed, the period shall be extended until the first following working day.
As stated above, the USPTO is capable of accepting electronic patent application filings every day of the week, including weekends and holidays, through EFS-Web. Thus, applicants filing international applications with the United States Receiving Office or international design applications with the USPTO
500-34Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
as an office of indirect filing are cautioned to consider possible adverse consequences regarding the determination in other countries of priority periods under Article 4(C)(3) of the Paris Convention. Specifically, the ability to file applications electronically on weekends and holidays in the USPTO may result in loss of priority rights in foreign jurisdictions designated in international applications filed with the United States Receiving Office or international design applications with the USPTO as an office of indirect filing, if applicants elect, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 21(b) or 119(e)(3), to file an international application or international design application on the next succeeding business day in the event that the twelve-month Paris Convention priority period (or six-month period in the case of international design) set out in Article 4(C)(1) falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal Holiday. In such circumstances, other patent offices may deny the priority claim on the basis that the international application or international design application was not timely filed if their national law strictly incorporates the provision of Paris Convention Article 4(C)(3) and considers the USPTO to be open for the filing of applications on weekends and holidays. For this reason, applicants may prefer not to rely upon the “next business day” provisions of 35 U.S.C. 21(b) and 119(e)(3) when filing international applications or international design applications with the USPTO, and instead file the international application or international design application before the Paris Convention priority period has expired.
D. Proper usage of EFS-Web
Users should follow the instructions and guidelines for EFS-Web provided on the USPTO website. Before clicking the SUBMIT button, the user should check whether the correct documents have been attached to the submission, and whether the information related to the submission has been entered correctly. Once the user clicks the SUBMIT button on the Confirm and Submit screen, the submission will be electronically sent to the USPTO. A submission is officially filed at the USPTO when the documents are received by the USPTO (the local time and date in Alexandria, VA, which is located in the Eastern Time zone). Use of EFS-Web in a manner significantly in violation of the instructions
and guidelines for EFS-Web provided on the USPTO website may result in non-entry of the submission or failure to accord a filing date in the event the USPTO does not fully, successfully, and officially receive all of the elements necessary to obtain a filing date for an intended submission. Furthermore, electronic files submitted via EFS-Web must be free of executables, worms, viruses, or any other type of potentially malicious content. Please note that 18 U.S.C. 1030 imposes a duty on users not to intentionally cause damage to federal government computers.
1. Filing Documents as PDF Files via EFS-Web
EFS-Web accepts standard PDF documents up to 25 megabytes for each file, and 60 electronic files per submission. For international design applications, EFS-Web can accept more than 60 electronic files in a single submission, subject to certain conditions. See subsection L.4. below for more information. PDF files created from scanned documents and submitted via EFS-Web must be created using a scanning resolution no lower than 300 dpi. Lower resolution scans have significantly delayed processing and publication of applications, e.g., resubmission has been required for documents failing to comply with the legibility requirements. See 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(v) and (a)(5) regarding document legibility requirements.
In addition, because the PDF format is so feature-rich, certain PDF features are currently not supported by the USPTO systems. For example, PDF documents with multiple layers must be flattened prior to submission to ensure that the complete document is received by the USPTO and readable to the examiner or other deciding officials. If a document contains layers that are marked as “invisible”, the invisible layers will be lost when the document is processed by the USPTO, and thus the official records in IFW will not contain the information on the invisible layers. Furthermore, if a user enters information on a form using the PDF comments or annotations features, only the blank form without the PDF comments and annotations will be processed. Therefore, the complete document will not be officially filed at the USPTO and the user cannot rely on the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt as evidence that the completed form was
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-35
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
filed at the USPTO. Users are encouraged to check the contents of their submissions for completeness and accuracy via PAIR.
Users must follow the PDF Guidelines for EFS-Web and PDF Creation for EFS-Web (available on the USPTO website) to create and submit PDF files via EFS-Web to ensure that all of the information in the PDF files is successfully received and processed by the USPTO.
2. Entering Information on EFS-Web Screens
EFS-Web collects information from on-screen entries made by the user through the EFS-Web graphical user interface (GUI) data collection screens. Through these data collection screens, the user provides the USPTO with information regarding the electronic submission, such as the type of application being filed, the application number of the application in which a follow-on document is being submitted, or the type of document being submitted. The USPTO systems (e.g., EFS-Web, IFW, etc.) will use the information entered by the user on the EFS-Web screens to automatically: (1) assign the application number, create the application, and process the application, if a new application is being filed; (2) upload the follow-on document into the application file specified by the user; or (3) message the deciding official based on the document description selected by the user. Providing incorrect information regarding the submission could lead to, for example: (1) an incorrect type of application file being created; (2) a delay in processing the document; (3) filing a document in an incorrect application; or (4) the deciding official not recognizing the document in sufficient time to avoid publication, to withdraw the application from issue, or to avoid the abandonment of the application.
a. Follow-on Documents
When a user submits a follow-on document (e.g., a reply to an Office action or notice) via EFS-Web, the user is required to enter the correct application number and confirmation number of the application in which the follow-on document is being filed. Providing the incorrect application number and confirmation number pair will result in filing the follow-on document in the wrong application.
Therefore, it is important for the user to enter the correct application number and confirmation number on the EFS-Web screen when filing the follow-on document. Furthermore, users cannot file a follow-on document as a new application.
After the submission of the follow-on document is completed, the user should log on to PAIR to review the application file and check whether the follow-on document has been filed in the correct application. Checking the application file via PAIR would also help the user to discover other filing errors, such as filing a wrong document or omitting a portion of the document.
b. Filing a New Application
When a user is submitting a new application via EFS-Web, the user is required to select the application type (e.g., design, utility, provisional or nonprovisional) being filed on the EFS-Web screen. Only document descriptions and fee codes pertinent to the selected application type will be available for the submission. The system will also automatically generate the application number based on the user’s selection. For example, if the user indicates that the submission is a provisional application by selecting the EFS-Web radio button for a provisional application, the application will be assigned a provisional application number, provisional application fees will be collected or required, and the application will be further processed as a provisional application. Furthermore, the application will not be assigned to an examiner for examination and will not be published because the submission is processed as a provisional application. Therefore, it is important for the user to select the correct application type on the EFS-Web screen, and review the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and the application file using PAIR after the submission is completed.
c. Document Indexing
When a user submits an application or a follow-on document in an application using EFS-Web, the user must select from the list of document descriptions to specify the files being submitted via EFS-Web. For instance, when the user is filing a patent application, the submission must be separated into
500-36Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
appropriate sections: specification, claims, abstract, and drawing; and when the user is filing an amendment, the user must select the appropriate type of amendment: amendment after non-final, amendment after allowance, preliminary amendment, and amendment after final. Based on the document description selected by the user, a document code is assigned and a message regarding the document submitted to the USPTO will be forwarded to the appropriate organization for processing, and to the appropriate official for consideration. Furthermore, the IFW and PAIR systems use the document code for identifying the document maintained in the application file. Therefore, accurate document indexing is important to facilitate efficient processing and proper consideration of the document by the USPTO. For example: (a) if the user indicated an after-final amendment as a non-final amendment, the processing of such amendment may be delayed and the examiner may not have sufficient time to consider the amendment before the time period for reply expires; (b) if the user selects the “Pre-Grant Publication” radio button on the EFS-Web data collection screen for submitting a substitute specification filed in response to a non-final Office action, the submission will be forwarded to the publication branch rather than processed into IFW and forwarded to the examiner for consideration; and (c) if the user selects “drawings - only black and white line drawings" for submitting color drawings in a utility application rather than “drawing - other than black and white line drawings", the color drawings would not be processed as color drawings, and would be maintained as black and white drawings in IFW.
More information on document indexing is available on the USPTO website. It is important for users to select the correct document description, and check the application file via PAIR after the submission is completed.
3. Refunds
The USPTO will grant refunds to users when, due to a malfunction with the EFS-Web system, the EFS-Web system has misled a user into paying a fee in error. If it cannot be determined that a malfunction occurred, but rather it seems to be a user error, no refund will be given. Users should contact the Patent
Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) if there are any issues associated with their submissions.
E. Security and Authentication
The USPTO requires PKI certificates to meet federal government computer system authentication guidelines as defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The required evaluation of EFS-Web and PAIR determined that level three authentication was needed; this is met by the USPTO’s PKI.
Only a PKI certificate holder (or the designated employee under the certificate holder’s direction and control) can submit follow-on documents. This preserves confidentiality, and is consistent with power of attorney and correspondence regulations. In order to obtain a PKI certificate, the user must be a registered practitioner (i.e., an attorney or agent) or an inventor, and complete the appropriate paperwork (e.g., review the PKI Subscriber Agreement and complete the certificate action form, available on the USPTO website). Once the user has a PKI certificate, the user can authenticate himself or herself to the USPTO through the EFS-Web sign-on. This will generate a secure, encrypted connection with the USPTO.
For users that do not have, or do not wish to use, a PKI certificate to authenticate to the USPTO, they may still submit new application filings only via a non-authenticated workflow. The user would go to the EFS-Web page and choose to submit without a PKI certificate as a non-registered user, which would generate a Transport Layer Security (TLS) connection for the session, thus allowing secure data transmission to the USPTO. Non-registered users have the same level of protection for filing as a registered user, but are limited to submission of initial filings (except as noted in subsection B.1., above). This practice minimizes the risk of improperly-filed third party submissions and other documents. Non-registered users may file follow-on documents by mail (with a certificate of mailing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8), Priority Mail
Express® from USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10, or hand delivery.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-37
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Note: Users are advised that the USPTO may revoke a user’s digital PKI certificate if the user makes an improper submission through EFS-Web. See subsection B., above, and section 4 of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Key Infrastructure Subscriber Agreement ("PKI Subscriber Agreement") (available at www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying- online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources), listed as "PKI Subscriber Agreement").
1. PKI Subscriber Agreement
The PKI Subscriber Agreement (April 2013) explains that a holder of a PKI certificate must update changes in the information in their Certificate of Action Form within thirty (30) calendar days of the change. Information may be updated by submitting a new certificate of action form or a letter to the Electronic Business Center (EBC). A holder’s registered email address and password may be updated on the Digital Certificate Management webpage.
The PKI Subscriber Agreement has been revised to clarify that a PKI certificate holder will only use the certificate for applications for which the certificate holder is authorized to access and that unauthorized use such as attempting or gaining access to nonpublic information or inadvertently disclosed nonpublic information may lead to immediate revocation of the PKI certificate.
A PKI certificate holder is permitted to designate more than one employee to use the PKI certificate under the direction and control of the holder in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web. The designated employees should be paralegals or support staff of the certificate holder. Each designated employee must be either an employee of the holder’s organization or an employee of a contractor of the holder. The PKI certificate holder and the designated employees may use the holder’s PKI certificate concurrently. For example, a registered patent practitioner may file a patent application electronically via EFS-Web using his or her PKI certificate at the same time as one of the practitioner’s paralegals files a follow-on document
in another application electronically via EFS-Web, and a second paralegal of the practitioner retrieves an e-Office action via Private PAIR, using the practitioner’s PKI certificate under the direction and control of the practitioner.
The PKI Subscriber Agreement permits a holder of a PKI certificate to designate more than one employee to use the PKI certificate under the direction and control of the holder in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web. Any revised PKI Subscriber Agreement will apply to new PKI certificate holders and current PKI certificate holders that continue to use their PKI certificates (includes any PKI certificate usage by their designated employees).
A practitioner who is a PKI certificate holder, or the designated employee acting under the direction and control of the practitioner, may file documents signed by either the practitioner or another practitioner via EFS-Web, in compliance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement. Filing of a document that is unauthorized to be filed via EFS-Web (e.g., a protest under 37 CFR 1.291) is inconsistent with the Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO. Thus, the certificate holder, and designated employee acting under the direction and control of the certificate holder, must make sure that the document being submitted is authorized to be filed via EFS-Web, regardless of whether the document is signed by the practitioner exercising the direction and control or by another practitioner.
EFS-Web also permits a legal assistant or paralegal to submit an application or a request for reexamination previously reviewed by a registered practitioner without the registered practitioner being present. See subsection E.2., below, for more information.
The following are Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding PKI certificates:
1. Can current PKI certificate holders designate more than one employee without applying for a new PKI certificate or filing a newly signed certificate action form (PTO-2042)?
500-38Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
Yes, a new request for a PKI certificate is not needed. Continued use of a PKI certificate after the publication of the Subscriber Agreement and any modifications thereto will constitute agreement to the most current PKI Subscriber Agreement by the current PKI certificate holder. See section 9 of the PKI Subscriber Agreement. Therefore, a current PKI certificate holder may designate more than one employee to use the holder’s PKI certificate under the direction and control of the holder in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web.
2. What is the maximum number of employees that a PKI certificate holder may designate?
A PKI certificate holder may only designate a reasonable number of employees for which he or she can maintain proper control. The PKI certificate holder is responsible for the usage by the designated employees who can only use the PKI certificate under the direction and control of the holder in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web. The holder must take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the requirements in the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO. When a PKI certificate holder or one of the holder’s designated employees electronically transmits a submission to the USPTO via EFS Web using the holder’s PKI certificate, the PKI certificate holder is presenting the information in the submission to the USPTO and making the certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b). Furthermore, the PKI certificate holder is not permitted to designate a person who is not an employee as defined above, and designated employees are not permitted to share the certificate with anyone else (e.g., a designated employee cannot designate another employee).
3. Can a PKI certificate holder designate employees of more than one contractor?
Yes, a PKI certificate holder may designate employees of more than one contractor as long as the PKI certificate holder maintains control of the PKI certificate usage and can ensure that the employees of the contractors are using the PKI certificate in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web.
4. Can multiple PKI certificate holders designate the same employee to use their certificates?
Yes, multiple PKI certificate holders may designate the same employee if the PKI certificate holders and the designated employee take reasonable steps to ensure that the designated employee uses the proper PKI certificate for each task in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web. For example, if Holder Smith asked the designated employee to electronically submit a patent application via EFS-Web, the designated employee must use the PKI certificate of Holder Smith to submit the patent application, rather than a certificate of another holder who did not give the designated employee the direction to file the patent application.
5. Can a PKI certificate holder designate an employee that is not located in the same location?
Yes, a PKI certificate holder may designate an employee that is not located in the same location as long as the designated employee uses the PKI certificate under the direction and control of the holder in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web
6. What should a PKI certificate holder do if one of his or her designated employees is leaving the holder’s organization or the contractor’s organization?
The PKI certificate holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that the employee does not continue to use the PKI certificate when the employee leaves the holder’s organization or the contractor’s organization or when the contractor is no longer a contractor to the holder.
7. Can an inventor use his or her PKI certificate to file an application or document for another person or retrieve information regarding another person’s application?
No, an inventor cannot use (or permit someone else to use) his or her PKI certificate to file an application or document for another person, or retrieve information (e.g., an e-Office action or the status) regarding another person’s application. An inventor may use his or her PKI certificate to file his or her application, or follow-on documents in his or her application.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-39
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
8. Can a PKI certificate holder designate a company that offers paralegal services to use the PKI certificate?
No, a PKI certificate holder cannot designate a company. A PKI certificate holder may only designate more than one employee of a contractor (or the organization of the holder) to use his or her certificate under the holder’s direction and control in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web.
9. Can a PKI certificate holder designate an invention promotion company or an invention promoter to use the PKI certificate?
No, a PKI certificate holder is not permitted to designate an invention promotion company or an invention promoter to use the PKI certificate. A PKI certificate holder may only designate more than one employee of a contractor (or the organization of the holder) to use his or her certificate under the holder’s direction and control in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web. The designated employees should be paralegals or support staff of the holder’s organization (or a contractor’s organization). A PKI certificate holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that the PKI certificate is not being used in connection with the unauthorized practice before the USPTO in patent matters. See section 3 of the PKI Subscriber Agreement.
10. Can a registered patent practitioner who is a PKI certificate holder designate his or her client or a “foreign associate” (e.g., an attorney in another law firm) to use the PKI certificate?
No, a PKI certificate holder cannot designate his or her client, and cannot designate a “foreign associate” (e.g., an attorney in another law firm) who is not an employee of the certificate holder’s organization and is not an employee of a contractor. A PKI certificate holder may only designate more than one employee of a contractor (or the organization of the holder) to use his or her certificate under the holder’s direction and control in accordance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO including the Legal Framework for EFS-Web. The designated employees should be paralegals or support staff of the certificate holder. Furthermore, if the “foreign
associate” is located outside of the United States, it would be difficult for the holder to maintain control of the PKI certificate usage and ensure compliance with the rules and policies of the USPTO by a person located outside of the United States. In addition, accessing an application before the applicant has received a foreign filing license by a person located outside of the United States, or by a foreign national inside the United States, constitutes an export. The holder cannot permit the use of the PKI certificate in a manner that would violate or circumvent the Export Administration Regulations. See section 6 of the PKI Subscriber Agreement for more information.
11. Can a PKI certificate holder or a designated employee file third party papers such as a protest via EFS-Web using the PKI certificate?
The EFS-Web Legal Framework specifically prohibits filing via EFS-Web most third party papers as well as protests in patent applications. See subsection B.2., above. Circumventing established rules and procedures would be a violation of the Legal Framework for EFS-Web and the PKI Subscriber Agreement. Such violation may cause the USPTO to revoke the PKI certificate and/or refer the PKI certificate holder to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action. Therefore, PKI certificate holders should take reasonable steps to ensure that their designated employees do not improperly file third party papers and protests via EFS-Web.
Any third party papers such as protests under 37 CFR 1.291, citation of prior art in patent files under 37 CFR 1.501 or any petition, cannot be filed via EFS-Web unless specifically authorized by the EFS Legal Framework and/or provided for via dedicated EFS-Web interface (e.g., Third Party Preissuance Submissions under 37 CFR 1.290). See subsection B.1., above.
12. Can a designated employee continue to use the PKI certificate of a deceased holder?
No, all of the designated employees must stop using the PKI certificate upon the death of the holder because designated employees only have the authority to use the PKI certificate under the direction and control of the holder. The USPTO will revoke the PKI certificate once the USPTO becomes aware that the holder is deceased.
500-40Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
13. Can a PKI certificate holder or his or her designated employees continue to use the PKI certificate after the holder is suspended from practice before the USPTO?
No, the PKI certificate holder and all of his or her designated employees must stop using the PKI certificate once the holder is suspended from practice before the USPTO. The USPTO will revoke the PKI certificate once the appropriate official in the USPTO becomes aware of the suspension.
2. Authorized Assistants of the Digital Certificate Holder
A PKI digital certificate holder is permitted to designate more than one employee of the holder’s organization (or a contractor’s organization), under the PKI Subscriber Agreement and certificate action form. The designated employee under the direction and control of the digital certificate holder may use the certificate holder’s certificate to submit documents through EFS-Web in compliance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement and the rules and policies of the USPTO.
The documents submitted through EFS-Web must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4, 1.33(b), and 11.18. If the designated employee is an assistant who is not an authorized party to sign the documents, the designated employee is not responsible for the contents of the documents submitted. Instead, the person who signs the documents (e.g., the inventor or a registered practitioner who is representing the inventor) is responsible for the contents. For example, the documents may be electronically signed or ink signed by the applicant or attorney of record. The assistant (i.e., designated employee) who serves the ministerial function of pickup and delivery of documents may submit the signed documents electronically via EFS-Web under the direction and control of the certificate holder. (Ink signed documents can be electronically scanned and then e-filed.) This employee may also view and retrieve documents from Private PAIR under the direction and control of the certificate holder in compliance with the PKI Subscriber Agreement.
It also should be noted that the assistant could pay the fees associated with the submission in the EFS-Web process. This is comparable to the paper
practice in which law firms designate individuals to pay fees.
F. Signature Policy
Signatures included in image attachments submitted via EFS-Web are governed by the requirements of 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3).
If the signer is submitting an application through EFS-Web as PDF files, he or she may apply either a handwritten signature in compliance with 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) or an S-signature in compliance with 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) before scanning the document or converting it to a PDF file. Alternatively, correspondence submitted through EFS-Web may be signed by a graphic representation of a handwritten signature as provided for in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) or a graphic representation of an S-signature as provided for 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2). See 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3). Any follow-on documents, such as responding to a Notice to File Missing Parts of Nonprovisional Application or an amendment filed in an application, must also be signed in accordance with applicable requirements. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Even though a new patent application is entitled to a filing date if it complies with all the statutory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or (b), it is noted that when filing a new application by EFS-Web, a signed transmittal form or a signed application data sheet (ADS) is recommended for identification purposes, and any nonpublication request and certification that accompany the application must be signed.. The correspondence address must be set forth in either an application data sheet or clearly set forth in another paper submitted with the application, which must be signed. See 37 CFR 1.33(a).
The presentation to the USPTO (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any document constitutes a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b). See 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4).
G. Submission of Pre-Grant (Eighteen-Month) Publication Requests Via EFS-Web
EFS-Web enables users to electronically submit pre-grant publication requests for amended publication, redacted publication, early publication,
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-41
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
voluntary publication, or republication under 37 CFR 1.215, 1.217, 1.219, and 1.221(a) via EFS-Web. When filing pre-grant publication requests via EFS-Web, the appropriate form-fillable application data sheet (PTO/AIA/14 or PTO/SB/14) is required to be used for fulfilling the bibliographic data requirements. An electronic submission for voluntary publication, amended publication, republication (37 CFR 1.221(a)) or redacted publication must be submitted as a “Pre-Grant Publication” by selecting the “Pre-Grant Publication” radio button on the EFS-Web data collection screen. It is not sufficient for a user to submit a document via EFS-Web requesting amended publication, redacted publication, early publication, voluntary publication, or republication without also selecting the “Pre-Grant Publication” radio button on the EFS-Web data collection screen.
While the Office may publish certain amendments in the Pre-Grant Publication, to be entitled to have the patent application publication be based upon a copy of the application (specification, drawings, and the application data sheet and/or the inventor’s oath or declaration) as amended, applicant must supply such a copy via EFS-Web as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.215(c).
H. Submission of Supplemental Examination Requests via EFS-Web
Patent owners may submit a request for supplemental examination via the electronic filing system (EFS-Web). When filing a new request for supplemental examination, the patent owner should s e l e c t t h e fi l i n g o p t i o n “ N ew application/proceeding”, and then select “Supplemental Examination.” Any paper(s) that are to be filed in an existing supplemental examination proceeding, and any paper(s) that are to be filed in a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding, may be filed by selecting “Existing application/patent/proceeding” (e.g., a proceeding that has already been assigned a control number), “Documents/Fees for an existing application/proceeding”, and then entering the assigned control number and confirmation number for the proceeding.
I. Filing of Third-party Preissuance Submissions and Citation of Prior Art and Written Statements in Patent Files Filed via EFS-Web
Registered and unregistered eFilers may submit a third-party preissuance submission in any non-provisional utility, design, or plant application, including any continuing application. The application may be pending or abandoned and need not be published. To submit a third-party preissuance submission, the radio button “Third-Party Preissuance Submission under 37 CFR 1.290” must be selected. To submit a Third-Party Preissuance Submission, sign on to EFS-Web, select the “Existing application/patent” radio button. The Web screen will expand to display additional options. Select the radio button located next to “Third-Party Preissuance Submission under 37 CFR 1.290” and enter the Application Number and Confirmation Number. The Confirmation Number can be obtained by viewing the application in the Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) System.
Registered and unregistered eFilers may submit a prior art and/or written statement submission into a patent file under 37 CFR 1.501, at any time during the period of enforceability of the patent. A submission into a patent file under 37 CFR 1.501 cannot be filed via EFS-Web in design or plant patents. To submit a 37 CFR 1.501 submission, select the radio button “Prior Art Submission into Patent File under 37 CFR 1.501” and enter the Application Number and Patent Number.
J. Submission of Interim Copies of Foreign Priority Documents via EFS-Web
Interim copies of foreign priority documents as provided for in 37 CFR 1.55(j) may be submitted via EFS-Web in (i) applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), except for plant patent applications and design applications, and (ii) national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371. See 37 CFR 1.55 for details regarding claims for foreign priority, including the timing for submitting interim copies. See MPEP § 215 et seq.
The following are Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding interim copies of foreign priority applications:
500-42Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
1. If an applicant submits an interim copy of a foreign priority application, will the applicant still need to provide a certified copy of the foreign priority document? How will an interim copy submission be reflected in the USPTO’s records?
Yes. If an applicant files an interim copy of a foreign priority application, the applicant must provide a certified copy of the foreign priority document before patent grant in order to perfect the priority claim. An interim copy of a foreign priority application will be entered into the file wrapper of the application in which it was filed and labeled as “Interim copy of Foreign Priority Document.”
2. Are there any special instructions for filing an interim copy of the foreign priority application?
Yes. Main parts of the interim copy of the foreign priority application, i.e., Abstract, Drawings, Specification, Claims, and where applicable, Sequence Listing or Computer Program Listings, along with the separate cover sheet required by 37 CFR 1.55(j), may be filed as a single PDF file via EFS-Web (or as a single paper document). The PDF file will be stored in the Image File Wrapper of the application, and applicants must select the document description “Interim copy of Foreign Priority Application” to index this document when filing online.
Application parts that were filed in a foreign patent office only as plain text computer files (e.g. TXT file), such as a Sequence Listing, lengthy Tables(s), or Computer Program Listing appendix, may be filed as a TXT file via EFS-Web (or on compact disc). When filing online via EFS-Web, applicants must select the document description “Interim copy of Foreign Priority (text file)” to index a plain text file part of the application. Please note that EFS-Web will not perform preliminary validation on an interim sequence listing text file, and that a sequence listing in an interim copy of a foreign priority document over 25 MB must be split into multiple files under the 25 MB upload limit . If a TXT file is filed on compact disc, the compact disc must be labeled as “Text File of Interim Copy of Foreign Priority Application” along with (1) the country code and application number of the foreign priority document, (2) at least two pieces of identifying information for the application (e.g., application number, docket number, title, etc.) in which the interim copy of the foreign application
was filed, and (3) if multiple compact discs are submitted, a label indicating their order (e.g. “1 of X”).
The file name of each TXT file must begin with the country code and application number of the foreign priority application of which it is a part (any punctuation or space in the application number must either be omitted or replaced with a dash “-“ or underscore ”_” character); e.g. “EP111838637_SequenceListing.txt” or “EP_11183863_7_Table 2”. Where an original TXT file must be split into multiple parts, the file name for each part should indicate the order; for example, EP111838637_SeqList_part1of2.txt and EP111838637_SeqList_part2of2.txt.
K. Submission of Photographs and Drawings via EFS-Web
The USPTO prefers black and white line drawings as prescribed in 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) when applicants are required to submit drawings in patent applications. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2), color drawings are permitted in design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. As stated in 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) color drawings are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent applications, and as stated in 37 CFR 1.84(b), photographs are not ordinarily permitted in utility or design patent applications, but the USPTO will accept photographs in utility or design patent applications, or color drawings in utility patent applications, if they are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed subject matter. The photographs and color drawings submitted in utility or design patent applications must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the photographs and drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent.
Drawings submitted in PCT international applications are required to comply with PCT Rule 11.13, which does not permit color drawings. Furthermore, there is no provision for photographs in PCT international applications. Nevertheless, black and white photographs will be accepted where it is impossible to present in a drawing what is to be shown (e.g., crystalline structures). Color photographs are not permitted in PCT international applications.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-43
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Color drawings and photographs (in black and white or in color) may be submitted in international design applications as provided under Section 401 of the Administrative Instructions for the Application of the Hague Agreement. See subsection N for additional information concerning international design applications.
The USPTO may object to the drawings and photographs, and require corrections or deletions if they do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84 or PCT Rule 11.13. Additionally, since color drawings are not permitted in PCT international applications, color drawings and color photographs filed in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be treated as an amendment and will be objected to if they introduce new matter.
1. Types of Photographs and Drawings Permitted to be Filed via EFS-Web
Black and white line drawings may be submitted via EFS-Web in the types of patent applications and proceedings listed in subsection B.1., above. However, photographs, color drawings, grayscale drawings, and other drawings that are not black and white line drawings may be submitted via EFS-Web in only the following types of applications and proceedings:
(1) Nonprovisional design patent applications, including reissue design patent applications;
(2) Provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b);
(3) Nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility patent applications;
(4) U.S. national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371, including reissue utility patent applications;
(5) International design applications;
(6) Reexamination proceedings for utility or design patents; and
(7) Supplemental examination proceedings under 35 U.S.C. 257.
Only black and white photographs, and black and white line drawings, may be submitted via EFS-Web in PCT international applications.
2. Document Description for Photograph and Drawings
Users must select the correct document description when submitting photographs and drawings via EFS-Web. Selecting an incorrect document description may cause the photographs and drawings to be processed in a quality that is not sufficient for examination and publication. Applicant must select:
(1) “Drawings – only black and white line drawings” (document code “DRW”) for the following:
(a) Black and white line drawings in:
(i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b);
(ii) nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility patent applications;
(iii) PCT international applications and national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; and
(iv) reexamination proceedings for utility patents.
These drawings will be converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW.
(b) Black and white line drawings in design applications, including reissue design patent applications, international design applications, and reexamination proceedings for design patents. These drawings will be stored in SCORE, and a black and white copy will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.
(2) “Drawings – other than black and white line drawings” (document code “DRW.NONBW”) for the following:
(a) Photographs, color drawings, grayscale drawings, and other drawings that are not black and white line drawings in:
(i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b);
(ii) nonprovisional utility and design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility and design patent applications;
500-44Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
(iii) national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371;
(iv) international design applications;
(v) reexamination proceedings for utility patents and design patents; and
(vi) supplemental examination proceedings.
These drawings will be stored in SCORE, and a black and white copy will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.
(b) Black and white photographs, and grayscale drawings, in PCT international applications. These drawings will be stored in SCORE, and a black and white copy will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.
3. Additional Requirements
For color drawings in utility patent applications, a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) explaining why the color drawings are necessary is required. See MPEP § 608.02. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(ii), only one set of color drawings is necessary when filing via EFS-Web.
EFS-Web supports the use of black and white, color, or grayscale images within the PDF document. However, grayscale or color images filed as “drawings - other than black and white line drawings” in a utility patent application will be converted to black and white images when stored into IFW. The quality of black and white images may be degraded. To obtain sufficient quality so that all details in the images are reproducible in black and white in the eighteen-month publication and the printed patent, images should be scanned at a minimum resolution of 300 DPI. Furthermore, PAIR is only capable of displaying portrait orientation. Users should not submit landscape oriented drawings via EFS-Web because PAIR will automatically convert the image to portrait, which may cause the images to be distorted during viewing.
For international design applications, EFS-Web supports the use of black and white, color, or grayscale images within a JPEG document. To obtain sufficient image quality for purposes of WIPO publication of the international application and any
subsequent U.S. patent that may issue thereon, image resolution should be between 250x250 DPI to 300x300 DPI. In addition, the images should have at least a one pixel border, and preferably between 1-20 pixel. See subsection N for further information concerning reproductions in international design applications.
L. Text Files and File Limits
1. Biotechnology Sequence Listings, Large Tables, or Computer Program Listing Appendices Submitted as Text Files via EFS-Web
Biotechnology sequence listings, large tables, and computer program listing appendices may be submitted as ASCII text files with a “.txt” extension (e.g., “seqlist.txt”) for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371, reexamination proceedings, and supplemental examination proceedings. The compact disc practice of 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.821 et seq. remains as a filing option. The filing of international applications via EFS-Web is discussed in subsection M., below.
Users may submit the following document types, as specified in 37 CFR 1.52(e), as ASCII text files via EFS-Web instead of on compact disc, provided the specification contains a statement in a separate paragraph that incorporates by reference the material in the ASCII text file identifying the name of the ASCII text file, the date of creation, and the size of the ASCII text file in bytes:
(1) A computer program listing (see 37 CFR 1.96);
(2) A sequence listing (submitted under 37 CFR 1.821); or
(3) Any individual table (see 37 CFR 1.58) if the table is more than 50 pages in length, or if the total number of pages of all of the tables in an application exceeds 100 pages in length, wherein a table page is a page printed on paper in conformance with 37 CFR 1.52(b) and 1.58(c).
The requirements of 37 CFR 1.52(e)(3)-(6) for documents submitted on compact disc are not applicable to computer program listings, sequence
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-45
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
listings, and tables submitted as ASCII text files via EFS-Web. However, each text file must be in compliance with ASCII and have a file name with a “.txt” extension. Further, the specification must contain an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph identifying the name of the ASCII text file, the date of creation, and the size of the ASCII text file in bytes similar to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5) for compact discs. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5).
It is recommended that a sequence listing be submitted in an ASCII text file via EFS-Web rather than in a PDF file. If a sequence listing ASCII text file submitted via EFS-Web on the application filing date complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824(a)(2)-(6) and (b), and applicant has not filed a sequence listing in a PDF file, the text file will serve as both the paper copy required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) and the computer readable form (CRF) required by 37 CFR 1.821(e). Thus, the following are not required and should not be submitted: (1) a second copy of the sequence listing in a PDF file; (2) a statement under 37 CFR 1.821(f) (indicating that the paper copy and CRF copy of the sequence listing are identical); and (3) a request to use a compliant computer readable “Sequence Listing” that is already on file for another application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.821(e). If such a request is filed, the USPTO will not carry out the request but will use the sequence listing submitted in an ASCII text file with the application via EFS-Web. Checker software that may be used to check a sequence listing for compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824 is available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/ types-patent-applications/utility-patent/checker- version-446. The User Notes on the Checker website should be consulted for an explanation of errors that are not indicated, and content that is not verified, by the Checker software.
If a user submits a sequence listing (under 37 CFR 1.821(c) and (e)) as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web in response to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.821(g) or (h), the sequence listing text file must be accompanied by a statement that the submission does not include any new matter which goes beyond the disclosure of the application as filed. In addition, if a user submits an amendment to, or a replacement
of, a sequence listing (under 37 CFR 1.821(c) and (e)) as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web, the sequence listing text file must be accompanied by: (1) a statement that the submission does not include any new matter, and (2) a statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed. See 37 CFR 1.825.
Submission of the sequence listing in a PDF file on the application filing date is not recommended. Applicant must still provide the CRF required by 37 CFR 1.821(e), and the sequence listing in the PDF file will not be excluded when determining the application size fee. The USPTO prefers the submission of a sequence listing in an ASCII text file via EFS-Web on the application filing date because as stated above, if applicant has not filed a second copy of the sequence listing in a PDF file (or on paper) on the same day, the text file will serve as both the paper copy required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) and the CRF required by 37 CFR 1.821(e). Any sequence listing submitted in PDF format (or on paper) on the application filing date is treated as the paper copy required by 37 CFR 1.821(c). If applicant submits a sequence listing in both a PDF file and an ASCII text file via EFS-Web on the application filing date, a statement that the sequence listing content of the PDF copy and the ASCII text file copy are identical is required. In situations where applicant files the sequence listing in PDF format and requests the use of the CRF of another application under 37 CFR 1.821(e), applicant must submit a letter and request in compliance with 37 CFR 1.821(e) and a statement that the PDF copy filed in the new application is identical to the CRF filed in the other application.
2. Application Size Fee
Any sequence listing submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web that is otherwise in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.824(a)(2)-(6) and (b), and any computer program listing submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web that is otherwise in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.96, will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s) or 1.492(j) as per 37 CFR 1.52(f)(1).
500-46Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
Regarding a table submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web that is part of the specification or drawings, each three kilobytes of content submitted will be counted as a sheet of paper for purposes of determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s) or 1.492(j). Each table should be submitted as a separate text file. Further, the file name for each table should indicate which table is contained therein.
3. Size Limit for Text Files
One hundred (100) megabytes is the size limit for sequence listing text files submitted via EFS-Web. If a user wishes to submit an electronic copy of a sequence listing text file that exceeds 100 megabytes, it is recommended that the user file the application without the sequence listing using EFS-Web to obtain the application number and confirmation number, and then file the sequence listing on compact disc in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) on
the same day by using Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10, or hand delivery, in order to secure the same filing date for all parts of the application. Alternatively, a user may submit the application on paper and include the electronic copy of the sequence listing text file on compact disc in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(e). Sequence listing text files may not be partitioned into multiple files for filing via EFS-Web as the EFS-Web system is not currently capable of handling such submissions. If the sequence listing is filed on a compact disc, the sequence listing must be a single document, but the document may be split using software designed to divide a file, that is too large to fit on a single compact disc, into multiple concatenated files. If the user breaks up a sequence listing so that it may be submitted on multiple compact discs, the compact discs must be labeled to indicate their order (e.g., “1 of X”, “2 of X”).
JPEG image files submitted via EFS-Web in international design applications, and PDF image files submitted in international design applications using the “Attach Reproductions” section of the “Attach Documents” EFS-Web screen, are limited to a file size of two megabytes. See subsection N for additional information concerning international design applications.
For all other file types, 25 megabytes is the size limit. If a user wishes to submit an electronic copy of a computer program listing or table that is larger than 25 megabytes, it is recommended that the electronic copy be submitted on compact disc via
Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 on the date of the corresponding EFS-Web filing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) if the user wishes the electronic copy to be considered to be part of the application as filed. Alternatively, the user may submit the application in paper and include the electronic copies on compact disc in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(e). Another alternative would be for the user to break up a computer program listing or table file that is larger than 25 megabytes into multiple files that are no larger than 25 megabytes each and submit those smaller files via EFS-Web. If the user chooses to break up a large computer program listing or table file so that it may be submitted electronically, the file names must indicate their order ( e.g., “1 of X”, “2 of X”).
4. Limit on the Number of Electronic files in a Single EFS-Web Submission
Sixty (60) electronic files is the file number limit per submission, as EFS-Web is not currently capable of accepting more than 60 electronic files in any one submission (subject to certain exceptions for international design applications set forth below). Accordingly, if an application file is comprised of more than 60 electronic files, it is recommended that the user submit 60 or fewer files in an initial filing via EFS-Web at which time the application will be assigned an application number. Note that regarding the 60 electronic file limit per submission, an applicant may upload and validate in sets of up to 20 files each, with a limit of three sets of 20 files. If applicant chooses to divide a file into multiple parts using the multi-doc feature, each part is counted as one file. Then the user may submit any additional electronic files as follow-on documents later on the same day as the initial filing. This will allow all of the electronic files making up the application to receive the same filing date.
For international design applications, the 60 electronic files limit per submission excludes electronic files of reproductions that are attached via
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-47
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
the “Attach Reproductions” section of the “Attach Documents” screen in EFS-Web (available for submissions through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing prior to transmittal of the application to the International Bureau) or attached via the “Attach JPEG Reproductions” section of the “Attach Documents” screen in EFS-Web (available after transmittal of an international design application to the International Bureau or, where the USPTO was not an office of indirect filing, after receipt of the WIPO publication of an international design application designating the United States). The “Attach Reproductions” section allows up to 5000 (up to 100 designs with 50 views per design) additional single-page PDF and JPEG image files to be uploaded in one submission. The “Attach JPEG Reproductions” section allows up to 50 additional JPEG image files to be uploaded in one submission. See subsection N for further information concerning international design applications.
5. Complex Work Units
Under the Complex Work Unit Pilot Program, complex work units (such as chemical structure drawings, mathematical formulae, three-dimensional protein crystalline structure data and table data) may be submitted as ASCII text files via EFS-Web for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371, reexamination proceedings, and supplemental examination proceedings. Complex work units cannot be submitted as ASCII text files in PCT international applications. More information is available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/patent/ initiatives/complex-work-unit-pilot-program.
M. New PCT International Applications, New National Stage Submissions, and Associated Documents
The term “PCT international application” as used in this subsection refers to an international application filed under the PCT. The term “national stage submission” as used in this subsection refers to an international application where a submission has been made to enter the U.S. national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
1. New PCT International Applications Filed under the PCT with the United States Receiving Office
EFS-Web enables users to electronically file PCT international applications with the United States Receiving Office (RO/US). The required page size for PCT international applications filed via EFS-Web in PDF format is A4 (29.7 cm x 21 cm). See PCT Rule 11.5. See subsection M.7., below, for more information about follow-on submissions during the international phase.
a. The Request
EFS-Web permits users to submit PCT-EASY.zip files created by PCT-SAFE when operated in the PCT-EASY mode. On the Contents screen in PCT-SAFE, both PCT-EASY and EFS-Web should be marked. A PCT-EASY.zip file will contain the PCT Request and a fee calculation sheet in PDF format, which are converted to TIFF images and loaded into the image file wrapper by the USPTO. PCT-SAFE permits users to create and electronically sign using an S-signature the PCT Request, including the Declaration of Inventorship, for the purposes of filing via EFS-Web with the United States Receiving Office. PCT-SAFE when operated in the PCT-EASY mode creates a .zip file containing a validated PCT Request which will entitle the applicant to a reduction of the international filing fee when included in a new PCT international application filed with the RO/US. Alternatively, if the applicant chooses not to use PCT-SAFE to create the PCT Request and fee calculation sheet, the applicant may use Form PCT/RO/101 (or equivalent) for the Request and attach it to the EFS-Web submission as a PDF document.
b. Other Documents
All other documents including application parts (e.g., description, claims, drawings and abstract) and accompanying items MUST be separately prepared as PDF documents and attached to the EFS-Web submission. See subsection M.3., below, for more information on sequence listings.
More information regarding filing PCT international applications is available on the USPTO website
500-48Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
(www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/process/ file/efs/guidance/indexing-pct-new-appl.pdf).
2. Specific Requirements for Drawings or Photographs
a. PCT International Application
Drawings submitted in PCT international applications are required to comply with PCT Rule 11.13, which does not permit color drawings. Furthermore, there is no provision for photographs. Nevertheless, black and white photographs will be accepted where it is impossible to represent in a drawing what is to be shown (e.g., crystalline structures). Color photographs are not permitted in PCT international applications. Also see subsections B.2 and K.1, above.
The USPTO may object to the drawings and photographs, and require corrections or deletions if they do not comply with PCT Rule 11.13.
b. National Stage Submission:
Since color drawings and color photographs are not permitted in PCT international applications, color drawings and color photographs filed in a national stage application will be treated as an amendment and will be objected to if they introduce new matter. See subsection K.1., above, regarding a petition to accept color drawings.
3. Specific Requirements Pertaining to New National Stage Submissions, Including the Payment of Filing Fee
a. Online Payment Option
The basic national fee is required in order for an international application to enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. See 37 CFR 1.495. Users are permitted to submit the basic national fee with the national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 via EFS-Web using online payment screens that interface with the Revenue Accounting and Management (RAM) system.
b. Alternative Payment Methods
If the RAM system is unavailable, EFS-Web will not permit users to make payment using the interactive payment screens. The applicant may pay the necessary national stage entry fee by either including a written authorization to charge the desired fee(s) together with the national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371, or sending the
payment via Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 on the same date that the national stage submission is electronically filed. However, applicants may not file the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage via facsimile transmission. See 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F).
For more information on fees associated with national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371, see MPEP § 1893.01(c).
4. New National Stage Submissions to Enter the U.S. National Stage Under 35 U.S.C. 371
a. Validation by PALM
New National Stage Submission: For any new national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 filed via EFS-Web, the system automatically checks the PatentApplication Locating and Monitoring (PALM) system to verify that no previous national stage submission has been made for the particular PCT international application referenced in the new national stage submission. Filers should confirm that the correct PCT international application number is entered on the EFS-Web screen to insure that the correct PCT international application is initialized as a national stage submission. If the PALM system finds a previous national stage submission has been made, the user will be given a warning message and an opportunity to verify, and correct if necessary, the referenced PCT international application number and filing date. If the PALM system is unavailable, EFS Web cannot complete the PALM verification, and thus EFS-Web will not permit a new national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to be filed. Therefore, if PALM is unavailable, applicants may send a new national stage submission by hand
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-49
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
delivery, or Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10, to timely submit documents and fee(s) for national stage entry. However, applicants may not file national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 and the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage via facsimile transmission. See 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(F).
b. Transmittal Letter
It is recommended that applicants continue to use the Transmittal Letter to the United States Designated/Elected Office (DO/EO/US) Concerning a Submission Under 35 U.S.C. 371 (Form PTO-1390) when electronically filing documents for entry into the U.S. national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. The PTO-1390 Form includes useful information that is not otherwise collected by EFS-Web at this time. Filers should confirm that the correct PCT international application number is entered on the EFS-Web screen to insure that the correct PCT international application is initialized as a national stage submission.
c. Application Data Sheet
An application data sheet is recommended for new national stage submissions.
d. Initial Processing
If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements, Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt.
5. Specific Requirements for Nucleotide or Amino Acid Sequence Listings in PCT International Applications
a. Sequence Listing
Under PCT Rule 5.2(a), the sequence listing must always be presented as a separate part of the description. When filing a PCT international
application using EFS-Web, the sequence listing part of the description may be submitted either as a single ASCII text file with a “.txt” extension (e.g., “seqlist.txt”) or as a PDF file. Note that 100 megabytes is the size limit for submitting a sequence listing text file via EFS-Web. If the sequence listing is submitted as an ASCII text file, applicant need not and should not submit any additional copies. The single ASCII text file is preferred because the ASCII text file will serve both as the sequence listing part of the description under PCT Rule 5.2 and the electronic form under PCT Rule 13 ter.1(a) in the absence of a PDF sequence listing file. The check list of the PCT Request provided via EFS-Web together with the PCT international application must indicate that the sequence listing forms part of the international application. Furthermore, the statement as set forth in paragraph 4(v) of the AI Annex C (Administrative Instructions under the PCT, Annex C), that “the information recorded in electronic form furnished under Rule 13 ter is identical to the sequence listing as contained in the international application,” is not required. Also the sequence listing in an ASCII text file will not be taken into account when calculating the application sheet count, i.e., no excess sheet fees will be required for the sequence listing text file.
Submission of the sequence listing part of the description in a PDF file is not recommended because the applicant would also be required to supply a copy of the sequence listing in an ASCII text file for purposes of international search and/or international preliminary examination in accordance with paragraph 40 of AI Annex C. When a sequence listing is filed via EFS-Web in a new PCT international application in both a PDF file and an ASCII text file, the PDF copy of the sequence listing will be considered to form part of the application and the ASCII text file will be used for search purposes and will be transmitted to the International Bureau with the record copy. The pages of the PDF file that contain the sequence listing will be taken into account when calculating the application sheet count, i.e., excess sheet fee may be required for the PDF file.
500-50Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
b. File Size and Quantity Limits
One hundred (100) megabytes is the size limit for sequence listing text files submitted via EFS-Web. Sequence listing text files must not be partitioned into multiple files for filing via EFS-Web as the EFS-Web electronic filing system is not currently capable of handling such submissions. For all other file types EFS-Web is currently not capable of accepting files that are larger than 25 megabytes. Additionally, a single EFS-Web submission may include no more than 60 electronic files. Note that regarding the 60 electronic file limit, an applicant may upload and validate in sets of up to 20 files each, with a limit of three sets of 20. If applicant chooses to divide a file into multiple parts using the multi-doc feature, each part is counted as one file. The need to submit unusually large sequence listings and/or numerous electronic files may prevent applicant from making a complete PCT international application filing in a single EFS-Web submission. Applicant may use EFS-Web to file part of the PCT international application and to obtain the PCT international application number and the confirmation number, and then file the remainder of the PCT international application on the same day as one or more follow-on submissions using EFS-Web, in order to secure the same filing date for all parts of the PCT international application. However, applicant is not permitted to file part of the PCT international application electronically via EFS-Web, and then file the remainder of the PCT international application on paper to secure a filing date of all parts of the PCT international application.
In the situation where applicant needs to file a sequence listing that is over one hundred (100) megabytes, applicant may use EFS-Web to file the PCT international application without the sequence listing to obtain the PCT international application number and the confirmation number, and then file the sequence listing on compact discs on the same
day by using Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10, or hand delivery, in order to secure the same filing date for all parts of the PCT international application. However,
Priority Mail Express® from the USPS and hand-carried submissions may not contain PDF files and must fully comply with the guidelines for filing
a sequence listing on electronic media. The check list of the PCT Request provided via EFS-Web together with the PCT international application must indicate that the sequence listing part of the description will be filed separately on physical data carrier(s), on the same day and in the form of an Annex C/ST.25 text file. The sequence listing must be a single document, but the document may be split using software designed to divide a file, that is too large to fit on a single compact disc, into multiple concatenated files. If the user breaks up a sequence listing into multiple concatenated files so that it may be submitted on multiple compact discs, the compact discs must be labeled to indicate their order (e.g., “1 of X”, “2 of X”).
c. Fee Determination for PCT International Applications Containing a Sequence Listing
The calculation of the international filing fee for a PCT international application, including a sequence listing, filed via EFS-Web is determined based on the type of sequence listing file. A sequence listing filed in an ASCII text file will not be included in the sheet count of the PCT international application. A sequence listing filed in a PDF file will be included in the sheet count of the PCT international application. Therefore, the sheet count for an EFS-Web filed PCT International application containing both a PDF file and a text file sequence listing will be calculated to include the number of sheets of the PDF sequence listing.
6. Limitations concerning computer program listings and tables related to a sequence listing in PCT international applications
a. Computer Program Listings
There is no provision for computer program listings in ASCII text file in PCT international applications.
b. Tables Related to a Sequence Listing
Tables related to a sequence listing must be an integral part of the description of the PCT international application, and must not be included in the sequence listing part or the drawing part. Such tables will be taken into account when calculating
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-51
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
the application sheet count, and excess sheet fees may be required. When applicant submits tables related to a sequence listing in a PCT international application via EFS-Web, the tables must be in a PDF file. If applicant submits tables related to a sequence listing in a text file, such tables will not be accepted as part of the PCT international application. For more information, see Sequence Listings and Tables Related Thereto in International Applications Filed in the United States Receiving Office, 1344 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 50 (July 7, 2009).
7. Follow-on Submissions for PCT International Applications
As noted above, a sequence listing in an ASCII text file, as well as additional PDF files, may be submitted in one or more follow-on submissions, via EFS-Web. Such follow-on submissions will form part of the PCT international application if filed on the same date on which the PCT international application was filed. Note that follow-on submissions of PDF files (including, but not limited to, PDF sequence listings) may change the number of pages in the PCT international application and therefore may affect the international filing fee. EFS-Web may also be used to submit a sequence listing in an ASCII text file after the international filing date in response to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.821(h) and PCT Rule 13 ter. Such sequence listing will not form part of the PCT international application as set forth in PCT Rule 13 ter.1(e).
8. Policy of Annex F of the PCT Administrative Instructions (AI Annex F)
EFS-Web employs a Web-based approach to document submission which is different from the AI Annex F “wrapped, bundled and signed package” approach. Thus EFS-Web does not meet the AI Annex F requirements. See Annex F of the PCT Administrative Instructions located at www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/.
N. International Design Applications and Associated Documents
The term “international design application” as used in this subsection refers to an application for international registration of an industrial design filed
under the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (“Hague Agreement”). The term “Rule” as used in this subsection refers to the “Common Regulations Under the 1999 and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement”.
1. New international design applications filed through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing
EFS-Web enables registered and unregistered eFilers to electronically file new international design applications through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing. To submit an international design application through EFS-Web, users must select the radio button “International Design Application (Hague) for filing through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing” after selecting the radio button “New application/proceeding” on the main EFS-Web screen. The documents listed below should be included in new international design application submissions.
a. Official form (Form DM/1):
Applicants filing international design applications through the USPTO are required to present the international design application on the official form established by the International Bureau (i.e., Form DM/1, entitled “Application for International Registration”) or on any form having the same form and content as the official form. Form DM/1 is available on the website of the International Bureau at www.wipo.int/hague/en/forms/. The DM/1 form includes boxes for providing information concerning the applicant, applicant’s entitlement to file an international design application, the creator, product identification, designations of Contracting Parties, priority claim, description, and other relevant information.
eFilers should use the document description “App for Intl Registration (DM/1 or equiv)” for a DM/1 form (or equivalent) submitted via EFS-Web. For new international design application submissions, EFS-Web will check for the presence of the document description for the DM/1 form when upload and validation functions are performed and, if not present, will alert the user that the DM/1 form is not indicated as being attached. EFS-Web will not
500-52Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
block submission of a new international design application based on the missing document description. If the DM/1 form document description is present, EFS-Web will prompt the user to verify that the DM/1 form indicates applicant’s entitlement to file the international design application through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing. The USPTO will not transmit an international design application to the International Bureau if applicant’s entitlement to file the application through the USPTO is not indicated in the submission.
b. Reproductions:
Reproductions of industrial designs are required in international design applications and may be submitted as drawings, photographs, or a combination thereof, and may be in black and white or in color. See Rule 9 and Part Four of the Administrative Instructions for the Application of the Hague Agreement. Reproductions may be submitted through EFS-Web as PDF or JPEG files as set forth below. Technical requirements regarding image files, such as resolution, minimum and maximum image size, border width, etc., are also set forth on the website of the International Bureau at www.wipo.int/hague/en/how_to/ file/prepare.html.
Reproductions may be submitted as single page PDF or JPEG files by attaching the file(s) using the “Attach Reproductions” section of the “Attach Documents” screen. Alternatively, applicants may attach reproductions as PDFs (including multi-page PDFs) using the “Attach Documents other than Reproductions” section of the “Attach Documents” screen. Attaching compliant reproductions via the “Attach Reproductions” section, rather than the “Attach Documents other than Reproductions” section, may help to avoid incurring additional per page publication fees that might otherwise be required by the International Bureau. Each image file attached through the “Attach Reproductions” section should contain only one view of the design. The “Attach Reproductions” section will prompt the user to assign a design and view number to each file attached under this section. The “Attach Reproductions” section allows up to 5000 (up to 100 designs with 50 views per design) additional single-page PDF and JPEG image files to be
uploaded in one submission. The “Attach JPEG Reproductions” section allows up to 50 additional JPEG image files to be uploaded in one submission.
In accordance with the technical requirements set forth by the International Bureau, EFS-Web will not permit submission of any PDF or JPEG file via the “Attach Reproductions” section that exceeds a file size of two megabytes. For JPEG submissions, EFS-Web will provide warnings where requirements pertaining to image resolution and minimum and maximum dimensions have not been satisfied; EFS-Web does not check color mode or border size for JPEG images. For PDF submissions via the “Attach Reproductions” section, EFS-Web will not permit submission of any PDF file that is more than one page. In addition, EFS-Web does not check color mode, border size, resolution, or maximum or minimum dimensions of the reproduction (other than certain minimum and maximum page size dimensions) for PDF images. It is the responsibility of applicants to ensure that reproductions satisfy all applicable requirements.
Users attaching reproductions under either the “Attach Reproductions” section or the “Attach Documents other than Reproductions” section should use the document description “drawings – only black and white line drawings” or “drawing – other than black and white line drawings”, as appropriate. EFS-Web will provide a warning to users about the possibility of incurring additional per page publication fees where reproductions are attached via the “Attach Documents other than Reproductions” section. EFS-Web will also provide a warning to users where a new international design application does not contain an indication that at least one reproduction is attached.
c. Annexes:
An international design application may be accompanied by annexes submitted for the purpose of complying with certain national law requirements that may be applicable to a designated Contracting Party, for example, the requirement for an inventor’s oath or declaration where the United States is designated. Annex forms specific to particular Contracting Parties are available on the website of the International Bureau at www.wipo.int/
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-53
§ 502.05RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
hague/en/forms/. Annexes should be attached to the EFS-Web submission using the document description “Annex(es) to the DM/1 or equivalent”.
More information regarding filing international design applications is available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/patents-application- process/applying-online/efs-web-guidance-and-resources.
2. International design application fees required by or payable through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing
a. Transmittal fee:
International design applications filed through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing are subject to payment of a transmittal fee. See 37 CFR 1.1031(a). Users are permitted to submit the transmittal fee via EFS-Web using online payment screens that interface with the Revenue Accounting and Management (RAM) system. The USPTO will not transmit the international design application to the International Bureau if the transmittal fee has not been paid to the USPTO. See 37 CFR 1.1045. Applicants are cautioned that an international design application not received by the International Bureau within six months from the date the international design application is received by the USPTO will not be entitled to a filing date as of the date of receipt by the USPTO. See Rule 13.
b. International fees payable to WIPO
Certain international design application fees payable to the International Bureau may be paid through the USPTO as an office of indirect filing, provided such fees are paid no later than the date of payment of the transmittal fee. See 37 CFR 1.1031(c). Applicants are not required to pay such fees through the USPTO but rather may pay such fees directly to the International Bureau. Furthermore, any payment of such fees through the USPTO must be in U.S. dollars. As all payments made to the International Bureau must be in Swiss currency, the U.S. dollar amount collected may, when converted to Swiss currency, be different than the required Swiss currency amount. Accordingly, applicants are cautioned that paying such fees through the USPTO may still result in a requirement by the International
Bureau to pay additional amounts where the conversion from U.S. dollars to Swiss currency results in the International Bureau receiving less than the prescribed amounts.
International fees payable to WIPO include the prescribed fees set forth under Rule 12(1) (i.e., the basic fee, standard designation fee(s), individual designation fee(s), and publication fee) and Rule 11(2) (fee for a description exceeding 100 words). The “Calculate Fees” screen of EFS-Web does not provide for individual selection of these fees but rather provides for input of one lump sum in Swiss francs. The screen includes a link to the WIPO Industrial Design Fee Calculator (www.wipo.int/hague/en/fees/calculator.jsp) where users can input the appropriate data concerning their international design applications, and the WIPO Fee Calculator will determine the total amount of fees required in Swiss francs. Users can then copy and paste this amount into the “International Fees Payable to WIPO (CHF)” field of the EFS-Web Calculate Fees screen, and EFS-Web will calculate the U.S. dollar amount based on current exchange rates. EFS-Web will only permit payment of the international fees that are payable to WIPO until 12 midnight Eastern Time of the date of payment of the transmittal fee required under 37 CFR 1.1031(a).
3. Follow-on submissions in international design applications
In accordance with the requirements of this framework, only registered efilers may file follow-on submissions via EFS-Web in international design applications.
Where an international design application was filed with the USPTO as an office of indirect filing, the USPTO will generally not forward communications to the International Bureau received after transmittal of the application to the International Bureau has been effected. Thus, for example, where the International Bureau has sent an invitation requiring compliance with a requirement under the Hague Agreement, the applicant must file any reply to that invitation directly with the International Bureau to avoid abandonment or other loss of rights under the treaty. See 37 CFR 1.1045.
500-54Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 502.05
The available document descriptions and fees that may be paid through EFS-Web will differ depending on stage of the international design application. After transmittal of the international design application to the International Bureau has occurred, the document descriptions and fees that may be paid through EFS-Web include those that would be relevant for U.S. national processing and examination. Follow-on submissions filed after transmittal of the international design application to the International Bureau but prior to WIPO publication of the international design application designating the United States will generally be presumed to have been intended for consideration by the USPTO acting as an examining office for the application. Accordingly, action by the Office on any such submission will generally be taken after receipt of the WIPO publication of the international design application designating the United States.
No follow-on submission or fee payment is required from the applicant to initiate examination of an international design application that designates the United States. Upon receipt by the Office of the WIPO publication of an international design application designating the United States, the Office will prepare the application file for examination. Registered users may, in accordance with this framework, file follow-on submissions in the international design application via EFS-Web relevant to U.S. national processing and examination. Reproductions amended pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 may be submitted via EFS-Web as either PDF or JPEG electronic files. Any such JPEG file must be attached to the EFS-Web submission using the “Attach JPEG Reproductions” section of the “Attach Documents” EFS-Web screen. See Section L3 for JPEG file size limits and Section L4 for the limit on the number of JPEG files that may be attached in one submission.
II. Additional Information
The USPTO website provides additional information on EFS-Web and PAIR, such as instructions, guidelines, frequently asked questions, and tutorials. Users may contact the Patent EBC for assistance
with EFS-Web and PAIR as well as for requesting PKI digital certificates and customer numbers.
503 Application Number and Filing Receipt [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.54 Parts of application to be filed together; filing receipt.
(a) It is desirable that all parts of the complete application be deposited in the Office together; otherwise, a letter must accompany each part, accurately and clearly connecting it with the other parts of the application. See § 1.53(f) and (g) with regard to completion of an application.
(b) Applicant will be informed of the application number and filing date by a filing receipt, unless the application is an application filed under § 1.53(d). A letter limited to a request for a filing receipt may be signed by a juristic applicant or patent owner.
I. APPLICATION NUMBER
Application numbers consisting of a series code and a serial number are assigned by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) immediately after mail has been opened. If an application is filed using the Office’s electronic filing system, EFS-Web provides an Acknowledgement Receipt that contains a time and date stamp, an application number and a confirmation number.
The following series codes are assigned to the applications identified below:
(A) 01/ - 14/ - for nonprovisional applications (utility, plant, and reissue), during the following time periods:
01 –1925 to 1934,
02 – 1935 to 1947,
03 – 1948 to 1959,
04 – 1960 to 1969,
05 – 1970 to 1978,
06 – 1979 to 1986,
07 – 1987 to 1992,
08 – 1993 to 1997,
09 – 1998 to Nov. 2001,
10 – Dec. 2001 to Nov. 2004,
11 – Dec. 2004 to Dec. 2007,
12 – Dec. 2007 to Mar. 2011,
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-55
§ 503RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
13 – Dec. 2010 to Aug. 2013; and
14 – Aug. 2013 to present;
(B) 29/ - for design applications;
(C) 60/ and 61/ - for provisional applications;
(D) 90/ - for ex parte reexamination proceedings;
(E) 95/ - for inter partes reexamination proceedings; and
(F) 96/ - for supplemental examination proceedings and resulting ex parte reexamination proceedings.
If a self-addressed postcard is submitted with a patent application, that postcard will be provided with both the receipt date and application number prior to returning it to the addressee. The application number identified on such a postcard receipt is merely the preliminary assignment of an application number to the application, and should not be relied upon (e.g., with respect to foreign filings) as necessarily representing the application number assigned to such application. See 37 CFR 1.53(b).
The identifying data on the postcard should include:
(A) inventor’s name(s);
(B) title of invention;
(C) number of pages of specification, claims (for nonprovisional applications), and sheets of drawing;
(D) whether the inventor's oath or declaration is included;
(E) a list of any additional forms included with the application (e.g., application transmittal form, application data sheet, fee transmittal form, and/or provisional application cover sheet); and
(F) amount and manner of paying the fee.
A return postcard should be attached to each patent application for which a receipt is desired.
It is important that the return postcard itemize all of the components of the application. If the postcard does not itemize each of the components of the application, it will not serve as evidence that any component which was not itemized was received by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See subsection III, below, for additional
information pertaining to return postcards. It should be recognized that the identification of an application by application number does not necessarily signify that the USPTO has accepted the application as complete (37 CFR 1.53(a)).
For applications filed via EFS-Web, after the Office receives a successful submission, an Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt is sent to the person filing the application. The acknowledgment receipt contains the "receipt date," the time the correspondence was received at the Office (not the local time at the submitter's location), and a full listing of the correspondence submitted. The Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt is the electronic equivalent of a postcard receipt. See MPEP § 502.05.
II. FILING RECEIPTS
OPAP mails a filing receipt to the attorney or agent, if any, otherwise to the applicant, at the correspondence address of record for each application filed which meets the minimum requirements to receive a filing date. The filing receipt includes the application number, filing date, a confirmation number, a suggested class in the U.S. Patent Classification System (see MPEP § 902.01), and the number of an art unit where the application is likely to be examined. The filing receipt also includes other information about the application as applicable, such as continuing data, national stage data, foreign priority data, foreign filing license data, entity status information, and the date the Office anticipates publishing the application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). The filing receipt represents the official assignment by the USPTO of a specific application number and confirmation number to a particular application. See 37 CFR 1.54(b). The application number officially assigned to an application on the filing receipt may differ from the application number identified on a postcard receipt submitted with such application, and, as between inconsistent filing receipts and postcard receipts, the application number on the filing receipt is controlling.
The confirmation number is a four-digit number that is assigned to each newly filed application. The confirmation number, in combination with the
500-56Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 503
application number, is used to verify the accuracy of the application number placed on correspondence filed with the Office to avoid misidentification of an application due to a transposition error in the application number. The confirmation number may be found in the upper left-hand corner of the filing receipt. The confirmation number will also be available through the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. The Office includes the application’s confirmation number (in addition to the application number) on the cover sheet accompanying Office actions and on filing receipts. The confirmation number must be used when submitting an electronic filing system (EFS-Web) copy of the application for publication to verify that the application number correctly identifies the application for which a copy is being submitted for publication. The Office also recommends that applicants include the application’s confirmation number (in addition to the application number) on all correspondence submitted to the Office concerning the application.
A continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (design applications only) will be assigned the application number of the prior application for identification purposes.
A nonprovisional application, other than a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), is entitled to a filing date as of the date of receipt of the specification, including claims, and any required drawing. See 37 CFR 1.53(b). The filing receipt will be mailed at the time a determination is made that the application meets the minimum requirements to receive a filing date. The inventor's oath or declaration, basic filing fee, and search fee and examination fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16, may be filed later than the remaining application papers, but if so, they must be accompanied by the required surcharge (if appropriate, see MPEP § 506). See 37 CFR 1.53(f). If the inventor's oath or declaration, basic filing fee, and/or any required search fee and examination fee with the appropriate surcharge are not timely filed, the application will be abandoned. For original (non-reissue) applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the filing of the inventor’s oath or declaration may be postponed until the date the issue fee is paid if an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 is timely filed providing the
required inventor information. See 35 U.S.C. 115(f) and 37 CFR 1.53(f). The surcharge required for filing the inventor’s oath or declaration after the filing date of the application, however, must be paid on filing of the application or in response to a Notice to File Missing Parts. Also, for applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, the filing of at least one claim may be postponed until the expiration of the time period set in Notice to File Missing Parts. Claim(s) and the surcharge must be filed in response to the Notice to File Missing Parts. See MPEP § 506.
A provisional application filed on or after December 18, 2013 is entitled to a filing date as of the date of receipt of the specification, with or without claims, in the Office (37 CFR 1.53(c)); a provisional application filed before December 18, 2013 must also include any required drawings to be entitled to a filing date (pre-PLT (AIA) 37 CFR 1.53 (c)). See also MPEP § 608.02, subsection I. See 37 CFR 1.53(c). A cover sheet (37 CFR 1.51(c)(1)), which may be an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) or a cover letter, identifying the application as a provisional application is required to prevent the provisional application from being treated as a nonprovisional application. 37 CFR 1.53(c)(1).
Each application which meets the minimum requirements to receive a filing date is given a filing date. It is important, when referring to application files, to identify them by their filing dates and confirmation numbers as well as by application numbers.
Attorney docket numbers must be limited to a maximum of 25 characters to prevent truncation. The Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) system data base allows a maximum of 25 characters for the attorney docket numbers. Spaces, slashes, and hyphens will no longer be included in the entered docket number on the official filing receipt. In an application where CASE or NAVY-CASE appears before the first character in the docket number, only the characters after CASE or NAVY-CASE will be entered on the official filing receipt.
The application papers are processed by OPAP and added to the Office’s Image File Wrapper (IFW) system.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-57
§ 503RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Applications which are entitled to a filing date, whether filed by regular mail, by Priority Mail
Express® under 37 CFR 1.10, by hand-delivery, by the Office’s Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web), or otherwise, will not be returned to applicant even if requested. See 37 CFR 1.59. Accordingly, applicants must be careful not to file applications which are not intended to be filed, e.g., duplicates of applications already filed. Note that 37 CFR 1.26(a) provides that a change of purpose after the payment of a fee, as when a party desires to withdraw the filing of a patent application for which the fee was paid, will not entitle the party to a refund of such fee. See MPEP § 607.02.
III. RETURN POSTCARD
If a submitter desires a receipt for any item (e.g., paper or fee) filed in the USPTO by means other than the Office's electronic filing system, it may be obtained by enclosing with the paper a self-addressed postcard specifically identifying the item. See subsection I, above, and MPEP § 502.05 for Electronic Acknowledgment Receipts. To ensure the receipt of return receipt postcards, users must either: (A) purchase already stamped postcards from the United States Postal Service (USPS) or affix postage stamps to their postcards; or (B) if a postage meter is used, ensure that the meter postmark does not show the date. Any return receipt postcard containing a dated meter postmark may not be delivered by the USPS to the address provided on the postcard. Users are reminded that they are solely responsible for placing the proper postage on self-addressed postcards that are submitted to the USPTO for the purpose of obtaining a receipt for correspondence being filed in the USPTO. Users should check with the USPS regarding postage and what size cards are acceptable to the USPS. Any return receipt postcard that does not contain sufficient postage or is not acceptable may not be delivered by the USPS to the address provided on the postcard, and, if returned to the USPTO, may be discarded.
The USPTO will stamp the receipt date on the postcard and place it in the outgoing mail. A postcard receipt which itemizes and properly identifies the items which are being filed serves as prima facie evidence of receipt in the USPTO of all the items
listed thereon on the date stamped thereon by the USPTO.
The identifying data on the postcard should be so complete as to clearly identify the item for which a receipt is requested. For example, the postcard should identify the inventor’s name, application number (if known), confirmation number (if known), filing date, interference number, title of the invention, etc. The postcard should also identify the type of paper being filed, e.g., new application, affidavit, amendment, notice of appeal, appeal brief, drawings, fees, motions, supplemental oath or declaration, petition, etc., and the number of pages being submitted. If a new application is being filed, all parts of the application being submitted should be separately listed on the postcard, e.g., the number of pages of specification (including written description, claims and abstract), number of claims, number of sheets of drawings, number of pages of oath/declaration, number of pages of cover sheet (provisional application).
The postcard receipt will not serve as prima facie evidence of receipt of any item which is not adequately itemized on the postcard. For example, merely listing on the postcard “a complete application” or “patent application” will not serve as a proper receipt for each of the required components of an application (e.g., specification (including claims), drawings (if necessary), oath or declaration and the application filing fee) or missing portions (e.g., pages, sheets of drawings) of an application if one of the components or portion of a component is found to be missing by the USPTO. Each separate component should be specifically and properly itemized on the postcard. Furthermore, merely incorporating by reference in the postcard receipt, the items listed in a transmittal letter will not serve as prima facie evidence of receipt of those items.
The person receiving the item(s) in the USPTO will check the listing on the postcard against the item(s) being filed to be sure they are properly identified and that all the items listed on the postcard are presently being submitted to the USPTO. If any of the items listed on the postcard are not being submitted to the USPTO, those items will be crossed
500-58Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 503
off and the postcard initialed by the person receiving the items.
Upon return of a postcard receipt from the USPTO, the postcard receipt should be promptly reviewed by the person who filed the items to ensure that every item specifically denoted on the postcard was received by the USPTO. If the postcard receipt has been annotated to indicate that a particular item denoted on the postcard was not received by the USPTO, the postcard receipt will not serve as prima facie evidence of receipt of that item in the USPTO.
504 Assignment of Application for Examination [R-08.2012]
The Office of Patent Application Processing assigns a nonprovisional application to the art unit to which it appears to belong. Provisional applications will not be examined.
505 Date of Receipt Stamp [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.6 Receipt of correspondence.
(a) Date of receipt and Priority Mail Express® date of deposit. Correspondence received in the Patent and Trademark Office is stamped with the date of receipt except as follows:
(1) The Patent and Trademark Office is not open for the filing of correspondence on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. Except for correspondence transmitted by facsimile under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, or filed electronically under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, no correspondence is received in the Office on Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays within the District of Columbia.
(2) Correspondence filed in accordance with § 1.10 will be stamped with the date of deposit as Priority Mail
Express® with the United States Postal Service.
(3) Correspondence transmitted by facsimile to the Patent and Trademark Office will be stamped with the date on which the complete transmission is received in the Patent and Trademark Office unless that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, in which case the date stamped will be the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia.
(4) Correspondence may be submitted using the Office electronic filing system only in accordance with the Office electronic filing system requirements. Correspondence submitted to the Office by way of the Office electronic filing system will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date the correspondence is received at the correspondence address for the Office set forth in § 1.1 when it was officially submitted.
*****
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) stamps papers and fees received through the mail (other than those submitted by Priority Mail
Express® in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10), by facsimile, or via EFS-Web with the date of their receipt in the Office. Papers that are hand-carried to the Office will be date stamped at the Customer Service Window. See MPEP § 502. The stamp is referred to as the “Office Date” stamp.
When the last day for taking any action or paying any fee in the Office falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the action or the fee is considered timely if the action is taken or the fee is paid on the next succeeding business day.
New patent applications filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 will be stamped by the Office with the
date of deposit as Priority Mail Express® with the United States Postal Service. For example, if a new patent application is deposited in Priority Mail
Express® in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 on a Saturday and the United States Postal Service gives it a date of deposit of Saturday, the Office will accord and stamp the correspondence with the Saturday date. 37 CFR 1.6(a)(2).
Similarly, correspondence submitted via the USPTO electronic filing system (EFS-Web) will be accorded a receipt date on the date the correspondence is received at the correspondence address for the Office set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 (i.e., local time in Alexandria, VA), without regard to whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See MPEP §§ 502.05 and 512.
If an application as originally filed includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP § 506), the “Office Date” stamp establishes the “filing date.”
506 Completeness of Original Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-59
§ 506RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(a) Application number. Any papers received in the Patent and Trademark Office which purport to be an application for a patent will be assigned an application number for identification purposes.
(b) Application filing requirements - Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, other than an application for a design patent or provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in Office. The filing date of an application for a design patent filed under this section, except for a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which the specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 365(c) or 386(c) and § 1.78.
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.
(c) Application filing requirements - Provisional application. The filing date of a provisional application is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application.
(1) A provisional application must also include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1), which may be an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or a cover letter identifying the application as a provisional application. Otherwise, the application will be treated as an application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) An application for patent filed under paragraph (b) of this section may be converted to a provisional application and be accorded the original filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. The grant of such a request for conversion will not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees that were properly paid in the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. Such a request for conversion must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q) and be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) Payment of the issue fee on the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section; or
(iii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) A provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section may be converted to a nonprovisional application filed under paragraph (b) of this section and accorded the original filing date of the provisional application. The conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will not result in either the refund of any fee properly paid in the provisional application or the application of any such fee to the filing fee, or any other fee, for the nonprovisional application. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application under this paragraph will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application for which conversion is requested. Thus, applicants should consider avoiding this adverse patent term impact by filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), rather than converting the provisional application into a nonprovisional application pursuant to this paragraph. A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(i) and an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b), unless the provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section otherwise contains at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The nonprovisional application resulting from conversion of a provisional application must also include the filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a nonprovisional, and the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) if either the basic filing fee for a nonprovisional application or the inventor's oath or declaration was not present on the filing date accorded the resulting nonprovisional application ( i.e., the filing date of the original provisional application). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must also be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) A provisional application is not entitled to the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 386(a) or § 1.55, or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or § 1.78of any other application. No claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or § 1.78(a) may be made in a design application based on a provisional application. The requirements of §§ 1.821 through 1.825 regarding application disclosures containing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences are not mandatory for provisional applications.
(d) Application filing requirements - Continued prosecution (nonprovisional) application.
(1) A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under this paragraph, provided that:
(i) The application is for a design patent;
(ii) The prior nonprovisional application is a design application, but not an international design application , that is
500-60Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 506
complete as defined by § 1.51(b), except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i); and
(iii) The application under this paragraph is filed before the earliest of:
(A) Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under § 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
(B) Abandonment of the prior application; or
(C) Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
(2) The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed. An application filed under this paragraph:
(i) Must identify the prior application;
(ii) Discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior application;
(iii) Names as inventors the same inventors named in the prior application on the date the application under this paragraph was filed, except as provided in paragraph (d)(4) of this section;
(iv) Includes the request for an application under this paragraph, will utilize the file jacket and contents of the prior application, including the specification, drawings and the inventor's oath or declaration from the prior application, to constitute the new application, and will be assigned the application number of the prior application for identification purposes; and
(v) Is a request to expressly abandon the prior application as of the filing date of the request for an application under this paragraph.
(3) The filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a continued prosecution application filed under this paragraph are the basic filing fee as set forth in § 1.16(b), the search fee as set forth in § 1.16(l) , and the examination fee as set forth in § 1.16(p).
(4) An application filed under this paragraph may be filed by fewer than all the inventors named in the prior application, provided that the request for an application under this paragraph when filed is accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application. No person may be named as an inventor in an application filed under this paragraph who was not named as an inventor in the prior application on the date the application under this paragraph was filed, except by way of correction of inventorship under § 1.48.
(5) Any new change must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to the filing of an application under this paragraph. No amendment in
an application under this paragraph (a continued prosecution application) may introduce new matter or matter that would have been new matter in the prior application. Any new specification filed with the request for an application under this paragraph will not be considered part of the original application papers, but will be treated as a substitute specification in accordance with § 1.125.
(6) The filing of a continued prosecution application under this paragraph will be construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public, who is entitled under the provisions of § 1.14 to access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of this paragraph, may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning the other application or applications in the file jacket.
(7) A request for an application under this paragraph is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request. No amendment in an application under this paragraph may delete this specific reference to any prior application.
(8) In addition to identifying the application number of the prior application, applicant should furnish in the request for an application under this paragraph the following information relating to the prior application to the best of his or her ability:
(i) Title of invention;
(ii) Name of applicant(s); and
(iii) Correspondence address.
(9) See § 1.103(b) for requesting a limited suspension of action in an application filed under this paragraph.
(e) Failure to meet filing date requirements.
(1) If an application deposited under paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section does not meet the requirements of such paragraph to be entitled to a filing date, applicant will be so notified, if a correspondence address has been provided, and given a period of time within which to correct the filing error. If, however, a request for an application under paragraph (d) of this section does not meet the requirements of that paragraph because the application in which the request was filed is not a design application, and if the application in which the request was filed was itself filed on or after June 8, 1995, the request for an application under paragraph (d) of this section will be treated as a request for continued examination under § 1.114.
(2) Any request for review of a notification pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section, or a notification that the original application papers lack a portion of the specification or drawing(s), must be by way of a petition pursuant to this paragraph accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(f). In the absence of a timely (§ 1.181(f)) petition pursuant to this paragraph, the filing date of an application in which the applicant was notified of a filing error pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section will be the date the filing error is corrected.
(3) If an applicant is notified of a filing error pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section, but fails to correct the filing error within the given time period or otherwise timely
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-61
§ 506RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(§ 1.181(f)) take action pursuant to this paragraph, proceedings in the application will be considered terminated. Where proceedings in an application are terminated pursuant to this paragraph, the application may be disposed of, and any filing fees, less the handling fee set forth in § 1.21(n), will be refunded.
(f) Completion of application subsequent to filing—Nonprovisional (including continued prosecution or reissue) application.
(1) If an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) or (d) of this section does not include the basic filing fee, the search fee, or the examination fee, or if an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section does not include at least one claim or the inventor's oath or declaration (§ 1.63, § 1.64, § 1.162 or § 1.175), and the applicant has provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to pay the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, and pay the surcharge if required by § 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment.
(2) If an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section does not include the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, at least one claim, or the inventor's oath or declaration, and the applicant has not provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), the applicant has three months from the filing date of the application within which to file a claim or claims, pay the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment.
(3) The inventor's oath or declaration in an application under § 1.53(b) must also be filed within the period specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section, except that the filing of the inventor's oath or declaration may be postponed until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance under the conditions specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The application must be an original (non-reissue) application that contains an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 identifying:
(A) Each inventor by his or her legal name;
(B) A mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, for each inventor.
(ii) The applicant must file each required oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, no later than the date on which the issue fee for the patent is paid. If the applicant is notified in a notice of allowability that an oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, executed by or with respect to each named inventor has not been filed, the applicant must file each required oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under § 1.136 (see § 1.136(c)). The Office may dispense with the notice provided for in paragraph (f)(1) of this section if each
required oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, has been filed before the application is in condition for allowance.
(4) If the excess claims fees required by § 1.16(h) and (i) and multiple dependent claim fee required by § 1.16(j) are not paid on filing or on later presentation of the claims for which the excess claims or multiple dependent claim fees are due, the fees required by § 1.16(h), (i), and (j), must be paid or the claims canceled by amendment prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency. If the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) (if any) is not paid on filing or on later presentation of the amendment necessitating a fee or additional fee under § 1.16(s), the fee required by § 1.16(s) must be paid prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency in order to avoid abandonment.
(5) This paragraph applies to continuation or divisional applications under paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section and to continuation-in-part applications under paragraph (b) of this section. See § 1.63(d) concerning the submission of a copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the prior application for a continuing application under paragraph (b) of this section.
(6) If applicant does not pay the basic filing fee during the pendency of the application, the Office may dispose of the application.
(g) Completion of application subsequent to filing—Provisional application.
(1) If a provisional application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section does not include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1) or the basic filing fee (§ 1.16(d)), and applicant has provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to pay the basic filing fee, file a cover sheet (§ 1.51(c)(1)), and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(g) to avoid abandonment.
(2) If a provisional application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section does not include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1) or the basic filing fee (§ 1.16(d)), and applicant has not provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), applicant has two months from the filing date of the application within which to pay the basic filing fee, file a cover sheet (§ 1.51(c)(1)), and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(g) to avoid abandonment.
(3) If the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) (if any) is not paid on filing, the fee required by § 1.16(s) must be paid prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency in order to avoid abandonment.
(4) If applicant does not pay the basic filing fee during the pendency of the application, the Office may dispose of the application.
(h) Subsequent treatment of application - Nonprovisional (including continued prosecution) application. An application for a patent filed under paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section will not be placed on the files for examination until all its required
500-62Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 506
parts, complying with the rules relating thereto, are received, except that the inventor's oath or declaration may be filed when the application is otherwise in condition for allowance pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section and minor informalities may be waived subject to subsequent correction whenever required.
(i) Subsequent treatment of application - Provisional application. A provisional application for a patent filed under paragraph (c) of this section will not be placed on the files for examination and will become abandoned no later than twelve months after its filing date pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(1).
I. INCOMPLETE NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 37 CFR 1.53(b)
A. Utility Applications
If the nonprovisional utility application papers filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) do not include at least a specification or if the submitted papers are too informal to be given a filing date, the case is held in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) as an incomplete application and the applicant is informed of the shortcomings of the papers. No filing date is granted until the incompleteness is corrected.
B. Design Applications
If the nonprovisional design application papers filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) do not include at least a specification containing a description and at least one claim and a drawing, if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence), or if the submitted application papers are too informal to be given a filing date, the case is held in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) as an incomplete application and the applicant is informed of the shortcomings of the papers. No filing date is granted until the incompleteness is corrected.
C. Handling of Incomplete Applications
A Notice of Incomplete Application is prepared and mailed by OPAP when nonprovisional application papers filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) are deemed incomplete under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
Even though an application purports to include the component parts necessary to obtain a filing date, the application will still be held to be incomplete and a filing date will be refused if the component parts fail to satisfy the requirements set forth above.
For example, if the documents purporting to be a specification are so obviously informal and incoherent that they clearly do not constitute a specification as required by 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.71, the application is not acceptable for examination and it will not be accorded a filing date until corrections are made. The filing date of the application will be the date the corrections are made.
Filing dates are accorded to nonprovisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) submitted without the names of all the inventors, the required fees (basic filing fee, and search and examination fees (for applications filed on or after December 8, 2004)), at least one claim (for applications filed on or after December 13, 2013) and/or the inventor's oath or declaration. In such cases, a notice is mailed by OPAP requiring the appropriate fees, claims (for applications filed on or after December 13, 2013) and for applications filed before September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration (which must include the names of all the inventors), accompanied by a surcharge (37 CFR 1.16(f)).
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 (except reissue applications), applicant may postpone filing the inventor’s oath or declaration until the application is in condition for allowance if an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 is filed identifying: (1) each inventor by his or her legal name; and (2) for each inventor, a mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mails, and residence, if the inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail. See 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3). Applicant must file the inventor’s oath or declaration no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid. See 35 U.S.C. 115(f).
The Office has modified the missing parts practice for applications (other than reissue applications) filed on or after September 16, 2012. If an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) filed on or after September 16, 2012, contains the applicable filing fees (basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, any applicable excess claims fee, and any applicable application size fee), the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f), and a signed ADS providing the required inventor information, but does not include the inventor’s oath or declaration, the Office will
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-63
§ 506RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
not issue a Notice to File Missing Parts requiring the applicant to file the inventor’s oath or declaration. Instead, the Office may send an informational notice notifying the applicant that the inventor’s oath or declaration has not been received or that there are deficiencies in an inventor’s oath or declaration that was filed. If an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) filed on or after September 16, 2012, that does not contain the inventor’s oath or declaration also does not contain the applicable filing fees, or the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f), or a signed ADS providing the inventor information, the Office will issue a Notice to File Missing Parts giving the applicant a time period (usually two months) within which to file the missing filing fees, the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f), and a signed ADS providing the inventor information (or the inventor’s oath or declaration) to avoid abandonment. If an application is in condition for allowance and the required inventor’s oath or declaration (an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, or a substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64, executed by or with respect to each actual inventor) has not yet been filed, the Office will issue a notice with the Notice of Allowability requiring the inventor’s oath or declaration to be filed no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid.
For applications which have been accorded a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(b), if any of the basic filing fee, the search fee, or the examination fee are paid on a date later than the filing date of the application, the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) is required. In addition to the basic filing fee, the search fee, and the examination fee, 37 CFR 1.16(s) sets forth the application size fee for any application (including any reissue applications) filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, the specification and drawings of which, excluding a sequence listing or computer program listing filed in an electronic medium (see 37 CFR 1.52(f)), exceed 100 sheets of paper. The application size fee applies for each additional 50 sheets or fraction thereof over 100 sheets of paper. Any sequence listing in an electronic medium in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing filed in an electronic medium in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.96, will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s). The application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s) must
be paid prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency in order to avoid abandonment (37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)). See MPEP § 607 for additional information regarding fees. In addition to the basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination fee, and the application size fee required under 37 CFR 1.16, the prescribed filing fee (37 CFR 1.51(b)(4)) may include additional fees for filing more than 3 independent claims (37 CFR 1.16(h)), for filing a total of more than 20 claims (37 CFR 1.16(i)), or for filing a multiple dependent claim (37 CFR 1.16(j)). In those cases where the basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination fee, and the application size fee are paid, but additional fees are required, under 37 CFR 1.16, a notice is mailed by OPAP or the Technology Center (TC), requiring that the balance of the prescribed fee be paid.
A nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be filed with a preliminary amendment which is limited to the cancellation of claims. Any preliminary amendment, regardless of when it is filed, must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121, e.g., it must include a complete listing of all of the claims. Therefore, the Office strongly recommends that applicants file their applications with a specification containing only the desired set of claims, rather than filing the application with a preliminary amendment canceling claims. If such a preliminary amendment canceling claims is filed, it will diminish the number of claims to be considered for calculation of the filing fee. Any other changes to the application should be the subject of a separate amendment which may be entered after the filing fee has been calculated and the filing date granted. If a preliminary amendment which cancels claims does not accompany the application at the time the application is filed, and there is a fee deficiency, the notification of insufficient fee will inform the inventor, attorney, or agent of the possibility of correcting the insufficient payment by either (1) paying the additional required fee amount, or (2) filing an amendment which cancels claims so that the remaining claims are covered by the fee submitted upon filing. However, no refund will be made once the fee for claims is properly paid, even though claims are later canceled, unless a petition for express abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138(d) is granted. See MPEP § 711.01.
500-64Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 506
A filing date is normally granted before a review of the subject matter claimed in a nonprovisional application. If a nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) appears sufficient, the application is forwarded to the examiner for consideration during the regular course of examination.
II. INCOMPLETE PROVISIONALAPPLICATIONS
If the provisional application papers do not include at least a specification containing a description and a drawing, if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) (for applications filed prior to March 18, 2013) or if the submitted application papers are too informal to be given a filing date, the case is held in OPAP as an incomplete application and the applicant is informed of the shortcomings of the papers. No filing date is granted until the incompleteness is corrected.
Such incompleteness may consist of the omission of any one of the following parts of an application. The component parts of a provisional application necessary to obtain a filing date are:
A specification, with or without claims, as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and 37 CFR 1.71.
A drawing, if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) and 37 CFR 1.81(a) (for applications filed prior to March 18, 2013).
Even though an application purports to include the component part(s) necessary to obtain a filing date, the application will still be held to be incomplete and a filing date will be refused if the component parts fail to satisfy the requirements set forth above. For example, if the documents purporting to be a specification are so obviously informal and incoherent that they would clearly not constitute a specification as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and 37 CFR 1.71, the application would not be acceptable and would not be accorded a filing date until corrections are made. The filing date of the application would be the date the corrections were made. A provisional application will not be examined. However, a provisional application which does not include a cover sheet (37
CFR 1.51(c)(1), which may be an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) or a cover letter, identifying the application as a provisional application, will be treated as a nonprovisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). See 37 CFR 1.53(c)(1).
NOTE: No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application. See 37 CFR 1.53(c).
III. INFORMAL APPLICATIONS
An application is informal if it is typed on both sides of the paper, or is not permanent, legible, or reproducible. If such informalities are timely corrected, the application is given the filing date on which the original informal papers were filed.
OPAP accords a filing date, as of the date indicated by the “Office Date” stamp (see MPEP § 505), to application papers which include a specification containing a description and at least one claim (nonprovisional applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) prior to March 18, 2013 and design applications), and a drawing, if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) and 37 CFR 1.53(b), but are informal because they do not comply with the rules or notices. In such applications, OPAP will send a Notice (e.g., Notice to File Corrected Application Papers) requiring correction of the informality. Failure to correct the informality within the specified time results in abandonment of the application.
506.01 [Reserved]
506.02 Review of Refusal To Accord Filing Date [R-07.2015]
The filing date of the provisional or nonprovisional application is the date of receipt in the Office of the application which includes a specification containing description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71 and at least one claim (required for nonprovisional design applications only) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75, and any
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-65
§ 506.02RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
drawings required by 37 CFR 1.81(a). See 37 CFR 1.53(b) and (c).
If any of these items are missing, applicant will be notified to file them and the filing date will be the date of receipt of the missing part(s). If the oath or declaration for a nonprovisional application was executed and filed with the application, a supplemental oath or declaration by the inventor is required in some circumstances if the nonprovisional application was filed before September 16, 2012, e.g., where the missing item is the claim, specification, or a drawing. The supplemental declaration must identify the missing item and indicate, as appropriate, that it accurately claims, describes, or illustrates applicant’s invention. See MPEP § 601.01(d)-(g) where the application is filed without all the pages of the specification, without at least one claim (nonprovisional design application), without drawings, or without all the figures of the drawings. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the Office will not require a person who has executed an oath or declaration in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.162 for an application to provide an additional inventor’s oath or declaration for the application (37 CFR 1.67(c)). An error in or failure to identify inventorship does not raise a filing date issue.
Any review of the refusal to grant a filing date as of the date of deposit of the application would be by way of petition, accompanied by the petition fee (37 CFR 1.17(f)). Petitioner should provide any arguments that he or she has that the items noted were not missing or that a filing date should be assigned in the absence of such items if they are believed to be unnecessary. If petitioner alleges that no defect exists, a request for refund of the petition fee may be included in the petition.
For applications properly filed under 37 CFR 1.10, the filing date is the date that the application was
deposited as Priority Mail Express® in the U.S. Postal Service. For example, if a new patent
application is deposited in Priority Mail Express®
in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 on a Saturday and the United States Postal Service gives it a date of deposit of Saturday, the Office will accord and stamp the correspondence with the Saturday date. 37 CFR
1.6(a)(2). If the proper procedures were not followed, the application will receive a filing date as of the date it was received in the Office. Any review of these matters would be by way of petition, accompanied by the petition fee (37 CFR 1.17(f)), providing whatever arguments and evidence petitioner has that the application is entitled to a filing date as of the date it was deposited as Priority
Mail Express®. See MPEP § 513.
Petitions relating to the filing date accorded to patent applications under 37 CFR 1.53 are decided in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy (See MPEP § 1002.02(b)).
Any petition under this section should be marked to the attention of the Office of Petitions.
507 Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing [R-07.2015]
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) performs an initial review of drawings in new utility and plant patent applications to determine whether the drawings can be effectively scanned for publication purposes. Design applications are not published, and drawings filed in design patent applications are not reviewed by OPAP for publication purposes. The standard of review employed by OPAP is such that most drawings, including those that have been indicated by applicant to be "informal drawings," will be acceptable.
OPAP inspects the drawings to see if they can be effectively scanned and adequately reproduced. If the drawings are not acceptable, OPAP will object to the drawings and notify applicant that a timely submission of acceptable drawings (e.g., drawings which can be scanned) is required.
Under the OPAP review process, OPAP may object to and require corrected drawings within a set time period, if the drawings:
(A) have a line quality that is too light to be reproduced (weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction) or text that is illegible (reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible). See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(1);
500-66Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 507
(B) have missing lead lines. See 37 CFR 1.84(q). Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to;
(C) contain excessive text or text that is not in English (including, for example, a flow chart that was originally not in English that has been marked up to include the English text). See 37 CFR 1.84(o) and (p)(2) and 37 CFR 1.52(d);
(D) do not have the appropriate margin or are not on the correct size paper. See 37 CFR 1.84(f) and (g). Each sheet must include a top margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a left size margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a right size margin of at least 1.5 cm. (5/8 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 1.0 cm. (3/8 inch). The size of the sheets on which drawings are made must be either 21.0 cm. by 29.7 cm. (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm. by 27.9 cm. (8-1/2 by 11 inches);
(E) have more than one figure and each figure is not labeled “Fig.” with a consecutive Arabic numeral (1, 2, etc.) or an Arabic numeral and capital letter in the English alphabet (A, B, etc.). See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1);
(F) include photographs of the claimed invention which are capable of illustration by other medium such as ink drawings, and which are illegible after scanning. See 37 CFR 1.84(b); and
(G) contain color drawings or color photographs, but not a petition to accept color drawings/ photographs. Note that the requirement for a black and white photocopy of any color drawings/photographs has been eliminated.
If OPAP objects to the drawings and sends applicant a Notice requiring submission of corrected drawings within a set time period (usually two months), corrected drawings must be filed, in paper, to the mailing address set forth in the Notice, along with any other items required by OPAP, to avoid abandonment of the application. No fee will be necessary for filing corrected drawings which are required by OPAP. Otherwise, in most situations, patent application publications and patents will reflect the quality of the drawings that are included with a patent application on filing unless applicant
voluntarily submits better quality drawings as set forth in MPEP § 1121.
508 Distribution [R-07.2015]
All applications are electronically scanned and loaded into the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system upon filing. Once documents are loaded into the IFW system, examiners, technical support staff, and other Office personnel will perform further processing and examination using the IFW system.
For handling of models, exhibits, and specimen, see MPEP §§ 608.03 and 608.03(a).
508.01 [Reserved]
508.02 Papers Received After Patenting or Abandonment [R-08.2012]
After an application is patented or abandoned, any incoming communication which is not to become part of the record will be returned to the sender. If a paper has been scanned into the IFW, “return” of the paper will be accomplished by the Office closing it in IFW.
508.03 [Reserved]
508.04 Unlocatable Patent or Application Files [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.251 Unlocatable file.
(a) In the event that the Office cannot locate the file of an application, patent, or other patent-related proceeding after a reasonable search, the Office will notify the applicant or patentee and set a time period within which the applicant or patentee must comply with the notice in accordance with one of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section.
(1) Applicant or patentee may comply with a notice under this section by providing:
(i) A copy of the applicant’s or patentee’s record (if any) of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding (except for U.S. patent documents);
(ii) A list of such correspondence; and
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-67
§ 508.04RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(iii) A statement that the copy is a complete and accurate copy of the applicant’s or patentee’s record of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding (except for U.S. patent documents), and whether applicant or patentee is aware of any correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding that is not among applicant’s or patentee’s records.
(2) Applicant or patentee may comply with a notice under this section by:
(i) Producing the applicant’s or patentee’s record (if any) of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding for the Office to copy (except for U.S. patent documents); and
(ii) Providing a statement that the papers produced by applicant or patentee are applicant’s or patentee’s complete record of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding (except for U.S. patent documents), and whether applicant or patentee is aware of any correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding that is not among applicant’s or patentee’s records.
(3) If applicant or patentee does not possess any record of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding, applicant or patentee must comply with a notice under this section by providing a statement that applicant or patentee does not possess any record of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding.
(b) With regard to a pending application, failure to comply with one of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section within the time period set in the notice will result in abandonment of the application.
37 CFR 1.251 sets forth a procedure for the reconstruction of the file of a patent application, patent, or any other patent-related proceeding that cannot be located after a reasonable search. The phrase “an application” in 37 CFR 1.251 applies to any type of application (national or international), and regardless of the status (pending or abandoned) of the application.
37 CFR 1.251(a) provides that in the event the Office cannot locate the file of an application, patent, or any other patent-related proceeding after a reasonable search, the Office will notify the applicant or patentee and set a time period within which the applicant or patentee must comply with the notice. The applicant or patentee may comply with a notice
under 37 CFR 1.251 by providing: (1) a copy of his or her record (if any) of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding (except for U.S. patent documents); (2) a list of such correspondence; and (3) a statement that the copy is a complete and accurate copy of the applicant’s or patentee’s record of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding (except for U.S. patent documents), and whether applicant or patentee is aware of any correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding that is not among applicant’s or patentee’s records (37 CFR 1.251(a)(1)). The applicant or patentee may also comply with a notice under 37 CFR 1.251 by: (1) producing his or her record (if any) of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding for the Office to copy (except for U.S. patent documents); and (2) providing a statement that the papers produced by applicant or patentee are applicant’s or patentee’s complete record of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding (except for U.S. patent documents), and whether applicant or patentee is aware of any correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding that is not among applicant’s or patentee’s records (37 CFR 1.251(a)(2)). If applicant or patentee does not possess any record of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding, the applicant or patentee must comply with a notice under 37 CFR 1.251 by providing a statement that applicant or patentee does not possess any record of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding (37 CFR 1.251(a)(3)).
According to 37 CFR 1.251(a), if the applicant or patentee possesses all or just some of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding, the applicant or patentee is to reply by providing a copy of (or producing) his or her record of all of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent,
500-68Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 508.04
or other proceeding (37 CFR 1.251(a)(1) or (a)(2)). If applicant or patentee does not possess any record of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for such application, patent, or other proceeding, the applicant or patentee is to reply with a statement to that effect (37 CFR 1.251(a)(3)).
If an applicant or patentee decides to produce his or her record of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for the application, patent, or other proceeding for copying by the Office under 37 CFR 1.251(a)(2) (rather than provide a copy under 37 CFR 1.251(a)(1)), the record should be brought to the Customer Service Center in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).
The Office will set a time period of three months for reply in a notice under 37 CFR 1.251 in an application. The time period will be extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a) (unless the notice indicates otherwise) by three months up to a maximum period for reply of six months in an application. See 35 U.S.C. 133. If, however, an applicant fails to reply to a notice under 37 CFR 1.251 within three months of its mailing date, any patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) will be reduced by a period equal to the number of days (if any) beginning on the day after the date that is three months after the mailing date of the notice under 37 CFR 1.251 and ending on the date the reply to the notice under 37 CFR 1.251 was filed. See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(C)(ii) and 37 CFR 1.704(b). The Office will set a time period of six months for reply in a notice under 37 CFR 1.251 in a patent. The time period will not be extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a) in a patent because 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(8) only authorizes the Office to charge fees for extensions of time in proceedings involving an application.
37 CFR 1.251 generally applies only to situations in which the file of an application or patent (not just certain documents) is unlocatable. When a document is missing from an application, Office practice is to call the applicant’s representative and request submission (generally by facsimile) of a copy of the missing document. While the Office will generally treat missing documents in this relatively informal manner (rather than issuing a notice under 37 CFR 1.251), the Office may issue a notice under 37 CFR 1.251 to obtain a copy of a missing document if the
Office’s informal attempts to obtain a copy of the document are unsuccessful. The notice under 37 CFR 1.251 will include a printout of the contents entries from the Office’s PALM system.
Any appendix or information disclosure statement submitted with an application is not contained in the Office’s database. Therefore, the applicant or patentee must also provide a copy of any appendix or information disclosure statement (except in the limited circumstance discussed below) submitted with the application. Since the Office can obtain copies of U.S. patent documents (U.S. patent application publications and patents) from its internal databases, the Office is not requiring applicants or patentees to provide copies of U.S. patent application publications and patents that are among the applicant’s or patentee’s record of the correspondence between the Office and the applicant or patentee for the application, patent, or other proceeding.
37 CFR 1.251(b) provides that with regard to a pending application, the failure to provide a reply to such a notice within the time period set in the notice will result in abandonment of the application. While abandonment (or expiration) of a patent is not an issue if a patentee fails to timely comply with a notice under 37 CFR 1.251, in such a situation the only certified copy of the patent file that the Office will be able to produce will be a copy of the patent and a copy of the application-as-filed (which may have an adverse impact during attempts to enforce the patent). In addition, if the patent is involved in a proceeding before the Office, the Office may take action under 37 CFR 41.128 or 37 CFR 11.18.
509 Payment of Fees [R-07.2015]
The latest fee schedule is available by contacting the USPTO at 1-800-PTO(786)-9199 or (571) 272-1000, or on the USPTO webpage at www.uspto.gov.
37 CFR 1.22 Fees payable in advance.
(a) Patent fees and charges payable to the United States Patent and Trademark Office are required to be paid in advance; that is, at the time of requesting any action by the Office for which a fee or charge is payable with the exception that under § 1.53 applications for patent may be assigned a filing date without payment of the basic filing fee.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-69
§ 509RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(b) All fees paid to the United States Patent and Trademark Office must be itemized in each individual application, patent, or other proceeding in such a manner that it is clear for which purpose the fees are paid. The Office may return fees that are not itemized as required by this paragraph. The provisions of § 1.5(a) do not apply to the resubmission of fees returned pursuant to this paragraph.
37 CFR 1.23 Method of payment.
(a) All payments of money required for United States Patent and Trademark Office fees, including fees for the processing of international applications (§ 1.445), shall be made in U.S. dollars and in the form of a cashier’s or certified check, Treasury note, national bank notes, or United States Postal Service money order. If sent in any other form, the Office may delay or cancel the credit until collection is made. Checks and money orders must be made payable to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Checks made payable to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks will continue to be accepted.) Payments from foreign countries must be payable and immediately negotiable in the United States for the full amount of the fee required. Money sent to the Office by mail will be at the risk of the sender, and letters containing money should be registered with the United States Postal Service.
(b) Payments of money required for United States Patent and Trademark Office fees may also be made by credit card, except for replenishing a deposit account. Payment of a fee by credit card must specify the amount to be charged to the credit card and such other information as is necessary to process the charge, and is subject to collection of the fee. The Office will not accept a general authorization to charge fees to a credit card. If credit card information is provided on a form or document other than a form provided by the Office for the payment of fees by credit card, the Office will not be liable if the credit card number becomes public knowledge.
(c) A fee transmittal letter may be signed by a juristic applicant or patent owner.
37 CFR 1.26 Refunds.
(a) The Director may refund any fee paid by mistake or in excess of that required. A change of purpose after the payment of a fee, such as when a party desires to withdraw a patent filing for which the fee was paid, including an application, an appeal, or a request for an oral hearing, will not entitle a party to a refund of such fee. The Office will not refund amounts of twenty-five dollars or less unless a refund is specifically requested, and will not notify the payor of such amounts. If a party paying a fee or requesting a refund does not provide the banking information necessary for making refunds by electronic funds transfer (31 U.S.C. 3332 and 31 CFR part 208), or instruct the Office that refunds are to be credited to a deposit account, the Director may require such information, or use the banking information on the payment instrument to make a refund. Any refund of a fee paid by credit card will be by a credit to the credit card account to which the fee was charged.
(b) Any request for refund must be filed within two years from the date the fee was paid, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph or in § 1.28(a). If the Office charges a deposit account by an amount other than an amount specifically indicated in an authorization (§ 1.25(b)), any request for refund
based upon such charge must be filed within two years from the date of the deposit account statement indicating such charge, and include a copy of that deposit account statement. The time periods set forth in this paragraph are not extendable.
(c) If the Director decides not to institute a reexamination proceeding in response to a request for reexamination or supplemental examination, fees paid with the request for reexamination or supplemental examination will be refunded or returned in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section. The reexamination requester or the patent owner who requested a supplemental examination proceeding, as appropriate, should indicate the form in which any refund should be made ( e.g., by check, electronic funds transfer, credit to a deposit account). Generally, refunds will be issued in the form that the original payment was provided.
(1) For an ex parte reexamination request, the ex parte reexamination filing fee paid by the reexamination requester, less the fee set forth in § 1.20(c)(7), will be refunded to the requester if the Director decides not to institute an ex parte reexamination proceeding.
(2) For an inter partes reexamination request, a refund of $7,970 will be made to the reexamination requester if the Director decides not to institute an inter partes reexamination proceeding.
(3) For a supplemental examination request, the fee for reexamination ordered as a result of supplemental examination, as set forth in § 1.20(k)(2), will be returned to the patent owner who requested the supplemental examination proceeding if the Director decides not to institute a reexamination proceeding.
Where the Office has notified an applicant, in writing, that a fee is due and has specified a particular dollar amount for that fee, if the applicant timely submits the specified fee amount in response to the notice, the applicant should be considered to have complied with the notice so as to avoid abandonment of the application. If the fee paid by the applicant is insufficient, either because the notice specified an incorrect dollar amount for the fee or because of a fee increase effective after the mailing of the notice and before payment of the fee by the applicant, the applicant should be notified in writing by the Office of the fee insufficiency and given a new time period in which to submit the remaining balance. The written notification of the fee insufficiency should set forth the reason (i.e., the fee amount indicated by the Office in the earlier notice was incorrect or the fees have increased since the earlier notice was mailed) why applicant is being required to submit an additional fee.
500-70Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509
I. ITEMIZATION AND APPLICATION OF FEES
37 CFR 1.22(b) sets forth that fees must be itemized in such a manner that it is clear for which purpose fees are paid. The Office may return fees that are not itemized. The intent of the fee itemization requirement is to encourage a better explanation by applicants of how fees being paid are to be applied by the Office. This will allow Office employees to properly account for the fees being paid by applicants. It should be noted that the language of 37 CFR 1.22 is not intended to create a problem when it is clear what fee is needed. A reference to “filing fee(s)” would be sufficient to cover filing fees (including search and examination fees) of all different types of applications and all types of claims. Further, in a paper submitted on a date later than the actual filing date, the reference to “filing fee(s)” would also be sufficient to cover the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16, as the surcharge is also required to make the application complete. A reference to “any corresponding fee under 37 CFR 1.16” would be sufficient to cover any fee (e.g., surcharge, application size fee, excess claims fees) under 37 CFR 1.16. In a petition for an extension of time filed without a specifically itemized fee, but with a general authorization to charge a deposit account, it is clear that a fee for an extension of time is needed and the deposit account should be charged the appropriate extension of time fee.
In situations in which a payment submitted for the fees due on filing in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is insufficient and the applicant has not specified the fees to which the payment is to be applied, the Office will apply the payment in the following order until the payment is expended:
(1) the basic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(a), (b), (c), or (e));
(2) the non-electronic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(t));
(3) the application size fee (37 CFR 1.16(s));
(4) the late filing surcharge (37 CFR 1.16(f));
(5) the processing fee for an application filed in a language other than English (37 CFR 1.17(i));
(6) the search fee (37 CFR 1.16(k), (l), (m), or (n));
(7) the examination fee (37 CFR 1.16(o), (p), (q), or (r)); and
(8) the excess claims fee (37 CFR 1.16(h), (i), and (j)).
In situations in which a payment submitted for the fees due on filing in a provisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) is insufficient and the applicant has not specified the fees to which the payment is to be applied, the Office will apply the payment in the following order until the payment is expended:
(1) the basic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(d));
(2) the application size fee (37 CFR 1.16(s)); and
(3) the late filing surcharge (37 CFR 1.16(g)).
See also MPEP § 607.
II. PAYMENT BY CREDIT CARD
37 CFR 1.23 permits payment of any patent process fee, trademark process fee, or information product fee by credit card, subject to actual collection of the fee. The Office currently accepts charges to the following credit cards: AMERICAN EXPRESS®, DISCOVER®, MASTER CARD®, and VISA®.
Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038) should be used when paying a patent process or trademark process fee (or the fee for an information product) by credit card, unless the payment is being made using the Office’s electronic filing systems. The credit card payment form is not required (and should not be used) when making a credit card payment via EFS-Web or other electronic filing systems. Form PTO-2038 may be downloaded at w w w. u s p t o . g o v / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / fi l e s / documents/PTO-2038.pdf. The Office will not include the Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038) among the records open to public inspection in the file of a patent, trademark registration, or other proceeding. The Office does not require customers to use this form when paying a patent process or trademark process fee by credit card. If a customer provides a credit card charge authorization in another form or document (e.g., a communication relating to the patent or trademark), the credit card information may become part of the record of an
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-71
§ 509RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Office file that is open to public inspection. Thus, failure to use the Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038) when submitting a credit card payment may result in the credit card information becoming part of the record of an Office file that is open to public inspection.
Credit card payments by facsimile are permitted, except in situations in which facsimile submission of correspondence is not permitted in 37 CFR 1.6(d). Credit card payments that are not being made via the Office’s electronic filing systems (e.g., EFS-Web, the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS), or the Finance On-line Shopping Web page for patent maintenance fees), may only be submitted with a handwritten signature personally signed in permanent dark ink or its equivalent by that person. See 37 CFR 1.4(e). Such payments may not be signed using an S-signature as provided for in 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2). A handwritten signature is required (i.e., an S-signature is not permitted) only when the credit card payment is being made in paper and thus the Office’s Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038), or an equivalent, is being used. A credit card payment via facsimile is considered a paper submission and requires a handwritten signature. Form PTO-2038 (or an equivalent) should not be filed via EFS-Web.
35 U.S.C. 42(d) and 37 CFR 1.26 (which concern refund of patent and trademark fees) also apply to requests for refund of fees paid by credit card. Any refund of a fee paid by credit card will be by a credit to the credit card account to which the fee was charged. See 37 CFR 1.26(a).
See MPEP § 607.02 for returnability of fees.
Any payment of a patent process or trademark process fee by credit card must be in writing (see 37 CFR 1.2), and preferably submitted via the appropriate Office electronic filing system, or if filed in paper, on the Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038). If a Credit Card Payment Form or other
document authorizing the Office to charge a patent process or trademark process fee to a credit card does not contain the information necessary to charge the fee to the credit card, the customer must submit a revised Credit Card Payment Form or document containing the necessary information. Office employees will not accept oral (telephonic) instructions to complete the Credit Card Payment Form or otherwise charge a patent process or trademark process fee (as opposed to information product or service fees) to a credit card.
Credit card payment submissions made on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov must include the 3-digit or 4-digit security code associated with the credit card in addition to the credit card number. The security code will not be required when the paper Credit Card Payment Form (PTO-2038) or other written authorization is submitted.
The security code is part of an authentication procedure established by credit card companies to further efforts towards reducing fraudulent or unauthorized credit card use for Internet payment transactions. The security code must be entered at the time of the Internet payment transaction to verify that the physical card is in the cardholder’s possession. The security code appears on all major credit cards and is not part of the credit card number itself. Each credit card company has its own name for the security code (such as CVV, CVV2, CVC2 or CID), but it functions the same for all major card types.
On DISCOVER®, MASTERCARD®, and VISA® credit cards, the security codes is a 3-digit code that is printed on the back of the card, often following the credit card number digits. For AMERICAN EXPRESS® credit cards, the security code is a 4-digit code that is printed on the front of the cards. If you cannot read the security code, you will have to contact the financial institution that issued your credit card.
500-72Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-73
§ 509RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
500-74Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-75
§ 509RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
509.01 Deposit Accounts [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.25 Deposit accounts.
(a) For the convenience of attorneys, and the general public in paying any fees due, in ordering services offered by the Office, copies of records, etc., deposit accounts may be established in the Patent and Trademark Office upon payment of the fee for establishing a deposit account § 1.21(b)(1). A minimum deposit of $1,000 is required for paying any fee due or in ordering any services offered by the Office. However, a minimum deposit of $300 may be paid to establish a restricted subscription deposit account used exclusively for subscription order of patent copies as issued. At the end of each month, a deposit account statement will be rendered. A remittance must be made promptly upon receipt of the statement to cover the value of items or services charged to the account and thus restore the account to its established normal deposit value. An amount sufficient to cover all fees, services, copies, etc., requested must always be on deposit. Charges to accounts with insufficient funds will not be accepted. A service charge (§ 1.21(b)(2)) will be assessed for each month that the balance at the end of the month is below $1,000. For restricted subscription deposit accounts, a service charge (§ 1.21(b)(3)) will be assessed for each month that the balance at the end of the month is below $300.
(b) Filing, issue, appeal, international-type search report, international application processing, international design application fees, petition, and post-issuance fees may be charged against these accounts if sufficient funds are on deposit to cover such fees. A general authorization to charge all fees, or only certain fees, set forth in §§ 1.16 through 1.18 to a deposit account containing sufficient funds may be filed in an individual application, either for the entire pendency of the application or with a particular paper filed. A general authorization to charge fees in an international design application set forth in § 1.1031 will only be effective for the transmittal fee (§ 1.1031(a)). An authorization to charge fees under § 1.16 in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be treated as an authorization to charge fees under § 1.492. An authorization to charge fees set forth in § 1.18 to a deposit account is subject to the provisions of § 1.311(b). An authorization to charge to a deposit account the fee for a request for reexamination pursuant to § 1.510 or 1.913 and any other fees required in a reexamination proceeding in a patent may also be filed with the request for reexamination, and an authorization to charge to a deposit account the fee for a request for supplemental examination pursuant to § 1.610 and any other fees required in a supplemental examination proceeding in a patent may also be filed with the request for supplemental examination. An authorization to charge a fee to a deposit account will not be considered payment of the fee on the date the authorization to charge the fee is effective as to the particular fee to be charged unless sufficient funds are present in the account to cover the fee.
(c) A deposit account holder may replenish the deposit account by submitting a payment to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A payment to replenish a deposit account must be submitted by one of the methods set forth in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) of this section.
(1) A payment to replenish a deposit account may be submitted by electronic funds transfer through the Federal Reserve Fedwire System, which requires that the following information be provided to the deposit account holder’s bank or financial institution:
(i) Name of the Bank, which is Treas NYC (Treasury New York City);
(ii) Bank Routing Code, which is 021030004;
(iii) United States Patent and Trademark Office account number with the Department of the Treasury, which is 13100001; and
(iv) The deposit account holder’s company name and deposit account number.
(2) A payment to replenish a deposit account may be submitted by electronic funds transfer over the Office’s Internet website (www.uspto.gov).
(3) A payment to replenish a deposit account may be addressed to: Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Attn: Deposit Accounts, 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
An overdrawn account will be immediately suspended and no charges will be accepted against it until a proper balance is restored, together with a payment of $10 (37 CFR 1.21(b)(1)) to cover the work done by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office incident to suspending and reinstating the account and dealing with charges which may have been made in the meantime.
If there is an authorization to charge the basic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)) to a deposit account which is overdrawn or has insufficient funds, a surcharge (37 CFR 1.16(f)) is required in addition to payment of the basic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)). For applications filed on or after July 1, 2005, which have been accorded a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (d), if there is an authorization to charge any of the basic filing fee, the search fee, or the examination fee to a deposit account which is overdrawn or has insufficient funds, a surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) is required in addition to payment of the required fee(s). Failure to timely pay the filing fee and surcharge will result in abandonment of the application.
It is expected, however, that reasonable precautions will be taken in all cases to avoid overdrafts, and if an account is suspended repeatedly it will be closed.
500-76Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.01
Similarly, because of the burden placed on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office incident to the operation of deposit accounts, a charge of $10 (37 CFR 1.21(b)(1)) will be made for opening each new account.
I. DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AUTHORIZATIONS
37 CFR 1.25(b) states that:
A general authorization to charge all fees, or only certain fees, set forth in §§ 1.16 to 1.18 to a deposit account containing sufficient funds may be filed in an individual application, either for the entire pendency of the application or with respect to a particular paper filed.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.311(b), an authorization to charge the issue fee (37 CFR 1.18) to a deposit account may be filed in an individual application only after the mailing of the notice of allowance. 37 CFR 1.25(b) also makes clear that a general authorization made prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance does not apply to issue fees under 37 CFR 1.18.
In addition, a general authorization does not apply to document supply fees under 37 CFR 1.19, such as those required for certified copies, to post issuance fees under 37 CFR 1.20, such as those required for maintenance fees, or to miscellaneous fees and charges under 37 CFR 1.21, such as assignment recording fees.
Many applications contain broad language authorizing any additional fees which might have been due to be charged to a deposit account. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will interpret such broad authorizations to include authorization to charge to a deposit account fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.16, and 1.17. Fees under 37 CFR 1.19, 1.20, and 1.21 will not be charged as a result of a general authorization under 37 CFR 1.25 except to cover the processing fee under 37 CFR 1.21(m) in the event a check or credit card payment is refused or charged back by a financial institution. Fees under 37 CFR 1.18 will not be charged as a result of a preauthorization of issue fee payment.
An authorization to charge fees relating only to a specific paper, could read “The Director is hereby authorized to charge any fees under 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.17 which may be required by this paper to Deposit Account No.________.” Such an authorization would cover situations in which a check to cover a filing and/or a processing fee under 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.17 was omitted or was for an amount less than the amount required. An authorization covering any omission or deficiency in a check or credit card payment applies to the processing fee under 37 CFR 1.21(m) in the event a check or credit card payment is refused or charged back by a financial institution, regardless of whether such deposit account authorization is limited to other fees (e.g., fees under 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.17). If a check or credit card payment for the issue fee is refused or charged back by a financial institution, the application may be held abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee within the statutory period for reply. See MPEP § 1306.
It is extremely important that the authorization be clear and unambiguous. If applicants file authorizations which are ambiguous and deviate from the usual forms of authorizations, the Office may not interpret the authorizations in the manner applicants intend and may return the fees. As a result, applicants could be subject to further expenses, petitions, etc. in order to have a particular fee charged to a deposit account (which was not charged as intended) or to resubmit a fee(s) due to an ambiguous authorization.
The Office will treat a deposit account authorization to charge “the filing fee” as an authorization to charge the following applicable fees under 37 CFR 1.16: basic filing fee; search fee; examination fee; any excess claims fees; any application size fee; and any non-electronic filing fee (see 37 CFR 1.16(t)). The Office will treat a deposit account authorization to charge “the basic filing fee” as an authorization to charge the following applicable fees under 37 CFR 1.16: basic filing fee; search fee; and examination fee. Any deposit account authorization to charge the filing fee but not the search fee or examination fee must specifically limit the authorization by reference to one or more paragraphs (a) - (e) of 37 CFR 1.16.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-77
§ 509.01RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
37 CFR 1.25(b) provides that an authorization to charge fees under 37 CFR 1.16 (which relates to national application filing fees) in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be treated as an authorization to charge fees under 37 CFR 1.492 (which relates to national stage fees). Papers filed for the purpose of entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 that include an authorization to charge fees under 37 CFR 1.16 are treated by the Office as an authorization to charge fees under 37 CFR 1.492 since: (1) timely payment of the appropriate national fee under 37 CFR 1.492 is necessary to avoid abandonment of the application as to the United States; and (2) the basic filing fee under 37 CFR 1.16 is not applicable to such papers or applications.
37 CFR 1.25(b) sets forth that fees in an international design application may be charged to a deposit account. A general authorization to charge fees in an international design application set forth in 37 CFR 1.1031 will only be effective for the transmittal fee (37 CFR 1.1031(a)). The international fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.1031, other than the transmittal fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.1031(a), are not required to be paid to the Office as an office of indirect filing. See 37 CFR 1.1031(d).
II. DEPOSIT ACCOUNT REPLENISHMENTS
37 CFR 1.25(c) specifies how a deposit account holder may submit a payment to the Office to replenish the deposit account. A payment to replenish a deposit account may be submitted by:
(A) making the payment by electronic funds transfer through the Federal Reserve Fedwire System. Deposit account holders who use the Federal Reserve Fedwire System must provide the following information to their bank or financial institution: (1) Name of the Bank, which is Treas NYC (Treasury New York City); (2) Bank Routing Code, which is 021030004; (3) United States Patent and Trademark Office account number with the Department of Treasury, which is 13100001; and (4) the deposit account holder’s company name and deposit account number. The deposit account holder should inform his or her bank or financial institution to use due care to ensure that all pertinent account numbers are listed on the transaction because the failure to
include the proper deposit account number will delay the processing of the replenishment;
(B) electronic funds transfer over the Office’s Internet website (www.uspto.gov); or
(C) mailing the payment to: Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Attn: Deposit Accounts, 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314.
In the event a payment to replenish a deposit account is refused (e.g., for insufficient funds or due to a stop payment order), the fee under 37 CFR 1.21(m) for processing the payment refusal will be charged to the deposit account. Further information on deposit account replenishment may be obtained from the Office’s Internet website or by contacting the Deposit Account Division at (571) 272-6500.
III. REFUNDS TO A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT
For refunds to a deposit account, see MPEP § 607.02.
509.02 Small Entity Status — Definitions [R-07.2015]
Under 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1), fees charged under 35 U.S.C. 41(a), (b) and (d)(1) shall be reduced by 50 percent with respect to their application to any small business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act, and to any independent inventor or nonprofit organization as defined in regulations issued by the Director. Effective March 19, 2013, the availability of the small entity discount was extended to certain other fees not contained in 35 U.S.C. 41(a), (b) and (d)(1), but which are included among fees “for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents” as authorized by Public Law 112-29, sec. 10(b), 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011)(Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)). Effective January 1, 2014, the small entity discount also becomes available to certain “filing, searching, [and] examining” fees for international applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Note that if applicant qualifies as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.27, applicant may also qualify for “Micro Entity Status” under 35 U.S.C. 123. See 37 CFR 1.29 and MPEP § 509.04 et seq. for the requirements to establish
500-78Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.02
micro entity status for the purpose of paying micro entity fees.
The fees which are reduced by 50% for small entities include patent application filing fees including the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, application size fee, and excess claims fees (37 CFR 1.16), extension of time, revival, and appeal fees (37 CFR 1.17), patent issue fees (37 CFR 1.18), and maintenance fees on patents (37 CFR 1.20). Fees which are reduced by 50% effective March 19, 2013, but which were previously not reduced, include certain petition fees, 37 CFR 1.17(f)-(h), the request for reexamination fees, 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1), the fee for submitting an information disclosure statement in certain time frames, 37 CFR 1.17(p), the surcharge for reinstating an expired patent, 37 CFR 1.20(i), and the fee for an unintentionally delayed claim for priority, 37 CFR 1.17(t). Fees which are reduced by 50% effective January 1, 2014, but which were previously not reduced, are certain PCT international stage fees, including the transmittal fee (37 CFR 1.445(a)(1)(i)(B)), the search fee (37 CFR 1.445(a)(2)(ii)) and the preliminary examination fee (37 CFR 1.482(a)(1)(i)(B)).
Fees which are not reduced include document supply fees, 37 CFR 1.19, certificate of correction fees, 37 CFR 1.20(a), and miscellaneous fees and charges, 37 CFR 1.21. There is only one fee for which a small entity discount was offered prior to March 19, 2013 that is now ineligible for a small entity discount – the fee for a statutory disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.20(d).
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, provides that the filing fee charged under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(A) shall be reduced by 75 percent with respect to its application to any small entity “if the application is filed by electronic means as prescribed by the Director” (35 U.S.C. 41(h)(3)). Therefore, the filing fee for a nonprovisional original utility application filed on or after December 8, 2004 by a small entity in compliance with the Office electronic filing system is reduced by 75 percent. See 37 CFR 1.16(a)(1). The 75 percent reduction set forth in 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(3) does not apply to design applications, plant applications, reissue applications, or provisional applications.
35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1) gives the Director the authority to establish regulations defining independent inventors and nonprofit organizations. The Small Business Administration was given authority to establish the definition of a small business concern. A small entity for purposes of paying reduced fees is defined in 37 CFR 1.27(a) as a person, a small business concern, or a nonprofit organization. The term “person” rather than “independent inventor” is used since individuals who are not inventors but who have received some rights in the invention are intended to be covered by 37 CFR 1.27.
37 CFR 1.27 Definition of small entities and establishing status as a small entity to permit payment of small entity fees; when a determination of entitlement to small entity status and notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status are required; fraud on the Office.
(a) Definition of small entities. A small entity as used in this chapter means any party (person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization) under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section.
(1) Person. A person, as used in paragraph (c) of this section, means any inventor or other individual ( e.g., an individual to whom an inventor has transferred some rights in the invention) who has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed, and is under no obligation under contract or law to assign, grant, convey, or license, any rights in the invention. An inventor or other individual who has transferred some rights in the invention to one or more parties, or is under an obligation to transfer some rights in the invention to one or more parties, can also qualify for small entity status if all the parties who have had rights in the invention transferred to them also qualify for small entity status either as a person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization under this section.
(2) Small business concern. A small business concern, as used in paragraph (c) of this section, means any business concern that:
(i) Has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed, and is under no obligation under contract or law to assign, grant, convey, or license, any rights in the invention to any person, concern, or organization which would not qualify for small entity status as a person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization; and
(ii) Meets the size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.801 through 121.805 to be eligible for reduced patent fees. Questions related to standards for a small business concern may be directed to: Small Business Administration, Size Standards Staff, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
(3) Nonprofit Organization. A nonprofit organization, as used in paragraph (c) of this section, means any nonprofit organization that:
(i) Has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed, and is under no obligation under contract or law to
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-79
§ 509.02RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
assign, grant, convey, or license, any rights in the invention to any person, concern, or organization which would not qualify as a person, small business concern, or a nonprofit organization; and
(ii) Is either:
(A) A university or other institution of higher education located in any country;
(B) An organization of the type described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 19 86 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(a));
(C) Any nonprofit scientific or educational organization qualified under a nonprofit organization statute of a state of this country (35 U.S.C. 201(i)); or
(D) Any nonprofit organization located in a foreign country which would qualify as a nonprofit organization under paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section or (a)(3)(ii)(C) of this section if it were located in this country.
(4) License to a Federal agency.
(i) For persons under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a license to the Government resulting from a rights determination under Executive Order 10096 does not constitute a license so as to prohibit claiming small entity status.
(ii) For small business concerns and nonprofit organizations under paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, a license to a Federal agency resulting from a funding agreement with that agency pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(4) does not constitute a license for the purposes of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(5) Security Interest. A security interest does not involve an obligation to transfer rights in the invention for the purposes of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section unless the security interest is defaulted upon.
*****
I. PERSON
37 CFR 1.27(a)(1) defines a person as any inventor or other individual (e.g., an individual to whom an inventor has transferred some rights in the invention), who has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed, and is under no obligation under contract or law to assign, grant, convey, or license, any rights in the invention. An inventor or other individual who has transferred some rights, or is under an obligation to transfer some rights in the invention to one or more parties, can also qualify for small entity status if all the parties who have had rights in the invention transferred to them also qualify for small entity status either as a person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization.
II. SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN
In order to be eligible for reduced patent fees as a “small business concern” under 37 CFR 1.27(a)(2), a business concern must meet the standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.801 through 121.805. Questions relating to standards for a small business concern may be directed to:
Small Business Administration Office of Size Standards 409 Third Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20416 (202)205-6618Email: sizestandards@sba.gov
III. NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
37 CFR 1.27(a)(3) defines a nonprofit organization by utilizing and interpreting the definition contained in 35 U.S.C. 201(i). The term “university or other institution of higher education” as used in 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3)(ii)(A) means an educational institution which
(A) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate,
(B) is legally authorized within the jurisdiction in which it operates to provide a program of education beyond secondary education,
(C) provides an educational program for which it awards a bachelor’s degree or provides not less than a 2-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree,
(D) is a public or other nonprofit institution, and
(E) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time.
The definition of “university or other institution of higher education” as set forth herein essentially follows the definition of “institution of higher
500-80Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.02
education” contained in 20 U.S.C. 1000. Institutions which are strictly research facilities, manufacturing facilities, service organizations, etc., are not intended to be included within the term “other institution of higher education” even though such institutions may perform an educational function or publish the results of their work.
Nonprofit organizations also include organizations of the type described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) and which are exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a). Organizations described in 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) include corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation (limited exceptions may apply under 26 U.S.C. 501(h)) and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
IV. LOCATION OF SMALL ENTITY
Small entities may claim reduced fees regardless of the country in which they are located. There is no restriction requiring that the person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization be located in the United States. The same definitions apply to all applicants equally in accordance with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
V. RIGHTS IN THE INVENTION AND TRANSFER OF RIGHTS
The “rights in the invention” under 37 CFR 1.27(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(3)(i) are the rights in the United States. Rights in the invention include the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout
the United States or importing the invention into the United States. Therefore, for example, status as a small entity is lost by an inventor who has transferred or has an obligation to transfer a shop right to an employer who could not qualify as a small entity.
Individual inventors (37 CFR 1.27(a)(1)), small business concerns (37 CFR 1.27(a)(2)), and nonprofit organizations (37 CFR 1.27(a)(3)) can make an assignment, grant, conveyance, or license of partial rights in the invention to another individual(s), small business concern, or nonprofit organization who could qualify as a person (37 CFR 1.27(a)(1)), small business concern, or nonprofit organization. Under the circumstances described, the individual inventor, small business concern, or nonprofit organization could still qualify for small entity status. However, if the individual inventor, small business concern, or nonprofit organization assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed, or came under an obligation to assign, grant, convey, or license, any rights to the invention to any individual, small business concern, or nonprofit organization which would not qualify as a small entity (37 CFR 1.27(a)), then the inventor, small business concern, or nonprofit organization would no longer qualify for small entity status.
With regard to transfer of rights in the invention, the rights in question are those in the United States to be covered by an application or patent. Transfer of rights to a Japanese patent, for example, would not affect small entity status if no rights in the United States to a corresponding patent were likewise transferred.
The payment of reduced fees under 35 U.S.C. 41 is limited to those situations in which all of the rights in the invention are owned by small entities, i.e., persons, small business concerns, or nonprofit organizations. To do otherwise would be clearly contrary to the intended purpose of the legislation which contains no indication that fees are to be reduced in circumstances where rights are owned by non-small entities. For example, a non-small entity is not permitted to transfer patent rights to a small business concern which would pay the reduced fees and grant a license to the entity.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-81
§ 509.02RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
If rights transferred to a non-small entity are later returned to a small entity so that all rights are held by small entities, reduced fees may be claimed.
The term “license” in the definitions includes nonexclusive as well as exclusive licenses and royalty free as well as royalty generating licenses. Implied licenses to use and resell patented articles purchased from a small entity, however, will not preclude the proper claiming of small entity status. Likewise, an order by an applicant to a firm to build a prototype machine or product for the applicant’s own use is not considered to constitute a license for purposes of the definitions. A grant of a non-exclusive license to a non-small entity will disqualify applicant from claiming small entity status. See Ulead Systems, Inc. v. Lex Computer & Management Corp., 351 F.3d 1139, 1142, 69 USPQ2d 1097, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
A security interest does not involve an obligation to transfer rights in the invention for the purposes of 37 CFR 1.27(a)(1) through (a)(3) unless the security interest is defaulted upon. See 37 CFR 1.27(a)(5). For example, an applicant or patentee may take out a loan from a large entity banking institution and the loan may be secured with rights in a patent application or patent of the applicant or patentee, respectively. The granting of such a security interest to the banking institution is not a currently enforceable obligation to assign, grant, convey, or license any rights in the invention to the banking institution. Only if the loan is defaulted upon will the security interest permit a transfer of rights in the application or patent to the banking institution. Thus, where the banking institution is a large entity, the applicant or patentee would not be prohibited from claiming small entity status merely because the banking institution has been granted a security interest, but if the loan is defaulted upon, there would be a loss of entitlement to small entity status. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.27(g), notification of the loss of entitlement due to default on the terms of the security interest would need to be filed in the application or patent prior to paying, or at the time of paying, the earliest of the issue fee or any maintenance fee due after the date on which small entity status is no longer appropriate. See MPEP § 509.03, subsection VII. Removal of Status.
Once small entity status is established in an application or patent, fees as a small entity may thereafter be paid in that application or patent without regard to a change in status until the issue fee is due or any maintenance fee is due. 37 CFR 1.27(g)(1). 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2) requires that notification of any change in status resulting in loss of entitlement to small entity status be filed in the application or patent prior to paying, or at the time of paying, the earliest of the issue fee or any maintenance fee due after the date on which status as a small entity is no longer appropriate. 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2) also requires that the notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status be in the form of a specific written assertion to that extent, rather than only payment of a non-small entity fee. For example, when paying the issue fee in an application that has previously been accorded small entity status and the required new determination of continued entitlement to small entity status reveals that status has been lost, applicant should not just simply pay the non-small entity issue fee or cross out the recitation of small entity status on Part B of the Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due (PTOL-85), but should (A) check the appropriate box on Part B of the PTOL-85 form to indicate that there has been a change in entity status and applicant is no longer claiming small entity status, and (B) pay the fee amount for a non-small entity.
VI. RIGHTS HELD BY GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Also, although the Federal government agencies do not qualify as nonprofit organizations for paying reduced fees under the rules, a license to a Federal agency resulting from a funding agreement with the agency pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(4) will not preclude the proper claiming of small entity status. Furthermore, a license to the Government resulting from a rights determination under Executive Order 10096 does not constitute a license so as to prohibit claiming small entity status by a person under 37 CFR 1.27(a)(1).
Public Law 96-517 added a new chapter 18 of Title 35 of the United States Code entitled “Patent Rights in Inventions Made With Federal Assistance.” Under the provisions of the statute, each funding agreement between a Federal agency and an individual, small
500-82Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.02
business firm, or nonprofit organization must provide, inter alia, that “. . . the Federal agency shall have a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced for or on behalf of the United States any subject invention . . .” See 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(4). The Federal agencies do not qualify as nonprofit organizations for paying reduced patent fees under the rules. Applying this construction to the licensing of an invention to a Federal agency by a person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization pursuant to a funding agreement under 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(4) would preclude their qualifying for paying reduced fees. This, however, would frustrate the intent of Public Law 97-247 and Public Law 96-517 when taken together.
Government organizations as such, whether domestic or foreign, cannot qualify as nonprofit organizations as defined in 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3). Thus, for example, a government research facility or other government-owned corporation could not qualify. 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3) was based upon 35 U.S.C. 201(i), as established by Public Law 96-517. The limitation to “an organization of the type described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(a))” would by its nature exclude the U.S. government and its agencies and facilities, including research facilities and government corporations. State and foreign governments and governmental agencies and facilities would be similarly excluded. 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3) is not intended to include within the definition of a nonprofit organization government organizations of any kind located in any country. A university or other institution of higher education located in any country would qualify, however, as a “nonprofit organization” under 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3) even though it has some government affiliation since such institutions are specifically included.
A wholly owned subsidiary of a nonprofit organization or of a university is considered a part
of the nonprofit organization or university and is not precluded from qualifying for small entity status.
509.03 Claiming Small Entity Status [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.27 Definition of small entities and establishing status as a small entity to permit payment of small entity fees; when a determination of entitlement to small entity status and notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status are required; fraud on the Office.
*****
(b) Establishment of small entity status permits payment of reduced fees.
(1) A small entity, as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, who has properly asserted entitlement to small entity status pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section will be accorded small entity status by the Office in the particular application or patent in which entitlement to small entity status was asserted. Establishment of small entity status allows the payment of certain reduced patent fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1).
(2) Submission of an original utility application in compliance with the Office electronic filing system by an applicant who has properly asserted entitlement to small entity status pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section in that application allows the payment of a reduced filing fee pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(3).
(c) Assertion of small entity status. Any party (person, small business concern or nonprofit organization) should make a determination, pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, of entitlement to be accorded small entity status based on the definitions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, and must, in order to establish small entity status for the purpose of paying small entity fees, actually make an assertion of entitlement to small entity status, in the manner set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(3) of this section, in the application or patent in which such small entity fees are to be paid.
(1) Assertion by writing. Small entity status may be established by a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. A written assertion must:
(i) Be clearly identifiable;
(ii) Be signed (see paragraph (c)(2) of this section); and
(iii) Convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status, such as by stating that applicant is a small entity, or that small entity status is entitled to be asserted for the application or patent. While no specific words or wording are required to assert small entity status, the intent to assert small entity status must be clearly indicated in order to comply with the assertion requirement.
*****
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-83
§ 509.03RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(3) Assertion by payment of the small entity basic filing, basic transmittal, basic national fee, international search fee, or individual designation fee in an international design application. The payment, by any party, of the exact amount of one of the small entity basic filing fees set forth in § 1.16(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), the small entity transmittal fee set forth in§ 1.445(a)(1), the small entity international search fee set forth in § 1.445(a)(2) to a Receiving Office other than the United States Receiving Office in the exact amount established for that Receiving Office pursuant to PCT Rule 16, or the small entity basic national fee set forth in § 1.492(a), will be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status even if the type of basic filing, basic transmittal, or basic national fee is inadvertently selected in error. The payment, by any party, of the small entity first part of the individual designation fee for the United States to the International Bureau (§ 1.1031) will be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status.
(i) If the Office accords small entity status based on payment of a small entity basic filing or basic national fee under paragraph (c)(3) of this section that is not applicable to that application, any balance of the small entity fee that is applicable to that application will be due along with the appropriate surcharge set forth in § 1.16(f), or § 1.16(g).
(ii) The payment of any small entity fee other than those set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of this section (whether in the exact fee amount or not) will not be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status and will not be sufficient to establish small entity status in an application or a patent.
(4) Assertion required in related, continuing, and reissue applications. Status as a small entity must be specifically established by an assertion in each related, continuing and reissue application in which status is appropriate and desired. Status as a small entity in one application or patent does not affect the status of any other application or patent, regardless of the relationship of the applications or patents. The refiling of an application under § 1.53 as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application (including a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d)), or the filing of a reissue application, requires a new assertion as to continued entitlement to small entity status for the continuing or reissue application.
(d) When small entity fees can be paid. Any fee, other than the small entity basic filing fees and the small entity national fees of paragraph (c)(3) of this section, can be paid in the small entity amount only if it is submitted with, or subsequent to, the submission of a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status, except when refunds are permitted by § 1.28(a).
(e) Only one assertion required.
(1) An assertion of small entity status need only be filed once in an application or patent. Small entity status, once established, remains in effect until changed pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section. Where an assignment of rights or an obligation to assign rights to other parties who are small entities occurs subsequent to an assertion of small entity status, a second assertion is not required.
(2) Once small entity status is withdrawn pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this section, a new written assertion is required to again obtain small entity status.
(f) Assertion requires a determination of entitlement to pay small entity fees. Prior to submitting an assertion of entitlement to small entity status in an application, including a related, continuing, or reissue application, a determination of such entitlement should be made pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. It should be determined that all parties holding rights in the invention qualify for small entity status. The Office will generally not question any assertion of small entity status that is made in accordance with the requirements of this section, but note paragraph (h) of this section.
(g)(1) New determination of entitlement to small entity status is needed when issue and maintenance fees are due. Once status as a small entity has been established in an application or patent, fees as a small entity may thereafter be paid in that application or patent without regard to a change in status until the issue fee is due or any maintenance fee is due.
(2) Notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status is required when issue and maintenance fees are due. Notification of a loss of entitlement to small entity status must be filed in the application or patent prior to paying, or at the time of paying, the earliest of the issue fee or any maintenance fee due after the date on which status as a small entity as defined in paragraph (a) of this section is no longer appropriate. The notification that small entity status is no longer appropriate must be signed by a party identified in § 1.33(b). Payment of a fee in other than the small entity amount is not sufficient notification that small entity status is no longer appropriate.
(h) Fraud attempted or practiced on the Office.
(1) Any attempt to fraudulently establish status as a small entity, or pay fees as a small entity, shall be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office.
(2) Improperly, and with intent to deceive, establishing status as a small entity, or paying fees as a small entity, shall be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office.
37 CFR 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature requirements.
*****
(d) *****
(4) Certifications.
(i) Certification as to the paper presented. The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 11.18(b) of this subchapter. Violations of § 11.18(b)(2) of this subchapter by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) of this subchapter. Any practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this subchapter may also be subject to disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) of this subchapter.
500-84Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.03
(ii) Certification as to the signature. The person inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section in a document submitted to the Office certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is his or her own signature. A person submitting a document signed by another under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the person whose signature is present on the document was actually inserted by that person, and should retain evidence of authenticity of the signature. Violations of the certification as to the signature of another or a person’s own signature as set forth in this paragraph may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) and (d) of this chapter.
*****
37 CFR 11.18 Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Office.
*****
(b) By presenting to the Office or hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) any paper, the party presenting such paper, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, is certifying that—
(1) All statements made therein of the party’s own knowledge are true, all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to be true, and all statements made therein are made with the knowledge that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Office, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or knowingly and willfully makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be subject to the penalties set forth under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and any other applicable criminal statute, and violations of the provisions of this section may jeopardize the probative value of the paper; and
(2) To the best of the party’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
(i) The paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass someone or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office;
(ii) The other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(iii) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(iv) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
*****
In order to establish small entity status for the purpose of paying small entity fees, any party (person, small business concern or nonprofit organization) must make an assertion of entitlement to small entity status in the manner set forth in 37 CFR 1.27(c)(1) or (c)(3), in the application or patent in which such small entity fees are to be paid. Under 37 CFR 1.27, as long as all of the rights remain in small entities, the fees established for a small entity can be paid. This includes circumstances where the rights were divided between a person, a small business concern, and a nonprofit organization, or any combination thereof.
Under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4), an assertion of entitlement to small entity status, including the mere payment of an exact small entity basic filing fee, inherently contains a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b). It is not required that an assertion of entitlement to small entity status be filed with each fee paid. Rather, once status as a small entity has been established in an application or patent, fees as a small entity may thereafter be paid in that application or patent without regard to a change in status until the issue fee is due or any maintenance fee is due. 37 CFR 1.27(g)(1). Notification of a loss of entitlement to small entity status must be filed in the application or patent prior to paying, or at the time of paying, the earliest of the issue fee or any maintenance fee due after the date on which status as a small entity is no longer appropriate. 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2).
Status as a small entity may be established in a provisional application by complying with 37 CFR 1.27.
Status as a small entity must be specifically established in each application or patent in which the status is available and desired. Status as a small entity in one application or patent does not affect any other application or patent, including applications or patents which are directly or indirectly dependent upon the application or patent in which the status has been established. The filing of an application under 37 CFR 1.53 as a continuation-in-part, continuation or division (including a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) for design applications), or the filing of a reissue application requires a new assertion as to continued entitlement to small entity status for
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-85
§ 509.03RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
the continuing or reissue application. Submission of a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 does not require a new determination or assertion of entitlement to small entity status since it is not a new application.
Examiners may use the following form paragraph to notify applicant that he or she may qualify for small entity status.
¶ 5.05 Small Entity Status
This application may qualify for “Small Entity Status” and, therefore, applicant may be entitled to the payment of reduced fees. In order to establish small entity status for the purpose of paying small entity fees, applicant must make a determination of entitlement to small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27(f) and make an assertion of entitlement to small entity status in the manner set forth in 37 CFR 1.27(c)(1) or 37 CFR 1.27(c)(3). Accordingly, if applicant meets the requirements of 37 CFR 1.27(a), applicant must submit a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27(c) before fees can be paid in the small entity amount. See 37 CFR 1.27(d). The assertion must be signed, clearly identifiable, and convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status. See 37 CFR 1.27(c)(1). No particular form is required. If applicant qualifies as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.27, applicant may also qualify for “Micro Entity Status” under 35 U.S.C. 123. See 37 CFR 1.29 for the requirements to establish micro entity status for the purpose of paying micro entity fees.
I. ASSERTION BY WRITING
Small entity status may be established by the submission of a simple written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. The assertion must be signed, clearly identifiable, and convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status. 37 CFR 1.27(c)(1). The written assertion is not required to be presented in any particular form. Written assertions of small entity status or references to small entity fees will be liberally interpreted to represent the required assertion. The written assertion can be made in any paper filed in or with the application and need be no more than a simple sentence or a box checked on an application transmittal letter.
II. PARTIES WHO CAN ASSERT AND SIGN AN ENTITLEMENT TO SMALL ENTITY STATUS BY WRITING
A. Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012
37 CFR 1.27 Definition of small entities and establishing status as a small entity to permit payment of small entity fees; when a determination of entitlement to small entity status and notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status are required; fraud on the Office.
*****
(c) Assertion of small entity status. Any party (person, small business concern or nonprofit organization) should make a determination, pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, of entitlement to be accorded small entity status based on the definitions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, and must, in order to establish small entity status for the purpose of paying small entity fees, actually make an assertion of entitlement to small entity status, in the manner set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(3) of this section, in the application or patent in which such small entity fees are to be paid.
(1) Assertion by writing. Small entity status may be established by a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. A written assertion must:
(i) Be clearly identifiable;
(ii) Be signed (see paragraph (c)(2) of this section); and
(iii) Convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status, such as by stating that applicant is a small entity, or that small entity status is entitled to be asserted for the application or patent. While no specific words or wording are required to assert small entity status, the intent to assert small entity status must be clearly indicated in order to comply with the assertion requirement.
(2) Parties who can sign and file the written assertion. The written assertion can be signed by:
(i) The applicant (§ 1.42 or § 1.421);
(ii) A patent practitioner of record or a practitioner acting in a representative capacity under § 1.34;
(iii) The inventor or a joint inventor, if the inventor is the applicant; or
(iv) The assignee.
(3) Assertion by payment of the small entity basic filing, basic transmittal, basic national fee, or international search fee, or individual designation fee in an international design application. The payment, by any party, of the exact amount of one of the small entity basic filing fees set forth in §§ 1.16(a), 1.16(b), 1.16(c), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), the small entity transmittal fee set forth in § 1.445(a)(1), the small entity international search fee set forth in § 1.445(a)(2) to a Receiving Office other than the United States Receiving Office in the exact amount established for that Receiving Office pursuant to PCT Rule 16,
500-86Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.03
or the small entity basic national fee set forth in § 1.492(a), will be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status even if the type of basic filing, basic transmittal, or basic national fee is inadvertently selected in error. The payment, by any party, of the small entity first part of the individual designation fee for the United States to the International Bureau (§ 1.1031) will be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status.
(i) If the Office accords small entity status based on payment of a small entity basic filing or basic national fee under paragraph (c)(3) of this section that is not applicable to that application, any balance of the small entity fee that is applicable to that application will be due along with the appropriate surcharge set forth in § 1.16(f), or § 1.16(g).
(ii) The payment of any small entity fee other than those set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of this section (whether in the exact fee amount or not) will not be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status and will not be sufficient to establish small entity status in an application or a patent.
*****
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the written assertion of entitlement to small entity status can be signed by: (1) the applicant (37 CFR 1.42 or 1.421); (2) a patent practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34; (3) the inventor or a joint inventor, if the inventor is the applicant; or (4) the assignee. See 37 CFR 1.27(c)(2). The change to 37 CFR 1.27 for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, is for consistency with the change in practice concerning who is the applicant for patent in 37 CFR 1.42. The applicant as defined in 37 CFR 1.42 (or 37 CFR 1.421) can sign a written assertion of small entity status. Thus, the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under 37 CFR 1.46 can sign the written assertion of small entity status. In addition, if there are joint inventors who are the applicant, then one of the joint inventors can sign a written assertion of small entity status and thereby establish small entity status for the application (but see paragraph VI. below). The assignee can sign a written assertion of small entity status even if the assignee is not the applicant or is a juristic entity.
B. Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012
37 CFR 1.27 (pre-AIA) Definition of small entities and establishing status as a small entity to permit payment of small
entity fees; when a determination of entitlement to small entity status and notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status are required; fraud on the Office.
*****
(c) Assertion of small entity status. Any party (person, small business concern or nonprofit organization) should make a determination, pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, of entitlement to be accorded small entity status based on the definitions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, and must, in order to establish small entity status for the purpose of paying small entity fees, actually make an assertion of entitlement to small entity status, in the manner set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(3) of this section, in the application or patent in which such small entity fees are to be paid.
(1) Assertion by writing. Small entity status may be established by a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status. A written assertion must:
(i) Be clearly identifiable;
(ii) Be signed (see paragraph (c)(2) of this section); and
(iii) Convey the concept of entitlement to small entity status, such as by stating that applicant is a small entity, or that small entity status is entitled to be asserted for the application or patent. While no specific words or wording are required to assert small entity status, the intent to assert small entity status must be clearly indicated in order to comply with the assertion requirement.
(2) Parties who can sign and file the written assertion. The written assertion can be signed by:
(i) One of the parties identified in § 1.33(b) (e.g., an attorney or agent registered with the Office), § 3.73(b) of this chapter notwithstanding, who can also file the written assertion;
(ii) At least one of the individuals identified as an inventor (even though a § 1.63 executed oath or declaration has not been submitted), notwithstanding § 1.33(b)(4), who can also file the written assertion pursuant to the exception under § 1.33(b) of this part; or
(iii) An assignee of an undivided part interest, notwithstanding §§ 1.33(b)(3) and 3.73(b) of this chapter, but the partial assignee cannot file the assertion without resort to a party identified under § 1.33(b) of this part.
(3) Assertion by payment of the small entity basic filing or basic national fee. The payment, by any party, of the exact amount of one of the small entity basic filing fees set forth in §§ 1.16(a), 1.16(b), 1.16(c), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), or the small entity basic national fee set forth in § 1.492(a), will be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status even if the type of basic filing or basic national fee is inadvertently selected in error.
(i) If the Office accords small entity status based on payment of a small entity basic filing or basic national fee under paragraph (c)(3) of this section that is not applicable to that application, any balance of the small entity fee that is
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-87
§ 509.03RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
applicable to that application will be due along with the appropriate surcharge set forth in § 1.16(f), or § 1.16(g).
(ii) The payment of any small entity fee other than those set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of this section (whether in the exact fee amount or not) will not be treated as a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status and will not be sufficient to establish small entity status in an application or a patent.
(4) Assertion required in related, continuing, and reissue applications. Status as a small entity must be specifically established by an assertion in each related, continuing and reissue application in which status is appropriate and desired. Status as a small entity in one application or patent does not affect the status of any other application or patent, regardless of the relationship of the applications or patents. The refiling of an application under § 1.53 as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application (including a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d)), or the filing of a reissue application, requires a new assertion as to continued entitlement to small entity status for the continuing or reissue application.
*****
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the parties who can assert entitlement to small entity status by writing include all parties permitted by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(b) to file a paper in an application, including a registered practitioner. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.27(c)(2)(i). Additionally, one of the individuals identified as an inventor, or a partial assignee, can also sign the written assertion. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.27(c)(2)(ii) and (iii). By way of example, in the case of three pro se inventors for a particular application, one of the three inventors upon filing the application can submit a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status and thereby establish small entity status for the application, (but see paragraph VI. below). Where rights are divided between a person, small business concern, and nonprofit organization, or any combination thereof, only one party is required to assert small entity status. For example, where one of two inventors has assigned his or her rights in the invention, it is sufficient if either of the two inventors or the assignee asserts entitlement to small entity status.
Any inventor is permitted to submit a written assertion of small entity status, including individuals identified as inventors but who are not officially named of record as an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 has not yet been submitted. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(1). Where an application is filed without an executed oath or
declaration pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53(f), the Office will accept the written assertion of an individual who has merely been identified as an inventor on filing of the application (e.g., application transmittal letter) as opposed to having to be named as an inventor by the filing of an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(1)). Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and 37 CFR 11.18(b) are seen as sufficient basis to permit any individual to provide a written assertion so long as the individual identifies himself or herself as an inventor. An actual inventor who has not been identified as an inventor (e.g., by way of application transmittal letter) or named as an inventor (i.e., executed pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration) in the file record may not file a written assertion as to small entity entitlement.
Where an oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 is later filed, any original written assertion as to small entity status (which has been previously appropriately submitted to the Office) will remain unless changed by an appropriate party under 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2). Where a later-filed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 sets forth an inventive entity that does not include the person who initially was identified as an inventor and who asserted small entity status, small entity status will also remain.
An assignee asserting small entity status is not required to submit a pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73(b) certification whether the assignee is a partial assignee or an assignee of the entire right, title, and interest, (but see paragraph III. below).
III. PARTIES WHO CAN FILE THE WRITTEN ASSERTION ONCE SIGNED
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, a distinction exists as to who can file a written assertion of entitlement to small entity status once the written assertion is signed. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.27(c)(2)(ii) and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(b) permit one of several inventors to file as well as to sign a written assertion. The same is not true for a partial assignee. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.27(c)(2)(iii). While a partial assignee may sign a written assertion, the written assertion must be filed by an appropriate party under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(b).
500-88Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.03
IV. ASSERTION BY PAYMENT OF SMALL ENTITY BASIC FILING. BASIC NATIONAL FEE, OR INDIVIDUAL DESIGNATION FEE
The payment of an exact small entity basic filing (37 CFR 1.16(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)), basic national fee (37 CFR 1.492(a)), or individual designation fee in an international design application (37 CFR 1.1031) is also considered to be a sufficient assertion of entitlement to small entity status. 37 CFR 1.27(c)(3). An applicant filing a patent application and paying an exact small entity basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee automatically establishes small entity status for the application even without any other assertion of small entity status. This is so even if an applicant inadvertently selects the wrong type of small entity basic filing or basic national fee for the application being filed (e.g., the exact small entity basic filing fee for a design application is selected but the application is a utility application). If small entity status was not established when the basic filing or basic national fee was paid, such as by payment of a non-small entity basic filing, basic national fee, individual designation fee, a later claim to small entity status requires a written assertion under 37 CFR 1.27(c)(1). Payment of a small entity fee other than a small entity basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee (e.g., extension of time fee, issue fee, or reexamination filing fee) without inclusion of a written assertion is not sufficient.
Even though applicants can assert small entity status only by payment of an exact small entity basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee in an international design application, the Office encourages applicants to also file a written assertion of small entity status as well as to pay the exact amount of the small entity basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee. The Office’s application transmittal forms include a check box that can be used to submit a written assertion of small entity status. A written assertion will provide small entity status should applicant fail to pay the exact small entity basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee. The provision providing for small entity status by payment of an exact small entity basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee is intended to act as a safety net to
avoid possible financial loss to inventors or small businesses that qualify for small entity status.
Even though small entity status is accorded where the wrong type of small entity basic filing fee, basic national fee, or individual designation fee in an international design application is selected but the exact amount of the fee is paid, applicant still needs to pay the correct small entity amount for the basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee in an international design application where selection of the wrong type of fee results in a deficiency. While an accompanying general authorization to charge any additional fees suffices to pay the balance due of the proper small entity basic filing, basic national fee or individual designation fee, specific authorizations to charge fees under 37 CFR 1.17 or extension of time fees do not suffice to pay any balance due of the proper small entity basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee because they do not actually authorize payment of small entity amounts. If payment is attempted of the proper type of basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee (applicant correctly identifies the type of fee for the type of application being filed), but the amount of the fee paid is not the exact small entity fee required (an incorrect fee amount is supplied) and a written assertion of small entity status is not present, small entity status will not be accorded. The Office will mail a notice of insufficient basic filing, basic national fee, or individual designation fee in an international design application with a surcharge due if an authorization to charge the basic filing or basic national fee is not present. The Office does not consider a basic filing or basic national fee submitted in an amount above the correct fee amount, but below the non-small entity fee amount, as a request to establish small entity status unless an additional written assertion is also present. The submission of a basic filing or basic national fee below the correct fee amount also does not serve to establish small entity status.
Where an application is originally filed by a party, who is in fact a small entity, with an authorization to charge fees (including basic filing fee, basic national fee, or individual designation fee) and there is no indication (assertion) of entitlement to small entity status present, that authorization is not
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-89
§ 509.03RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
sufficient to establish small entity status unless the authorization is specifically directed to small entity basic filing, basic national, or individual designation fees. The general authorization to charge fees will continue to be acted upon immediately and the full (not small entity) basic filing, basic national, or individual designation fees will be charged. Applicant will have three months under 37 CFR 1.28 to request a refund by asserting entitlement to small entity status. This is so even if the application is a continuing application where small entity status had been established in the prior application.
V. PARTIES WHO CAN ASSERT AND FILE SMALL ENTITY STATUS BY PAYMENT
Where small entity status is sought by way of payment of the basic filing fee, basic national fee, or individual designation fee, any party (including a third party), may submit payment, such as by check, and small entity status will be accorded.
VI. CONTINUED OBLIGATIONS FOR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF SMALL ENTITY STATUS
While small entity status is not difficult to obtain, it should be clearly understood that applicants need to do a complete and thorough investigation of all facts and circumstances before making a determination of actual entitlement to small entity status. 37 CFR 1.27(f). Where entitlement to small entity status is uncertain, it should not be claimed.
The assertion of small entity status (e.g., even by mere payment of the exact small entity basic filing fee) is not appropriate until such an investigation has been completed. For example, where there are three pro se inventors, before one of the inventors pays the small entity basic filing, basic national, or individual designation fee to establish small entity status, the single inventor asserting entitlement to small entity status should check with the other two inventors to determine whether small entity status is appropriate.
If small entity status is desired on the basis that the entity is a small business concern, the investigation should include a review of whether the business is a small business concern as defined by section 3 of
the Small Business Act (Public Law 85-536 as amended by Public Law 106-50). Review of whether the business concern meets the size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.801 through 121.805 to be eligible for reduced patent fees is also appropriate. Additionally, if the business has assigned, granted, conveyed or licensed (or is under an obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to others directly or indirectly, the same review for each other entity would also be appropriate.
Furthermore, once status as a small entity has been established in an application, a new determination of entitlement to small entity status is needed in the application or patent (1) when the issue fee is due and (2) when any maintenance fee is due. If an ex parte reexamination is requested for a patent, the requester must affirmatively state in the reexamination request that it is entitled to small entity in order for a requester to pay the small entity filing fees. For example, requester can affirmatively assert small entity status by checking the appropriate box in line 3 on the transmittal form (PTO/SB/57). It should be appreciated that the costs incurred in appropriately conducting the initial and subsequent investigations may outweigh the benefit of claiming small entity status. For some applicants it may be desirable to file as a non-small entity (by not filing a written assertion of small entity status and by submitting non-small entity fees) rather than undertaking the appropriate investigations which may be both difficult and time-consuming and which may be cost effective only where several applications are involved.
The intent of 37 CFR 1.27 is that the person making the assertion of entitlement to small entity status is the person in a position to know the facts about whether or not status as a small entity can be properly established. That person, thus, has a duty to investigate the circumstances surrounding entitlement to small entity status to the fullest extent. It is important to note that small entity status must not be claimed unless the person or persons can unequivocally make the required self-certification.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not give advisory opinions as to whether or not a specific individual or organization qualifies as a small entity. In establishing reduced fees for persons, small
500-90Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.03
business concerns, and nonprofit organizations, the Congressional consideration of the legislation which became Public Law 97-247 indicated an intent that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rely exclusively on a self-certification that a patent applicant qualifies as an independent inventor (now person), small business concern, or nonprofit organization. In addition, it was also stated during Congressional consideration of the legislation that no additional resources would be required to administer the system whereby fees would be reduced for small entities.
In view of the intent expressed during Congressional consideration of the legislation, it would be inappropriate for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to give advisory opinions as to entitlement to small entity status. Accordingly, any individual seeking to establish status as a small entity for purposes of paying the fee in an application or patent must file the assertion required by 37 CFR 1.27 and in so doing is self-certifying entitlement to small entity status.
Consistent with 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4), the payment of a small entity basic filing or national fee constitutes a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b). Thus, a simple payment of the small entity basic filing, basic national, or individual designation fee, without a specific written assertion, activates the provisions of 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and, by that, invokes the self-certification requirement set forth in 37 CFR 11.18(b), regardless of whether the party is a practitioner or non-practitioner.
VII. REMOVAL OF STATUS
Once small entity status is established in an application or patent, fees as a small entity may thereafter be paid in that application or patent without regard to a change in status until the issue fee is due or any maintenance fee is due. 37 CFR 1.27(g)(1). 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2) requires that notification of any change in status resulting in loss of entitlement to small entity status be filed in the application or patent prior to paying, or at the time of paying, the earliest of the issue fee or any maintenance fee due after the date on which status as a small entity is no longer appropriate. 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2) also requires that the notification of loss
of entitlement to small entity status be in the form of a specific written assertion to that extent, rather than only payment of a non-small entity fee. For example, when paying the issue fee in an application that has previously been accorded small entity status and the required new determination of continued entitlement to small entity status reveals that status has been lost, applicant should not just simply pay the non-small entity issue fee or cross out the recitation of small entity status on Part B of the Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due (PTOL-85), but should (A) check the appropriate box on Part B of the PTOL-85 form to indicate that there has been a change in entity status and applicant is no longer claiming small entity status, and (B) pay the fee amount for a non-small entity.
For correcting errors in small entity status, see paragraph X below.
VIII. IMPROPERLY ESTABLISHING SMALL ENTITY STATUS
37 CFR 1.27(h) indicates that any attempt to fraudulently establish status as a small entity or pay fees as a small entity will be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office. Applicants should not rely on any oral advice inadvertently given by an Office employee as to entitlement to small entity status. In addition, improperly and with intent to deceive establishing status as a small entity or paying fees as a small entity will be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office. Normally, the Office will not question a claim to status as a small entity.
IX. REFUNDS BASED ON LATER ESTABLISHMENT OF SMALL ENTITY STATUS
37 CFR 1.28 Refunds when small entity status is later established; how errors in small entity status are excused.
(a) Refunds based on later establishment of small entity status. A refund pursuant to § 1.26, based on establishment of small entity status, of a portion of fees timely paid in full prior to establishing status as a small entity may only be obtained if an assertion under § 1.27(c) and a request for a refund of the excess amount are filed within three months of the date of the timely payment of the full fee. The three-month time period is not extendable under § 1.136. Status as a small entity is waived for any fee by the failure to establish the status prior to paying, at the time of paying, or within three months of the date of payment of, the full fee.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-91
§ 509.03RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(b) Date of payment.
(1) The three-month period for requesting a refund, pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, starts on the date that a full fee has been paid;
(2) The date when a deficiency payment is paid in full determines the amount of deficiency that is due, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
*****
37 CFR 1.28(a) provides a three-month time period for requesting a refund of a portion of a non-small entity fee based on later establishment of small entity status. The start date of the three-month refund period of 37 CFR 1.28(a) is the date the full fee has been paid. See 37 CFR 1.28(b)(1). Payment by authorization to charge a deposit account is treated for refund purposes the same as payments by other means (e.g., check or credit card authorizations), with each being treated as paid (for refund purposes) on the date of receipt in the Office as defined by 37 CFR 1.6. Thus, the date of receipt of an authorization to charge fees starts the three-month period for refunds under 37 CFR 1.28(a), not the date of debit of the fee to a deposit account. If a payment is mailed with a Certificate of Mailing under 37 CFR 1.8, the three month period for requesting a refund will start on the actual date of receipt of the payment in the Office, and not the Certificate of Mailing date. If a
payment is filed by Priority Mail Express® under 37 CFR 1.10, the date of deposit with the United States Postal Service (shown by the “date accepted”
on the Priority Mail Express® mailing label or other official USPS notation) is the date of receipt of the payment by the Office under 37 CFR 1.10(a) and the three month period for requesting a refund starts on the date shown by the “date accepted” on the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label rather than the date when the payment actually reaches the Office.
Request for refunds, along with the assertions under 37 CFR 1.27(c), should be addressed to Mail Stop 16, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
X. CORRECTING ERRORS IN SMALL ENTITY STATUS
37 CFR 1.28 Refunds when small entity status is later established; how errors in small entity status are excused.
*****
(c) How errors in small entity status are excused. If status as a small entity is established in good faith, and fees as a small entity are paid in good faith, in any application or patent, and it is later discovered that such status as a small entity was established in error, or that through error the Office was not notified of a loss of entitlement to small entity status as required by § 1.27(g)(2), the error will be excused upon: compliance with the separate submission and itemization requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section, and the deficiency payment requirement of paragraph (c)(2) of this section:
(1) Separate submission required for each application or patent. Any paper submitted under this paragraph must be limited to the deficiency payment (all fees paid in error), required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section, for one application or one patent. Where more than one application or patent is involved, separate submissions of deficiency payments (e.g., checks) and itemizations are required for each application or patent. See § 1.4(b).
(2) Payment of deficiency owed. The deficiency owed, resulting from the previous erroneous payment of small entity fees, must be paid.
(i) Calculation of the deficiency owed. The deficiency owed for each previous fee erroneously paid as a small entity is the difference between the current fee amount (for other than a small entity) on the date the deficiency is paid in full and the amount of the previous erroneous (small entity) fee payment. The total deficiency payment owed is the sum of the individual deficiency owed amounts for each fee amount previously erroneously paid as a small entity. Where a fee paid in error as a small entity was subject to a fee decrease between the time the fee was paid in error and the time the deficiency is paid in full, the deficiency owed is equal to the amount (previously) paid in error;
(ii) Itemization of the deficiency payment. An itemization of the total deficiency payment is required. The itemization must include the following information:
(A) Each particular type of fee that was erroneously paid as a small entity, ( e.g., basic statutory filing fee, two-month extension of time fee) along with the current fee amount for a non-small entity;
(B) The small entity fee actually paid, and when. This will permit the Office to differentiate, for example, between two one-month extension of time fees erroneously paid as a small entity but on different dates;
(C) The deficiency owed amount (for each fee erroneously paid); and
(D) The total deficiency payment owed, which is the sum or total of the individual deficiency owed amounts set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C) of this section.
(3) Failure to comply with requirements. If the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section are not complied with, such failure will either: be treated as an authorization for the Office to process the deficiency payment and charge the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), or result in a requirement for compliance within a one-month
500-92Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.03
non-extendable time period under § 1.136(a) to avoid the return of the fee deficiency paper, at the option of the Office.
(d) Payment of deficiency operates as notification of loss of status. Any deficiency payment (based on a previous erroneous payment of a small entity fee) submitted under paragraph (c) of this section will be treated under § 1.27(g)(2) as a notification of a loss of entitlement to small entity status.
*****
37 CFR 1.28(c) provides that if small entity status is established in good faith and the small entity fees are paid in good faith, and it is later discovered that such status as a small entity was established in error or through error the Office was not notified of a change of status, the error will be excused upon compliance with the separate submission and itemization requirements of 37 CFR 1.28(c)(1) and (c)(2), and the deficiency payment requirement of 37 CFR 1.28(c)(2). The deficiency amount owed under 37 CFR 1.28(c) is calculated using the date on which the deficiency was paid in full. See 37 CFR 1.28(b)(2).
37 CFR 1.28(c)(1) requires that a deficiency paper be limited to one application or patent file. Where, for example, the same set of facts has caused errors in payment in more than one application and/or patent file, a separate paper must be submitted in each file for which an error is to be excused.
37 CFR 1.28(c)(2) requires that for each fee that was erroneously paid as a small entity, the deficiencies owed must be paid, and the payment of the deficiencies must be itemized. The deficiency owed for each previous fee erroneously paid as a small entity is the difference between the current fee amount (for other than a small entity) on the date the deficiency is paid in full and the amount of the previous erroneous (small entity) fee payment. Where there has been a fee decrease, the deficiency owed is equal to the amount (previously) paid in error, not the difference between the amount (previously) paid in error and the new lower non-small entity fee. 37 CFR 1.28(c)(2)(ii) requires the following itemizations: (A) the particular fee involved (e.g., basic filing fee, extension of time fee); (B) the small entity fee amount actually paid and when (for example, distinguishing between two one-month extension of time fees erroneously paid on two different dates); (C) the actual deficiency
owed for each fee previously paid in error; and (D) the total deficiency owed (i.e., the sum of the individual deficiencies owed).
Under 37 CFR 1.28(c)(3), the failure to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.28(c)(1) and (c)(2) permits the Office at its option to either charge a processing fee (37 CFR 1.17(i)) to process the paper or require compliance within a one-month non-extendable time period to avoid return of the paper.
Any paper submitted under 37 CFR 1.28(c) is treated as a notification of loss of small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2). See 37 CFR 1.28(d).
A maintenance fee improperly paid as a small entity where small entity status has been established but is no longer appropriate will be treated as a matter under 37 CFR 1.28(c) and will not be considered to involve expiration of the patent under 37 CFR 1.378. On the other hand, payment of a maintenance fee in the small entity amount where small entity status has not been established would result in the expiration of the patent under 37 CFR 1.378 unless the full maintenance fee due or a written assertion of small entity status is timely filed.
509.04 Micro Entity Status — Definitions [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 123 Micro entity defined.
(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this title, the term "micro entity" means an applicant who makes a certification that the applicant—
(1) qualifies as a small entity, as defined in regulations issued by the Director;
(2) has not been named as an inventor on more than 4 previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under section 111(b), or international applications filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) for which the basic national fee under section 41(a) was not paid;
(3) did not, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, have a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding 3 times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census; and
(4) has not assigned, granted, or conveyed, and is not under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-93
§ 509.04RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding 3 times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census.
(b) APPLICATIONS RESULTING FROM PRIOR EMPLOYMENT.—An applicant is not considered to be named on a previously filed application for purposes of subsection (a)(2) if the applicant has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s previous employment.
(c) FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE.—If an applicant’s or entity’s gross income in the preceding calendar year is not in United States dollars, the average currency exchange rate, as reported by the Internal Revenue Service, during that calendar year shall be used to determine whether the applicant’s or entity’s gross income exceeds the threshold specified in paragraphs (3) or (4) of subsection (a).
(d) INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—For purposes of this section, a micro entity shall include an applicant who certifies that—
(1) the applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); or
(2) the applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular applications to such an institution of higher education.
(e) DIRECTOR’S AUTHORITY.—In addition to the limits imposed by this section, the Director may, in the Director’s discretion, impose income limits, annual filing limits, or other limits on who may qualify as a micro entity pursuant to this section if the Director determines that such additional limits are reasonably necessary to avoid an undue impact on other patent applicants or owners or are otherwise reasonably necessary and appropriate. At least 3 months before any limits proposed to be imposed pursuant to this subsection take effect, the Director shall inform the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of any such proposed limits.
Public Law 112-29, sec. 10(b), 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011)( Leahy-SmithAmerica Invents Act (AIA)) adds 35 U.S.C. 123 to define a ‘‘micro entity.’’ March 19, 2013 is the date that the 75% micro entity discount first became available, because that is the date that fees “for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents” were first set or adjusted by rulemaking under the Office’s fee setting
authority. See Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees, 78 FR 4212 (January 18, 2013) which became effective in large part on March 19, 2013. January 1, 2014 is the rulemaking’s effective date for the micro entity discount as it applies to certain “filing, searching [and] examining” fees for international applications under the PCT.
The fees which are reduced by 75% for micro entities include filing fees (nonprovisional and provisional), search fees, examination fees, issue fees, and appeal fees for utility, design, plant, and reissue patent applications. Also included are patent maintenance fees including the maintenance fee grace period surcharges as well as the surcharge for a petition to accept a delayed maintenance fee payment in order to reinstate an expired patent. Included within the ambit of filing fees subject to the micro entity discount are excess claims fees, application size fees, and the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f) if either the basic filing fee or the oath or declaration for a nonprovisional application was not present on the filing date. Included within the ambit of examination fees subject to the micro entity discount are the fees for requesting prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e), ex parte reexamination under 37 CFR 1.510 (only if the request is filed by the patent owner), and supplemental examination under 37 CFR 1.601. Included within the ambit of appeal fees subject to the micro entity discount are the fees for filing notice of appeal, forwarding an appeal to the PTAB, and requesting an oral hearing.
I. REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTIFICATION
35 U.S.C. 123 requires a certification as a condition for an applicant to be considered a micro entity. The certification must be in writing and must be filed prior to or at the time a fee is first paid in the micro entity amount in an application or patent. Status as a micro entity in one application or patent does not affect the status of any other application or patent. The refiling of an application under 37 CFR 1.53 as a continuation or divisional, or continuation-in-part application (including a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (design applications only)), or the filing of a reissue application, requires a new certification of entitlement to micro entity status in the continuing or reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.29(e). A fee
500-94Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04
may be paid in the micro entity amount only if it is submitted with, or subsequent to, the submission of a certification of entitlement to micro entity status. See 37 CFR 1.29(f). The micro entity provisions of 37 CFR 1.29 apply to applications filed before, on, and after March 19, 2013. A micro entity certification may be filed in pending applications, reexamination proceedings (for patent owners only, and supplemental examination proceedings at any time during prosecution and in patents prior to or concurrent with a maintenance fee payment.
Any attempt to fraudulently establish status or pay fees as a micro entity shall be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office. Improperly, and with intent to deceive, establishing status or paying fees as a micro entity shall be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office. See 37 CFR 1.29(j).
II. BASES FOR ESTABLISHING MICRO ENTITY STATUS
There are two separate bases for establishing micro entity status referred to as the “gross income basis” under 35 U.S.C. 123(a) and the “institution of higher education basis” under 35 U.S.C. 123(d). 37 CFR 1.29(a) implements the gross income basis for establishing micro entity status, and 37 CFR 1.29(d) implements the institution of higher education basis for establishing micro entity status. The Office’s micro entity certification forms are form PTO/SB/15A (gross income basis)(see MPEP § 509.04(a)) and form PTO/SB/15B (institution of higher education basis)(see MPEP § 509.04(b)). No evidence such as a copy of a tax return need accompany the certification form(s). In addition, the certification form(s) need not be notarized. The certification form(s) must, however, identify the application or patent to which it pertains and it must be signed by an authorized party as set forth in MPEP § 509.04(c). For new application filings not previously assigned a patent application number, providing the first named inventor and the title of the invention at the top of the certification form(s) in the spaces provided will be sufficient to identify the application. It is strongly recommended that the following document descriptions in EFS-Web be used as appropriate:
• Certification of Micro Entity (Gross Income Basis)
• Certification of Micro Entity (Education Basis)
509.04(a) Gross Income Basis for Micro Entity Status [R-11.2013]
35 U.S.C. 123(a) provides that the term ‘‘micro entity’’means an applicant who makes a certification that the applicant: (1) qualifies as a small entity as defined in 37 CFR 1.27; (2) has not been named as an inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid; (3) did not, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, have a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 61(a)), exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census; and (4) has not assigned, granted, or conveyed, and is not under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census. 37 CFR 1.29(a)(1)-(4) implements the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 123(a)(1)-(4) for establishing micro entity status on the gross income basis.
The income level that is three times the median household income for the preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census (i.e., the income threshold set forth in 35 U.S.C. 123(a)(3) and (a)(4)) is referred to as the “gross income limit” or the “maximum qualifying gross income.” The Office’s micro entity status certification form PTO/SB/15A refers to the official Web page address providing the up-to-date maximum qualifying gross income. Each inventor and each non-inventor applicant (e.g., an assignee-applicant) must individually meet the gross
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-95
§ 509.04(a)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
income limit. The gross income limit applies to the assignee (if any) regardless of whether the assignee is identified as the applicant. Under 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4), the gross income limit applies to each party with an ownership interest in the application including any party(ies) to whom an ownership interest obligation is owed. Accordingly, each assignee, licensee, and inventor must individually meet the gross income limit.
35 U.S.C. 123(b) provides that an applicant is not considered to be named on a previously filed application for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 123(a)(2) if the applicant has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the previously filed application as the result of the applicant’s previous employment. 37 CFR 1.29(b) implements the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 123(b).
35 U.S.C. 123(c) provides that if an applicant’s or entity’s gross income in the preceding calendar year is not in United States dollars, the average currency exchange rate, as reported by the Internal Revenue Service, during that calendar year shall be used to determine whether the applicant’s or entity’s gross income exceeds the gross income limit specified in 35 U.S.C. 123(a)(3) or (4). 37 CFR 1.29(c) implements the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 123(c).
I. SECTION 1.29(a) – GROSS INCOME BASIS REQUIREMENTS
37 CFR 1.29 Micro entity status.
(a) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that:
(1) The applicant qualifies as a small entity as defined in § 1.27;
(2) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid;
(3) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 61(a)), exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census; and
(4) Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has assigned, granted, or conveyed, nor is under an
obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census.
*****
37 CFR 1.29(a)(1)-(4) sets forth the requirements for establishing micro entity status on the gross income basis. If an application names more than one inventor, each inventor must meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.29(a)(1)-(4) to file a micro entity certification on the gross income basis in the application. If the applicant is other than the inventor(s) (e.g., an assignee-applicant), then each such non-inventor applicant as well as each inventor must meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.29(a)(1)-(4) to file a micro entity certification on the gross income basis in the application. If there is any assignee or licensee that received “ownership rights” from any inventor or non-inventor applicant, then the party(ies) with the “ownership interest” must also meet the gross income limit requirement.
Because each inventor and each non-inventor applicant (e.g., assignee-applicant) must separately meet the requirements under 37 CFR 1.29(a)(1)-(4), it would not be appropriate to file a micro entity certification under 37 CFR 1.29(a) for the application if there were more than one applicant or inventor and not all of the applicants and inventors qualified as micro entities under 35 U.S.C. 123(a): e.g., (1) an applicant or inventor exceeded the gross income limit; (2) an applicant or inventor had more than four other nonprovisional applications; or (3) an applicant or inventor had assigned, granted, or conveyed the application or was under an obligation to do so, to an entity that exceeds the gross income limit. Additionally, the gross income limit under 35 U.S.C. 123(a)(3) applies to each applicant’s and inventor’s income separately (i.e., the combined gross income of all of the applicants and inventors need not be below the income level in 35 U.S.C. 123(a)(3)). Further, the assignment requirement in 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4) applies to each applicant and inventor (i.e., if an applicant or inventor assigns or is obligated to assign the invention to more than one assignee (e.g., half interest in the invention to two
500-96Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04(a)
assignees), each of the assignees must meet the income limit specified in 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4)). Note also that in this context an inventor ordinarily should qualify as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.29(a)(1) and 1.27(a)(1). Under 37 CFR 1.27(a)(1), an inventor generally is a small entity and retains such status even if the inventor assigns some rights to another small entity. Similarly, to obtain micro entity status, 37 CFR 1.29(h) requires that any non-applicant assignee be a small entity.
CERTIFICATION FORM – GROSS INCOME BASIS
The Office’s form PTO/SB/15A contains the certifications under 37 CFR 1.29(a)(1)-(4) that are required to establish micro entity status on the gross income basis. The form refers to the certification requirements as: (1) Small Entity Requirement, (2) Application Filing Limit, (3) Gross Income Limit on Applicants and Inventors, and (4) Gross Income Limit on Parties with an “Ownership Interest.”
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-97
§ 509.04(a)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
500-98Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04(a)
A. Small Entity Requirement
In order to meet the small entity requirement, every party holding rights in the application must qualify as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.27. If any rights in the application are assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed to a party that does not qualify as a small
entity under 37 CFR 1.27, the applicant cannot qualify for any patent fee discount. An obligation to assign, grant, convey, or license rights in the application to a party that does not qualify for small entity status would also disqualify the applicant from receiving any patent fee discount. In order to qualify for small entity status, and in order to meet the small
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-99
§ 509.04(a)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
entity requirement for micro entity status, there can be no party holding rights or obligated rights in the application that does not qualify as a small entity. See MPEP § 509.02 for a discussion of the requirements for small entity status.
B. Application Filing Limit
For purposes of establishing micro entity status under the “gross income” basis, the application filing limit as set forth in 37 CFR 1.29(a)(2) includes: (i) previously filed U.S. nonprovisional applications (e.g., utility, design, plant, continuation, and divisional applications), (ii) previously filed U.S. reissue applications, and (iii) previously filed U.S. national stage applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). All such applications naming the inventor or a joint inventor are counted toward the application filing limit, whether the applications were filed before, on, or after March 19, 2013. Further, it does not matter whether the previously filed applications are pending, patented, or abandoned; they are still included when counting to determine whether the application filing limit has been reached.
The application filing limit does not include: (i) foreign applications; (ii) international (PCT) applications for which the basic U.S. national stage filing fee was not paid; and (iii) provisional applications. In addition, where an applicant, inventor, or joint inventor has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s, inventor’s, or joint inventor’s previous employment the applicant, inventor or joint inventor is not considered to be named on the prior filed application for purposes of determining micro entity status. See 37 CFR 1.29(b).
Because the four application limit is a limit on previously filed U.S. nonprovisional applications, reissues applications, and national stage applications, the maximum number of applications in which fees can be paid at the micro entity discount rate can vary from 0 to 5 for any given inventor. For example, consider a person named as a sole inventor in five previously filed U.S. nonprovisional patent applications in which all ownership rights have remained with the sole inventor (i.e., no assignment
or licensing of patent rights ever occurred). This person was not named as an inventor in any other application. Because all five applications count against the application filing limit, this person cannot be named as an inventor in any future-filed application entitled to micro entity status on the “gross income” basis under 37 CFR 1.29(a). (However, the filing of a future sixth application will not jeopardize entitlement to micro entity status in any of the five applications already filed.) If the first two of the inventor’s five applications went abandoned prior to March 19, 2013, then the inventor would not have had the opportunity to pay fees at the micro entity discount rate in those two applications. (The micro entity discount became available for the first time on March 19, 2013.) However if the third-filed application issued as a patent, then for purposes of paying maintenance fees, the applicant-turned-patentee (the sole inventor in this example) may establish entitlement to micro entity status on the “gross income” basis if all 4 requirements under 37 CFR 1.29(a) are met. If the fourth and fifth filed applications are still pending, then similarly, the inventor may establish entitlement to micro entity status on the “gross income” basis if the four requirements under 37 CFR 1.29(a) are met.
C. Gross Income Limit on Applicants and Inventors
For purposes of qualifying for micro-entity status under 37 CFR 1.29(a) and paying fees at the micro entity discount, it is required that no inventor had a gross income exceeding the gross income limit in the calendar year preceding the time of fee payment. This gross income level requirement also applies to any applicant who is not an inventor (e.g., an assignee-applicant). 35 U.S.C. 123(a)(3) and 37 CFR 1.29(a)(3) define the gross income limit as “three times median household income for [the] preceding calendar year, as most recently as reported by the Bureau of the Census.” Based on that definition, the gross income limit is reported on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/ micro-entity-status-gross-income-limit as the “maximum qualifying gross income.” At the time any fee is to be paid in the micro entity amount, it is required that no inventor and no non-inventor applicant (if any) have a preceding calendar year’s gross income exceeding the “maximum qualifying gross income” posted on the USPTO website.
500-100Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04(a)
It should be noted that “gross income” means total income. “Gross income” and “adjusted gross income” are not the same thing. Adjusted gross income is defined as gross income minus adjustments to income. For purposes of micro entity status it is “gross income” – not “adjusted gross income” that matters. Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 61(a)) provides that: "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments; (9) Annuities; (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts; (11) Pensions; (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness; (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income; (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust."
With the coming of each new year, the “preceding calendar year” advances, and anyone’s preceding calendar year’s gross income may change as a result. Therefore, if the prosecution of an application under micro entity status extends across multiple calendar years, each applicant, inventor, and joint inventor must verify that the gross income limit for the requisite calendar year is met to maintain eligibility for the micro entity discount. If the gross income limit is no longer met, then a notification of loss of entitlement to micro entity status must be filed in the application to remove micro entity status. On the other hand, it is possible a small entity applicant not meeting the gross income limits specified in 37 CFR 1.29(a)(3) and (4) in the calendar year in which the application was filed could meet the 37 CFR 1.29(a)(3) and (4) gross income limits in the calendar year in which the issue fee is paid, for example, due to a reduction in income. However, the applicant must still be a small entity at the time of issue fee payment, and the applicant must have met the application filing limit under 37 CFR 1.29(a)(2) when the application was filed.
The applicable “maximum qualifying gross income” that is reported on the USPTO website at
w w w . u s p t o . g o v / p a t e n t / l a w s - a n d - regulations/micro-entity-status-gross-income-limit is anticipated to change (increase or decrease) in September or October of each year. If the reported “maximum qualifying gross income” increases, then parties that met the gross income limit earlier that calendar year will continue to meet the gross income limit for the rest of the calendar year. There may also be additional parties that meet the gross income limit. If the reported “maximum qualifying gross income” decreases, however, some parties that met (e.g., barely met) the gross income limit earlier that calendar year might no longer meet the gross income limit for the remainder of the calendar year. In that event a notification of loss of entitlement to micro entity status must be filed as fees could not be paid in the micro entity amount in the relevant patent application or patent for the remainder of that calendar year.
For inventors who file tax returns jointly with their spouse, for example, determining the inventor’s gross income may not be readily apparent from the preceding calendar year’s joint tax return. Regardless of whether any inventor, or any person who is a non-inventor applicant (e.g., assignee-applicant), or any person with an “ownership interest” under 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4) actually filed a joint tax return rather than a separate tax return in the preceding calendar year, the gross income limit applies to the amount of income the person would have reported as gross income if that person were filing a separate tax return, which includes for example, properly accounting for that person’s portion of interest, dividends, and capital gains from joint bank or brokerage accounts.
For filings on behalf of deceased inventors, gross income from the deceased inventor’s estate or trust does not count toward the gross income limit because the trust or decedent’s estate is considered a separate legal entity. However, the deceased inventor’s legal representative acting on behalf of the deceased inventor under 37 CFR 1.43 is an “applicant” in terms of 37 CFR 1.29(a). Therefore the legal representative’s gross income in the preceding calendar year cannot exceed the gross income limit under 37 CFR 1.29(a)(3) in order to qualify for micro entity status. For example, if the deceased inventor has a surviving spouse who is named on the
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-101
§ 509.04(a)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Application Data Sheet (ADS) as an applicant by virtue of being the legal representative of the deceased inventor, the surviving spouse’s gross income in the preceding calendar year cannot exceed the gross income limit in order to qualify for micro entity status. On the other hand, if the deceased inventor had assigned all rights in the application (or if subsequent to the inventor’s death, the legal representative assigned all rights in the application) AND the assignee that received all rights was named as an applicant (or the applicant), then it would be the assignee that would have to meet the gross income limit (under 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4)) and not the legal representative. In any event, each other joint inventor, assignee, and licensee (if any) would also have to meet the gross income limit in order to qualify for micro entity status.
D. Gross Income Limit on PartiesWith an “Ownership Interest”
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4), the gross income limit extends to any party with an “ownership interest” from any applicant or inventor. Accordingly, for each inventor, applicant, and party with an “ownership interest,” gross income in the calendar year preceding the time of fee payment must not exceed the “maximum qualifying gross income.” Thus, the gross income limit applies to the assignee regardless of whether the assignee is identified as the applicant. For micro entity status, 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4) requires that the gross income limit be met by each assignee and licensee (if any) as well as by each inventor.
An applicant is disqualified from micro entity status on the gross income basis if an inventor or an assignee-applicant transfers, or is obligated to transfer, any ownership interest in the patent application to an entity that exceeds the gross income limit. For example, consider a patent application with a sole inventor who does not exceed the gross income limit. If the inventor assigns, or is obligated to assign, all rights in the patent application to an employer that is, for example, a corporation having several million dollars in annual receipts, there can be no micro entity discount of patent fees. Depending on the size of the corporation, the small entity discount may be unavailable as well. If the corporation transfers all of its rights back to the
inventor, or transfers all of its rights to some other person who does not exceed the gross income limit, such a retransfer will not result in qualification for micro entity status. The 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4) certification requirement is that no ownership interest "has" been transferred, or is obligated to be transferred, to an assignee or licensee that exceeds the gross income limit. Once an assignee or licensee exceeding the gross income limit receives the ownership interest, the 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4) certification requirement can no longer be met – even if the assignee or licensee retransfers rights and no longer holds any ownership interest in the application.
If prosecution of an application that is under 37 CFR 1.29(a) micro entity status extends into a new year, it is important to verify that no inventor, no non-inventor applicant, and no party with a 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4) “ownership interest,” had a gross income in the new preceding calendar year that exceeds the “maximum qualifying gross income” reported on the USPTO website. If the coming of a new year results in the gross income limit not being met by any inventor, applicant or party with a 37 CFR 1.29(a)(4) “ownership interest,” then a notification of loss of entitlement to micro entity status under 37 CFR 1.29(i) must be filed in the application to remove micro entity status.
II. SECTION 1.29(b) – PREVIOUSLY FILED PATENT APPLICATION EXCLUSION
37 CFR § 1.29 Micro entity status. *****
(b) An applicant, inventor, or joint inventor is not considered to be named on a previously filed application for purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section if the applicant, inventor, or joint inventor has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s, inventor’s, or joint inventor’s previous employment.
*****
37 CFR 1.29(b) implements the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 123(b). 37 CFR 1.29(b) provides that an applicant, inventor, or joint inventor is not considered to be named on a previously filed application for purposes of 37 CFR 1.29(a)(2) if the applicant, inventor, or joint inventor has assigned,
500-102Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04(a)
or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s, inventor’s, or joint inventor's previous employment.
III. SECTION 1.29(c) – GROSS INCOME DETERMINED BY CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE
37 CFR § 1.29 Micro entity status. *****
(c) If an applicant’s, inventor’s, joint inventor’s, or entity’s gross income in the preceding calendar year is not in United States dollars, the average currency exchange rate, as reported by the Internal Revenue Service, during that calendar year shall be used to determine whether the applicant’s, inventor’s, joint inventor’s, or entity’s gross income exceeds the threshold specified in paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section.
*****
Section 1.29(c) implements the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 123(c). Section 1.29(c) provides that if an applicant’s, inventor’s, joint inventor’s, or entity’s gross income in the preceding calendar year is not in United States dollars, the average currency exchange rate, as reported by the Internal Revenue Service, during that calendar year shall be used to determine whether the applicant’s, inventor’s, joint inventor’s, or entity’s gross income exceeds the threshold specified in 37 CFR 1.29(a)(3) or (a)(4). The Internal Revenue Service reports the average currency exchange rate (Yearly Average Currency Exchange Rates) on its Internet website (www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/ Yearly-Average-Currency-Exchange-Rates).
For an applicant or entity whose previous calendar year’s gross income was received partially in U.S. dollars and partially in non-United States currency, the gross income amount in non-United States currency must be converted into U.S. dollars in accordance with 37 CFR 1.29(c) and then added to the gross income amount in U.S. dollars to determine whether the applicant or entity meets the gross income requirement of 37 CFR 1.29(a)(3).
509.04(b) Institution of Higher Education Basis for Micro Entity Status [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.29 Micro entity status. *****
(d) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that:
(1) The applicant qualifies as a small entity as defined in § 1.27; and
(2)(i) The applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); or
(ii) The applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular application to such an institution of higher education.
*****
35 U.S.C. 123(a) provides a gross income basis under which an applicant may establish micro entity status. See MPEP § 509.04(a). 35 U.S.C. 123 provides that a micro entity shall also include an applicant who certifies that: (1) The applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); or (2) the applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular application to such an institution of higher education. 37 CFR 1.29(d) implements the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 123(d).
To the extent that 35 U.S.C. 123(d) (unlike 35 U.S.C. 123(a)) does not expressly require that an applicant qualify as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.27, the Office has invoked its authority under 35 U.S.C. 123(e) to “…impose… other limits on who may qualify as a micro entity…” in order to expressly require that a party claiming micro entity status via 35 U.S.C. 123(d) qualify as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.27. Accordingly, 37 CFR 1.29(d)(1) requires that an applicant claiming micro entity status on the institution of higher education basis must certify that the “applicant qualifies as a small entity as defined in § 1.27” in addition to certifying that the other requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. 123(d)(1) or (2) are met. See MPEP § 509.02 for a discussion of the requirements for small entity status.
I. REQUIREMENTS
An applicant for micro entity status under the “institution of higher education” basis set forth in
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-103
§ 509.04(b)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
37 CFR 1.29(d) must satisfy two requirements. First, the applicant must certify that the applicant qualifies as a small entity as defined in 37 CFR 1.27. Second, the applicant must certify that either (i) the applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); or (ii) the applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular application to such an institution of higher education.
A. Small Entity Requirement
In order to meet the small entity requirement, every party holding rights in the application must qualify as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.27. If any rights in the application are assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed to a party that does not qualify as a small entity under 37 CFR 1.27, the applicant cannot qualify for any patent fee discount. An obligation to assign, grant, convey, or license rights in the application to a party that does not qualify for small entity status would also disqualify the applicant from receiving any patent fee discount. In order to qualify for small entity status, and in order to meet the small entity requirement for micro entity status, there can be no party holding rights or obligated rights in the application that does not qualify as a small entity. See MPEP § 509.02 for a discussion of the requirements for small entity status.
B. Section 1.29(d)(2) Requirement
Under 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2)(i) the applicant must certify that the applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education. Because only a person can have an “employer,” the applicant certifying under 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2)(i) must be a person or persons, which in most cases, means the inventor(s).
Under 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2)(ii) the applicant must certify that the applicant has assigned, granted, or conveyed a license or other ownership interest in the subject application (or is obligated to do so) to such an institution of higher education. An attempt to
obtain micro entity status by merely seeking to transfer a de minimus interest to an institution of higher education could be considered a sham transaction. Although the Office considers it highly unlikely that institutions of higher education would be party to such transactions, the Office plans to closely monitor the percentage of applicants claiming micro entity status under 35 U.S.C. 123(d) to ensure that applicants are not engaging in such transactions in order to obtain micro entity status.
II. MEANING OF “INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION”
Section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 defines what is meant by “institution of higher education” in the context of 37 CFR 1.29(d). See 20 U.S.C. 1001. Section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act states that the term “institution of higher education” means:
an educational institution in any State that—
1. admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate, or persons who meet the requirements of section 1091(d)(3) of this title;
2. is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education;
3. provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor’s degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, or awards a degree that is acceptable for admission to a graduate or professional degree program, subject to review and approval by the Secretary;
4. is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
5. is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted pre-accreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of pre-accreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time.’
500-104Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04(b)
Additionally, section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides that the term “State” means the 50 States of the United States as well as “the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Freely Associated States’’ and that the Freely Associated States means the ‘‘Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.’’ See 20 U.S.C. 1003.
Based upon these definitions, public or non-profit institutions located in one of the 50 States or U.S. territories offering certain undergraduate educational programs credited toward a bachelor’s degree or educational programs awarding “a degree that is acceptable for admission to a graduate or professional degree program” are eligible as an “institution of higher education” for purposes of establishing micro entity status under 37 CFR 1.29(d). Except for universities or other institutions of higher education located outside the United States, any university or other U.S. institution of higher education that qualifies for small entity status by virtue of being a nonprofit organization under 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3) meets the criteria of an “institution of higher education” for micro entity status purposes.
An institution such as a non-profit research foundation, technology transfer organization, or Federal Government research laboratory does not qualify as an “institution of higher education” under the definition of “institution of higher education” set forth in the Higher Education Act of 1965 for purposes of establishing micro entity status.
A. Universities and Colleges that Do Not Qualify as Institutions of Higher Education
One of the requirements for an “institution of higher education” under section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is that the institution be non-profit. Therefore, for-profit universities and colleges do not qualify as an “institution of higher education” for purposes of establishing micro entity status. As previously stated, foreign universities do not qualify as an “institution of higher education” for purposes of establishing micro entity status. A foreign university may offer an on-line educational
program in the United States, however, on-line classes offered in the United States would not qualify the foreign university as an “institution of higher education” for purposes of establishing micro entity status. That’s because the university must be located “in any State” in the context of what “in any State” meant in 1965 – the year of the Higher Education Act of 1965. In addition, institutions that only grant graduate degrees do not qualify as an “institution of higher education” for purposes of establishing micro entity status because section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is limited to an institution that “provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor’s degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, or awards a degree that is acceptable for admission to a graduate or professional degree program…”
B. The University Cannot be the Micro Entity Applicant
Although the 37 CFR 1.29(d) basis for qualifying for micro entity status is referred to as the “institution of higher education” basis, it is not the institution of higher education that can qualify for micro entity status, but rather inventors who are employees of an institution of higher education (see 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2)(i)) or inventors or applicants who have conveyed ownership rights to an institution of higher education (see 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2)(ii)). The institution (university) logically cannot make the certifications required under 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) (that the employer from which the university obtains the majority of its income is an institution of higher education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or that the university itself has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular application).
C. CERTIFICATION FORM – INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION BASIS
The Office’s form PTO/SB/15B contains the certifications under 37 CFR 1.29(d) that are required to establish micro entity status on the institution of higher education basis. There are 2 signature blocks reflecting that in addition to the small entity
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-105
§ 509.04(b)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
requirement under 37 CFR 1.29(d)(1), there are two alternative requirements under 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2). The first signature block is for certifying under 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2)(i) that the applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher
education. The second signature block is for certifying under 37 CFR 1.29(d)(2)(ii) that the applicant has assigned, granted, or conveyed a license or other ownership interest in the subject application (or is obligated to do so) to such an institution of higher education.
500-106Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04(b)
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-107
§ 509.04(b)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
509.04(c) Parties Who Can Sign the Micro Entity Certification [R-11.2013]
A certification of micro entity status, on either the gross income basis or the institution of higher
education basis, can be signed only by an authorized party as set forth in 37 CFR 1.33(b), which includes:
(1) A patent practitioner of record;
500-108Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04(c)
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34; or
(3) The applicant (37 CFR 1.42). Unless otherwise specified, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner.
For joint inventor applicants, each joint inventor should sign a separate copy of the relevant micro entity certification form. However, if one joint inventor is appointed to prosecute the application on behalf of all the other joint inventors, then only that one joint inventor need sign the micro entity certification form. See USPTO form PTO/AIA/81, titled “Power Of Attorney To One Or More Of The Joint Inventors And Change Of Correspondence Address”, available on the USPTO forms Web page at www.uspto.gov/patent/patent-forms.
Additionally, if any applicant is an assignee or other party under 37 CFR 1.46, and the assignee or other party is a corporation or organization rather than a person, a registered practitioner must sign the certification of micro entity status. An officer of the assignee corporation, for example, is not authorized to sign a certification of micro entity status.
509.04(d) Continued Obligation to Determine Micro Entity Qualification [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.29 Micro entity status. *****
(g) A certification of entitlement to micro entity status need only be filed once in an application or patent. Micro entity status, once established, remains in effect until changed pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section. However, a fee may be paid in the micro entity amount only if status as a micro entity as defined in paragraph (a) or (d) of this section is appropriate on the date the fee is being paid. Where an assignment of rights or an obligation to assign rights to other parties who are micro entities occurs subsequent to the filing of a certification of entitlement to micro entity status, a second certification of entitlement to micro entity status is not required.
(h) Prior to submitting a certification of entitlement to micro entity status in an application, including a related, continuing, or reissue application, a determination of such entitlement should be made pursuant to the requirements of this section. It should be determined that each applicant qualifies for micro entity status under paragraph (a) or (d) of this section, and that any other party holding rights in the invention qualifies for small entity status under § 1.27. The Office will generally not question
certification of entitlement to micro entity status that is made in accordance with the requirements of this section.
*****
An applicant is not required to provide a certification of micro entity status with each fee payment once micro entity status has been established by filing a certification in an application. While an applicant is not required to provide such a certification with each fee payment, the applicant must still be entitled to micro entity status to pay a fee in the micro entity amount at the time of all payments of fees in the micro entity amount. Thus it must be determined whether the requirements for micro entity status exist at the time each fee payment is made. If any requirement for micro entity status is no longer met, then the applicant must notify the Office of loss of micro entity status and pay the required fee in the small entity or undiscounted amount, as appropriate.
For micro entity status on the gross income basis under 37 CFR 1.29(a), the applicant must determine that the applicant and each inventor or joint inventor still meet the applicable conditions of 37 CFR 1.29(a) to claim micro entity status. For example, the applicant must determine that neither the applicant nor inventor nor joint inventor has had a change in gross income that exceeds the “maximum qualifying gross income” as reported on the USPTO website (a new determination must be made each year because gross income may change from year to year, and micro entity status is based upon gross income in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid). In addition, the applicant must determine that neither the applicant nor inventor nor joint inventor has made, or is obligated by contract or law to make, an assignment, grant, or conveyance to an entity exceeding the “maximum qualifying gross income,” and that no new inventor or joint inventor has been named in the application who does not meet the conditions specified in 37 CFR 1.29(a). See MPEP § 509.04(a), subsection I, for additional information.
For micro entity status under 35 U.S.C. 123(d), the applicant must determine that each applicant still complies with 37 CFR 1.29(d) (e.g., still obtains the majority of his or her income from an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)). 37 CFR 1.29(g) also provides that where an
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-109
§ 509.04(d)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
assignment of rights or an obligation to assign rights to other parties who are micro entities occurs subsequent to the filing of a certification of entitlement to micro entity status, a second certification of entitlement to micro entity status is not required.
509.04(e) Notification of Loss of Entitlement to Micro Entity Status [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.29 Micro entity status. *****
(i) Notification of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status must be filed in the application or patent prior to paying, or at the time of paying, any fee after the date on which status as a micro entity as defined in paragraph (a) or (d) of this section is no longer appropriate. The notification that micro entity status is no longer appropriate must be signed by a party identified in § 1.33(b). Payment of a fee in other than the micro entity amount is not sufficient notification that micro entity status is no longer appropriate. A notification that micro entity status is no longer appropriate will not be treated as a notification that small entity status is also no longer appropriate unless it also contains a notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status under § 1.27(f)(2) [§ 1.27(g)(2)]. Once a notification of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status is filed in the application or patent, a new certification of entitlement to micro entity status is required to again obtain micro entity status.
*****
37 CFR 1.29(i) contains provisions for a micro entity that correspond to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2) for a small entity. 37 CFR 1.29(i) provides that notification of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status must be filed in the application or patent prior to paying, or at the time of paying, any fee after the date on which status as a micro entity as defined in 37 CFR 1.29(a) or 1.29(d) is no longer appropriate. The notification that micro entity status is no longer appropriate must be signed by a party identified in 37 CFR 1.33(b). Payment of a fee in other than the micro entity amount is not sufficient notification that micro entity status is no longer appropriate. An applicant can make a simple statement that the applicant is no longer eligible for micro entity status without identifying the particular reason(s) for loss of entitlement to micro entity status.
37 CFR 1.29(i) further provides that a notification that micro entity status is no longer appropriate will not be treated as a notification that small entity status is also no longer appropriate unless it also provides
notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status under 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2). Thus, an applicant or patentee who files a notification that micro entity status is no longer appropriate will be treated as a small entity by default. For applications under micro entity status, regular unreduced fee status will result from: (1) a notification of loss of entitlement to micro entity status accompanied by regular unreduced fees or some other indication of loss of entitlement to small entity status; or (2) a notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status by itself.
37 CFR 1.29(i) finally provides that once a notification of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status is filed in the application or patent, a new certification of entitlement to micro entity status is required to again obtain micro entity status. It is strongly recommended that the following document descriptions in EFS-Web be used as appropriate:
• Notification of loss of entitlement to small entity status
• Notification of loss of entitlement to micro entity status
509.04(f) Correcting Errors in Micro Entity Status [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.29 Micro entity status. *****
(k) If status as a micro entity is established in good faith in an application or patent, and fees as a micro entity are paid in good faith in the application or patent, and it is later discovered that such micro entity status either was established in error, or that the Office was not notified of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status as required by paragraph (i) of this section through error, the error will be excused upon compliance with the separate submission and itemization requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this section and the deficiency payment requirement of paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(l) Any paper submitted under this paragraph must be limited to the deficiency payment (all fees paid in error) required for a single application or patent. Where more than one application or patent is involved, separate submissions of deficiency payments are required for each application or patent (see § 1.4(b)). The paper must contain an itemization of the total deficiency payment for the single application or patent and include the following information:
(i) Each particular type of fee that was erroneously paid as a micro entity, (e.g., basic statutory filing fee, two-month extension of time fee) along with the current fee amount for a small or nonsmall entity, as applicable;
500-110Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 509.04(e)
(ii) The micro entity fee actually paid, and the date on which it was paid;
(iii) The deficiency owed amount (for each fee erroneously paid); and
(iv) The total deficiency payment owed, which is the sum or total of the individual deficiency owed amounts as set forth in paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(2) The deficiency owed, resulting from the previous erroneous payment of micro entity fees, must be paid. The deficiency owed for each previous fee erroneously paid as a micro entity is the difference between the current fee amount for a small entity or non-small entity, as applicable, on the date the deficiency is paid in full and the amount of the previous erroneous micro entity fee payment. The total deficiency payment owed is the sum of the individual deficiency owed amounts for each fee amount previously and erroneously paid as a micro entity.
(3) If the requirements of paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section are not complied with, such failure will either be treated at the option of the Office as an authorization for the Office to process the deficiency payment and charge the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), or result in a requirement for compliance within a one-month time period that is not extendable under § 1.136(a) to avoid the return of the fee deficiency payment.
(4) Any deficiency payment (based on a previous erroneous payment of a micro entity fee) submitted under this paragraph will be treated as a notification of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status under paragraph (i) of this section.
37 CFR 1.29(k) contains provisions for a micro entity that correspond to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.28(c) for a small entity. 37 CFR 1.28(c) permits an applicant or patentee to correct the erroneous payment of a patent fee in the small entity amount if status as a small entity was established in good faith, and fees as a small entity were paid in good faith. See DH Tech. Inc. v. Synergystex Int’l Inc., 154 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 37 CFR 1.29(k) provides that if: (i) an applicant or patentee establishes micro entity status in an application or patent in good faith; (ii) the applicant or patentee pays fees as a micro entity in the application or patent in good faith; and (iii) applicant or patentee later discovers that such micro entity status either was established in error, or that the Office was not notified of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status as required by 37 CFR 1.29(i) through error, the error will be excused upon compliance with the separate submission and itemization requirements of 37 CFR 1.29(k)(1) and the deficiency payment requirement of 37 CFR 1.29(k)(2).
37 CFR 1.29(k)(1) provides that any paper submitted under 37 CFR 1.29(k) must be limited to the deficiency payment (all fees paid in error) required for a single application or patent. 37 CFR 1.29(k)(1) provides that where more than one application or patent is involved, separate submissions of deficiency payments (e.g., checks) and itemizations are required for each application or patent. 37 CFR 1.29(k)(1) also provides that the paper must contain an itemization of the total deficiency payment and include the following information: (1) each particular type of fee that was erroneously paid as a micro entity, (e.g., basic statutory filing fee, two-month extension of time fee) along with the current fee amount for a small or non-small entity; (2) the micro entity fee actually paid, and the date on which it was paid; (3) the deficiency owed amount (for each fee erroneously paid); and (4) the total deficiency payment owed, which is the sum or total of the individual deficiency owed amounts as set forth in 37 CFR 1.29(k)(2).
37 CFR 1.29(k)(2) provides that the deficiency owed, resulting from the previous erroneous payment of micro entity fees, must be paid. The deficiency owed for each previous fee erroneously paid as a micro entity is the difference between the current fee amount for a small entity or non-small entity, as applicable, on the date the deficiency is paid in full and the amount of the previous erroneous micro entity fee payment. The total deficiency payment owed is the sum of the individual deficiency owed amounts for each fee amount previously and erroneously paid as a micro entity. This corresponds to the procedure for fee deficiency payments based upon the previous erroneous payment of patent fees in the small entity amount. See 37 CFR 1.28(c)(2)(i) ("[t]he deficiency owed for each previous fee erroneously paid as a small entity is the difference between the current full fee amount (for non-small entity) on the date the deficiency is paid in full and the amount of the previous erroneous (small entity) fee payment").
37 CFR 1.29(k)(3) provides that if the requirements of 37 CFR 1.29(k)(1) and (k)(2) are not complied with, such failure will either be treated at the option of the Office as an authorization for the Office to process the deficiency payment and charge the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), or result
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-111
§ 509.04(f)RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
in a requirement for compliance within a one-month nonextendable time period under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to avoid the return of the fee deficiency payment.
37 CFR 1.29(k)(4) provides that any deficiency payment (based on a previous erroneous payment of a micro entity fee) submitted under 37 CFR 1.29(k) will be treated as a notification of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status under 37 CFR 1.29(i).
510 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Business Hours [R-07.2015]
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) working hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays in the District of Columbia. Outside these hours, only USPTO employees are authorized to be in areas of the USPTO other than the Public Search Facilities.
The hours for the Public Search Facility in Alexandria are 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays in the District of Columbia.
See subsections II and III below for information regarding public access to, and conduct on, USPTO premises.
I. FILING OF PAPERS DURING UNSCHEDULED CLOSINGS OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
37 CFR 1.9(h) provides that the definition of “Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” includes an official closing of the Office. When the entire USPTO is officially closed for business for an entire day, for reasons due to adverse weather or other causes, the Office will consider each such day a “Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” under 35 U.S.C. 21. Any action or fee due on such a day may be taken, or fee paid, on the next succeeding business day the Office is open. In addition, 37 CFR 1.6(a)(1) provides “[t]he Patent and Trademark Office is not open for the filing of correspondence on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” to clarify that any day that is a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday within the District of
Columbia is a day that the USPTO is not open for the filing of applications within the meaning of Article 4(C)(3) of the Paris Convention. Note further that in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a)(2), even when the Office is not open for the filing of correspondence on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday within the District of Columbia, correspondence deposited as Priority Mail
Express® with the United States Postal Service in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 will be considered filed on the date of its deposit, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday within the District of Columbia (under 35 U.S.C. 21(b) or 37 CFR 1.7).
When the USPTO is open for business during any part of a business day between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., papers are due on that day even though the Office may be officially closed for some period of time during the business day because of an unscheduled event. The procedures of 37 CFR 1.10 may be used for filing applications.
Information regarding whether or not the Office is officially closed on any particular day may be obtained by calling 1-800-PTO(786)-9199 or (571) 272-1000.
New patent applications filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 will be stamped by the Office with the
date of deposit as Priority Mail Express® with the United States Postal Service. For example, if a new patent application is deposited in Priority Mail
Express® in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 on a Saturday and the United States Postal Service gives it a date of deposit of Saturday, the Office will accord and stamp the correspondence with the Saturday date. 37 CFR 1.6(a)(2).
II. CONDUCT IN PUBLIC INFORMATION FACILITIES
The USPTO has established procedures and regulations governing public conduct on all Office premises, and additional regulations specific to the use of public information facilities, including the Lutrelle F. Parker Sr. Public Search Facility, the Scientific and Technical Information Center, and the File Information Unit. The USPTO instituted
500-112Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 510
new access control procedures that may affect visitors to the USPTO campus effective Monday, August 4, 2014. See www.uspto.gov/page/new- rules-may-adjust-how-some-visitors-can-enter-uspto-buildings for more information.
A valid Public User or Visitor’s badge is required to enter USPTO facilities. This badge can be obtained from the Office of Security next door to the Public Search Facility located on the first floor of the Madison East Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. User badges will be issued to persons not under prohibition from using the search facilities who sign an application form and acknowledge receipt of a copy of the noted regulations. User badges are nontransferable and are valid until reissue or revocation for cause. Office
employees must show their Building badges in order to enter the Patent Search Room. An On-line Service Card is required for access to all Public Search Facilities and on-line systems. On-line Service Cards are obtained at the Public Search Facility Receptionist Desk on a user’s first visit.
Persons violating the regulations governing public conduct on Office premises (reproduced below) may be denied the use of Office facilities, and may further be subjected to prosecution under the Criminal Code. Additionally, the name of any person violating these regulations who is registered to practice before the Office may be forwarded to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action under 37 CFR Part 11.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-113
§ 510RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
500-114Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 510
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-115
§ 510RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
III. USE OF TECHNOLOGY CENTER FACILITIES
In addition to the rules set forth above with regard to public conduct on USPTO premises, authorized members of the public using the facilities of the Technology Centers (TCs) are required to follow the rules set forth below.
(A) TC facilities are defined as those areas in Carlyle (Alexandria, VA) where the TCs are located.
(B) The use of the TC facilities is strictly limited to the regular business hours of the USPTO, i.e., between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on regular business days (see subsection I above).
(C) Authorized Officials, under these regulations, include Supervisory Patent Examiners and TC Directors.
(D) Under applicable statutes and regulations, including Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 102-74, Subpart C:
(1) No records, or other documents of the USPTO shall be removed from the TC facilities except by express written authorization by an authorized official in the TC where the material resides.
(2) The presence or use of equipment such as dictation equipment, reproducing machines, typewriters, and photographic equipment is prohibited without prior permission from an authorized official in the TC where the use is intended.
(3) All packages, briefcases, or other personal effects brought into the TC Facilities are subject to search by authorized officials upon request and must be removed when leaving the TC facilities.
(4) All verbal requests for compliance with these regulations or other posted USPTO Notices pertaining to activity in the TC facilities, when made by authorized officials, must be promptly complied with.
(E) Persons violating these regulations may be denied the use of the facilities in the TC and Office public information facilities, and may further be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code. Additionally, the name of any person violating these regulations who is registered to practice before the USPTO may be forwarded to the Office of
Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action under 37 CFR Part 11.
If any individual is observed in violation of any of the regulations, immediate compliance should be courteously requested. If a verbal request is not complied with, a note should be made of the individual’s name and Visitor or User badge number, if possible (the badge is required to be prominently displayed) and a report of the incident should be made to the Supervisory Patent Examiner, Supervisory Applications Examiner, or other appropriate supervisor who will take further action.
In addition, if any individual in TC Facilities appears to be a stranger and is not wearing a Visitor badge or User badge, some identification, such as a Visitor, User, or Building badge (issued to Office employees and contractors), should be requested. If the individual refuses, notify a supervisor. Consequently, all Office employees are expected to carry their Building badge with them at all times.
Supervisors, when aware of violations of the posted regulations, should prepare a memorandum detailing the facts of the incident and forward this memorandum to the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations via their TC Director. Supervisory Patent Examiners and TC Directors are authorized to demand surrender of a User or Visitor badge on-the-spot. If the Supervisory Patent Examiner exercises this function, the TC Director should be immediately notified, followed up by a memorandum as previously set forth.
511 Postal Service Interruptions and Emergencies [R-07.2015]
In the event of a postal interruption or emergency, an announcement will be placed on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov and a notice will be published in the Official Gazette, providing instructions about the filing of patent applications, and other papers related to patent applications and patents.
35 U.S.C. 21 Filing date and day for taking action.
(a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any paper or fee required to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office will be considered filed in the Office on the date on which it was deposited with the United States Postal Service or would have
500-116Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 511
been deposited with the United States Postal Service but for postal service interruptions or emergencies designated by the Director.
*****
37 CFR 1.10 Filing of correspondence by Priority Mail Express®.
*****
(g) Any person who mails correspondence addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient postage utilizing the
Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but has the correspondence returned by the USPS due
to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware of the return of the correspondence;
(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail
Express®;
(3) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence showing the number
of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon and a copy
of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted”; and
(4) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original deposit of the correspondence and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date. The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was returned by the USPS
due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service.
(h) Any person who attempts to mail correspondence addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient
postage utilizing the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but has the correspondence refused by an employee of the USPS due to an interruption or
emergency in Priority Mail Express® service, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware of the refusal of the correspondence;
(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the attempted mailing by Priority Mail
Express®;
(3) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence showing the number
of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon; and
(4) The petition includes a statement by the person who originally attempted to deposit the correspondence with the USPS which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original attempt to deposit the correspondence and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date. The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was refused by an employee of the USPS
due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service.
(i) Any person attempting to file correspondence under this section that was unable to be deposited with the USPS
due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service which has been so designated by the Director, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed in a manner designated by the Director promptly after the person becomes aware of the
designated interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service;
(2) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence; and
(3) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the correspondence would have been deposited with the USPS but for the designated
interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service, and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date.
I. “EXPRESS MAIL” RENAMED “PRIORITY MAIL EXPRESS”
Effective July 28, 2013, the United States Postal Service (USPS) changed the name of “Express Mail” to “Priority Mail Express.” All characteristics of the “Priority Mail Express” service are the same as those of the former “Express Mail” service (although the mailing labels differ).
The addresses that should be used for Priority Mail
Express® sent to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 (see MPEP § 501). The Office does not have resources for picking up any mail. Therefore mail should NOT be sent using the “Hold for Pickup” service option (whereby the mail is retained at the destination postal facility for
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-117
§ 511RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
retrieval by the addressee). Mail sent using the “Hold for pickup” service will not reach the Office.
See MPEP § 513 for the use of the Priority Mail
Express® Mailing procedure of 37 CFR 1.10.
II. PETITION DUE TO A POSTAL SERVICE INTERRUPTION OR EMERGENCY
37 CFR 1.10(i) provides a procedure under which applicant may petition the Director to have correspondence (papers and fees) which was unable to be deposited with the United States Postal Service (USPS) because of an interruption or emergency in
Priority Mail Express® service which is so designated by the Director considered as having been filed on a particular date in the Office. Authority for such a practice is found in 35 U.S.C. 21(a). In addition, the Director has designated certain events as a postal service interruption or emergency by rule (37 CFR 1.10(g) and (h)). 37 CFR 1.10(g) provides a procedure under which applicant may petition the Director to have correspondence that was returned by the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in
Priority Mail Express® service considered as filed on a particular date in the Office. 37 CFR 1.10(h) provides a procedure under which applicant may petition the Director to have correspondence that was refused by an employee of the USPS due to an
interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service considered as filed on a particular date in the Office. For more information on filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.10(g), (h), or (i), see MPEP § 513, especially subsections IX-XI.
Applicants are cautioned that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 21(a) and 37 CFR 1.10(g) to (i) only apply to postal interruptions and emergencies. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 21(a) and 37 CFR 1.10(g) to (i) do not provide for granting of a filing date to correspondence as of the date on which it would have been filed but for other exigencies, such as the unavailability of a computer or word processing equipment, or the inaccessibility of an office or building other than a USPS facility. 35 U.S.C. 21(a) requires, in part, that “any paper or fee required to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office…would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service but for postal service interruptions or
emergencies designated by the Director.” The statute requires that the correspondence was complete and ready to be deposited with the USPS on the filing date requested (e.g., complete application papers have been prepared and printed) and that the correspondence could not have been deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date for the sole reason that the postal service was not available due to the interruption or emergency designated by the Office.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO FILING CORRESPONDENCE VIA PRIORITY MAIL
EXPRESS®
The Office strongly recommends that applicants file
new applications by Priority Mail Express® in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 (if such applications are not filed via EFS-Web) because such correspondence will be accorded the date of deposit
in Priority Mail Express® with the USPS as the filing date. See 37 CFR 1.6(a) and MPEP § 513. Applications that are not filed by Priority Mail
Express® can only be accorded the date of receipt in the Office as the filing date (unless there is a postal interruption or emergency designated by the Office and applicants are instructed to file their applications in a manner other than by Priority Mail
Express®), thus any applicant who files an application by first class mail bears the risk of any delay in the delivery of the application to the Office, even if the delay is unusually significant due to some unforeseen event.
In general, applicants should consider filing new patent applications (as well as patent-related correspondence) via the Office electronic filing system (EFS-Web) whenever permitted. See the Legal Framework for EFS-Web posted on the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov/patents- application-process/applying-online/legal- framework-efs-web-06april11) for information pertaining to the types of patent applications and documents that are permitted to be filed via EFS-Web. See also MPEP § 502.05. New applications cannot be transmitted by facsimile and are not entitled to the benefit of a Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8. A request for a
500-118Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 511
continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available only for design applications) may be transmitted to the Office by facsimile (37 CFR 1.6(d)(3)); however, it is not entitled to the benefit of a Certificate of Transmission (see 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A)). See 37 CFR 1.6(d) and MPEP § 502.01. New patent applications may also be hand-delivered to the Office. See MPEP § 501.
Correspondence in a patent application can be filed via the USPS, hand-delivery, or, when permitted, via EFS-Web or facsimile. Applicants should file correspondence with a Certificate of Mailing or a Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 when permitted. See MPEP §§ 502.01 and 512. Even if the post office is closed due to an emergency, applicants should ordinarily be able to deposit correspondence in a mailbox for first class mail.
512 Certificate of Mailing or Transmission [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.8 Certificate of mailing or transmission.
(a) Except in the situations enumerated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section or as otherwise expressly excluded in this chapter, correspondence required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office within a set period of time will be considered as being timely filed if the procedure described in this section is followed. The actual date of receipt will be used for all other purposes.
(1) Correspondence will be considered as being timely filed if:
(i) The correspondence is mailed or transmitted prior to expiration of the set period of time by being:
(A) Addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail; or
(B) Transmitted by facsimile to the Patent and Trademark Office in accordance with § 1.6(d); or
(C) Transmitted via the Office electronic filing system in accordance with § 1.6(a)(4); and
(ii) The correspondence includes a certificate for each piece of correspondence stating the date of deposit or transmission. The person signing the certificate should have reasonable basis to expect that the correspondence would be mailed or transmitted on or before the date indicated.
(2) The procedure described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not apply to, and no benefit will be given to a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission on, the following:
(i) Relative to Patents and Patent Applications—
(A) The filing of a national patent application specification and drawing or other correspondence for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date, including a request for a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d);
(B) Papers filed in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which are governed by § 42.6(b) of this title;
(C) Papers filed in contested cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which are governed by § 41.106(f) of this title;
(D) The filing of an international application for patent;
(E) The filing of correspondence in an international application before the U.S. Receiving Office, the U.S. International Searching Authority, or the U.S. International Preliminary Examining Authority;
(F) The filing of a copy of the international application and the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage, as specified in § 1.495(b).
(G) The filing of a written declaration of abandonment under § 1.138;
(H) The filing of a submission under § 1.217 for publication of a redacted copy of an application;
(I) The filing of a third-party submission under § 1.290;
(J) The calculation of any period of adjustment, as specified in § 1.703(f);
(K) The filing of an international design application.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) Relative to Disciplinary Proceedings—
(A) Correspondence filed in connection with a disciplinary proceeding under part 11 of this chapter.
(B) [Reserved]
(b) In the event that correspondence is considered timely filed by being mailed or transmitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, but not received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed from the time of mailing or transmitting of the correspondence, or after the application is held to be abandoned, or after the proceeding is dismissed or decided with prejudice, or the prosecution of a reexamination proceeding is terminated pursuant to § 1.550(d) or § 1.957(b) or limited pursuant to § 1.957(c), or a requester paper is refused consideration pursuant to § 1.957(a), the correspondence will be considered timely if the party who forwarded such correspondence:
(1) Informs the Office of the previous mailing or transmission of the correspondence promptly after becoming aware that the Office has no evidence of receipt of the correspondence;
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-119
§ 512RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
(2) Supplies an additional copy of the previously mailed or transmitted correspondence and certificate; and
(3) Includes a statement that attests on a personal knowledge basis or to the satisfaction of the Director to the previous timely mailing, transmission or submission. If the correspondence was sent by facsimile transmission, a copy of the sending unit’s report confirming transmission may be used to support this statement. If the correspondence was transmitted via the Office electronic filing system, a copy of an acknowledgment receipt generated by the Office electronic filing system confirming submission may be used to support this statement.
(c) The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was timely filed.
A suggested format for a Certificate of Mailing and a Certificate of Transmission for facsimile transmissions and for transmissions via the Office electronic filing system (EFS-Web) under 37 CFR 1.8 to be included with the correspondence is reproduced below.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 on ___________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate
___________________________________________ Signature________________________________________
Certificate of Facsimile Transmission
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (___)___-____)
on____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate
___________________________________________ Signature________________________________________
Certificate of EFS-Web Transmission
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronic filing system (EFS-Web) to the USPTO.
on____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate
___________________________________________ Signature________________________________________
¶ 5.02 Format of Certificate of Mailing or Transmission
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 on ___________. (Date) Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________ Registration Number: ______________________________
Certificate of Transmission
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________ Registration Number: ______________________________
Certificate of EFS-Web Transmission
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) electronic filing system (EFS-Web) to the USPTO on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________ Registration Number: ______________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via EFS-Web, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
500-120Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 512
Under 37 CFR 1.8, a person may state on certain papers directed to the Office (some exceptions are stated in 37 CFR 1.8), the date on which the paper will be deposited in the United States Postal Service, transmitted by facsimile or transmitted via the USPTO electronic filing system (EFS-Web). If the date stated is within the period for reply, the reply in most instances will be considered to be timely. This is true even if the paper does not actually reach the Office until after the end of the period for reply. The Certificate of Mailing procedure does not apply to papers mailed in a foreign country.
The Certificate of Transmission procedure for both facsimile transmissions and transmissions via EFS-Web, however, also applies to papers transmitted to the Office from a foreign country provided that the correspondence being transmitted is not prohibited from being transmitted by facsimile or via EFS-Web and is not otherwise precluded from receiving the benefits under 37 CFR 1.8.
It should be noted, however, that the Office will continue its normal practice of stamping the date of receipt (“Office Date” Stamp; see MPEP § 505) on all papers received through the mail, by facsimile or via EFS-Web except those filed under 37 CFR 1.10 (See MPEP § 513). The receipt date stamped on all papers will also be the date which is entered on Office records and from which any subsequent periods are calculated. For example, 37 CFR 41.37 gives an appellant 2 months from the receipt date of the notice of appeal to file an appeal brief. If the last day to reply to a final Office action was November 10, 2014, and applicant deposited a Notice of Appeal with fee in the U.S. mail on November 10, 2014, and so certified, that appeal is timely even if it was not received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office until November 12, 2014. Since the date of receipt of the notice of appeal will be used to calculate the time at which the brief is due, the brief was due on January 12, 2015. This is 2 months after the date of receipt of the notice of appeal.
37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) specifically refers to a request for a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available only for design applications) as a correspondence filed for the purposes of obtaining an application filing date and the procedures and benefit set forth in 37
CFR 1.8(a)(1) are not applicable to a request for a CPA. The date on a certificate of mailing or transmission (37 CFR 1.8(a)) of a CPA is not controlling or even relevant. A CPA filed by facsimile transmission or via EFS-Web will not be accorded a filing date as of the date on the certificate of transmission unless Office records indicate, or applicant otherwise establishes pursuant to 37 CFR 1.6(f), receipt in the Office of the complete CPA on the date on the certificate of transmission and that date is not a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia (for EFS-Web transmission, that date can be a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia).
I. PROCEDURE BY APPLICANT
(A) The certification requires a signature. Specifically, if the certification appears on a paper that requires a signature, two signatures are required, one for the paper and one for the certification. Although not specifically required by 37 CFR 1.8, it is preferred that the certificate be signed by the applicant or registered practitioner.
(B) When possible, the certification should appear on a portion of the paper being submitted. However, if there is insufficient space to make the certification on the same paper, the certification should be on a separate sheet securely attached to the paper.
(C) When the certification is presented on a separate sheet, that sheet must (1) be signed and (2) fully identify and be securely attached to the paper it accompanies. The required identification should include the application number and filing date of the application as well as the type of paper being filed, e.g., reply to rejection or refusal, Notice of Appeal, etc. An unsigned certification will not be considered acceptable.
Moreover, without the proper identifying data, a certification presented on a separate sheet will not be considered acceptable if there is any question or doubt concerning the connection between the sheet and the paper filed.
For submissions by the U.S. Postal Service or facsimile transmissions, if the sheet should become detached from the paper and thereafter not associated with the appropriate file, evidence that this sheet was received in the Office can be
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-121
§ 512RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
supported by submitting a copy of a postcard receipt specifically identifying this sheet and the paper and by submitting a copy of the sheet as originally mailed. Attention is directed to MPEP § 503 relative to the use of postcards as receipts. For submissions via EFS-Web, evidence that this sheet was received in the Office can be supported by submitting a copy of an electronic acknowledgement receipt specifically identifying this sheet and the paper and by submitting a copy of the sheet as originally submitted. See MPEP §§ 502.05 and 503.
(D) In situations wherein the correspondence includes papers for more than one application (e.g., a single envelope containing separate papers responding to Office actions in different applications) or papers for various parts of the Office (e.g., a patent issue fee transmittal form PTOL-85B and an assignment), each paper must have its own certification as a part thereof or attached thereto.
Although Part B of Form PTOL-85, Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due, may contain a Certificate of Mailing thereon, a separate Certificate of Mailing is required for all papers included with this form, including replacement drawings. Checks submitted with the papers do not require certification.
(E) In situations wherein the correspondence includes several papers directed to the same area of the Office for the same application (for example, a proposed reply under 37 CFR 1.116 and a Notice of Appeal), each paper should have its own certification as a part thereof or attached thereto.
(F) For the purposes of 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)(i)(A), first class mail is interpreted as including Priority
Mail Express® and “Priority Mail” deposited with the U.S. Postal Service.
Alternatively, the correspondence may be submitted with a cover or transmittal letter that itemizes and properly identifies the papers and on which is placed the certificate under 37 CFR 1.8.
II. USE OF STAMPED CERTIFICATION
Some practitioners place the certification language on the first page of a paper with an inked stamp. Such a practice is encouraged because the
certification is not only readily visible but also forms an integral part of the paper.
III. OFFICE PROCEDURE
A. Mail Center of the Office of Patent Application Processing
The Mail Center of the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will continue to date stamp the actual date of receipt of all papers received by mail in the Office. No attempt will be made to retain the envelopes in which the papers are received or to indicate on the papers the postal cancellation date (postmark).
However, the benefits of 37 CFR 1.8 or 37 CFR 1.10 apply only to documents delivered to the Office by the U.S. Postal Service. A number of instances have been uncovered where individuals are certifying that documents were deposited with the U.S. Postal Service when, in fact, the documents were hand-carried or delivered to the Office via commercial couriers, e.g., “Federal Express,” “DHL,” “Purolator,” “Air Borne,” or “UPS.” In those instances where documents include a Certificate of
Mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 or Priority Mail Express®
mailing label (commonly used to comply with 37 CFR 1.10) but were delivered to the Office by other than the U.S. Postal Service, (OPAP) personnel are placing a notice indicating that fact on the correspondence involved to alert Office personnel that the benefits of 37 CFR 1.8 or 37 CFR 1.10 do not apply.
B. Processing Areas
When papers are received in a specific location of the Office (e.g., Pre-Grant Publication Division, Office of Data Management, Office of Petitions - see MPEP §§ 502 and 502.01), the date of receipt in the Office is stamped on the papers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a).
The date indicated on the Certificate of Mailing or of Transmission will be used by the Office only to determine if the paper was deposited in the United States Postal Service, transmitted by facsimile or
500-122Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 512
transmitted via EFS-Web within the period for reply. If the paper was actually received in the Office within the period for reply, there is no need to refer to the Certificate. Note however, that 37 CFR 1.6(a)(3) provides that “[c]orrespondence transmitted by facsimile to the Patent and Trademark Office will be stamped with the date on which the complete transmission is received in the Patent and Trademark Office unless that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, in which case the date stamped will be the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia.” Note further that 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) provides that “[c]orrespondence submitted to the Office by way of the Office electronic filing system will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date the correspondence is received at the correspondence address for the Office set forth in § 1.1 when it was officially submitted.” This date can be a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia.
If, however, the paper was received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after the end of the period for reply, the paper should be inspected to determine if a Certificate of Mailing or of Transmission has been included. Where no such Certificate is found, the paper is untimely since applicant did not reply within the period for reply. This may result in abandonment of the application or other loss of rights.
In those instances where a Certificate of Mailing or of Transmission does appear in the paper or a cover letter thereto, a check should be made to determine whether the indicated date of deposit or transmission is within the period for reply. If the date indicated in the Certificate is after the end of the period for reply, the paper is untimely and no notation of the date need be made. Where the date indicated on the Certificate is within the period for reply, the paper should be considered to be timely filed. A notation should be made adjacent to the Office stamp indicating the date of receipt (“Office Date” Stamp) which notes the date stated on the Certificate. This notation should be “C of Mail” , “C of Fax” >or “C of EFS-Web” followed by the date. A paper with a certificate dated November 10, 1997, would be noted
next to the “Office Date” Stamp “(C of Mail. 11/10/97).”
If the period set for taking an action in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia (37 CFR 1.7), the action will be considered to be timely if deposited in the United States mail, transmitted by facsimile or transmitted by EFS-Web and certified under 37 CFR 1.8(a) on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday.
It should be noted that the filing of a paper for the purpose of obtaining a continuation or division application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (available only for design applications) is excluded from the Certificate practice under 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) since it is considered to be the filing of a national patent application.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3), the period of pendency of a provisional application is extended to the next succeeding business day if the day that is 12 months after the filing date of a provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See also 37 CFR 1.7(b).
No benefit will be given to a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Facsimile Transmission relative to the filing of a national patent application specification and drawing or other correspondence for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date. A national patent application specification and drawing or other correspondence for the purpose of obtaining a filing date may be filed via EFS-Web. New patent applications filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 will be stamped by the Office with the
date of deposit as Priority Mail Express® with the United States Postal Service. For example, if a new patent application is deposited as Priority Mail
Express® in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 on a Saturday and the United States Postal Service gives it a date of deposit of Saturday, the Office will accord and stamp the correspondence with the Saturday date. 37 CFR 1.6(a)(2).
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-123
§ 512RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
All Certificates of Mailing or Transmission filed in applications should be placed in the image file wrappers.
Office personnel receiving a hand-delivered paper from other than U.S. Postal Service personnel should inspect the paper to ensure that the benefits
of 37 CFR 1.8 or Priority Mail Express® benefits under 37 CFR 1.10 are not accorded in error. If the paper contains a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR
1.8 or Priority Mail Express® mailing label (commonly used to comply with 37 CFR 1.10), the words “HAND DELIVERED” should be written adjacent to the date stamp.
Applicant should be notified in the next Office action when a paper containing a Certificate of Mailing has been denied the benefits under 37 CFR 1.8 or a paper
containing an Priority Mail Express® mailing label (commonly used to comply with 37 CFR 1.10) is denied benefits under 37 CFR 1.10 by including, for example, form paragraph 5.04.
¶ 5.04 Benefit of Certificate of Mailing Denied
The [1] filed [2] is not entitled to the benefits of 37 CFR 1.[3] since it was not deposited with the U. S. Postal Service for delivery to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, the date of receipt in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been used to determine the timeliness of the paper.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used in those situations where correspondence contains a Certificate of Mailing under 37 CFR
1.8 or requests the benefit of Priority Mail Express® under 37 CFR 1.10, but the correspondence was not actually deposited with the U. S. Postal Service.
2. In bracket 3, insert --8-- or --10--, as appropriate.
Misuse of a Certificate of Mailing under 37 CFR 1.8 or improperly claiming the benefit of 37 CFR 1.10 which appears to be more than a one-time, inadvertent error should be brought to the attention of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
IV. ORIGINAL MAILED PAPER NOT DELIVERED
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of 37 CFR 1.8 concern the situation where a paper containing a Certificate was timely deposited in the U.S. Postal Service, transmitted by facsimile or transmitted via EFS-Web,
but never received by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In the TCs, all submissions under these paragraphs should be considered and the sufficiency thereof determined by the TC Director.
37 CFR 1.8(b) permits a party to notify the Office of a previous mailing through the U.S. Postal Service, or transmission by facsimile or EFS-Web, of correspondence when a reasonable amount of time has elapsed from the time of mailing or transmission of the correspondence. In the event that correspondence may be considered timely filed because it was mailed or transmitted in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8(a), but was not received in the Office after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, (e.g., more than one month from the time the correspondence was mailed), applicant is not required to wait until the end of the maximum extendable period for reply set in a prior Office action (for the Office to hold the application abandoned) before informing the Office of the previously submitted correspondence. Applicant may notify the Office of the previous mailing or transmission and supply a duplicate copy of the previously mailed or transmitted correspondence and a statement attesting on a personal knowledge basis or to the satisfaction of the Director to the previous timely mailing or transmission. If the person signing the statement did not sign the certificate of mailing or the certificate of transmission, then the person signing the statement should explain how they have firsthand knowledge of the previous timely mailing or transmission. Such a statement should be filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has not received the correspondence.
Before notifying the Office of a previously submitted correspondence that appears not to have been received by the Office, applicants are encouraged to check the private Patent Application Information
500-124Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 512
Retrieval (PAIR) System to see if the correspondence has been entered into the application file.
513 Deposit as Priority Mail Express® with U.S. Postal Service [R-07.2015]
“EXPRESS MAIL” RENAMED PRIORITY MAIL
EXPRESS®
Effective July 28, 2013, the United States Postal Service (USPS) changed the name of “Express Mail”
to Priority Mail Express®. All characteristics of the
Priority Mail Express® service are the same as those of the former “Express Mail” service (although the mailing labels differ).
35 U.S.C. 21 Filing date and day for taking action.
(a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any paper or fee required to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office will be considered filed in the Office on the date on which it was deposited with the United States Postal Service or would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service but for postal service interruptions or emergencies designated by the Director.
*****
37 CFR 1.6 Receipt of correspondence.
(a) Date of receipt and Priority Mail Express® date of deposit. Correspondence received in the Patent and Trademark Office is stamped with the date of receipt except as follows:
(1) The Patent and Trademark Office is not open for the filing of correspondence on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. Except for correspondence transmitted by facsimile under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, or filed electronically under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, no correspondence is received in the Office on Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays within the District of Columbia.
(2) Correspondence filed in accordance with § 1.10 will be stamped with the date of deposit as Priority Mail
Express® with the United States Postal Service.
(3) Correspondence transmitted by facsimile to the Patent and Trademark Office will be stamped with the date on which the complete transmission is received in the Patent and Trademark Office unless that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, in which case the date stamped will be the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia.
(4) Correspondence may be submitted using the Office electronic filing system only in accordance with the Office electronic filing system requirements. Correspondence submitted
to the Office by way of the Office electronic filing system will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date the correspondence is received at the correspondence address for the Office set forth in § 1.1 when it was officially submitted.
*****
37 CFR 1.10 Filing of correspondence by Priority Mail Express®.
(a)(1) Any correspondence received by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that was delivered by the
Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) will be considered filed with the USPTO on the date of deposit with the USPS.
(2) The date of deposit with USPS is shown by the
“date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® label or other official USPS notation. If the USPS deposit date cannot be determined, the correspondence will be accorded the USPTO receipt date as the filing date. See § 1.6(a).
(b) Correspondence should be deposited directly with an employee of the USPS to ensure that the person depositing the correspondence receives a legible copy of the Priority Mail
Express® mailing label with the “date accepted” clearly marked. Persons dealing indirectly with the employees of the USPS (such
as by deposit in a Priority Mail Express® drop box) do so at the
risk of not receiving a copy of the Priority Mail Express®
mailing label with the desired “date accepted” clearly marked. The paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence should
also include the Priority Mail Express® mailing label number thereon. See paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section.
(c) Any person filing correspondence under this section that was received by the Office and delivered by the Priority
Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, who can show that there is a discrepancy between the filing date accorded by the Office to the correspondence and the date of deposit as shown by the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail
Express® mailing label or other official USPS notation, may petition the Director to accord the correspondence a filing date
as of the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® mailing label or other official USPS notation, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has accorded, or will accord, a filing date other than the USPS deposit date;
(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail
Express®; and
(3) The petition includes a true copy of the Priority
Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted,” and of any other official notation by the USPS relied upon to show the date of deposit.
(d) Any person filing correspondence under this section that was received by the Office and delivered by the Priority
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-125
§ 513RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, who can show that the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail
Express® mailing label or other official notation entered by the USPS was incorrectly entered or omitted by the USPS, may petition the Director to accord the correspondence a filing date as of the date the correspondence is shown to have been deposited with the USPS, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has accorded, or will accord, a filing date based upon an incorrect entry by the USPS;
(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail
Express®; and
(3) The petition includes a showing which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the requested filing date was the date the correspondence was deposited in the Priority
Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service prior to the last scheduled pickup for that day. Any showing pursuant to this paragraph must be corroborated by evidence from the USPS or that came into being after deposit and within one business day of the deposit of the correspondence in the Priority Mail
Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS.
(e) Any person mailing correspondence addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient postage utilizing the
Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS but not received by the Office, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence filed in the Office on the USPS deposit date, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has no evidence of receipt of the correspondence;
(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail
Express®;
(3) The petition includes a copy of the originally deposited paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence
showing the number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon, a copy of any returned postcard receipt, a copy of the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted,” a copy of any other official notation by the USPS relied upon to show the date of deposit, and, if the requested filing date is a date other than the “date accepted” on the Priority
Mail Express® mailing label or other official notation entered by the USPS, a showing pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section that the requested filing date was the date the
correspondence was deposited in the Priority Mail Express®
Post Office to Addressee service prior to the last scheduled pickup for that day; and
(4) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original deposit of the
correspondence and that the copies of the correspondence, the
copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label, the copy of any returned postcard receipt, and any official notation entered by the USPS are true copies of the originally mailed
correspondence, original Priority Mail Express® mailing label, returned postcard receipt, and official notation entered by the USPS.
(f) The Office may require additional evidence to determine
if the correspondence was deposited as Priority Mail Express®
with the USPS on the date in question.
(g) Any person who mails correspondence addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient postage utilizing
the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but has the correspondence returned by the USPS
due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware of the return of the correspondence;
(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail
Express®;
(3) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence showing the number
of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon and a copy
of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted”; and
(4) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original deposit of the correspondence and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date. The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was returned by the USPS
due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service.
(h) Any person who attempts to mail correspondence addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient
postage utilizing the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but has the correspondence refused by an employee of the USPS due to an interruption or
emergency in Priority Mail Express® service, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware of the refusal of the correspondence;
(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the
500-126Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 513
correspondence prior to the attempted mailing by Priority Mail
Express®;
(3) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence showing the number
of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon; and
(4) The petition includes a statement by the person who originally attempted to deposit the correspondence with the USPS which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original attempt to deposit the correspondence and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date. The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was refused by an employee of the USPS
due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service.
(i) Any person attempting to file correspondence under this sect ion that was unable to be deposited with the USPS due to
an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service which has been so designated by the Director, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed in a manner designated by the Director promptly after the person becomes aware of the
designated interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service;
(2) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence; and
(3) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the correspondence would have been deposited with the USPS but for the designated
interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service, and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date.
The statutory authority for the granting of a filing date based on the date of deposit for correspondence
sent by Priority Mail Express® and received by the Office is found in section 21(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code.
The specific rule for obtaining a filing date as of the
date of deposit in Priority Mail Express® (rather than the date of receipt at the Office) is 37 CFR 1.10.
35 U.S.C. 21(a) is limited to correspondence deposited with the United States Postal Service (USPS). The procedure in 37 CFR 1.10 is limited to
correspondence deposited in the Priority Mail
Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS. There are no similar provisions and no similar benefit can be obtained for correspondence deposited in International Express Mail.
Effective July 28, 2013, the USPS changed the name
of Express Mail®. In addition, the USPS updated
the Priority Mail Express® mailing label. The mailing label now has a ‘‘date accepted’’field rather than a ‘‘date-in’’ field, which was previously used
on the Express Mail® label.
I. EFFECTIVE DATE, WEEKENDS & HOLIDAYS
37 CFR 1.6(a)(2) provides that correspondence
deposited as Priority Mail Express® in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 will be stamped, and, therefore, considered as filed on the date of its deposit, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday within the District of Columbia. 37 CFR 1.10 provides a procedure for assigning the date on which any paper or fee is deposited as
Priority Mail Express® with the USPS as the filing date of the paper or fee in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Office). The date of deposit with the USPS is shown by the “date accepted” on the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label or other official USPS notation. This holds true for any day that the correspondence may be accepted as Priority Mail
Express® by the USPS, even when the paper or fee is deposited and accepted on a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday within the District of Columbia. For example, if a person files a patent application by
Priority Mail Express® with the USPS on a Saturday in compliance with 37 CFR 1.10, he or she will receive the benefit of the Saturday date, even though the Office is closed on Saturdays and, therefore, the person could not have filed the application by depositing it directly at the Office on that Saturday. See 37 CFR 1.6(a)(1). In those cases where the procedure of 37 CFR 1.10(a) has not been properly followed, e.g., the “date accepted” is illegible, the filing date of the correspondence will be the date of actual receipt in the Office. An applicant may file a petition under the conditions specified in 37 CFR 1.10(c), (d) or (e) (discussed below) presenting
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-127
§ 513RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
whatever arguments and evidence that the paper or fee is entitled to a filing date other than the filing date accorded by the Office.
II. DATE ACCEPTED, DIRECT DEPOSIT,
PRIORITY MAIL EXPRESS® BOX RECEPTACLES & LOG BOOKS
The procedure in 37 CFR 1.10(a) requires the use
of the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS. This service provides for the use of a mailing label on which the USPS clearly indicates the date on which it was deposited. Correspondence sent by the Priority Mail
Express® Post Office to Addressee service is considered filed in the Office on the “date accepted” entered by the USPS. The “date accepted” on the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label must be completed by the USPS, not by the applicant. For correspondence filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10, Office personnel will routinely look to the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label, and stamp the “date accepted” or other official USPS notation as the filing date of the correspondence. Accordingly, if the USPS enters the deposit date as its “date accepted,” the correspondence will receive the deposit date as its filing date. If the USPS deposit date cannot be determined, the correspondence will be accorded the date of receipt in the Office as the filing date. An applicant may file a petition under the conditions specified in 37 CFR 1.10(c), (d), (e), (g), (h), or (i) (discussed below) presenting whatever arguments and evidence that the paper or fee is entitled to a filing date other than the filing date accorded by the Office.
37 CFR 1.10(b) further provides that correspondence should be deposited directly with an employee of the USPS to ensure that the person depositing the correspondence receives a legible copy of the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label with the “date accepted” clearly marked, and that persons dealing indirectly with the employees of the USPS (such as by depositing correspondence in a Priority Mail
Express® drop box) do so at the risk of not receiving
a copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label with the desired “date accepted” clearly marked. On
petition, the failure to obtain a Priority Mail
Express® receipt with the “date accepted” clearly marked may be considered an omission that could have been avoided by the exercise of due care, as discussed below. While the Office strongly urges
direct deposit of Priority Mail Express®
correspondence in order to obtain a legible copy of
the Priority Mail Express® mailing label, parties are
not precluded from using Priority Mail Express®
drop boxes, but do so at their own risk.
A paper or fee placed in a Priority Mail Express®
box receptacle after the box has been cleared for the last time on a given day will be considered to be deposited as of the date of receipt (“date accepted”)
indicated on the Priority Mail Express® mailing
label by the Postal Service Priority Mail Express®
acceptance clerk. 37 CFR 1.10(d) permits the Office to correct a USPS “date-in” error when the correspondence is deposited in an Priority Mail
Express® drop box prior to last scheduled pick up of the day, that is, the time clearly marked on the
Priority Mail Express® drop box indicating when the box will be cleared for the last time on the date of deposit. 37 CFR 1.10(d) sets forth the procedures to be followed to be entitled to such a correction.
Parties who do use drop boxes can protect themselves from uncertainty due to illegible mailing labels by routinely maintaining a log of Priority Mail
Express® deposits in which notations are entered by the person who deposited the correspondence as
Priority Mail Express® within one business day after deposit with the USPS. Such evidence could be useful to later support a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.10(c), (d), (e), or (g). Evidence that came into being after deposit and within one day after the deposit of the correspondence as Priority Mail
Express® may be in the form of a log book which contains information such as the Priority Mail
Express® number; the application number, attorney docket number or other such file identification number; the place, date and time of deposit; the time of the last scheduled pick-up for that date and place
500-128Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 513
of deposit; the depositor’s initials or signature; and the date and time of entry in the log.
III. PRIORITY MAIL EXPRESS® MAILING LABEL NUMBER
While 37 CFR 1.10(b) does not require placement
of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label number on the correspondence prior to mailing, it is advisable to do so. If the number of the mailing label did not appear on the correspondence as originally filed, relief will not be granted on petition under 37 CFR 1.10(c), (d), (e), (g), or (h), even if the party who filed the correspondence satisfies the other requirements of 37 CFR 1.10(c), 1.10(d), 1.10(e), 1.10(g), or 1.10(h). To be effective, the number must be placed on each separate paper and each fee transmittal either directly on the document or by a separate paper firmly and securely attached thereto. In situations wherein the correspondence includes several papers directed to the same application (for example, the specification, drawings, and declaration for a new application), the correspondence may be submitted with a cover or transmittal letter which should itemize the papers. It is not necessary that the number be placed on each page of a particular paper or fee transmittal. Merely placing the number in one prominent location on each separate paper or fee transmittal (or cover sheet or transmittal letter which should itemize the separate papers and fees) will be sufficient.
Since the filing of correspondence under 37 CFR 1.10 without the number of the Priority Mail
Express® mailing label thereon is an oversight that can be avoided by the exercise of reasonable care, requests for waiver of this requirement will not be granted on petition. A party’s inadvertent failure to comply with the requirements of a rule is not deemed to be an extraordinary situation that would warrant waiver of a rule under 37 CFR 1.183, 2.146(a)(5) or 2.148. See Honigsbaum v. Lehman, 903 F. Supp. 8, 37 USPQ2d 1799 (D.D.C. 1995) (Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to waive requirements of 37 CFR 1.10(c) in order to grant filing date to patent application, where applicant failed to produce “Express Mail” customer receipt or any other evidence that application was actually deposited with USPS as “Express Mail.”), aff’d
without opinion, 95 F.3d 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Gustafson v. Strange, 227 USPQ 174 (Comm’r Pat. 1985) (counsel’s unawareness of 37 CFR 1.8 not extraordinary situation warranting waiver of a rule); In re Chicago Historical Antique Automobile Museum, Inc., 197 USPQ 289 (Comm’r Pat. 1978) (since certificate of mailing procedure under 37 CFR 1.8 was available to petitioner, lateness due to mail delay not deemed to be extraordinary situation).
IV. PETITIONS
37 CFR 1.10(c) through 1.10(e) and 1.10(g) set forth procedures for petitioning the Director to accord a filing date as of the date of deposit as Priority Mail
Express® (Priority Mail Express). Briefly, 37 CFR 1.10(c) applies where there is a discrepancy between the filing date accorded by the Office and the “date accepted” entered by the USPS on the Priority Mail
Express® mailing label or other official USPS notation; 37 CFR 1.10(d) applies where the “date accepted” is incorrectly entered by the USPS; 37 CFR 1.10(e) applies where correspondence deposited
with the USPS as Priority Mail Express® is not received by the Office; and 37 CFR 1.10(g) applies where correspondence deposited with the USPS as “Express Mail” was returned by the USPS due to an
interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service.
37 CFR 1.10(h) and 1.10(i) set forth procedures for petitioning the Director when correspondence was
attempted to be deposited as Priority Mail Express®. 37 CFR 1.10(h) applies where correspondence was refused by an employee of the USPS due to an
interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express®
service; and 37 CFR 1.10(i) applies where correspondence was unable to be deposited with the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority
Mail Express® service which has been so designated by the Director.
V. PETITION TO CORRECT FILING DATE AND DATE ACCEPTED DISCREPANCY
37 CFR 1.10(c) sets forth procedures for filing a petition to the Director for a filing date as of the date
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-129
§ 513RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
of deposit with the USPS, where there is a discrepancy between the filing date initially accorded by the Office and the “date accepted” entered by the USPS or other official USPS notation. Such a petition should:
(A) be filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has accorded, or will accord, a filing date other than the USPS deposit date;
(B) include a showing that the number of the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on each piece of correspondence prior to the original mailing; and
(C) include a true copy of the Priority Mail
Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted” or other official notation by the USPS.
VI. PETITION TO CORRECT INCORRECTLY ENTERED DATE-IN
37 CFR 1.10(d) sets forth procedures for filing a petition to the Director to accord a filing date as of the actual date of deposit with the USPS, where the “date accepted” or other official notation is incorrectly entered by the USPS. Such a petition should:
(A) be filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has accorded, or will accord, a filing date based upon an incorrect entry by the USPS;
(B) include a showing that the number of the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on each piece of correspondence prior to the original mailing; and
(C) include a showing that the correspondence
was deposited as Priority Mail Express® prior to the last scheduled pickup on the requested filing date.
The showing under 37 CFR 1.10(d) must be corroborated by (1) evidence from the USPS, or (2) evidence that came into being after deposit and within one business day of the deposit of the
correspondence as Priority Mail Express®. Evidence
from the USPS may be the Priority Mail Express®
Corporate Account Mailing Statement. Evidence that came into being within one day after the deposit
of the correspondence as Priority Mail Express®
may be in the form of a log book which contains
information such as the Priority Mail Express®
number; the application number, attorney docket number or other such file identification number; the place, date and time of deposit; the time of the last scheduled pick-up for that date and place of deposit; the depositor’s initials or signature; and the date and time of entry in the log.
The reason the Office considers correspondence to have been filed as of the date of deposit as Priority
Mail Express® is that this date has been verified by a disinterested USPS employee, through the insertion of a “date accepted,” or other official USPS notation,
on the Priority Mail Express® mailing label. Due to the questionable reliability of evidence from a party other than the USPS that did not come into being contemporaneously with the deposit of the correspondence with the USPS, 37 CFR 1.10(d) specifically requires that any petition under 37 CFR 1.10(d) be corroborated either by evidence from the USPS, or by evidence that came into being after deposit and within one business day after the deposit
of the correspondence as Priority Mail Express®.
A petition alleging that the USPS erred in entering the “date accepted” will be denied if it is supported only by evidence (other than from the USPS) which was:
(A) created prior to the deposit of the
correspondence as Priority Mail Express® with the USPS (e.g., an application transmittal cover letter, or a client letter prepared prior to the deposit of the correspondence); or
(B) created more than one business day after the deposit of the correspondence as Priority Mail
Express® (e.g., an affidavit or declaration prepared more than one business day after the correspondence was deposited with the USPS as Priority Mail
Express®).
On the other hand, a notation in a log book, entered after deposit by the person who deposited the
correspondence as Priority Mail Express® within one business day of such deposit, setting forth the
500-130Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 513
items indicated above, would be deemed on petition to be an adequate showing of the date of deposit under 37 CFR 1.10(d)(3).
37 CFR 1.10(d)(3) further provides that a party must show that correspondence was deposited as Priority
Mail Express® before the last scheduled pickup on the requested filing date in order to obtain a filing date as of that date.
VII. PETITION FOR CORRESPONDENCE NEVER RECEIVED
37 CFR 1.10(e) sets forth procedures for filing a petition to the Director to accord a filing date as of the date of deposit with the USPS, where
correspondence deposited as Priority Mail Express®
is never received by the Office. Such a petition should:
(A) be filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has no evidence of receipt of the correspondence;
(B) include a showing that the number of the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on each piece of correspondence prior to the original mailing;
(C) include a true copy of the originally deposited correspondence showing the number of
the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon, a copy of any returned postcard receipt, a copy of the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted” or other official notation entered by the USPS; and
(D) include a statement, signed by the person who deposited the documents as Priority Mail
Express® with the USPS, setting forth the date and time of deposit, and declaring that the copies of the
correspondence, Priority Mail Express® mailing label, and returned postcard receipt accompanying the petition are true copies of the correspondence, mailing label and returned postcard receipt originally mailed or received.
37 CFR 1.10(e) provides for the filing of a petition to accord correspondence a filing date as of the date
of deposit with the USPS as Priority Mail Express®
only where the correspondence was mailed with sufficient postage and addressed as set out in 37 CFR 1.1(a). There is no corresponding provision that correspondence be properly addressed and mailed with sufficient postage in 37 CFR 1.10(a), (c) and (d), because these sections apply only to correspondence that is actually received by the Office. Correspondence mailed by Priority Mail
Express® that is actually received by the Office will not be denied a filing date as of the date of deposit
as Priority Mail Express® simply because the correspondence was not mailed with sufficient postage or not addressed as set out in 37 CFR 1.1(a). 37 CFR 1.10(e)(3) provides that if the requested filing date is a date other than the “date accepted”
on thePriority Mail Express® mailing label, the petition should include a showing under 37 CFR 1.10(d)(3), as discussed above, that the correspondence was deposited as Priority Mail
Express® before the last scheduled pickup on the requested filing date in order to obtain a filing date as of that date. 37 CFR 1.10(e) applies only in those situations in which the correspondence at issue was lost in toto (i.e., the entire correspondence was not delivered to the Office). Where there is a dispute as to the contents of correspondence submitted to the Office (e.g., an applicant asserts that three sheets of drawings were submitted under 37 CFR 1.10 with an application, but the Office records indicate receipt of only two sheets of drawings with the application), an applicant may not rely upon the provisions of 37 CFR 1.10(e) to establish what document(s) and/or fee(s) were filed in the Office with such correspondence. Rather, where the records of the Office (e.g., the file of the application) contain any document(s) or fee(s) corresponding to the contents of the correspondence at issue, the Office will rely upon its official record of the contents of such correspondence in absence of convincing evidence (e.g., a postcard receipt under MPEP § 503 containing specific itemization of the document(s) or fee(s) purported to have been filed with the correspondence at issue) that the Office received and misplaced any document(s) or fee(s) that is not among the official records of the Office.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-131
§ 513RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
VIII. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE REQUIRED
37 CFR 1.10(f) provides that the Office may require additional evidence to determine whether the correspondence was deposited as Priority Mail
Express® with the USPS on the date in question.
IX. PETITION FOR CORRESPONDENCE RETURNED DUE TO POSTAL INTERRUPTION OR EMERGENCY
37 CFR 1.10(g) provides that any person who mails correspondence addressed as set out in 37 CFR 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient postage utilizing the
Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but has the correspondence returned by the USPS due to an interruption or
emergency in Priority Mail Express® service, may petition the Director to consider the correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office. Such a petition must:
(A) be filed promptly after the person becomes aware of the return of the correspondence;
(B) include a showing that the number of the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by
Priority Mail Express®
(C) include the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence showing the
number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label
thereon and a copy of the Priority Mail Express®
mailing label showing the “date accepted;” and
(D) include a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original deposit of the correspondence and that the correspondence or the copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date.
The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was returned by the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority
Mail Express® service. For example, the Office may
require a letter from the USPS confirming that the return was due to an interruption or emergency in
the Priority Mail Express® service.
This procedure does not apply where the USPS
returned the Priority Mail Express® for a reason other than an interruption or emergency in Priority
Mail Express® service such as the address was incomplete or the correspondence included
insufficient payment for the Priority Mail Express®
service.
X. PETITION FOR CORRESPONDENCE REFUSED DUE TO POSTAL INTERRUPTION OR EMERGENCY
37 CFR 1.10(h) provides that any person who attempts to mail correspondence addressed as set out in 37 CFR 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient
postage utilizing the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but has the correspondence refused by an employee of the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority
Mail Express® service, may petition the Director to consider the correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office. Such a petition must:
(A) be filed promptly after the person becomes aware of the refusal of the correspondence;
(B) include a showing that the number of the
Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the attempted mailing by
Priority Mail Express®
(C) include the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence showing the
number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon; and
(D) include a statement by the person who originally attempted to deposit the correspondence with the USPS which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original attempt to deposit the correspondence and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally
500-132Rev. 07.2015, October 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 513
attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date.
The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was refused by an employee of the USPS due to an interruption or
emergency in Priority Mail Express® service. For example, the Office may require a letter from the USPS confirming that the refusal was due to an interruption or emergency in the Priority Mail
Express® service.
This procedure does not apply where the USPS
refused the Priority Mail Express® for a reason other than an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail
Express® service such as the address was incomplete or the correspondence included insufficient payment
for the Priority Mail Express® service. In addition, this procedure does not apply because an Priority
Mail Express® drop box is unavailable or a Post Office facility is closed.
XI. PETITION FOR CORRESPONDENCE UNABLE TO BE DEPOSITED DUE TO A DIRECTOR-DESIGNATED POSTAL INTERRUPTION OR EMERGENCY
37 CFR 1.10(i) provides that any person attempting
to file correspondence by Priority Mail Express®
that was unable to be deposited with the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail
Express® service which has been so designated by the Director may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office. Such a petition must:
(A) be filed in a manner designated by the Director promptly after the person becomes aware of the designated interruption or emergency in
Priority Mail Express® service;
(B) include the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence; and
(C) include a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the correspondence would have been deposited with the USPS but for the designated interruption or emergency in Priority
Mail Express® service, and that the correspondence
or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date.
This procedure applies only when the Director designates an interruption or emergency in Priority
Mail Express® service. In the notice designating the interruption or emergency the Director will provide guidance on the manner in which petitions under 37 CFR 1.10(i) should be filed. The notice will be placed on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov and published in the Official Gazette.
Rev. 07.2015, October 2015500-133
§ 513RECEIPT AND HANDLING OF MAIL AND PAPERS
Chapter 600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application
Content of Provisional and Nonprovisional Applications
601
Complete Application601.01 Nonprovisional Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)
601.01(a)
Provisional Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111(b)
601.01(b)
Conversion to or from a Provisional Application
601.01(c)
Application Filed Without All Pages of Specification
601.01(d)
Nonprovisional Application Filed Without at Least One Claim
601.01(e)
Applications Filed Without Drawings
601.01(f)
Applications Filed Without All Figures of Drawings
601.01(g)
Power of Attorney601.02 Correspondence Address601.03
Change of Correspondence Address in Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012
601.03(a)
Change of Correspondence Address in Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012
601.03(b)
National Stage Requirements of the United States as a Designated Office
601.04
Bibliographic Information - Application Data Sheet (ADS)
601.05
Application Data Sheet (ADS) -- Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012
601.05(a)
Application Data Sheet (ADS) in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
601.05(b)
Oaths and Declarations602 Inventorship602.01
Inventor’s Oath or Declaration in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012
602.01(a)
Inventor’s Oath or Declaration in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
602.01(b)
Correction of Inventorship, Name of Inventor, and Order of Names in an Application
602.01(c)
Correction of Inventorship in an Application – Request
602.01(c)(1)
Filed On or After September 16, 2012
Correcting or Updating Inventor Name 37 CFR
602.01(c)(2)
1.48(f) – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 Correction of Inventorship in an Application – Request
602.01(c)(3)
Under 37 CFR 1.48 Filed Prior to September 16, 2012
New Oath or Substitute for Original602.02 Office Finds the Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Defective
602.03
Foreign Executed Oath602.04 Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications
602.05
Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012
602.05(a)
Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012
602.05(b)
Non-English Oath or Declaration602.06 Oath or Declaration Filed in United States as a Designated Office
602.07
Inventor and Application Information602.08 Inventor Bibliographic Information
602.08(a)
Inventor Signature and Name602.08(b) Identification of Application602.08(c)
Joint Inventors602.09 Supplemental Oath or Declaration603
Supplemental Oath or Declaration Filed After Allowance
603.01
Substitute Statements604 Applicant605
Applicant for Application filed on or after September 16, 2012
605.01
Applicant for Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
605.02
Title of Invention606 Examiner May Require Change in Title
606.01
Filing Fee607 [Reserved]607.01 Returnability of Fees607.02
Disclosure608 Specification608.01
Arrangement of Application608.01(a) Abstract of the Disclosure608.01(b) Background of the Invention608.01(c) Brief Summary of Invention608.01(d)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-1
Reservation Clauses Not Permitted
608.01(e)
Brief Description of Drawings608.01(f) Detailed Description of Invention608.01(g) Mode of Operation of Invention608.01(h) Claims608.01(i) Numbering of Claims608.01(j) Statutory Requirement of Claims608.01(k) Claims Present on theApplication Filing Date
608.01(l)
Form of Claims608.01(m) Dependent Claims608.01(n) Basis for Claim Terminology in Description
608.01(o)
Completeness of Specification608.01(p) Substitute or Rewritten Specification
608.01(q)
Derogatory Remarks About Prior Art in Specification
608.01(r)
Restoration of Canceled Matter608.01(s) Use in Subsequent Application608.01(t) [Reserved]608.01(u) Marks Used in Commerce and Trade Names
608.01(v)
Copyright and Mask Work Notices
608.01(w)
Drawing608.02 New Drawing — When Replacement is Required Before Examination
608.02(a)
Acceptability of Drawings608.02(b) Location of Drawings608.02(c) Complete Illustration in Drawings608.02(d) Examiner Determines Completeness and Consistency of Drawings
608.02(e)
Modifications in Drawings608.02(f) Illustration of Prior Art608.02(g) Replacement Drawings608.02(h) Transfer of Drawings From Prior Applications
608.02(i)
[Reserved]608.02(j) -608.02(o)
Correction of Drawings608.02(p) [Reserved]608.02(q)
-608.02(s) Cancelation of Figures608.02(t) [Reserved]608.02(u) Drawing Changes Which Require Annotated Sheets
608.02(v)
Drawing Changes Which May Be Made Without Applicant’s Annotated Sheets
608.02(w)
Drawing Corrections or Changes Accepted Unless Notified Otherwise
608.02(x)
Return of Drawing608.02(y) Allowable Applications Needing Drawing Corrections or Corrected Drawings
608.02(z)
Models, Exhibits, Specimens608.03 Handling of Models, Exhibits, and Specimens
608.03(a)
New Matter608.04 Matter Not Present in Specification, Claims, or
608.04(a)
Drawings on the Application Filing Date New Matter by Preliminary Amendment
608.04(b)
Review of Examiner’s Holding of New Matter
608.04(c)
Sequence Listing, Table, or Computer Program Listing Appendix Submitted in Electronic Form
608.05
Deposit of Computer Program Listings
608.05(a)
Compact Disc Submissions of Large Tables
608.05(b)
Submissions of Biological Sequence Listings as ASCII Files
608.05(c)
Information Disclosure Statement609 Examiner Checklist for Information Disclosure Statements
609.01
Information Disclosure Statements in Continued Examinations or Continuing Applications
609.02
Information Disclosure Statements in National Stage Applications
609.03
[Reserved]609.04 Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement
609.04(a)
Timing Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement
609.04(b)
Examiner Handling of Information Disclosure Statements
609.05
Noncomplying Information Disclosure Statements
609.05(a)
Complying Information Disclosure Statements
609.05(b)
600-2Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Documents Submitted as Part of Applicant’s Reply to Office Action
609.05(c)
Information Printed on Patent609.06 IDSs Electronically Submitted (e-IDS) Using EFS-Web
609.07
Electronic Processing of Information Disclosure Statement
609.08
601 Content of Provisional and Nonprovisional Applications [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 111 Application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed under this provision on or after December 18, 2013. See pre-PLT (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 111 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111 for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) WRITTEN APPLICATION.—An application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director.
(2) CONTENTS.—Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112;
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113; and
(C) an oath or declaration as prescribed by section 115.
(3) FEE, OATH OR DECLARATION, AND CLAIMS.—The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee, oath or declaration, and 1 or more claims may be submitted after the filing date of the application, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director. Upon failure to submit the fee, oath or declaration, and 1 or more claims within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of an application shall be the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(b) PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—
(1) AUTHORIZATION.—A provisional application for patent shall be made or authorized to be made by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director. Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112(a); and
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113.
(2) CLAIM.—A claim, as required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.
(3) FEE.—The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee may be submitted after the filing date of the application, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director. Upon failure to submit the fee within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of a provisional application shall be the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(5) ABANDONMENT.—Notwithstanding the absence of a claim, upon timely request and as prescribed by the Director, a provisional application may be treated as an application filed under subsection (a). Subject to section 119(e)(3), if no such request is made, the provisional application shall be regarded as abandoned 12 months after the filing date of such application and shall not be subject to revival after such 12-month period.
(6) OTHER BASIS FOR PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—Subject to all the conditions in this subsection and section 119(e) of this title, and as prescribed by the Director, an application for patent filed under subsection (a) may be treated as a provisional application for patent.
(7) NO RIGHT OF PRIORITY OR BENEFIT OF EARLIEST FILING DATE.—A provisional application shall not be entitled to the right of priority of any other application under section 119, 365(a), or 386(a) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
(8) APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall apply to provisional applications for patent, except as otherwise provided, and except that provisional applications for patent shall not be subject to sections 131 and 135.
(c) PRIOR FILED APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the Director may prescribe the conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, under which a reference made upon the filing of an application under subsection (a) to a previously filed application, specifying the previously filed application by application number and the intellectual property authority or country in which the application was filed, shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the subsequent application for purposes of a filing date. A copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application shall be submitted within such period and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Director. A failure to submit the copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned. Such application shall be treated as having never been filed, unless—
(1) the application is revived under section 27; and
(2) a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are submitted to the Director.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-3
§ 601PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
35 U.S.C. 111 (pre-PLT (AIA)) Application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012, and before December 18, 2013. See 35 U.S.C. 111 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111 for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) WRITTEN APPLICATION.—An application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director.
(2) CONTENTS.—Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112;
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113; and
(C) an oath or declaration as prescribed by section 115.
(3) FEE AND OATH OR DECLARATION.—The application must be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee and oath or declaration may be submitted after the specification and any required drawing are submitted, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director.
(4) FAILURE TO SUBMIT.—Upon failure to submit the fee and oath or declaration within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in submitting the fee and oath or declaration was unavoidable or unintentional. The filing date of an application shall be the date on which the specification and any required drawing are received in the Patent and Trademark Office.
(b) PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—
(1) AUTHORIZATION.—A provisional application for patent shall be made or authorized to be made by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director. Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112(a); and
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113.
(2) CLAIM.—A claim, as required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.
(3) FEE.—
(A) The application must be accompanied by the fee required by law.
(B) The fee may be submitted after the specification and any required drawing are submitted, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director.
(C) Upon failure to submit the fee within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Director
that the delay in submitting the fee was unavoidable or unintentional.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of a provisional application shall be the date on which the specification and any required drawing are received in the Patent and Trademark Office.
(5) ABANDONMENT.—Notwithstanding the absence of a claim, upon timely request and as prescribed by the Director, a provisional application may be treated as an application filed under subsection (a). Subject to section 119(e)(3), if no such request is made, the provisional application shall be regarded as abandoned 12 months after the filing date of such application and shall not be subject to revival after such 12-month period.
(6) OTHER BASIS FOR PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.—Subject to all the conditions in this subsection and section 119(e) of this title, and as prescribed by the Director, an application for patent filed under subsection (a) may be treated as a provisional application for patent.
(7) NO RIGHT OF PRIORITY OR BENEFIT OF EARLIEST FILING DATE.—A provisional application shall not be entitled to the right of priority of any other application under section 119 or 365(a) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States under section 120, 121, or 365(c).
(8) APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall apply to provisional applications for patent, except as otherwise provided, and except that provisional applications for patent shall not be subject to sections 131 and 135.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111 requirements substantially correspond to those of pre-PLT (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 111, but do not include conforming amendments with regard to the oath or declaration provisions and other miscellaneous provisions of the AIA.
37 CFR 1.51 General requisites of an application.
(a) Applications for patents must be made to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.An application transmittal letter limited to the transmittal of the documents and fees comprising a patent application under this section may be signed by a juristic applicant or patent owner.
(b) A complete application filed under § 1.53(b) or § 1.53(d) comprises:
(1) A specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, including a claim or claims, see §§ 1.71 to 1.77;
(2) The inventor’s oath or declaration, see §§ 1.63 and 1.64;
(3) Drawings, when necessary, see §§ 1.81 to 1.85; and
(4) The prescribed filing fee, search fee, examination fee, and application size fee, see § 1.16.
(c) A complete provisional application filed under § 1.53(c) comprises:
600-4Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601
(1) A cover sheet identifying:
(i) The application as a provisional application,
(ii) The name or names of the inventor or inventors, (see § 1.41(a)(2)),
(iii) The residence of each named inventor,
(iv) The title of the invention,
(v) The name and registration number of the attorney or agent (if applicable),
(vi) The docket number used by the person filing the application to identify the application (if applicable),
(vii) The correspondence address, and
(viii) The name of the U.S. Government agency and Government contract number (if the invention was made by an agency of the U.S. Government or under a contract with an agency of the U.S. Government);
(2) A specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), see § 1.71;
(3) Drawings, when necessary, see §§ 1.81 to 1.85; and
(4) The prescribed filing fee and application size fee, see § 1.16.
(d) Applicants are encouraged to file an information disclosure statement in nonprovisional applications. See § 1.97 and § 1.98. No information disclosure statement may be filed in a provisional application.
I. GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING A NONPROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111(a)
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout and content of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. See also 37 CFR 1.77 and MPEP § 608.01(a). If an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) is used, data supplied in the application data sheet need not be provided elsewhere in the application with one exception for applications filed before September 16, 2012. For such applications, the citizenship of each inventor must be provided in the oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 even if this information is provided in the application data sheet (see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)). If there is a discrepancy between the information submitted in an application data sheet and the information submitted elsewhere in the application, the application data sheet will control except for the naming of the inventors which is governed by 37 CFR 1.41 and, for applications filed before
September 16, 2012, the citizenship of the inventors. See MPEP § 601.05.
A complete application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) comprises a specification, including claims, as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, drawings as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 113, an oath or declaration as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 115, and the prescribed filing fee, search fee, examination fee and application size fee.
Arrangement and Contents of the Specification
The following order of arrangement is preferable in framing the specification. See also MPEP § 608.01(a). Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as section headings.
(A) Title of the invention. (See MPEP § 606).
(B) Cross-reference to related applications. (See MPEP § 211 et seq.).
(C) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development. (See MPEP § 310).
(D) The names of the parties to a joint research agreement (see 37 CFR 1.71(g)).
(E) Reference to a “Sequence Listing,” a table, or a computer program listing appendix submitted on compact disc and an incorporation-by-reference of the material on the compact disc.
(F) Statement regarding prior disclosures by an inventor or joint inventor.
(G) Background of the invention. (See MPEP § 608.01(c)).
(1) Field of the invention.
(2) Description of related art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98.
(H) Brief summary of the invention. (See MPEP § 608.01(d)).
(I) Brief description of the several views of the drawing. (See MPEP § 608.01(f)).
(J) Detailed description of the invention. (See MPEP § 608.01(g)).
(K) Claim(s) (commencing on a separate sheet). (See MPEP § 608.01(i)-(p)).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-5
§ 601PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(L) Abstract of the Disclosure (commencing on a separate sheet). (See MPEP § 608.01(b)).
(M) Sequence Listing, if on paper (see 37 CFR 1.821 through 37 CFR 1.825).
II. GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING A PROVISIONAL APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111(b)
A provisional application should preferably conform to the arrangement guidelines for nonprovisional applications. The specification must, however, comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and refer to drawings, where necessary for an understanding of the invention. Unlike an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which requires claims before examination, a provisional application does not require claims. Furthermore, no oath or declaration is required. See MPEP § 201.04.
A cover sheet providing identifying information is required for a complete provisional application. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1) the cover sheet must state that it is for a provisional application, it must identify and give the residence of the inventor or inventors, and it must give a title of the invention. The cover sheet must also give the name and registration number of the attorney or agent (if applicable), the docket number used by the person filing the application (if applicable) and the correspondence address. If there is a governmental interest, the cover sheet must include a statement as to rights to inventions made under federally sponsored research and development (See MPEP § 310). 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1)(viii) requires the name of the government agency and the contract number, if the invention was developed by or while under contract with an agency of the U.S. government.
Unlike applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), provisional applications should not include an information disclosure statement. See 37 CFR 1.51(d). Since no substantive examination is made, such statements are unnecessary. The Office will not accept an information disclosure statement in a provisional application. Any such statement received will be returned or disposed of at the convenience of the Office.
This cover sheet information enables the Office to prepare a proper filing receipt and provides the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) with most of the information needed to process the provisional application. See MPEP § 201.04 for a sample cover sheet.
III. THE APPLICATION
The parts of the application may be included in a single document.
The paper standard requirements for papers submitted as part of the record of a patent application is covered in MPEP § 608.01, subsection I. Determination of completeness of an application is covered in MPEP § 506 and § 601.01 et seq.
The elements of the application are stored together in an electronic file wrapper, bearing appropriate identifying data including the application number and filing date (MPEP § 719).
See also the following the MPEP sections.
Provisional applications, MPEP § 201.04.
Divisional applications, MPEP § 201.06.
Continuation applications, MPEP § 201.06(c).
Continued prosecution applications, MPEP § 201.06(d).
Reissue applications, MPEP § 1401.
Design applications, MPEP Chapter 1500.
Plant applications, MPEP Chapter 1600.
International applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), MPEP Chapter 1800.
InternationalApplications, commencement and entry into national stage, MPEP § 1893.01.
International design applications, MPEP Chapter 2900.
600-6Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601
Ex Parte Reexamination, MPEP Chapter 2200.
Inter Partes Reexamination, MPEP Chapter 2600.
Supplemental Examination, MPEP Chapter 2800.
A model, exhibit, or specimen is normally not admitted as part of the application, although it may be required in the prosecution of the application (37 CFR 1.91 and 1.93, MPEP § 608.03).
Copies of an application will be provided by the USPTO upon request and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b) unless the application has been disposed of (see 37 CFR 1.53(e), (f) and (g)).
601.01 Complete Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
[Editor Note: Paragraphs (b), (c), (f) and (h) below have limited applicability as follows:]
(1) Paragraphs (b) and (c), are applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013. See pre-PLT (AIA) 37 CFR 1.53 for paragraphs (b) and (c) otherwise in effect;
(2) Paragraph (f), effective December 18, 2013, and paragraph (h), effective September 16, 2012, are applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after September 16, 2012. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53 for paragraphs (f) and (h) otherwise in effect.]
(a) Application number. Any papers received in the Patent and Trademark Office which purport to be an application for a patent will be assigned an application number for identification purposes.
(b) Application filing requirements — Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, other than an application for a design patent or a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section, is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. The filing date of an application for a design patent filed under this section, except for a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which the specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and § 1.78.
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named
in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.
(c) Application filing requirements — Provisional application. The filing date of a provisional application is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application.
(1) A provisional application must also include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1), which may be an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or a cover letter identifying the application as a provisional application. Otherwise, the application will be treated as an application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) An application for patent filed under paragraph (b) of this section may be converted to a provisional application and be accorded the original filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. The grant of such a request for conversion will not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees that were properly paid in the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. Such a request for conversion must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q) and be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) Payment of the issue fee on the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section; or
(iii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) A provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section may be converted to a nonprovisional application filed under paragraph (b) of this section and accorded the original filing date of the provisional application. The conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will not result in either the refund of any fee properly paid in the provisional application or the application of any such fee to the filing fee, or any other fee, for the nonprovisional application. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application under this paragraph will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application for which conversion is requested. Thus, applicants should consider avoiding this adverse patent term impact by filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), rather than converting the provisional application into a nonprovisional application pursuant to this paragraph. A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(i) and an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b), unless the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-7
§ 601.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section otherwise contains at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The nonprovisional application resulting from conversion of a provisional application must also include the filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a nonprovisional application, and the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) if either the basic filing fee for a nonprovisional application or the inventor's oath or declaration was not present on the filing date accorded the resulting nonprovisional application (i.e., the filing date of the original provisional application). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must also be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) A provisional application is not entitled to the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 386(a) or § 1.55, or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or § 1.78 of any other application. No claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or § 1.78(a) may be made in a design application based on a provisional application. The requirements of §§ 1.821 through 1.825 regarding application disclosures containing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences are not mandatory for provisional applications.
(d) Application filing requirements — Continued prosecution (nonprovisional) application.
(1) A continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a prior nonprovisional application may be filed as a continued prosecution application under this paragraph, provided that:
(i) The application is for a design patent;
(ii) The prior nonprovisional application is a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b) except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i); and
(iii) The application under this paragraph is filed before the earliest of:
(A) Payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under § 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
(B) Abandonment of the prior application; or
(C) Termination of proceedings on the prior application.
(2) The filing date of a continued prosecution application is the date on which a request on a separate paper for an application under this paragraph is filed. An application filed under this paragraph:
(i) Must identify the prior application;
(ii) Discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior application;
(iii) Names as inventors the same inventors named in the prior application on the date the application under this paragraph was filed, except as provided in paragraph (d)(4) of this section;
(iv) Includes the request for an application under this paragraph, will utilize the file jacket and contents of the prior application, including the specification, drawings and the inventor's oath or declaration from the prior application, to constitute the new application, and will be assigned the application number of the prior application for identification purposes; and
(v) Is a request to expressly abandon the prior application as of the filing date of the request for an application under this paragraph.
(3) The filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a continued prosecution application filed under this paragraph are the basic filing fee as set forth in § 1.16(b), the search fee as set forth in § 1.16(l), and the examination fee as set forth in § 1.16(p).
(4) An application filed under this paragraph may be filed by fewer than all the inventors named in the prior application, provided that the request for an application under this paragraph when filed is accompanied by a statement requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the new application. No person may be named as an inventor in an application filed under this paragraph who was not named as an inventor in the prior application on the date the application under this paragraph was filed, except by way of correction of inventorship under § 1.48.
(5) Any new change must be made in the form of an amendment to the prior application as it existed prior to the filing of an application under this paragraph. No amendment in an application under this paragraph (a continued prosecution application) may introduce new matter or matter that would have been new matter in the prior application. Any new specification filed with the request for an application under this paragraph will not be considered part of the original application papers, but will be treated as a substitute specification in accordance with § 1.125.
(6) The filing of a continued prosecution application under this paragraph will be construed to include a waiver of confidentiality by the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 122 to the extent that any member of the public, who is entitled under the provisions of § 1.14 to access to, copies of, or information concerning either the prior application or any continuing application filed under the provisions of this paragraph, may be given similar access to, copies of, or similar information concerning the other application or applications in the file jacket.
(7) A request for an application under this paragraph is the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 to every application assigned the application number identified in such request. No amendment in an application under this paragraph may delete this specific reference to any prior application.
600-8Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01
(8) In addition to identifying the application number of the prior application, applicant should furnish in the request for an application under this paragraph the following information relating to the prior application to the best of his or her ability:
(i) Title of invention;
(ii) Name of applicant(s); and
(iii) Correspondence address.
(9) See § 1.103(b) for requesting a limited suspension of action in an application filed under this paragraph.
(e) Failure to meet filing date requirements.
(1) If an application deposited under paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section does not meet the requirements of such paragraph to be entitled to a filing date, applicant will be so notified, if a correspondence address has been provided, and given a period of time within which to correct the filing error. If, however, a request for an application under paragraph (d) of this section does not meet the requirements of that paragraph because the application in which the request was filed is not a design application, and if the application in which the request was filed was itself filed on or after June 8, 1995, the request for an application under paragraph (d) of this section will be treated as a request for continued examination under § 1.114.
(2) Any request for review of a notification pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section, or a notification that the original application papers lack a portion of the specification or drawing(s), must be by way of a petition pursuant to this paragraph accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(f). In the absence of a timely (§ 1.181(f)) petition pursuant to this paragraph, the filing date of an application in which the applicant was notified of a filing error pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section will be the date the filing error is corrected.
(3) If an applicant is notified of a filing error pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section, but fails to correct the filing error within the given time period or otherwise timely (§ 1.181(f)) take action pursuant to this paragraph, proceedings in the application will be considered terminated. Where proceedings in an application are terminated pursuant to this paragraph, the application may be disposed of, and any filing fees, less the handling fee set forth in § 1.21(n), will be refunded.
(f) Completion of application subsequent to filing — Nonprovisional (including continued prosecution or reissue) application.
(1) If an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) or (d) of this section does not include the basic filing fee, search fee, or examination fee, or if an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section does not include at least one claim or the inventor's oath or declaration (§§ 1.63, 1.64 , 1.162 or 1.175), and the applicant has provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file a claim or claims, pay the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, and pay the surcharge if required by § 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment.
(2) If an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section does not include
the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, at least one claim, or the inventor's oath or declaration, and the applicant has not provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), the applicant has three months from the filing date of the application within which to file a claim or claims, pay the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment.
(3) The inventor's oath or declaration in an application under § 1.53(b) must also be filed within the period specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section, except that the filing of the inventor's oath or declaration may be postponed until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance under the conditions specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The application must be an original (non-reissue) application that contains an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 identifying:
(A) Each inventor by his or her legal name;
(B) A mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, for each inventor.
(ii) The applicant must file each required oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, no later than the date on which the issue fee for the patent is paid. If the applicant is notified in a notice of allowability that an oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, executed by or with respect to each named inventor has not been filed, the applicant must file each required oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under § 1.136 (see § 1.136(c)). The Office may dispense with the notice provided for in paragraph (f)(1) of this section if each required oath or declaration in compliance with § 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, has been filed before the application is in condition for allowance.
(4) If the excess claims fees required by § 1.16(h) and (i) and multiple dependent claim fee required by § 1.16(j) are not paid on filing or on later presentation of the claims for which the excess claims or multiple dependent claim fees are due, the fees required by § 1.16(h), (i), and (j) must be paid or the claims canceled by amendment prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency. If the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) (if any) is not paid on filing or on later presentation of the amendment necessitating a fee or additional fee under § 1.16(s), the fee required by § 1.16(s) must be paid prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency in order to avoid abandonment.
(5) This paragraph applies to continuation or divisional applications under paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section and to continuation-in-part applications under paragraph (b) of this section. See § 1.63(d) concerning the submission of a copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the prior application for a continuing application under paragraph (b) of this section.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-9
§ 601.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(6) If applicant does not pay the basic filing fee during the pendency of the application, the Office may dispose of the application.
(g) Completion of application subsequent to filing — Provisional application.
(1) If a provisional application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section does not include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1) or the basic filing fee (§ 1.16(d)), and applicant has provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to pay the basic filing fee, file a cover sheet (§ 1.51(c)(1)), and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(g) to avoid abandonment.
(2) If a provisional application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section does not include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1) or the basic filing fee (§ 1.16(d)), and applicant has not provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), applicant has two months from the filing date of the application within which to pay the basic filing fee, file a cover sheet (§ 1.51(c)(1)), and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(g) to avoid abandonment.
(3) If the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) (if any) is not paid on filing, the fee required by § 1.16(s) must be paid prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency in order to avoid abandonment.
(4) If applicant does not pay the basic filing fee during the pendency of the application, the Office may dispose of the application.
(h) Subsequent treatment of application — Nonprovisional (including continued prosecution) application. An application for a patent filed under paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section will not be placed on the files for examination until all its required parts, complying with the rules relating thereto, are received, except that the inventor's oath or declaration may be filed when the application is otherwise in condition for allowance pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section and minor informalities may be waived subject to subsequent correction whenever required.
(i) Subsequent treatment of application - Provisional application. A provisional application for a patent filed under paragraph (c) of this section will not be placed on the files for examination and will become abandoned no later than twelve months after its filing date pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(1).
37 CFR 1.53 pre-PLT (AIA) Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
[Editor Note: Paragraphs (b) and (c) are applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 before December 18, 2013. For the text of paragraphs (a), (d), (e), (g), and (i) applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 before December 18, 2013, see 37 CFR 1.53. For the text of paragraphs (f) and (h), see 37 CFR 1.53 for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after September 16, 2012 and see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53 for applications filed before September 16, 2012.]
*****
(b) Application filing requirements - Nonprovisional application . The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, except for a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section or a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 containing a description pursuant to § 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to § 1.75, and any drawing required by § 1.81(a) are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) and § 1.78(c) and (d).
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.
(c) Application filing requirements - Provisional application . The filing date of a provisional application is the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and any drawing required by § 1.81(a) are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application.
(1) A provisional application must also include the cover sheet required by § 1.51(c)(1), which may be an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or a cover letter identifying the application as a provisional application. Otherwise, the application will be treated as an application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) An application for patent filed under paragraph (b) of this section may be converted to a provisional application and be accorded the original filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. The grant of such a request for conversion will not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees that were properly paid in the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. Such a request for conversion must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q) and be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) Payment of the issue fee on the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section; or
(iii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) A provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section may be converted to a nonprovisional application filed under paragraph (b) of this section and accorded the original filing date of the provisional application. The conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will
600-10Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01
not result in either the refund of any fee properly paid in the provisional application or the application of any such fee to the filing fee, or any other fee, for the nonprovisional application. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application under this paragraph will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application for which conversion is requested. Thus, applicants should consider avoiding this adverse patent term impact by filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (rather than converting the provisional application into a nonprovisional application pursuant to this paragraph). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(i) and an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b), unless the provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section otherwise contains at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The nonprovisional application resulting from conversion of a provisional application must also include the filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a nonprovisional application, the inventor's oath or declaration, and the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) if either the basic filing fee for a nonprovisional application or the inventor's oath or declaration was not present on the filing date accorded the resulting nonprovisional application ( i.e., the filing date of the original provisional application). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must also be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) A provisional application is not entitled to the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 365(a) or § 1.55, or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) or § 1.78 of any other application. No claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or § 1.78(a)(4) may be made in a design application based on a provisional application. The requirements of §§ 1.821 through 1.825 regarding application disclosures containing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences are not mandatory for provisional applications.
*****
37 CFR 1.53 pre-AIA Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to patent applications filed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111 before September 16, 2012. For the text of paragraphs (a), (d), (e), (g), and (i) applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 before September 16, 2012, see 37 CFR 1.53. For the text of paragraphs (b) and (c) applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 before September 16, 2012, see pre-PLT (AIA) 37 CFR 1.53.]
*****
(f) Completion of application subsequent to filing—Nonprovisional (including continued prosecution or reissue) application.
(1) If an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) or (d) of this section does not include the basic filing fee, the search fee, or the examination fee, or if an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section does not include an oath or declaration by the applicant pursuant to §§ 1.63, 1.162 or § 1.175, and applicant has provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to pay the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, file an oath or declaration in an application under paragraph (b) of this section, and pay the surcharge if required by § 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment.
(2) If an application which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section does not include the basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination fee, or an oath or declaration by the applicant pursuant to §§ 1.63, 1.162 or § 1.175, and applicant has not provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), applicant has two months from the filing date of the application within which to pay the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, file an oath or declaration, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment.
(3) If the excess claims fees required by §§ 1.16(h) and (i) and multiple dependent claim fee required by § 1.16(j) are not paid on filing or on later presentation of the claims for which the excess claims or multiple dependent claim fees are due, the fees required by §§ 1.16(h), (i) and (j) must be paid or the claims canceled by amendment prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency. If the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) (if any) is not paid on filing or on later presentation of the amendment necessitating a fee or additional fee under § 1.16(s), the fee required by § 1.16(s) must be paid prior to the expiration of the time period set for reply by the Office in any notice of fee deficiency in order to avoid abandonment.
(4) This paragraph applies to continuation or divisional applications under paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section and to continuation-in-part applications under paragraph (b) of this section. See § 1.63(d) concerning the submission of a copy of the oath or declaration from the prior application for a continuation or divisional application under paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) If applicant does not pay the basic filing fee during the pendency of the application, the Office may dispose of the application.
*****
(h) Subsequent treatment of application — Nonprovisional (including continued prosecution) application. An application for a patent filed under paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section will not be placed on the files for examination until all its required parts, complying with the rules relating thereto, are received, except that certain minor informalities may be waived subject to subsequent correction whenever required.
*****
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-11
§ 601.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
37 CFR 1.53 relates to application numbers, filing dates, and completion of applications. Note that the substantive requirements under 37 CFR 1.53 for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 as compared to those filed prior to September 16, 2012 (pre-AIA) are the same with the exception of 37 CFR 1.53(f), pertaining to completion of a nonprovisional application subsequent to filing.Also, note that the filing date requirements under 37 CFR 1.53(b) and (c) for applications filed on or after December 18, 2013 are different from those filed prior to December 18, 2013. For example, under 37 CFR 1.53(b), except for design applications, nonprovisional applications filed on or after December 18, 2013 may receive a filing date even if the application is filed without claims or drawings. See MPEP § 601.01(a) for additional information. Similarly, provisional applications filed on or after December 18, 2013 may receive a filing date even if the application is filed without drawings. See MPEP § 601.01(b) for additional information. If the subject matter of a nonprovisional application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention, including where a drawing is necessary for the understanding of the invention, the Office will continue the practice of requiring a drawing. See MPEP § 608.02 (item IV). Any claim or any drawing submitted after the filing date of an application may not contain new matter. 37 CFR 1.53(a) indicates that an application number is assigned for identification purposes to any paper which purports to be an application for a patent, even if the application is incomplete or informal. The remaining sections of 37 CFR 1.53 treat nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) separately from provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b).
37 CFR 1.53(d) sets forth the filing date requirements for a continued prosecution application (CPA). A CPA is a nonprovisional application which must be filed on or after December 1, 1997. Only a continuation or divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) may be filed as a CPA. See MPEP § 201.06(d). Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice under 37 CFR 1.53(d) does not apply to
utility and plant applications. CPAs can only be filed in design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
601.01(a) Nonprovisional Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) [R-07.2015]
I. APPLICATION FILING REQUIREMENTS
The procedure for filing a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b) and 37 CFR 1.53(d). 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be used to file any original, reissue, or substitute nonprovisional application and any continuing application, i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part.
Except for design applications, the filing date for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013 is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. The filing date for a design application, except for a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d), is the date on which the specification as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. Effective for applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, 37 CFR 1.53(b) was amended to implement the changes to 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 35 U.S.C. 171 by the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) (Public Law 112-211). 35 U.S.C. 111(a) now provides minimal formal requirements necessary for an application to be entitled to a filing date to safeguard against the loss of a filing date due to a technicality. However, these minimal formal requirements should not be viewed as prescribing a best practice for the preparation and filing of a patent application. The preparation of claims to any claimed invention for which patent protection is desired and the inclusion of such claims with the application on filing will help ensure that the application satisfies the disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for any such claimed invention.
For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to December 18, 2013, a filing date is assigned to a nonprovisional application as of the date a specification containing a description and claim and any necessary drawings are filed in the U.S. Patent
600-12Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(a)
and Trademark Office (Office). See pre-PLT (AIA) 37 CFR 1.53(b).
Failure to meet any of the requirements in 37 CFR 1.53(b) will result in the application being denied a filing date. The filing date to be accorded such an application is the date on which all of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.53(b) are met.
37 CFR 1.53(d) may be used to file either a continuation or a divisional application (but not a continuation-in-part) of a design application. The prior nonprovisional application must be a design application, but not an international design application, that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b), except for the inventor’s oath or declaration if the continued prosecution application (CPA) is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor. Any application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) must disclose and claim only subject matter disclosed in the prior nonprovisional application and must name as inventors the same or less than all of the inventors named in the prior nonprovisional application. Under 37 CFR 1.53(d), the filing date assigned is the date on which a request, on a separate paper, for an application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is filed. An application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) must be filed before the earliest of:
(A) payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is granted in the prior application;
(B) abandonment of the prior application; or
(C) termination of proceedings on the prior application.
The filing fee , search fee and examination fee for an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or 37 CFR 1.53(d) and the oath or declaration for an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) can be submitted after the filing date. In addition, for applications, other than design applications, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, the claims and drawings may be submitted after the filing date, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as prescribed by the Office. See subsection II below for more
information on completion of an application subsequent to filing. However, no amendment (including the submission of claims and drawings) may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application after its filing date. Drawings should be submitted on filing if necessary for the understanding of the invention.
If the required basic filing fee is not paid during the pendency of the application, the application will be disposed of.
The basic filing fee must be paid within the pendency of a nonprovisional application in order to permit benefit of the application to be claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in a subsequent nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application.
See 37 CFR 1.78. Copies of an application will be provided by the USPTO upon request and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b) unless the application has been disposed of (see 37 CFR 1.53(e) and (f)).
37 CFR 1.53(h) indicates that a patent application will not be forwarded for examination on the merits until all required parts have been received, except applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 will be forwarded for examination even if lacking the inventor’s oath or declaration provided that a compliant application data sheet (ADS) is filed.
II. COMPLETION OF NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111 SUBSEQUENT TO FILING
For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, except for design applications, a filing date is granted to a nonprovisional application when a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. The filing date for a design application, except for a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d), is the date on which the specification as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-13
§ 601.01(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
For applications filed prior to December 18, 2013, a filing date is granted to a nonprovisional application for patent that includes at least a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 containing a description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75, and any drawing referred to in the specification or required by 37 CFR 1.81(a), which is filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
A. Completion of Nonprovisional Application That Is Filed On or After December 18, 2013 And Is Not A Design Application
[Editor Note: See subsection B., below, for information that pertains to all applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after September 16, 2012 (including utility and plant patent applications filed on or after December 18, 2013 and design patent applications). See subsection C., below, for information pertaining to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before September 16, 2012.]
If an application which has been accorded a filing date does not include the appropriate filing fee, search fee, examination fee, or inventor's oath or declaration, applicant will be so notified in accordance with 37 CFR 1.53(f). See subsection II.B. below for information regarding completion of a nonprovisional application that is missing the appropriate filing fee, search fee, examination fee, or inventor’s oath or declaration.
If an application which has been accorded a filing date does not include at least one claim, the applicant will be notified and given a time period to file claim(s) and pay the surcharge, if required by 37 CFR 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment of the application provided the applicant has given a correspondence address. If the applicant failed to provide a correspondence address, the applicant has three months from the filing date of the application within which to file claim(s) and pay the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment of the application. Therefore, an application filed without any claims will be treated in a manner analogous to how an application without the filing fee, search fee, or examination fee is treated. See subsection B. below for more information.
If an application which has been accorded a filing date does not include any drawings, see MPEP § 601.01(f) for information on completing the application. If an application which has been accorded a filing date but is without all the figures of drawings, see MPEP § 601.01(g) for information on completing the application.
B. Completion of Nonprovisional Application, Including Design Application, Filed On or After September 16, 2012
[Editor Note: See subsection A., above, for specific information regarding applications that are filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013 and are not design applications. See subsection C., below, for applications filed before September 16, 2012.]
If an application which has been accorded a filing date does not include the appropriate filing fee, search fee, examination fee, or inventor's oath or declaration, applicant will be so notified in accordance with 37 CFR 1.53(f).
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the Office issued a Notice to File Missing Parts if an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) did not contain the basic filing fee, the search fee, or the examination fee, or the inventor's oath or declaration, and the applicant was given a time period (usually two months) within which to file the missing basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination fee, or the inventor's oath or declaration and pay the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f) to avoid abandonment. See subsection II.C. below for additional information regarding completion of a nonprovisional application filed before September 16, 2012.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the former missing parts practice under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53(f) was revised to allow applicants to postpone filing the inventor's oath or declaration until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance. 37 CFR 1.53(f) was further revised, effective December 18, 2013, to require that, for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the inventor’s oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or a substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64 must be filed no later than the date the issue fee is paid to
600-14Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(a)
avoid abandonment of the application. This time period is not extendable under 37 CFR 1.136 (see 37 CFR 1.136(c)). The Office may dispense with the notice under 37 CFR 1.53(f)(1) if each required oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64 has been filed before the application is in condition for allowance.
37 CFR 1.53(f)(1) provides for a notice (if the applicant has provided a correspondence address) if the application does not contain the basic filing fee, the search fee, or the examination fee, or if the application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration. 37 CFR 1.53(f)(1) provides that applicant must pay the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, and pay the surcharge if required by 37 CFR 1.16(f) within the time period set in the notice to avoid abandonment.
Section 1.53(f)(3) (discussed subsequently) sets forth the time period for filing the inventor's oath or declaration in an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) and provides the conditions under which an applicant may postpone filing the inventor's oath or declaration until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance.
37 CFR 1.53(f)(2) provides for the situation where applicant has not provided a correspondence address in an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), and the application does not contain the basic filing fee, the search fee, or the examination fee, or does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration.37 CFR 1.53(f)(2) provides that if the applicant has not provided a correspondence address, the applicant must pay the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, and pay the surcharge if required by 37 CFR 1.16(f), within three months from the filing date of the application to avoid abandonment.
37 CFR 1.53(f)(3) sets forth the time period for filing the inventor's oath or declaration in an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) and provides the conditions under which an applicant may postpone filing the inventor's oath or declaration until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance. Section 1.53(f)(3) specifically provides that the inventor's oath or declaration in an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) must also be filed within the period specified
in 37 CFR 1.53(f)(1) or (f)(2), except that the filing of the inventor's oath or declaration may be postponed until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance under the conditions specified in 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(i) through (f)(3)(ii). This requires payment of the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) if the inventor’s oath or declaration (executed by or with respect to each inventor) is not submitted on filing of the application. If the surcharge is not paid at the time the application is filed, the Office will send a Notice to File Missing Parts requiring the surcharge. If, however, a general authorization to charge any required fees to a deposit account (that covers fees under 37 CFR 1.16) is submitted on filing of the application, the Office will charge the surcharge in accordance with the deposit account authorization. Payment of the surcharge cannot be postponed until a Notice of Allowance issues or payment of the issue fee but must be paid in the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.53(f)(1) or 37 CFR 1.53(f)(2).
37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(i) provides that the application must be an original (non-reissue) application that contains an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 identifying: (1) each inventor by his or her legal name; and (2) a mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, for each inventor. The applicant must file an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64, executed by or with respect to each actual inventor no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid. See 35 U.S.C. 115(f).
If an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) does not include the inventor's oath or declaration but does contain the applicable filing fees (basic filing fee, search fee, the examination fee, any applicable excess claims fee, and any applicable application size fee), the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f) (for filing the oath or declaration later than the filing date), and a signed application data sheet providing the information required by 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(i), the Office will not issue a Notice to File Missing Parts requiring the applicant to file the inventor's oath or declaration.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-15
§ 601.01(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
If an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) that does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration also does not contain the applicable filing fees, or the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f), or a signed application data sheet providing the information required by 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(i), the Office will issue a Notice to File Missing Parts giving the applicant a time period (usually two months) within which to file the missing parts. While the inventor's oath or declaration will not be required to be filed within the period for reply to the Notice to File Missing Parts if the applicant provides a signed application data sheet providing the information required by 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(i), any required filing fees and surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f) must be filed within the period for reply to the Notice to File Missing Parts to avoid abandonment.
If an application is in condition for allowance but does not include an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, or a substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64, executed by or with respect to each actual inventor, the Office will issue a “Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due” (PTOL-85) together with a "Notice of Allowability'' (PTOL-37) including a "Notice Requiring Inventor’s Oath or Declaration" (PTOL-2306) requiring the applicant to file an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, or substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64, executed by or with respect to each actual inventor, no later than the date of payment of the issue fee to avoid abandonment. If applicant receives a “Notice Requiring Inventor’s Oath or Declaration” and fails to file a proper reply to the notice before or with the payment of the issue fee, the application will be regarded as abandoned. See 37 CFR 1.53(f)(3)(ii).
C. Completion of Nonprovisional Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
[Editor Note: See subsections A. and B., above, for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013. See subsection B., above, for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
If an application which has been accorded a filing date does not include the appropriate filing fee, search fee, examination fee, or oath or declaration, applicant will be so notified in accordance with
pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53(f) and given a period of time within which to file the missing parts to complete the application and to pay the surcharge as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f) in order to prevent abandonment of the application
Applicants should submit a copy of any notice to file missing parts or notice of incomplete application with the reply submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, unless the reply is being submitted via EFS-Web. Applicants should also include the application number on all correspondence to the Office. These measures will aid the Office in matching papers to applications, thereby expediting the processing of applications.
In order for the Office to so notify the applicant, a correspondence address must also be provided in the application. The correspondence address may be different from the mailing (post office) address of the applicant. For example, the address of applicant’s registered attorney or agent may be used as the correspondence address. If applicant fails to provide the Office with a correspondence address, the Office will be unable to provide applicant with notification to complete the application and to pay the surcharge as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f). In such a case, applicant will be considered to have constructive notice as of the filing date that the application must be completed within two months from the filing date before abandonment occurs per pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53(f). This time period may be extended pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136.
The oath or declaration filed in reply to such a notice under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53(f) must be executed by the inventors and must identify the specification and any amendment filed with the specification which includes subject matter not otherwise included in the specification (including claims) or drawings of the application as filed. See MPEP § 602. If an amendment is filed with the oath or declaration filed after the filing date of the application, it may be identified in the oath or declaration but may not include new matter. No new matter may be included after the filing date of the application. See MPEP § 608.04(b). If the oath or declaration improperly refers to an amendment filed after the filing date of the application which contains new matter, a supplemental oath or declaration will be required
600-16Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(a)
pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67, deleting the reference to the amendment containing new matter. If an amendment is filed on the same day that the application filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53(b) is filed it is a part of the original application papers and the question of new matter is not considered. Similarly, if the application papers are altered prior to execution of the oath or declaration and the filing of the application, new matter is not a consideration since the alteration is considered as part of the original disclosure.
III. APPLICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111(a) FILED BY REFERENCE
35 U.S.C. 111 Application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed under this provision on or after December 18, 2013. See pre-PLT (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 111 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 111 for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) WRITTEN APPLICATION.—An application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director.
(2) CONTENTS.—Such application shall include—
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112;
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113; and
(C) an oath or declaration as prescribed by section 115.
(3) FEE, OATH OR DECLARATION, AND CLAIMS.—The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee, oath or declaration, and 1 or more claims may be submitted after the filing date of the application, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director. Upon failure to submit the fee, oath or declaration, and 1 or more claims within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned.
(4) FILING DATE.—The filing date of an application shall be the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
*****
(c) PRIOR FILED APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the Director may prescribe the conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, under which a reference made upon the filing of an application under subsection (a) to a previously filed application, specifying the previously filed application by application number and the intellectual property authority or country in which the application
was filed, shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the subsequent application for purposes of a filing date. A copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application shall be submitted within such period and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Director. A failure to submit the copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned. Such application shall be treated as having never been filed, unless—
(1) the application is revived under section 27; and
(2) a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are submitted to the Director.
37 CFR 1.57 Incorporation by reference
[Editor Note: Paragraph (a) below is only applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013.]
(a) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, a reference made in the English language in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 upon the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to a previously filed application, indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application, and specifying the previously filed application by application number, filing date, and the intellectual property authority or country in which the previously filed application was filed, shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for purposes of a filing date under § 1.53(b).
(1) If the applicant has provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, an English language translation of the previously filed application, and the fee required by § 1.17(i) if it is in a language other than English, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment. Such a notice may be combined with a notice under § 1.53(f).
(2) If the applicant has not provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), the applicant has three months from the filing date of the application to file a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, an English language translation of the previously filed application, and the fee required by § 1.17(i) if it is in a language other than English, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment.
(3) An application abandoned under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section shall be treated as having never been filed, unless:
(i) The application is revived under § 1.137; and
(ii) A copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are filed in the Office.
(4) A certified copy of the previously filed application must be filed in the Office, unless the previously filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 363, or the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-17
§ 601.01(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
previously filed application is a foreign priority application and the conditions set forth in § 1.55(i) are satisfied with respect to such foreign priority application. The certified copy of the previously filed application, if required by this paragraph, must be filed within the later of four months from the filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the previously filed application, or be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
*****
Effective December 18, 2013, title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty. Section 201(a) of the PLTIA amended 35 U.S.C. 111 to add 35 U.S.C. 111(c). As provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. 35 U.S.C. 111(c) specifically provides that the Director may prescribe the conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, under which a reference made upon the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to a previously filed application (specifying the previously filed application by application number and the intellectual property authority or country in which the application was filed) shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the subsequent application for purposes of a filing date. 35 U.S.C. 111(c) further provides that a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application shall be submitted within such period and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Director, and that a failure to submit the copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned. 35 U.S.C. 111(c) finally provides that such an application shall be treated as having never been filed, unless: (1) the application is revived under 35 U.S.C. 27; and (2) a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are submitted to the Director.
Effective December 18, 2013, 37 CFR 1.57 was amended to implement the reference filing provisions of 35 U.S.C. 111(c). 37 CFR 1.57(a) now provides that, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(a), a reference, made in the English language in an application data sheet (ADS) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 upon the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), to a previously filed application, indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application, and specifying the previously filed application by application number, filing date, and the intellectual property authority or country in which the previously filed application was filed, shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for purposes of a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(b). Thus, the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application will be considered in determining whether an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed by reference under 37 CFR 1.57(a) is entitled to a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(b). When an application for a design patent includes a reference to a previously filed application under 35 U.S.C. 111(c), the previously filed application must include at least one claim. 35 U.S.C. 171 provides that the filing date of an application for a design patent is the date on which the specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112, which includes at least one claim, and any required drawings are filed.
In a reference filing under 37 CFR 1.57(a), the reference to a previously filed application in an ADS is not sufficient to establish a priority or benefit claim to that previously filed application. Reference filing information is provided in a section of the ADS that is separate from the foreign priority information section and the domestic benefit claim information section. See MPEP § 211 et seq. for information regarding domestic benefit claims and MPEP § 213 et seq. for information regarding claims for foreign priority.
The PLT and the Regulations under the PLT provide for the establishment of Model International Forms (PLT Model forms). The PLT Model forms may be found on WIPO’s Internet website at www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=289773. The requirement for a reference to the previously
600-18Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(a)
filed application in an ADS will be satisfied by the presentation of such reference to the previously filed application on the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form (PLT Model Request form). Applicants may use the PLT Model Request form for national applications under 35 U.S.C. 111 filed in the USPTO or national applications filed in other PLT countries. However, as provided in 37 CFR 1.76(d)(2), information in an ADS will govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at any time in PLT Model forms. Furthermore, if applicants want to postpone submission of the inventor’s oath or declaration until the application is in condition for allowance, an ADS that provides the inventor information is required. Accordingly, the use of an ADS to supply application information for reference filing is encouraged.
If the applicant has provided a correspondence address (37 CFR 1.33(a)), the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, an English language translation of the previously filed application and the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(i) if it is in a language other than English, and pay the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment. Such a notice may be combined with a notice under 37 CFR 1.53(f) (e.g., a notice requiring that the applicant provide at least one claim and pay the filing fees). See 37 CFR 1.57(a)(1).
If the applicant has not provided a correspondence address (37 CFR 1.33(a)), the applicant has three months from the filing date of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed by reference under 37 CFR 1.57(a) to file a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, an English language translation of the previously filed application and the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(i) if it is in a language other than English, and pay the surcharge required by 37 CFR 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment. See 37 CFR 1.57(a)(2).
In response to a notice requiring a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, applicants must submit an actual copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application without any modifications. If the specification and drawings
submitted in response to the notice are modified, i.e., updated, corrected, or reformatted in any manner, such modified specification and any modified drawings would not satisfy the copy requirement of 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a). Any desired changes to the copy of the previously filed application must be made by way of an amendment under 37 CFR 1.121 without adding new matter.
An application abandoned under 37 CFR 1.57(a)(1) or (a)(2) shall be treated as having never been filed, unless: (1) the application is revived under 37 CFR 1.137; and (2) a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are filed in the Office. See 37 CFR 1.57(a)(3).
An applicant may also claim priority to or the benefit of an application filed by reference under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a). However, the phrase ”treated as having never been filed” in 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a)(3) precludes an applicant from claiming priority to or the benefit of an application filed by reference that has been abandoned under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a)(1) or 1.57(a)(2). An applicant may claim priority to or the benefit of an application abandoned under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a)(1) or (a)(2) only if the application is revived under 37 CFR 1.137 and a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are submitted to the Office.
A certified copy of the previously filed application must be filed in the Office within the later of four months from the filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the previously filed application, unless the previously filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 35 U.S.C. 363, or the previously filed application is a foreign priority application and the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(h) are satisfied with respect to such foreign priority application. See 37 CFR 1.57(a)(4).
If a certified copy is required under 37 CFR 1.57(a)(4) and it is not filed within the later of four months from the filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the previously filed application, the certified copy must be
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-19
§ 601.01(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g). The requirement for a certified copy of a previously filed foreign application is to ensure that the copy of the specification and any drawings subsequently provided by the applicant correspond to the specification and any drawings of the previously filed foreign application. The interim copy provision of 37 CFR 1.55(j) is not applicable to the requirement for a certified copy of a previously filed foreign application in an application filed by reference under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a).
Applicants filing by reference under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57 should take care to ensure that the application number, filing date, and intellectual property authority or country of the previously filed application is accurately specified on the ADS as the specification and drawings of the application specified on the ADS is the specification and drawings of the application being filed by reference under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57. If an applicant specifies an application number, filing date, or intellectual property authority or country of an application other than the application number, filing date, or intellectual property authority or country of the intended previously filed application on the ADS (i.e., the applicant mistypes the application number, filing date, or intellectual property authority or country on the ADS), the applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53 to have the application accorded a filing date as of the date the specification and drawings of the intended previously filed application is filed in the Office using that specification and drawings (rather than the specification and drawings of the application specified on the ADS). Simply submitting the specification and drawings of the intended previously filed application without such a petition under 37 CFR 1.53 in reply to a notice under 37 CFR 1.57(a) requiring the specification and drawings of the application specified on the ADS will result in the submission being treated as an incomplete reply. A reference filing statement made upon filing cannot be rescinded because the reference to the previously filed application constitutes the specification and any drawings of the instant application. See 35 U.S.C. 111(c). Accordingly, to avoid the risk of
incorrect filings and the required surcharge, applicants should simply file a copy of the specification and drawings of the previously filed application, if available, instead of relying upon the reference filing provisions.
If the previously filed application is also a priority application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, 35 U.S.C. 365(a) or (b), or 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b) and 37 CFR 1.55, an applicant should also consider filing a copy of the specification and drawings of the previously filed application in the Office no later than fourteen month from the filing date of the previously filed application (regardless of the time period provided in 37 CFR 1.57(a)) to avoid the loss of the right of priority under 37 CFR 1.55 in the event that the application number, filing date, or intellectual property authority or country of an application specified on the ADS is not the application number, filing date, or intellectual property authority or country of the intended previously filed application.
An application filed to obtain a filing date which includes both a reference to a previously filed application as provided for in 37 CFR 1.57(a) and application papers including a specification and drawings will be processed as a reference filing and applicant will be charged the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) even though a specification and drawings were submitted with the reference filing. The ADS form indicates that “the description and any drawings of the present application are replaced by this reference to the previously filed application.” Accordingly, the Office will send out a notice (e.g., Notice to File Missing Parts) requiring the surcharge and a copy of the specification and any drawings. Applicants must respond to the notice by filing a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application or by stating that the specification and drawings submitted on filing is a copy of the specification and drawings of the previously filed application. If the specification and drawings submitted on filing were not a copy of the specification and drawings of the previously filed application but instead were modified, i.e., updated, corrected, or reformatted in any manner, such modified specification and any modified drawings would not satisfy the copy requirement of 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a). In response to the notice,
600-20Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(a)
applicant must submit a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application. Any desired changes to the copy of the previously filed application must be made by way of an amendment under 37 CFR 1.121 without adding new matter. The modified specification and any drawings that were submitted on filing would not constitute the specification and drawings of the instant application and thus would not be used for examination purposes.
Reference filing is intended for situations when a copy of the previously filed application is not available at the time the current application is being filed. If a copy of the previously filed application is available, applicant should file the copy of the specification and drawings under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.51(b) and not complete the section of the ADS for filing by reference. As explained above, if the reference filing section of the ADS is completed, applicants will be required to pay the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f), even if a copy of the previously filed application is present on filing the application. A reference filing statement made upon filing cannot be rescinded because the reference to the previously filed application constitutes the specification and any drawings of the instant application. See 35 U.S.C. 111(c).
There is no provision for the filing of a continuation-in-part of a previously filed application under 37 CFR 1.57(a). 35 U.S.C. 111(c) provides that the reference to the previously filed application “shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the subsequent application.” The specification and any drawings of a continuation-in-part would need to extend beyond the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application. Thus, the filing by reference of a continuation-in-part of the previously filed application is not contemplated by 35 U.S.C. 111(c).
601.01(b) Provisional Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) [R-07.2015]
A provisional application filed on or after December 18, 2013 will be given a filing date as of the date a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. For provisional applications filed prior to December 18, 2013, the application will be given
a filing date in accordance with pre-PLT (AIA) 37 CFR 1.53(c) as of the date the written description and any necessary drawings are filed in the Office. The filing date requirements for a provisional application set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(c) substantially parallel the requirements for a nonprovisional application set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b). Amendments, other than those required to make the provisional application comply with applicable regulations, are not permitted after the filing date of the provisional application.
When the specification or drawing are omitted, 37 CFR 1.53(e) requires that the applicant be notified and given a time period in which to submit the missing element to complete the filing. See MPEP § 601.01(f) and § 601.01(g) for treatment of applications filed without drawings, or filed without all figures of drawings, respectively.
37 CFR 1.53(c)(1) requires all provisional applications be filed with a cover sheet, which may be an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) or a cover letter identifying the application as a provisional application. The Office will treat an application as having been filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), unless the application is clearly identified as a provisional application. A provisional application, which is identified as such, but which does not have a complete cover sheet as required by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1) will be treated as a provisional application. However, the complete cover sheet and a surcharge will be required to be submitted at a later date in conformance with 37 CFR 1.53(g).
When the provisional application does not have a complete cover sheet or the appropriate fee, the applicant will be notified pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(g) and given a time period in which to provide the necessary fee or cover sheet and to pay the surcharge as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(g) in order to avoid abandonment of the application. The time period will usually be set at two (2) months from the date of notification. This time period may be extended under 37 CFR 1.136(a). If the filing fee is not timely paid, the Office may dispose of the provisional application. If no correspondence address has been provided, applicant has two months from the filing date to file the basic filing fee, cover sheet, and to pay the surcharge as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(g) in
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-21
§ 601.01(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
order to avoid abandonment of the provisional application. Copies of a provisional application will be provided by the USPTO upon request and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b) unless the provisional application has been disposed of (see 37 CFR 1.53(e) and (g)).
The basic filing fee must be paid in a provisional application on filing or within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g), and the provisional application must be entitled to a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(c), if any claim for benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) based on that application is made in a subsequently filed nonprovisional application. See 37 CFR 1.78.
37 CFR 1.53(e)(2) requires that any request for review of a refusal to accord an application a filing date be made by way of a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f) (see MPEP § 506.02).
601.01(c) Conversion to or from a Provisional Application [R-07.2015]
I. CONVERSION FROM A NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATION TO A PROVISIONAL APPLICATION
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
*****
(c)
*****
(2) An application for patent filed under paragraph (b) of this section may be converted to a provisional application and be accorded the original filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. The grant of such a request for conversion will not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees that were properly paid in the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section. Such a request for conversion must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q) and be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) Payment of the issue fee on the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section; or
(iii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the application filed under paragraph (b) of this section.
*****
An application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) may be converted to a provisional application in accordance with the procedure described in 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2). The procedure requires the filing of a request for conversion and the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q). The provisional application filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(d)) and the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(g) are also required, although these fees do not need to be paid with the request for conversion. If the provisional application filing fee and the surcharge are not paid at the time of filing of the request for conversion, the Office will send a Notice to File Missing Parts in the provisional application requiring these fees. Filing of the request in the nonprovisional application is required prior to the abandonment of the 37 CFR 1.53(b) application, the payment of the issue fee, or the expiration of 12 months after the filing date of the 37 CFR 1.53(b) application, whichever event is earlier. The grant of any such request does not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees properly paid in the application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b).
Converting a nonprovisional application to a provisional application will not avoid the publication of the nonprovisional application unless the request to convert is recognized in sufficient time to permit the appropriate officials to remove the nonprovisional application from the publication process. The Office cannot ensure that it can remove an application from publication or avoid publication of application information any time after the publication process for the application has been initiated. For information on procedures for removing an application from publication, see MPEP § 1120.
A provisional application is not entitled to claim priority to or benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386. See MPEP § 201.04.After the nonprovisional application has been converted to a provisional application, any priority or benefit claims submitted in the nonprovisional application will be disregarded.
Applicants who wish to file a request for conversion under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) by mail should designate “Mail Stop Conversion” as part of the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office address.
600-22Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(c)
II. CONVERSION FROM A PROVISIONAL APPLICATION TO A NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATION
37 CFR 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
[Editor Note: Applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013. See pre-PLT (AIA) 37 CFR 1.53(c) for the rule otherwise in effect.]
*****
(c)
*****
(3) A provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section may be converted to a nonprovisional application filed under paragraph (b) of this section and accorded the original filing date of the provisional application. The conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application will not result in either the refund of any fee properly paid in the provisional application or the application of any such fee to the filing fee, or any other fee, for the nonprovisional application. Conversion of a provisional application to a nonprovisional application under this paragraph will result in the term of any patent to issue from the application being measured from at least the filing date of the provisional application for which conversion is requested. Thus, applicants should consider avoiding this adverse patent term impact by filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), rather than converting the provisional application into a nonprovisional application pursuant to this paragraph. A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(i) and an amendment including at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b), unless the provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section otherwise contains at least one claim as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The nonprovisional application resulting from conversion of a provisional application must also include the filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for a nonprovisional application, and the surcharge required by § 1.16(f) if either the basic filing fee for a nonprovisional application or the inventor's oath or declaration was not present on the filing date accorded the resulting nonprovisional application ( i.e., the filing date of the original provisional application). A request to convert a provisional application to a nonprovisional application must also be filed prior to the earliest of:
(i) Abandonment of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) Expiration of twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application filed under paragraph (c) of this section.
*****
An application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(c) may be converted to a nonprovisional application in accordance with the procedure described in 37 CFR
1.53(c)(3). Applicants should carefully consider the patent term consequences of requesting conversion rather than simply filing a nonprovisional application claiming the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). Claiming the benefit of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is less expensive and will result in a longer patent term. The procedure requires the filing of a request in the provisional application for the conversion of the provisional application to a nonprovisional application and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The nonprovisional application resulting from conversion of a provisional application must also include the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee for the nonprovisional application. In addition, if the provisional application was not filed with an executed oath or declaration and the appropriate fees for a nonprovisional application, the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f) is required. Furthermore, an inventor’s oath or declaration is required to be filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.53(f) if the provisional application was filed on or after September 16, 2012 or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53(f) if the provisional application was filed prior to September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 601.01(a). Filing of the request for conversion in the provisional application is required prior to the abandonment of the provisional application or the expiration of 12 months after the filing date of the 37 CFR 1.53(c) application, whichever event is earlier. The grant of any such request does not entitle applicant to a refund of the fees properly paid in the application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(c).
Applicants who wish to file a request for conversion under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3) by mail should designate “Mail Stop Conversion” as part of the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office address.
601.01(d) Application Filed Without All Pages of Specification [R-07.2015]
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) reviews application papers to determine whether all of the pages of specification are present in the application. For an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (c) prior to December 18, 2013 or a design application, if the application is filed without all of the page(s) of the specification, but containing
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-23
§ 601.01(d)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
something that can be construed as a written description, at least one drawing figure, if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence), and, in a nonprovisional application, at least one claim, an OPAP notice (e.g., a “Notice of Omitted Items”) will be sent indicating that the application papers so deposited have been accorded a filing date, but are lacking some page(s) of the specification. For an application other than a design application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (c) on or after December 18, 2013, if the application is filed without all of the page(s) of the specification, but contains something that can be construed as a specification, with or without claims, an OPAP notice (e.g., a “Notice of Omitted Items”) will be sent indicating that the application papers so deposited have been accorded a filing date, but are lacking some page(s) of the specification.
If the application does not contain anything that can be construed as a written description, OPAP will mail a Notice of Incomplete Application indicating that the application lacks the specification required by 35 U.S.C. 112 and no filing date is granted.
I. APPLICATION ENTITLED TO FILING DATE
The procedure for handling nonprovisional application papers having omitted items was revised in 2007. See “Change in Procedure for Handling NonprovisionalApplications Having Omitted Items,” 1315 OG 103 (February 20, 2007). Under the revised procedure, the mailing of an OPAP notice regarding a missing page(s) of specification in a nonprovisional application will permit the applicant to:
(A) promptly establish prior receipt in the USPTO of the page(s) at issue. An applicant asserting that the page(s) was in fact received by the USPTO with the application papers must, within two months from the date of the OPAP notice, file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), along with evidence of such deposit. The petition fee will be refunded if it is determined that the page(s) was in fact received by the USPTO with the application papers deposited on filing. The two-month period is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136;
(B) promptly submit the omitted page(s) in a nonprovisional application and accept the date of
such submission as the application filing date. An applicant desiring to submit the omitted page(s) in a nonprovisional application and accept the date of such submission as the application filing date must, within two months from the date of the OPAP notice, file any omitted page(s) and a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), requesting the later filing date. The two-month period is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64 must be filed with the omitted page(s) and refer to such page(s); or
(C) accept the application as deposited in the USPTO by filing an appropriate amendment. Applicant may accept the application as deposited in the USPTO by either:
(1) filing a substitute specification (including claims) that amends the specification to renumber the pages consecutively and cancels any incomplete sentences, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125, without adding the subject matter that was in the omitted page(s) and without adding any new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). For a missing page of the claim listing only, applicant is required to submit a replacement claim listing with the claims renumbered consecutively, or, if amendment to the claims is also necessary, then a complete claim listing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c). The application will maintain the filing date as of the date of deposit of the application papers in the USPTO, and the original application papers (i.e., the original disclosure of the invention) will include only those application papers present in the USPTO on the date of deposit , or
(2) filing a substitute specification (excluding claims), in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125, to add the subject matter in the omitted page(s) by relying on an incorporation by reference under 37 CFR 1.57(b) or other portions of the original disclosure, without any adding new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). For a missing page of the claim listing, applicant is required to submit a complete claim listing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c). If an application was filed on or after September 21, 2004, and contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional,
600-24Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(d)
or international application that was present on the filing date of the application, and the omitted portion of the specification was inadvertently omitted from the application and is completely contained in the prior-filed application, applicant may submit an amendment to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment should be identified as an amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b) and must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b) and 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 217. The application will maintain the filing date as of the date of deposit of the original application papers in the USPTO. The original application papers (i.e., the original disclosure of the invention) will include only those application papers present in the USPTO on the original date of deposit. The two-month period is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136.
The submission of omitted page(s) in a nonprovisional application and acceptance of the date of such submission as the application filing date is tantamount to simply filing a new application. Thus, applicants should consider filing a new application as an alternative to submitting a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 (with the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(f)) with any omitted page(s), which is a cost effective alternative in instances in which a nonprovisional application is deposited without filing fees. Likewise, in view of the relatively low filing fee for provisional applications, and the USPTO’s desire to minimize the processing of provisional applications, the USPTO will not grant petitions under 37 CFR 1.182 to accept omitted page(s) and accord an application filing date as of the date of such submission in provisional applications. The applicant should simply file a new completed provisional application. The mailing of an OPAP notice regarding omitted page(s) in a provisional application will permit the applicant to either: (1) promptly establish prior receipt of the page(s) at issue by filing of a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), along with evidence of such deposit; or (2) accept the application as deposited by failing to file a petition within a two-month non-extendable time period. Applications in which an OPAP notice regarding omitted items has been mailed will be retained in OPAP to await a reply to the notice.
Failure to timely reply to the OPAP notice in a nonprovisional application will result in abandonment of the application. Nonprovisional applications that are timely completed will then be forwarded to the appropriate Technology Center for examination of the application. For provisional applications in which applicant accepts the application as deposited by failing to timely file a petition in response to an OPAP notice regarding omitted items, if the provisional application is complete under 37 CFR 1.51(c), it will be held in Office’s Image File Wrapper (IFW) system and automatically abandoned at the end of its pendency period. See MPEP § 601.01(a) for treatment of nonprovisional applications that are not complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b) and MPEP § 601.01(b) for treatment of provisional applications that are not complete under 37 CFR 1.51(c)).
II. APPLICATION NOT ENTITLED TO FILING DATE
If the application does not contain anything that can be construed as a written description, OPAP will mail a Notice of Incomplete Application indicating that the application lacks the specification required by 35 U.S.C. 112. Applicant may:
(A) file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), asserting that (1) the missing specification was submitted, or (2) the application papers as deposited contain an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112. The petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) must be accompanied by sufficient evidence (37 CFR 1.181(b)) to establish applicant’s entitlement to the requested filing date (e.g. , a date-stamped postcard receipt (MPEP § 503) to establish prior receipt in the USPTO of the missing specification);
(B) submit the omitted specification, including at least one claim if the application is a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to December 18, 2013 or a design application, and accept the date of such submission as the application filing date. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the omitted specification should be accompanied by an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64 referring to the specification being submitted; or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-25
§ 601.01(d)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(C) submit an amendment under 37 CFR 1.57(b) in a nonprovisional application. If a nonprovisional application was filed on or after September 21, 2004, and contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, or international application that was present on the filing date of the application, and the specification was inadvertently omitted from the application and is completely contained in the prior-filed application, applicant may submit an amendment to include the inadvertently omitted specification pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment must be accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) along with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f). See MPEP § 217. The amendment should be identified as an amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b) and must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b) and 37 CFR 1.121. The two-month period is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136.
Applications in which a “Notice of Incomplete Application” has been mailed will be retained in OPAP to await action by the applicant since further action by the applicant is necessary for the application to be accorded a filing date. Unless applicant completes the application or files a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), within the period set in the “Notice of Incomplete Application,” the application will be processed as an incomplete application under 37 CFR 1.53(e).
III. APPLICATION FORWARDED FOR EXAMINATION
If it is discovered that an application that was forwarded to a Technology Center (TC) for examination was filed without all of the page(s) of the specification, and a Notice of Omitted Items has not been mailed by OPAP, the examiner should review the application to determine whether the application is entitled to a filing date. An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to December 18, 2013 or a design application is entitled to a filing date if the application contains something that can be construed as a written description, at least one drawing figure (if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113, first sentence), and at least one claim. If the application is not a design application and was filed
under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, the application is entitled to a filing date if it is filed with a specification, with or without claims. However, claims must be filed before the application is sent to the TC.
A. Application Entitled to a Filing Date
If an application filed without all of the pages of the specification is entitled to a filing date, the examiner should notify applicant of the omission in the next Office action and require applicant to do one of the following:
(A) accept the application, as filed, without all of the page(s) of the specification;
(B) file any omitted page(s) and a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), requesting the date of submission of the omitted page(s) as the application filing date. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the omitted pages must be accompanied by an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64 referring to the omitted page(s); or
(C) file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f) alleging that the page(s) indicated as omitted was in fact deposited with the USPTO with the application papers, including any and all evidence supporting the allegation. See MPEP § 503. The petition fee will be refunded if it is determined that the page(s) was in fact received by the USPTO with the application papers deposited on filing.
If applicant is willing to accept the application, as filed, without all of the page(s) of the application (item A above), an amendment of the specification is required to renumber the pages of the application consecutively and to cancel any incomplete sentences caused by the absence of the omitted page(s). The amendment should be submitted in response to the Office action.
If an application was filed on or after September 21, 2004, and contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international, or international design application that was present on
600-26Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(d)
the filing date of the application, and the omitted portion of the specification was inadvertently omitted from the application and is completely contained in the prior-filed application, applicant may submit an amendment to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment should be submitted in response to the Office action and must comply with 37 CFR 1.57(b) and 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 217.
Any petition filed in accordance with item B or C above will be forwarded to the Office of Petitions.
B. Application NOT Entitled to a Filing Date
If upon review of the application, the examiner determines that the application is NOT entitled to a filing date, the examiner should forward the application to OPAP for mailing of a “Notice of Incomplete Application.”
601.01(e) Nonprovisional Application Filed Without at Least One Claim [R-07.2015]
[Editor’s Note: This section is only applicable to nonprovisional applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 or to design applications. Nonprovisional applications, which are not design applications, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013 are entitled to a filing date even if the specification does not contain claims. If such an application is filed without claims, it may be completed subsequent to its filing date. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection II.]
For nonprovisional applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 or design applications, the applicable version of 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(2) requires that an application for patent include, inter alia, “a specification as prescribed by section 112,” and the applicable version of 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(4) provides that the “filing date of an application shall be the date on which the specification and any required drawing are received in the Patent and Trademark Office.” 35 U.S.C. 112(a) provides, in part, that “[t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention,” and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), provides that “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” Also, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.:
Both statute, 35 U.S.C. 111[(a)], and federal regulations, 37 CFR 1.51[(b)], make clear the requirement that an application for a patent must include. . . a specification and claims. . . . The omission of any one of these component parts makes a patent application incomplete and thus not entitled to a filing date.
728 F.2d 1423, 1437, 221 USPQ 97, 105 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(citing Gearon v. United States, 121 F. Supp 652, 654, 101 USPQ 460, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 942, 104 USPQ 409 (1955))(emphasis in the original).
Therefore, in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to December 18, 2013 and in a design application, a claim is a statutory requirement for according a filing date to the application. 35 U.S.C. 171 makes 35 U.S.C. 112 applicable to design applications. 35 U.S.C. 162 specifically requires the specification in a plant patent application to contain a claim, but a claim is not required for receiving a filing date for plant patent applications filed on or after December 18, 2013. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(2) provides that “[a] claim, as required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 112, shall not be required in a provisional application.” Thus, only design applications and nonprovisional applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 that are filed without at least one claim are incomplete and not entitled to a filing date.
If a nonprovisional application filed prior to December 18, 2013 or a design application does not contain at least one claim, a “Notice of Incomplete Application” will be mailed to the applicant(s) indicating that no filing date has been granted and setting a period for submitting a claim. The filing date will be the date of receipt of at least one claim. See In re Mattson, 208 USPQ 168 (Comm’r Pat. 1980). In applications filed before September 16, 2012, an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-27
§ 601.01(e)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
referring to the claim being submitted is also required.
If a nonprovisional application filed prior to December 18, 2013 or a design application is accompanied by a preliminary amendment which cancels all claims without presenting any new or substitute claims, the Office will disapprove such an amendment. See 37 CFR 1.115(b)(1) and Exxon Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 265 F.3d 1249, 60 USPQ2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, the application will not be denied a filing date merely because such a preliminary amendment was submitted on filing. For fee calculation purposes, the Office will treat such an application as containing only a single claim.
As 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) permits the conversion of an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), an applicant in an application, other than for a design patent, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, without at least one claim has the alternative of filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) to convert such application into an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), which does not require a claim to be entitled to its date of deposit as a filing date. Such a petition, however, must be filed prior to the expiration of 12 months after the date of deposit of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), and comply with the other requirements of 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2). See MPEP § 601.01(c). For nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, there is no need to request conversion to a provisional application because such applications do not require presentation of at least one claim to obtain a filing date.
The treatment of an application subsequent to the mailing of a “Notice of Incomplete Application” is discussed in MPEP § 601.01(d).
601.01(f) Applications Filed Without Drawings [R-07.2015]
[Editor’s Note: This section is only applicable to applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 or to design applications. Applications, which are not design applications, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or (b) on or after December 18, 2013 are entitled to a filing date even if the application does not contain
drawings. If such an application is filed without drawings, it may be completed subsequent to its filing date. See 37 CFR 1.53(e) and MPEP § 601.01(g).]
35 U.S.C. 111(a)(2)(B) and 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(B) each provide, in part, that an “application shall include . . . a drawing as prescribed by section 113.” 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) in turn provides that an “applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.” For applications filed prior to December 18, 2013, 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(4) and 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(4) each provide, in part, that the “filing date. . . shall be the date on which . . . any required drawing are received in the Patent and Trademark Office.” Therefore, design applications and applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or (b) prior to December 18, 2013 must have any required drawing, if it is necessary for the understanding of the invention, in order to receive a filing date. For applications other than design applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, although drawings are not required in order to receive a filing date, drawings should be submitted on filing if necessary for the understanding of the invention because no amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application after its filing date.
Applications filed without drawings are initially inspected to determine whether a drawing is referred to in the specification, and if not, whether a drawing is necessary for the understanding of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence).
It has been USPTO practice to treat an application that contains at least one process or method claim as an application for which a drawing is not necessary for an understanding of the invention under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence). The same practice has been followed in composition applications. Other situations in which drawings are usually not considered necessary for the understanding of the invention under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) are:
(A) Coated articles or products: where the invention resides solely in coating or impregnating a conventional sheet ( e.g., paper or cloth, or an article of known and conventional character with a particular composition), unless significant details of
600-28Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(f)
structure or arrangement are involved in the article claims;
(B) Articles made from a particular material or composition: where the invention consists in making an article of a particular material or composition, unless significant details of structure or arrangement are involved in the article claims;
(C) Laminated structures: where the claimed invention involves only laminations of sheets (and coatings) of specified material unless significant details of structure or arrangement (other than the mere order of the layers) are involved in the article claims; or
(D) Articles, apparatus, or systems where sole distinguishing feature is presence of a particular material: where the invention resides solely in the use of a particular material in an otherwise old article, apparatus or system recited broadly in the claims, for example:
(1) A hydraulic system distinguished solely by the use therein of a particular hydraulic fluid;
(2) Packaged sutures wherein the structure and arrangement of the package are conventional and the only distinguishing feature is the use of a particular material.
A nonprovisional application having at least one claim, or a provisional application having at least some disclosure, directed to the subject matter discussed above for which a drawing is usually not considered essential for a filing date, not describing drawing figures in the specification, and filed without drawings will simply be processed, so long as the application contains something that can be construed as a written description. A nonprovisional application having at least one claim, or a provisional application having at least some disclosure, directed to the subject matter discussed above for which a drawing is usually not considered essential for a filing date, describing drawing figure(s) in the specification, but filed without drawings will be treated as an application filed without all of the drawing figures referred to in the specification as discussed in MPEP § 601.01(g), so long as the application contains something that can be construed as a written description. In a situation in which the appropriate Technology Center (TC) determines that drawings are necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) the filing date issue will be reconsidered
by the USPTO in nonprovisional applications filed prior to December 18, 2013 or in design applications. The application will be returned to the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) for mailing of a “Notice of Incomplete Application.”
If a nonprovisional application filed prior to December 18, 2013 or a design application does not have at least one claim directed to the subject matter discussed above for which a drawing is usually not considered essential for a filing date, or a provisional application filed prior to December 18, 2013 does not have at least some disclosure directed to the subject matter discussed above for which a drawing is usually not considered essential for a filing date, and is filed without drawings, OPAP will mail a “Notice of Incomplete Application” indicating that the application lacks drawings and that 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) requires a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.
Applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), asserting that (A) the drawing(s) at issue was submitted, or (B) the drawing(s) is not necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) for a filing date. The petition must be accompanied by sufficient evidence to establish applicant’s entitlement to the requested filing date (e.g., a date-stamped postcard receipt (MPEP § 503) to establish prior receipt in the USPTO of the drawing(s) at issue). Alternatively, applicant in a nonprovisional application may submit drawing(s) and accept the date of such submission as the application filing date. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, such drawings must be accompanied by an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64 referring to the drawing(s) being submitted.
If the drawing(s) was inadvertently omitted from a nonprovisional application filed on or after September 21, 2004, and the application contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted drawing(s) is completely
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-29
§ 601.01(f)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
contained in the prior-filed application, the applicant may submit the omitted drawing(s) by way of an amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment must be by way of a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f). See MPEP § 217.
In design applications, OPAP will mail a “Notice of Incomplete Application” indicating that the application lacks the drawings required under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence). The applicant may: (A) promptly file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), asserting that the missing drawing(s) was submitted; or (B) promptly submit drawing(s) and accept the date of such submission as the application filing date. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, such drawing(s) must be accompanied by an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64. Applicant may also be able to file an amendment by way of a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) as provided for in 37 CFR 1.57(b)(3) as discussed above. 37 CFR 1.153(a) provides that the claim in a design application “shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described.” As such, petitions under 37 CFR 1.53(e) asserting that drawings are unnecessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) for a filing date in a design application will not be found persuasive.
The treatment of an application subsequent to the mailing of a “Notice of Incomplete Application” is discussed in MPEP § 601.01(d).
601.01(g) Applications Filed Without All Figures of Drawings [R-07.2015]
I. REVIEW BY THE OFFICE OF PATENT APPLICATION PROCESSING
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) reviews application papers to determine whether all of the figures of the drawings that are mentioned in the specification are present in the application. If an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 prior to December 18, 2013, or a design application, is filed without all of the drawing figure(s) referred to in the specification, and the application contains something that can be construed as a written description, at least
one drawing, if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence), and, in a nonprovisional application, at least one claim, an OPAP notice (e.g., a “Notice of Omitted Item(s)”) will be sent indicating that the application papers so deposited have been accorded a filing date, but are lacking some of the figures of drawings described in the specification. For an application, which is not a design application, filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (c) on or after December 18, 2013, if the application is filed without all of the drawings, but contains something that can be construed as a specification, with or without claims, an OPAP notice (e.g., a “Notice of Omitted Items”) will be sent indicating that the application papers so deposited have been accorded a filing date, but are lacking some drawings.
The procedure for handling nonprovisional applications having omitted items was revised in 2007. See “Change in Procedure for Handling NonprovisionalApplications Having Omitted Items,” 1315 OG 103 (February 20, 2007).
Under the revised procedure, the mailing of an OPAP notice regarding a missing drawing figure(s) in a nonprovisional application will permit the applicant to:
(A) promptly establish prior receipt in the USPTO of the drawing(s) at issue. An applicant asserting that the drawing(s) was in fact received by the USPTO with the application papers must, within two months from the date of the OPAP notice, file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(f), along with evidence of such deposit. The petition fee will be refunded if it is determined that the drawing(s) was in fact received by the USPTO with the application papers deposited on filing. The two-month period is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136;
(B) promptly submit the omitted drawing(s) in a nonprovisional application and accept the date of such submission as the application filing date. An applicant desiring to submit the omitted drawing(s) in a nonprovisional application and accept the date of such submission as the application filing date must, within two months from the date of the OPAP notice, file any omitted drawing(s) and a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), requesting the later filing date.
600-30Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(g)
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the omitted drawings must be filed with an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64 referring to such drawing(s). The two-month period is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136; or
(C) accept the application as deposited in the USPTO by filing an appropriate amendment. Applicant may accept the application as deposited in the USPTO by either:
(1) filing an amendment including replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) to renumber the drawing figures consecutively (if necessary), and a substitute specification (excluding claims) that amends the specification to cancel any references to any omitted drawing(s) and corrects the references in the specification to the drawing figures to correspond with any relabeled drawing figures, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125, without adding the subject matter that was in the omitted drawing(s) and without adding any new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). The application will maintain the filing date as of the date of deposit of the original application papers in the USPTO. The original application papers (i.e., the original disclosure of the invention) will include only those application papers present in the USPTO on the original date of deposit. Amendment of the specification is required in a nonprovisional application to cancel all references to the omitted drawing, both in the brief and detailed descriptions of the drawings and including any reference numerals shown only in the omitted drawings. In addition, an amendment with replacement sheets of drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) is required in a nonprovisional application to renumber the drawing figures consecutively, if necessary, and amendment of the specification is required to correct the references to the drawing figures to correspond with any relabeled drawing figures, both in the brief and detailed descriptions of the drawings, or
(2) filing an amendment to add the missing figure(s) by relying on an incorporation by reference under 37 CFR 1.57(b) or other portions of the original disclosure, without adding any new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). Applicant is required to submit new and replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) to add the missing figure(s). If an application was filed on or after
September 21, 2004, and contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the omitted portion of the drawings was inadvertently omitted from the application and is completely contained in the prior-filed application, applicant may submit an amendment to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the drawings pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment should be identified as an amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b) and must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(b) and 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 217. The application will maintain the filing date as of the date of deposit of the original application papers in the USPTO. The original application papers (i.e., the original disclosure of the invention) will include only those application papers present in the USPTO on the original date of deposit.
The submission of omitted drawing(s) in a nonprovisional application and acceptance of the date of such submission as the application filing date is tantamount to simply filing a new application. Thus, applicants should consider filing a new application as an alternative to submitting a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 (with the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(f)) with any omitted drawing(s), which is a cost effective alternative in instances in which a nonprovisional application is deposited without filing fees. Likewise, in view of the relatively low filing fee for provisional applications, and the USPTO’s desire to minimize the processing of provisional applications, the USPTO will not grant petitions under 37 CFR 1.182 to accept omitted drawing(s) and accord an application filing date as of the date of such submission in provisional applications. The applicant should simply file a new completed provisional application. The mailing of an OPAP notice regarding missing drawing figure(s) in a provisional application will permit the applicant to either: (1) promptly establish prior receipt of the drawing(s) at issue by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), along with evidence of such deposit; or (2) accept the application as deposited by failing to file a petition within a two-month non-extendable time period.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-31
§ 601.01(g)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
Applications in which an OPAP notice regarding omitted items has been mailed will be retained in OPAP to await a reply to the notice. Failure to timely reply to the OPAP notice in a nonprovisional application will result in abandonment of the application. Nonprovisional applications that are timely completed will then be forwarded to the appropriate Technology Center for examination of the application. For provisional applications in which applicant accepts the application as deposited by failing to timely file a petition in response to an OPAP notice regarding omitted items, if the provisional application is complete under 37 CFR 1.51(c), it will be held in Office’s Image File Wrapper (IFW) system and automatically abandoned at the end of its pendency period. See MPEP § 601.01(a) for treatment of nonprovisional applications that are not complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b) and MPEP § 601.01(b) for treatment of provisional applications that are not complete under 37 CFR 1.51(c).
The treatment of an application subsequent to the mailing of a “Notice of Omitted Item(s)” is discussed in MPEP § 601.01(d).
Applications are often filed with drawings with several views of the invention where the views are labeled using a number-letter combination, e.g., Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, and Fig. 1C. If a figure which is referred to in the specification by a particular number cannot be located among the drawings, and the drawings include at least one figure labeled with that particular number in combination with a letter, correction will be required. For example, if the drawings show Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C and the brief description of the drawings refers only to Figure 1, this is an error in the specification which must be corrected.
II. REVIEW BY EXAMINER
If it is discovered that an application that was forwarded for examination was filed without all of the drawing figure(s) referred to in the specification, and a Notice of Omitted Items or other OPAP notice regarding omitted items has not been mailed by OPAP, the examiner should review the application to determine whether the application is entitled to a filing date if the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to December 18, 2013
or is a design application. An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to December 18, 2013 or a design application is entitled to a filing date if the application contains something that can be construed as a written description, at least one drawing figure (if necessary under 35 U.S.C. 113, first sentence), and at least one claim. If the application is not a design application and was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, the application is entitled to a filing date if it is filed with a specification, with or without drawings.
A. Application Entitled to a Filing Date
If the application is entitled to a filing date, the examiner should notify applicant of the omission in the next Office action and require applicant to do one of the following:
(A) accept the application, as filed, without all of the drawing figure(s) referred to in the specification;
(B) file any omitted drawing figure(s) and a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f), requesting the date of submission of the omitted drawing figure(s) as the application filing date. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the omitted drawing(s) must be filed with an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64 referring to the omitted drawing figure(s); or
(C) file a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f) alleging that the drawing figure(s) indicated as omitted was in fact deposited with the USPTO with the application papers, including any and all evidence supporting the allegation. See MPEP § 503. The petition fee will be refunded if it is determined that the drawing figure(s) was in fact received by the USPTO with the application papers deposited on filing.
If applicant is willing to accept the application, as filed, without all of the drawing figure(s) referred to in the application (item A above), applicant is required to submit (1) an amendment to the specification canceling all references to the omitted drawing figure(s) including any reference numerals shown only in the omitted drawing figure(s), (2) an amendment with replacement sheets of drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) renumbering the
600-32Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.01(g)
drawing figure(s) submitted on filing consecutively, and (3) a further amendment to the specification correcting references to drawing figure(s) to correspond with the relabeled drawing figure(s), both in the brief and detailed descriptions of the drawings. The amendment should be submitted in response to the Office action.
If an application contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the omitted portion of the drawing(s) was inadvertently omitted from the application and is completely contained in the prior-filed application, applicant may submit an amendment to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the drawing(s) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment should be submitted in response to the Office action and must comply with 37 CFR 1.57(b) and 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 217.
Any petition filed in accordance with item (B) or (C) above will be forwarded to the Office of Petitions.
B. Application NOT Entitled to a Filing Date
If upon review of the application, the examiner determines that the application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) prior to December 18, 2013 or a design application is NOT entitled to a filing date because the application does not contain any drawing figure, and at least one drawing figure is necessary under 35 U.S.C 113, first sentence, the examiner should forward the application to OPAP for mailing of a “Notice of Incomplete Application.”
601.02 Power of Attorney [R-07.2015]
The attorney’s or agent’s full mailing address (including ZIP Code) must be given in every power of attorney. The telephone and fax numbers of the attorney or agent should also be included in the power of attorney. The prompt delivery of communications will thereby be facilitated.
See MPEP § 402.02(a) for detailed information and relevant forms pertaining to appointment of a power of attorney in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 402.02(b) for detailed information and relevant forms pertaining to appointment of a power of attorney in applications filed before September 16, 2012.
601.03 Correspondence Address [R-11.2013]
An application must specify a correspondence address to which the Office will send notices, letters, and other communications relating to an application. The Office should be promptly notified of any change in correspondence address. The required notification of change of correspondence address need take no particular form. However, it should be provided in a manner calling attention to the fact that a change of address is being made. Thus, the mere inclusion, in a paper being filed for another purpose, of an address which is different from the previously provided correspondence address, without mention of the fact that an address change is being made would not ordinarily be recognized or deemed as instructions to change the correspondence address on the file record.
See MPEP § 601.03(a) for information specific to correspondence address changes in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 601.03(b) for information specific to correspondence address changes in an application filed before September 16, 2012.
See MPEP § 711.03(c) for treatment of petitions to revive applications abandoned as a consequence of failure to timely receive an Office action at the correspondence address of record (e.g., because the Office action was mailed to the incorrect correspondence address).
Note that the obligation (see 37 CFR 11.11) of a registered attorney or agent to notify the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of any change of his or her address is separate from the obligation to file a notice of change of address in individual applications. Unless the correspondence address is designated as the address associated with a Customer Number, a separate notification must be filed in each application for which a person is
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-33
§ 601.03PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
intended to receive communications from the Office. See MPEP § 403 for Customer Number Practice. In those instances where a change in the correspondence address of a registered attorney or agent is necessary in a plurality of applications, the notification filed in each application may be a reproduction of a properly executed, original notification. The original notice may either be sent to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline as notification of the change of address (37 CFR 11.11), or may be retained by applicant.
601.03(a) Change of Correspondence Address in Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 601.03(b) for change of correspondence address in applications filed before September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.33 Correspondence respecting patent applications, reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings.
(a) Correspondence address and daytime telephone number . When filing an application, a correspondence address must be set forth in either an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or elsewhere, in a clearly identifiable manner, in any paper submitted with an application filing. If no correspondence address is specified, the Office may treat the mailing address of the first named inventor (if provided, see §§ 1.76(b)(1) and 37 CFR 1.63(b)(2)) as the correspondence address. The Office will direct, or otherwise make available, all notices, official letters, and other communications relating to the application to the person associated with the correspondence address. For correspondence submitted via the Office's electronic filing system, however, an electronic acknowledgment receipt will be sent to the submitter. The Office will generally not engage in double correspondence with an applicant and a patent practitioner, or with more than one patent practitioner except as deemed necessary by the Director. If more than one correspondence address is specified, the Office will select one of the specified addresses for use as the correspondence address and, if given, may select the address associated with a Customer Number over a typed correspondence address. For the party to whom correspondence is to be addressed, a daytime telephone number should be supplied in a clearly identifiable manner and may be changed by any party who may change the correspondence address. The correspondence address may be changed by the parties set forth in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(3) of this section. Prior to the appointment of any power of attorney under § 1.32(b), the correspondence address may also be changed by any patent practitioner named in the application transmittal papers who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34.
(b) Amendments and other papers. Amendments and other papers, except for written assertions pursuant to § 1.27(c)(2)(iii) or (c)(2)(iv), filed in the application must be signed by:
(1) A patent practitioner of record;
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34; or
(3) The applicant (§ 1.42). Unless otherwise specified, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner.
*****
(e) A change of address filed in a patent application or patent does not change the address for a patent practitioner in the roster of patent attorneys and agents. See § 11.11 of this title.
(f) Where application papers from a prior application are used in a continuing application and the correspondence address was changed during the prosecution of the prior application, an application data sheet or separate paper identifying the correspondence address to be used for the continuing application must be submitted. Otherwise, the Office may not recognize the change of correspondence address effected during the prosecution of the prior application.
(g) A patent practitioner acting in a representative capacity whose correspondence address is the correspondence address of record in an application may change the correspondence address after the patent has issued, provided that the change of correspondence address is accompanied by a statement that notice has been given to the patentee or owner.
37 CFR 1.33(a) provides that the application must specify a correspondence address to which the Office will send notice, letters, and other communications relating to an application. The correspondence address must either be in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) or in a clearly identifiable manner elsewhere in any papers submitted with the application filing.
Applicants should provide clear instructions regarding the correspondence address. If more than one correspondence address is specified, whether in a single paper or in multiple papers, the Office will select one of the specified addresses for use as the correspondence address and, if given, may select the address associated with a Customer Number over a typed correspondence address. If an applicant provides multiple correspondence addresses in a single paper (e.g., providing both a typed correspondence address and a Customer Number in a single paper) or multiple papers (e.g., an oath or declaration, a transmittal letter, and a preliminary amendment that each includes a different correspondence address), and the Office does not select the correspondence address actually desired by applicant, the Office will not re-mail papers to
600-34Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.03(a)
the desired address. Note however that the hierarchy provided in 37 CFR 1.76(d) for inconsistencies between an application data sheet and other documents governs. Accordingly, if the ADS includes a typed correspondence address, and the declaration submitted at the same time gives a different address (e.g., the address associated with a Customer Number) as the correspondence address, the Office will use the typed correspondence address as included on the ADS. After the correspondence address has been entered according to the above procedure, it will only be changed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(a).
For applications submitted via the Office’s electronic filing system, although an electronic acknowledgment receipt will be sent to the submitter, a correspondence address must still set be forth in either an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) or in a clearly identifiable manner elsewhere in any papers submitted with the application filing.
The submission of a daytime telephone number of the party to whom correspondence is to be addressed is requested pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(a). While business is to be conducted on the written record (37 CFR 1.2), a daytime telephone number is useful in initiating contact that could later be reduced to writing. Any party who may change the correspondence address may also change the telephone number.
37 CFR 1.33(a) specifies that the correspondence address may be changed by the parties set forth in 37 CFR 1.33(b)(1) (a patent practitioner of record) or 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3) (the applicant under 37 CFR 1.42). 37 CFR 1.33(a) also provides that prior to the appointment of any power of attorney under 37 CFR 1.32(b), the correspondence address may be changed by any patent practitioner named in the application transmittal papers who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34.
Prior to the appointment of any power of attorney, if a patent practitioner (i.e., registered attorney or agent) filed the application, any other patent practitioners named in the transmittal papers may also change the correspondence address. A patent practitioner named in a letterhead would not be considered as being named in the transmittal papers
for purposes of changing the correspondence address. A clear identification of the individual as a representative is required. If an application is filed by a company to whom the invention has been assigned or to whom there is an obligation to assign the invention, a person (other than a patent practitioner) who has the authority to act on behalf of the company may not change the correspondence address, as all papers signed on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner.
The correspondence address will not be changed by filing a paper (such as an application data sheet) which includes a correspondence address which is different from the correspondence address of record if the paper does not clearly identify that an address change is being made.
37 CFR 1.33(e) provides that a change of address filed in a patent application or patent does not change the address for a patent practitioner in the roster of patent attorneys and agents. See 37 CFR 11.11.
37 CFR 1.33(f) provides that where application papers (e.g., the inventor’s oath or declaration) from a prior application are used in a continuing application and the correspondence address was changed during the prosecution of the prior application, an application data sheet or separate paper identifying the correspondence address to be used for the continuing application must be submitted. If not submitted, the Office may not recognize the change of correspondence address effected during the prosecution of the prior application and correspondence may be mailed to a previously designated correspondence address.
37 CFR 1.33(g) provides that a practitioner acting in a representative capacity whose correspondence address is the correspondence address of record in an application may change the correspondence address after the patent has issued, provided that the change of correspondence address is accompanied by a statement that notice has been given to the patentee or owner. 37 CFR 1.33(g) provides a means for practitioners acting in a representative capacity in an application to effect a change in correspondence address after the patent has granted but does not provide authority to a practitioner acting
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-35
§ 601.03(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
under 37 CFR 1.34 to change the correspondence address in an application. See 37 CFR 1.33(a).
600-36Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.03(a)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-37
§ 601.03(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-38Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.03(a)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-39
§ 601.03(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-40Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.03(a)
601.03(b) Change of Correspondence Address in Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 601.03(a) for change of correspondence address in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.33 (pre-AIA) Correspondence respecting patent applications, reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings.
(a) Correspondence address and daytime telephone number . When filing an application, a correspondence address must be set forth in either an application data sheet (§ 1.76), or elsewhere, in a clearly identifiable manner, in any paper submitted with an application filing. If no correspondence address is specified, the Office may treat the mailing address of the first named inventor (if provided, see §§ 1.76(b)(1) and 1.63(c)(2)) as the correspondence address. The Office will direct, or otherwise make available, all notices, official letters, and other communications relating to the application to the person associated with the correspondence address. For correspondence submitted via the Office’s electronic filing system, however, an electronic acknowledgment receipt will be sent to the submitter. The Office will generally not engage in double correspondence with an applicant and a patent practitioner, or with more than one patent practitioner except as deemed necessary by the Director. If more than one correspondence address is specified in a single document, the Office will select one of the specified addresses for use as the correspondence address and, if given, will select the address associated with a Customer Number over a typed correspondence address. For the party to whom correspondence is to be addressed, a daytime telephone number should be supplied in a clearly identifiable manner and may be changed by any party who may change the correspondence address. The correspondence address may be changed as follows:
(1) Prior to filing of § 1.63 oath or declaration by any of the inventors . If a § 1.63 oath or declaration has not been filed by any of the inventors, the correspondence address may be changed by the party who filed the application. If the application was filed by a patent practitioner, any other patent practitioner named in the transmittal papers may also change the correspondence address. Thus, the inventor(s), any patent practitioner named in the transmittal papers accompanying the original application, or a party that will be the assignee who filed the application, may change the correspondence address in that application under this paragraph.
(2) Where a § 1.63 oath or declaration has been filed by any of the inventors. If a § 1.63 oath or declaration has been filed, or is filed concurrent with the filing of an application, by any of the inventors, the correspondence address may be changed by the parties set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, except for paragraph (b)(2).
*****
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a) provides that the application must specify a correspondence address
to which the Office will send notice, letters, and other communications relating to an application. The correspondence address must either be in an application data sheet (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76) or in a clearly identifiable manner elsewhere in any papers submitted with the application filing. If more than one correspondence address is specified in a single document, the Office will select one of the specified addresses for use as the correspondence address and, if given, will select the address associated with a Customer Number over a typed correspondence address. Additionally, applicants will often specify the correspondence address in more than one paper that is filed with an application, and the address given in the different places sometimes conflicts. Where the applicant specifically directs the Office to use non-matching correspondence addresses in more than one paper, priority will be accorded to the correspondence address specified in the following order: (A) application data sheet (ADS); (B) application transmittal; (C) oath or declaration (unless power of attorney is more current); and (D) power of attorney. Accordingly, if the ADS includes a typed correspondence address, and the declaration gives a different address (i.e., the address associated with a Customer Number) as the correspondence address, the Office will use the typed correspondence address as included on the ADS. In the experience of the Office, the ADS is the most recently created document and tends to have the most current address. After the correspondence address has been entered according to the above procedure, it will only be changed pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(1).
The submission of a daytime telephone number of the party to whom correspondence is to be addressed is requested pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a). While business is to be conducted on the written record (37 CFR 1.2), a daytime telephone number is useful in initiating contact that could later be reduced to writing. Any party who may change the correspondence address may also change the telephone number.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(1) provides that the party filing the application and setting forth a correspondence address may later change the correspondence address provided that an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 by any of the inventors has not been filed. If a patent
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-41
§ 601.03(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
practitioner (i.e., registered attorney or agent) filed the application, any other patent practitioners named in the transmittal papers may also change the correspondence address. A patent practitioner named in a letterhead would not be considered as being named in the transmittal papers for purposes of changing the correspondence address. A clear identification of the individual as a representative is required. If an application is filed by a company to whom the invention has been assigned or to whom there is an obligation to assign the invention, a person who has the authority to act on behalf of the company may change the correspondence address. Thus, the inventor(s), any patent practitioner named in the transmittal papers accompanying the original application, or a party that will be the assignee who filed the application, may change the correspondence address pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(1). The filing of an executed oath or declaration that does not include a correspondence address does not affect any correspondence address previously established on filing of the application, or changed pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(1).
Where a correspondence address has been established on filing of the application or changed pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(1) (prior to the filing of an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 by any of the inventors), that correspondence address remains in effect upon filing of an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and can only be subsequently changed
pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(2). Under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(2), where an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 has been filed by any of the inventors, the correspondence address may be changed by (A) a patent practitioner of record, (B) an assignee as provided for under pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71(b), or (C) all of the applicants (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(b)) for patent, unless there is an assignee of the entire interest and such assignee has taken action in the application in accordance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.71. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)(2).
Special care should be taken in continuation or divisional applications to ensure that any change of correspondence address in a prior application is reflected in the continuation or divisional application. For example, where a copy of the oath or declaration from the prior application is submitted for a continuation or divisional application filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.53(b) and the copy of the oath or declaration from the prior application designates an old correspondence address, the Office may not recognize, in the continuation or divisional application, the change of correspondence address made during the prosecution of the prior application. Applicant is required to identify the change of correspondence address in the continuation or divisional application to ensure that communications from the Office are mailed to the current correspondence address. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)(4).
600-42Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.03(b)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-43
§ 601.03(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-44Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.03(b)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-45
§ 601.03(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-46Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.03(b)
601.04 National Stage Requirements of the United States as a Designated Office [R-08.2012]
See MPEP Chapter 1800, especially MPEP § 1893.01 for requirements for entry into the national stage before the Designated Office or Elected Office under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
601.05 Bibliographic Information - Application Data Sheet (ADS) [R-07.2015]
An application data sheet (ADS) is a sheet or set of sheets containing bibliographic data, which is arranged in a format specified by the Office. An ADS must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.76, and may be submitted in a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), a nonprovisional international design application, or a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371. See MPEP § 601.05(a) for requirements for an ADS that are specific to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 601.05(b) for requirements for an ADS that are specific to applications filed prior to September 16, 2012.
When an application data sheet is provided in a patent application, the application data sheet becomes part of the application and must comply with 37 CFR 1.52. While the use of an application data sheet is not always required (see MPEP §§ 601.05(a) and 601.05(b)), the Office prefers its use in all applications to help facilitate the electronic capturing of important data. When an ADS is optional, the data that is suggested to be supplied by way of an application data sheet can also be provided elsewhere in the application papers, but it is to applicant’s advantage to submit the data via an application data sheet. To help ensure that the Office efficiently captures the data, the Office specifies a particular format to be used. The Office also provides a fillable form (PTO/AIA/14 for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 and PTO/SB/14 for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) on the Office’s website, which contains the bibliographic data arranged in the specified format. The Office’s fillable form is designed to be completed electronically and then filed via EFS-Web
or in paper. However, the data will only load directly into the Office’s electronic systems when the PTO/AIA/14 or PTO/SB/14 is submitted as an EFS-Web Fillable Form, rather than a scanned portable document format (PDF) image submitted electronically via EFS-Web or in paper.
601.05(a) Application Data Sheet (ADS) -- Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 601.05(b) for a discussion of the requirements of an ADS for applications filed before September 16, 2012. 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3), directed to reference filing under 37 CFR 1.57(a), is applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013. For 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3) applicable to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 and before December 18, 2013, see 37 CFR 1.76 (2012-09-16 thru 2013-12-17); for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76 as reproduced in MPEP § 601.05(b).]
37 CFR 1.76 Application data sheet.
(a) Application data sheet: An application data sheet is a sheet or sheets, that may be submitted in a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), a nonprovisional international design application, or a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, and must be submitted when required by § 1.55 or 1.78 to claim priority to or the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386. An application data sheet must be titled "Application Data Sheet." An application data sheet must contain all of the section headings listed in paragraph (b) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, with any appropriate data for each section heading. If an application data sheet is provided, the application data sheet is part of the application for which it has been submitted.
(b) Bibliographic data. Bibliographic data as used in paragraph (a) of this section includes:
(1) Inventor information. This information includes the legal name, residence, and mailing address of the inventor or each joint inventor.
(2) Correspondence information . This information includes the correspondence address, which may be indicated by reference to a customer number, to which correspondence is to be directed (see § 1.33(a)).
(3) Application information . This information includes the title of the invention, the total number of drawing sheets, a suggested drawing figure for publication (in a nonprovisional application), any docket number assigned to the application, the type of application (e.g., utility, plant, design, reissue,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-47
§ 601.05(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
provisional), whether the application discloses any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2 of this chapter (see § 5.2(c)), and, for plant applications, the Latin name of the genus and species of the plant claimed, as well as the variety denomination. When information concerning the previously filed application is required under § 1.57(a), application information also includes the reference to the previously filed application, indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application, and specifying the previously filed application by application number, filing date, and the intellectual property authority or country in which the previously filed application was filed.
(4) Representative information . This information includes the registration number of each practitioner having a power of attorney in the application (preferably by reference to a customer number). Providing this information in the application data sheet does not constitute a power of attorney in the application (see § 1.32).
(5) Domestic benefit information . This information includes the application number, the filing date, the status (including patent number if available), and relationship of each application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, and § 1.78.
(6) Foreign priority information . This information includes the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), and filing date of each foreign application for which priority is claimed. Providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the claim for priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and § 1.55.
(7) Applicant information : This information includes the name (either natural person or juristic entity) and address of the legal representative, assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter who is the applicant under § 1.43 or § 1.46. Providing assignment information in the application data sheet does not substitute for compliance with any requirement of part 3 of this chapter to have an assignment recorded by the Office.
(c) Correcting and updating an application data sheet.
(1) Information in a previously submitted application data sheet, inventor's oath or declaration under § 1.63, § 1.64 or § 1.67, or otherwise of record, may be corrected or updated until payment of the issue fee by a new application data sheet providing corrected or updated information, except that inventorship changes must comply with the requirements of § 1.48, foreign priority and domestic benefit information changes must comply with §§ 1.55 and 1.78, and correspondence address changes are governed by § 1.33(a).
(2) An application data sheet providing corrected or updated information may include all of the sections listed in paragraph (b) of this section or only those sections containing changed or updated information. The application data sheet must include the section headings listed in paragraph (b) of this section for each section included in the application data sheet,
and must identify the information that is being changed, with underlining for insertions, and strike-through or brackets for text removed, except that identification of information being changed is not required for an application data sheet included with an initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371.
(d) Inconsistencies between application data sheet and other documents. For inconsistencies between information that is supplied by both an application data sheet under this section and other documents:
(1) The most recent submission will govern with respect to inconsistencies as between the information provided in an application data sheet, a designation of a correspondence address, or by the inventor's oath or declaration, except that:
(i) The most recent application data sheet will govern with respect to foreign priority (§ 1.55) or domestic benefit (§ 1.78) claims; and
(ii) The naming of the inventorship is governed by § 1.41 and changes to inventorship or the names of the inventors is governed by § 1.48.
(2) The information in the application data sheet will govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at the same time by a designation of correspondence address or the inventor's oath or declaration. The information in the application data sheet will govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at any time in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Name or Address Form, or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Applicant or Owner Form.
(3) The Office will capture bibliographic information from the application data sheet. The Office will generally not review the inventor's oath or declaration to determine if the bibliographic information contained therein is consistent with the bibliographic information provided in an application data sheet. Incorrect bibliographic information contained in an application data sheet may be corrected as provided in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(e) Signature requirement . An application data sheet must be signed in compliance with § 1.33(b). An unsigned application data sheet will be treated only as a transmittal letter.
(f) Patent Law Treaty Model International Forms . The requirement in § 1.55 or § 1.78 for the presentation of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of such priority or benefit claim in the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, and the requirement in § 1.57(a) for a reference to the previously filed application in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of such reference to the previously filed application in the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form. The requirement in § 1.46 for the presentation of the name of the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 118 in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of the name of the applicant in the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Name
600-48Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.05(a)
or Address Form, or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change inApplicant or Owner Form, as applicable.
(g) Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form . The requirement in § 1.78 for the presentation of a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet will be satisfied in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 by the presentation of such benefit claim in the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form contained in the international application or the presence of such benefit claim on the front page of the publication of the international application under PCT Article 21(2). The requirement in § 1.55 or § 1.78 for the presentation of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet and the requirement in § 1.46 for the presentation of the name of the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 118 in an application data sheet will be satisfied in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 by the presentation of such priority or benefit claim and presentation of the name of the applicant in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form. If a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form is submitted in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111, the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form must be accompanied by a clear indication that treatment of the application as an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is desired.
37 CFR 1.76(a) provides that an application data sheet may be submitted in a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), a nonprovisional international design application, or a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371. However, 37 CFR 1.76(a) also provides that an application data sheet must be submitted when required by 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 to claim priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, or 386 in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78. An application data sheet must also be submitted in accordance with 37 CFR 1.46 when an application is filed by an assignee, a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or a person who otherwise shows a sufficient proprietary interest in the matter under 35 U.S.C. 118.
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
37 CFR 1.76(a) requires that any ADS contain the seven headings listed in 37 CFR 1.76(b) with any appropriate data for each section heading (except as provided in 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2) for an ADS providing corrected or updated information). The ADS must be titled “Application Data Sheet” and any heading that does not contain any corresponding data will be interpreted by the Office to mean that there is no
corresponding data for that heading anywhere in the application. Bibliographic data under 37 CFR 1.76(b) includes: (1) inventor information; (2) correspondence information; (3) application information; (4) representative information; (5) domestic benefit information; (6) foreign priority information; and (7) applicant information.
Inventor information includes the legal name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor (37 CFR 1.41(b)). Whether or not the inventor is the applicant, the Office will to continue to use the inventor’s name for application and patent identification purposes. Inventor names tend to provide a more distinct identification than assignee name, for example. The “mailing address” is the address where the inventor customarily receives mail.
Correspondence information includes the correspondence address, which may be indicated by reference to a customer number, to which correspondence is to be directed (see 37 CFR 1.33(a)).
As set forth in 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3), application information includes the title of the invention, the total number of drawing sheets, a suggested drawing figure for publication (in a nonprovisional application), any docket number assigned to the application, and the type of application (e.g., utility, plant, design, reissue, provisional). Note that the Office is not bound to print the suggested drawing figure, as the Office may decide to print another figure on the front page of any patent application publication or patent issuing from the application.
Application information includes whether the application discloses any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to 37 CFR 5.2(c). 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3) also requests that the plant patent applicant state the Latin name and the variety denomination for the plant claimed. The Latin name of the genus and species and the variety denomination of the claimed plant are usually included in the specification of the plant patent application, and will be included in any plant patent or plant patent application publication if included in an application data sheet or patent application. The Office, pursuant to the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-49
§ 601.05(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
“International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants” (generally known by its French acronym as the UPOV convention), has been asked to compile a database of the plants patented and the database must include the Latin name and the variety denomination of each patented plant. Having this information in an ADS will make the process of compiling this database more efficient.
For applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, when information concerning the previously filed application is required under 37 CFR 1.57(a), application information also includes the reference to the previously filed application, indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application, and specifying the previously filed application by application number, filing date, and the intellectual property authority or country in which the previously filed application was filed. Effective December 18, 2013, 37 CFR 1.57 and 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3) were amended to implement the reference filing provisions of 35 U.S.C. 111(c). 37 CFR 1.57(a) now provides that, subject to the conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(a), a reference to a previously filed application, made in the English language in an ADS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 upon the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application, shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for purposes of a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(b). Thus, applicants filing by reference under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57 should take care to ensure that the application number, filing date, and intellectual property authority or country of the previously filed application are accurately specified on the ADS as the specification and drawings of the application specified on the ADS is the specification and drawings of the application being filed by reference under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III, for more information on reference filing. The reference to a previously filed application in an ADS under 37 CFR 1.57(a) is not sufficient to establish a priority or benefit claim to that previously filed application. Applicants must still provide priority and/or benefit information under the domestic benefit information
heading or foreign priority information heading, as appropriate, in the application data sheet even if utilizing the reference filing provisions of 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a).
Representative information includes the registration number of each practitioner appointed with a power of attorney in the application (preferably by reference to a customer number). 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) states that providing this information in the application data sheet does not constitute a power of attorney in the application (see 37 CFR 1.32). This is because the Office does not expect the application data sheet to be executed by the party (applicant or assignee) who may appoint a power of attorney in the application.
Domestic benefit information includes the application number (series code and serial number), the filing date, the status (including patent number if available), and relationship of each application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). The application data sheet, if provided, is considered part of the application. 37 CFR 1.76(b)(5) states that providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, and 37 CFR 1.78. A specific reference to the earlier application(s) is no longer required to be made in the specification, such as in the first sentence(s) thereof. The continuity data for the patent front page will be taken from the application data sheet. No continuity data will be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification, unless applicant separately provides it there. 37 CFR 1.76(b)(5) does not apply to provisional applications.
Foreign priority information includes the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), and filing date of each foreign application for which priority is claimed. 37 CFR 1.76(b)(6) states that providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the claim for priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and 37 CFR 1.55. 37 CFR 1.76(b)(6) does not apply to provisional applications.
37 CFR 1.76(b)(7) provides that applicant information includes the name (either natural person or juristic entity) and address of the applicant under 37 CFR 1.43 or 1.46. Thus, 37 CFR 1.76(b)(7)
600-50Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.05(a)
provides for the situation in which the applicant is a person other than the inventor under 37 CFR 1.43 (legal representative) or 37 CFR 1.46 (assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter). This heading should be left blank if the applicant is the inventor or is the remaining joint inventor or inventors (37 CFR 1.45).
37 CFR 1.46(b) provides that if an application is filed by the assignee, a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, the application must contain an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter in the applicant information section. 37 CFR 1.46(b) also requires if an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or a nonprovisional international design application, is applied for by a person other than the inventor under 37 CFR 1.46(a), the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter must have been identified as the applicant for the United States in the international stage of the international application or as the applicant in the publication of the international registration under HagueAgreement Article 10(3). 37 CFR 1.46(c)(1) provides that any request to correct or update the name of the applicant must include an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the corrected or updated name of the applicant in the applicant information section in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2). 37 CFR 1.46(c)(1) also provides that a change in the name of the applicant recorded pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 16(1)(ii) will be effective to change the name of the applicant in a nonprovisional international design application. 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2) provides that any request to change the applicant must include an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the applicant in the applicant information section and comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73. The application data sheet must comply with the provisions for correcting and updating an application data sheet set forth in 37 CFR 1.76(c).
37 CFR 1.76(b)(7) explains that providing assignment information in the application data sheet does not substitute for compliance with any requirement of 37 CFR part 3 to have an assignment recorded by the Office. Assignment information must be recorded to have legal effect.
II. CORRECTING AND UPDATING AN ADS OR INFORMATION OTHERWISE OF RECORD
37 CFR 1.76(c) provides the procedure for correcting and updating not only an application data sheet (ADS), but also information otherwise of record (e.g., information provided on the most recent filing receipt). Any ADS filed after the filing date of the application is considered a corrected (or updated) ADS even if an ADS was not previously submitted. Such a corrected ADS must identify the information that is being changed with underlining for insertions and strike-through or brackets for text removed, except that identification of information being changed is not required for an ADS included with an initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371. In general, the identification of the information being changed should be made relative to the most recent filing receipt. A corrected ADS may be submitted until payment of the issue fee to either correct or update information in a previously submitted application data sheet, or in an inventor’s oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, 1.64 , or 1.67, or otherwise of record. See 37 CFR 1.76(c)(1). However, inventorship changes must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.48, foreign priority and domestic benefit information changes must comply with 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78, and correspondence address changes must comply with 37 CFR 1.33(a). Note also that any request to correct or update the name of the applicant, or change the applicant, must comply with 37 CFR 1.46(c).
A corrected application data sheet may include all of the section headings listed in 37 CFR 1.76(b) with all appropriate data for each heading or only those sections (including the section headings) containing changed or updated information. See 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2).
A corrected ADS should be filed with a request for a corrected filing receipt unless accompanied by a request to take some other action, such as a request
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-51
§ 601.05(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
under 37 CFR 1.48, a request under 37 CFR 1.46(c), or the submission of a power of attorney. A corrected ADS accompanying a request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c) must show the changes in applicant information relative to the applicant information on the most recent filing receipt, even if an ADS was not previously filed or an applicant was not previously identified in an ADS because the filing receipt identifies the applicant information of record. Similarly, where the most recent filing receipt does not include a benefit claim, either because a previously submitted ADS failed to comply with 37 CFR 1.78 or the benefit claim was not previously included in an ADS, a corrected ADS submitted to add the benefit claim must identify the addition of the benefit claim with underlining. A petition under 37 CFR 1.78 may be required if the benefit claim is being submitted outside the time period in 37 CFR 1.78. To delete a foreign priority claim included on an original ADS, applicant must provide a corrected ADS identifying the deletion of the foreign priority claim with strike-through or brackets. Additionally, a corrected ADS submitted to correct information provided in an inventor’s oath or declaration, such as residence information for an inventor, must show the original incorrect information with strike-through or brackets, and the new information with underlining, as if the incorrect information was submitted in an ADS filed with the application.
III. TREATMENT OF INCONSISTENT INFORMATION
Resolution of inconsistent information supplied by both an application data sheet and other documents (e.g., the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, 1.64 , or 1.67) are addressed in 37 CFR 1.76(d).
37 CFR 1.76(d)(1) provides that the most recent submission will govern (control) with respect to inconsistencies as between the information provided in an application data sheet, a designation of a correspondence address, or by the inventor’s oath or declaration, except that: (1) the most recent application data sheet will govern with respect to foreign priority (37 CFR 1.55) or domestic benefit (37 CFR 1.78) claims; and (2) the naming of the inventorship is governed by 37 CFR 1.41 and changes to inventorship or the names of the inventors is governed by 37 CFR 1.48.
37 CFR 1.76(d)(2) provides that the information in the application data sheet will govern when the inconsistent information is supplied at the same time by a designation of correspondence address or the inventor’s oath or declaration. The information in the application data sheet will also govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at any time in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Name or Address Form, or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Applicant or Owner Form.
If an ADS is inconsistent with the information provided in another document that was submitted at the same time or prior to the ADS submission, the ADS will control. This is because the application data sheet is intended to be the means by which applicant provides complete bibliographic information. In the small number of instances where another document has more accurate information than a concurrently supplied application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(d)(2)), a corrected application data sheet should be submitted to conform the information in the ADS to the correct information as provided in the other document(s).
37 CFR 1.76(d)(3) provides that the Office will capture bibliographic information from the application data sheet. 37 CFR 1.76(d)(3) further provides that the Office will generally not review the inventor’s oath or declaration to determine if the bibliographic information contained therein is consistent with the bibliographic information provided in an application data sheet. 37 CFR 1.76(d)(3) further provides that incorrect bibliographic information contained in an application data sheet may be corrected as provided in 37 CFR 1.76(c)(1).
Examples:
If an application naming inventors A and B is filed with an application data sheet that improperly identifies the residence of inventor B and an executed 37 CFR 1.63 declaration that properly identifies the residence of inventor B, the Office will capture the residence information of inventor B as identified in the application data sheet, and include that information in the filing receipt. Applicant may correct the residence information by submitting an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76(c)
600-52Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.05(a)
with the name of inventor B and the corrected residence for inventor B with underlining for insertions and strike-through or brackets for text removed.
If an application is filed with an application data sheet improperly identifying inventors A, B and C and an executed 37 CFR 1.63 declaration correctly setting forth the inventorship as A and B, the Office will capture the inventorship as inventors A, B and C based on the information in the application data sheet, and include that information in the filing receipt. To correct the inventorship, applicant must submit a request to correct the inventorship pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48. See MPEP § 602.01(c) et seq.
If an application is filed with an application data sheet, the Office will capture the applicant information as identified in the application data sheet. To change the name of the applicant, a request in accordance with 37 CFR 1.46(c), and in compliance with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73, is required. See MPEP § 605.01, subsection II.
IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The application data sheet form PTO/AIA/14 provides a section where applicants can make a request not to publish the application or a request for early publication.
The application data sheet form PTO/AIA/14 provides a section where applicants can provide an Authorization to Permit Access to the Instant Application by Participating Offices. If the box in this section of the form is checked, the Office has the authority to provide access to the instant patent application to the participating offices in which a foreign application claiming priority to the instant patent application is filed.
The application data sheet form PTO/AIA/14 provides an assignee information section, which includes the name (either person or juristic entity) and address of the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest in an application. The inclusion of this information in the application data sheet does not substitute for compliance with any requirement of 37 CFR part 3 to have an assignment recorded by the Office. Providing assignee information in the application data sheet is considered a request to
include such information on the patent application publication, since there is no other reason for including such information in the application data sheet. Assignment information must be recorded to have legal effect. Assignees who are the applicant will appear on the patent application publication as the applicant and only need to separately provide assignee information in the assignee information section if identification as an assignee is also desired on the patent application publication.
37 CFR 1.76(e) provides that an application data sheet must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). The rule further provides that an unsigned application data sheet will be treated only as a transmittal letter. Thus, an unsigned application data sheet will not be effective to provide the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application (37 CFR 1.41(b)), name as the applicant an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient propriety interest in the application (37 CFR 1.46), make a claim to priority of a foreign application (37 CFR 1.55), or make a claim to the benefit of a prior-filed domestic application (37 CFR 1.78).
Effective December 18, 2013 for all applications no matter when filed, 37 CFR 1.76 was amended by adding new paragraphs (f) and (g) to permit the use of Patent Law Treaty Model International Forms as appropriate or the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form in lieu of an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 to provide certain information. However, as provided in 37 CFR 1.76(d)(2), information in an ADS will govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at any time in such forms. Furthermore, if applicants want to postpone submission of the inventor’s oath or declaration until after the time period set to complete the application as provided in 37 CFR 1.53(f)(1) or (2), an ADS that provides the inventor information is required. Accordingly, the use of an ADS to supply application information is encouraged.
37 CFR 1.76(f) provides that: (1) The requirement in 37 CFR 1.55 or 37 CFR 1.78 for the presentation of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of such priority or benefit claim in the Patent Law Treaty Model
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-53
§ 601.05(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
International Request Form; (2) the requirement in 37 CFR 1.57(a) for a reference to the previously filed application in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of such reference to the previously filed application in the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form; and (3) the requirement in 37 CFR 1.46 for the presentation of the name of the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 118 in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of the name of the applicant in the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Name or Address Form, or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Applicant or Owner Form, as applicable.
37 CFR 1.76(g) provides that the requirement in 37 CFR 1.78 for the presentation of a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet will be satisfied in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 by the presentation of such benefit claim in the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form contained in the international application or the presence of such benefit claim on the front page of the publication of the international application under PCT Article 21(2). 37 CFR 1.76(g) states ‘‘the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form contained in the international application’’ to make clear that the provision does not allow for that addition or correction of benefit claim (or any other) information during the national stage via the submission of a new Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form. Applicants may add or correct benefit claim (or any other) information during the national stage via the submission of an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 (assuming that the conditions and requirements for such addition or correction are satisfied). 37 CFR 1.76(g) provides for presence of such benefit claim on the front page of the publication of the international application under PCT Article 21(2) to account for replacement sheets of the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form that may not be forwarded to each national office but that are reflected in the International Bureau’s publication of the international application. 37 CFR 1.76(g) does not mention either the provisions in 37 CFR 1.55 for the presentation of a priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 365 in an application data
sheet or the provisions in 37 CFR 1.46 for the presentation of the name of the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 118 in an application data sheet with respect to a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 as this information is taken from the WIPO records of the international application in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371.
37 CFR 1.76(g) also provides that the requirement in 37 CFR 1.55 or 37 CFR 1.78 for the presentation of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet and the requirement in 37 CFR 1.46 for the presentation of the name of the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 118 in an application data sheet will be satisfied in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 by the presentation of such priority or benefit claim and presentation of the name of the applicant in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form. 37 CFR 1.76(g) finally also provides that if a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form is submitted in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111, the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form must be accompanied by a clear indication that treatment of the application as an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is desired.
601.05(b) Application Data Sheet (ADS) in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 601.05(a) for a discussion of the requirements of an ADS for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.76 (pre-AIA) Application data sheet.
[Editor Note: 37 CFR 1.76 as reproduced below includes the revisions to paragraph (d)(2) and the addition of paragraphs (f) and (g) set forth in Changes to Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368 (October 21, 2013)(final rule) as those provisions are applicable to applications filed before September 16, 2012.]
(a) Application data sheet. An application data sheet is a sheet or sheets, that may be voluntarily submitted in either provisional or nonprovisional applications, which contains bibliographic data, arranged in a format specified by the Office. An application data sheet must be titled “Application Data Sheet” and must contain all of the section headings listed in paragraph (b) of this section, with any appropriate data for each section heading. If an application data sheet is provided, the application data sheet is part of the provisional or nonprovisional application for which it has been submitted.
600-54Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.05(b)
(b) Bibliographic data. Bibliographic data as used in paragraph (a) of this section includes:
(1) Applicant information . This information includes the name, residence, mailing address, and citizenship of each applicant (§ 1.41(b)). The name of each applicant must include the family name, and at least one given name without abbreviation together with any other given name or initial. If the applicant is not an inventor, this information also includes the applicant’s authority (§§ 1.42, 1.43, and 1.47) to apply for the patent on behalf of the inventor.
(2) Correspondence information . This information includes the correspondence address, which may be indicated by reference to a customer number, to which correspondence is to be directed (see § 1.33(a)).
(3) Application information . This information includes the title of the invention, a suggested classification, by class and subclass, the Technology Center to which the subject matter of the invention is assigned, the total number of drawing sheets, a suggested drawing figure for publication (in a nonprovisional application), any docket number assigned to the application, the type of application (e.g., utility, plant, design, reissue, provisional), whether the application discloses any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to § 5.2 of this chapter (see § 5.2(c)), and, for plant applications, the Latin name of the genus and species of the plant claimed, as well as the variety denomination. The suggested classification and Technology Center information should be supplied for provisional applications whether or not claims are present. If claims are not present in a provisional application, the suggested classification and Technology Center should be based upon the disclosure.
(4) Representative information . This information includes the registration number of each practitioner having a power of attorney in the application (preferably by reference to a customer number). Providing this information in the application data sheet does not constitute a power of attorney in the application (see § 1.32).
(5) Domestic priority information . This information includes the application number, the filing date, the status (including patent number if available), and relationship of each application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c). Providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, and § 1.78(a)(2) or § 1.78(a)(5), and need not otherwise be made part of the specification.
(6) Foreign priority information . This information includes the application number, country, and filing date of each foreign application for which priority is claimed. Providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the claim for priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and § 1.55(a).
(7) Assignee information. This information includes the name (either person or juristic entity) and address of the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest in an application. Providing this information in the application data sheet does not substitute for compliance with any requirement of part 3 of this chapter to have an assignment recorded by the Office.
(c) Supplemental application data sheets. Supplemental application data sheets:
(1) May be subsequently supplied prior to payment of the issue fee either to correct or update information in a previously submitted application data sheet, or an oath or declaration under § 1.63 or § 1.67, except that inventorship changes are governed by § 1.48, correspondence changes are governed by § 1.33(a), and citizenship changes are governed by § 1.63 or § 1.67; and
(2) Must be titled “Supplemental Application Data Sheet,” include all of the section headings listed in paragraph (b) of this section, include all appropriate data for each section heading, and must identify the information that is being changed, preferably with underlining for insertions, and strike-through or brackets for text removed.
(d) Inconsistencies between application data sheet and other documents . For inconsistencies between information that is supplied by both an application data sheet under this section and other documents.
(1) The latest submitted information will govern notwithstanding whether supplied by an application data sheet, an amendment to the specification, a designation of a correspondence address, or by a § 1.63 or § 1.67 oath or declaration, except as provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this section;
(2) The information in the application data sheet will govern when the inconsistent information is supplied at the same time by an amendment to the specification, a designation of correspondence address, or a § 1.63 or § 1.67 oath or declaration, except as provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this section. The information in the application data sheet will govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at any time in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Name or Address Form, or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change inApplicant or Owner Form.
(3) The oath or declaration under § 1.63 or § 1.67 governs inconsistencies with the application data sheet in the naming of inventors (§ 1.41(a)(1)) and setting forth their citizenship (35 U.S.C. 115);
(4) The Office will capture bibliographic information from the application data sheet (notwithstanding whether an oath or declaration governs the information). Thus, the Office shall generally, for example, not look to an oath or declaration under § 1.63 to see if the bibliographic information contained therein is consistent with the bibliographic information captured from an application data sheet (whether the oath or declaration is submitted prior to or subsequent to the application data sheet). Captured bibliographic information derived from an application data sheet containing errors may be corrected if applicant submits a request therefor and a supplemental application data sheet.
[Editor Note: 37 CFR 1.76(e) is not applicable to applications filed before September 16, 2012.]
(f) Patent Law Treaty Model International Forms . The requirement in § 1.55 or § 1.78 for the presentation of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-55
§ 601.05(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
such priority or benefit claim in the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, and the requirement in § 1.57(a) for a reference to the previously filed application in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of such reference to the previously filed application in the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form. The requirement in § 1.46 for the presentation of the name of the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 118 in an application data sheet will be satisfied by the presentation of the name of the applicant in the Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Name or Address Form, or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change inApplicant or Owner Form, as applicable.
(g) Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form . The requirement in § 1.78 for the presentation of a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet will be satisfied in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 by the presentation of such benefit claim in the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form contained in the international application or the presence of such benefit claim on the front page of the publication of the international application under PCT Article 21(2). The requirement in § 1.55 or § 1.78 for the presentation of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 in an application data sheet and the requirement in § 1.46 for the presentation of the name of the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 118 in an application data sheet will be satisfied in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 by the presentation of such priority or benefit claim and presentation of the name of the applicant in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form. If a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form is submitted in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111, the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form must be accompanied by a clear indication that treatment of the application as an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is desired.
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
The naming of the inventors and the setting forth of the citizenship of each inventor must be provided in the oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 (as required by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 115) even if this information is provided in the application data sheet.
Applicant information includes the name, residence, mailing address, and citizenship of each applicant ( pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(b)). The name of each applicant must include the family name, and at least one given name without abbreviation together with any other given name or initial. (If the applicant is not an inventor, this information also includes the applicant’s authority (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42, 1.43, and 1.47) to apply for the patent on behalf of the inventor. The “mailing address” is the address where applicant customarily receives mail.
Correspondence information includes the correspondence address, which may be indicated by reference to a customer number, to which correspondence is to be directed (see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)).
Application information includes the title of the invention, a suggested classification by class and subclass, the Technology Center (TC) to which the subject matter of the invention is assigned, the total number of drawing sheets, a suggested drawing figure for publication (in a nonprovisional application), any docket number assigned to the application, and the type of application (e.g., utility, plant, design, reissue, provisional). Application information also includes whether the application discloses any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to 37 CFR 5.2(c).
Although the submission of the information related to a suggested classification and TC may be provided for both provisional and nonprovisional applications filed before September 16, 2012, the Office no longer utilizes this information and will continue to follow its present procedures for classifying and assigning new applications. Similarly for the suggested drawing figure, the Office may decide to print another figure on the front page of any patent application publication or any patent issuing from the application.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3) also requests that the plant patent applicant state the Latin name and the variety denomination for the plant claimed. The Latin name and the variety denomination of the claimed plant are usually included in the specification of the plant patent application, and will be included in any plant patent or plant patent application publication if included in an application data sheet or patent application. The Office, pursuant to the “International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants” (generally known by its French acronym as the UPOV convention), has been asked to compile a database of the plants patented and the database must include the Latin name and the variety denomination of each patented plant. Having this information in an ADS will make the process of compiling this database more efficient.
600-56Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.05(b)
Representative information includes the registration number appointed with a power of attorney in the application (preferably by reference to a customer number). Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) states that providing this information in the application data sheet does not constitute a power of attorney in the application (see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.32). This is because the Office does not expect the application data sheet to be executed by the party (applicant or assignee) who may appoint a power of attorney in the application.
Domestic priority information includes the application number (series code and serial number), the filing date, the status (including patent number if available), and relationship of each application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c). Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)(5) states that providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C.119(e) or 120. Since the application data sheet, if provided, is considered part of the application, the specific reference to an earlier filed provisional or nonprovisional application in the application data sheet satisfies the “specific reference” requirement of 35 U.S.C.119(e)(1) or 120, and it also complies with 37 CFR 1.78(a)(3) or (d)(3). Thus, a specific reference does not otherwise have to be made in the specification, such as in the first sentence(s) of the specification. If continuity data is included in an application data sheet, but not in the first sentence(s) of the specification, the continuity data for the patent front page will be taken from the application data sheet. No continuity data will be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification if applicant does not provide it there. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)(5) does not apply to provisional applications.
Foreign priority information includes the application number, country, and filing date of each foreign application for which priority is claimed, as well as any foreign application having a filing date before that of the application for which priority is claimed. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)(6) states that providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the claim for priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and 37 CFR 1.55. The patent statute, 35 U.S.C. 119(b), does not require that a claim to the benefit of a prior foreign application
take any particular form. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)(6) does not apply to provisional applications.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b)(7) provides that the assignee information includes the name (either person or juristic entity) and address of the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest in an application. The inclusion of this information in the application data sheet does not substitute for compliance with any requirement of 37 CFR part 3 to have an assignment recorded by the Office. Providing assignee information in the application data sheet is considered a request to include such information on the patent application publication, since there is no other reason for including such information in the application data sheet. Assignment information must be recorded to have legal effect.
Supplemental application data sheets may be subsequently supplied prior to payment of the issue fee to either correct or update information in a previously submitted application data sheet, or an oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(c)(1). A supplemental data sheet cannot be used to correct the following: (1) inventorship changes (37 CFR 1.48); (2) correspondence changes (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(a)); and (3) citizenship changes (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67). Supplemental application data sheets must be titled “Supplemental Application Data Sheet” and also contain all of the seven section headings listed in 37 CFR 1.76(b) with all appropriate data for each heading. Supplemental application data sheets identifying only the information that is being changed (added, deleted, or modified) in the supplemental ADS are not acceptable. A supplemental ADS containing only new or changed information is likely to confuse the record, create unnecessary work for the Office, and does not comply with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76. If no ADS was originally filed, but applicant wants to submit an ADS to correct, modify, or augment the original application data, the ADS, even though it is the first-filed ADS, must be titled “Supplemental Application Data Sheet.”
II. SUPPLEMENTAL ADS SUBMISSIONS
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, when submitting an application data sheet after the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-57
§ 601.05(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
initial filing of the application to correct, modify, or augment the application data sheet that was submitted with the application papers on filing, the following applies:
(A) the supplemental application data sheet must be titled “Supplemental Application Data Sheet” (while the title “Supplemental Application Data Sheet” is preferred, “Supp. ADS”, “Supplemental ADS” or other variations thereof will be accepted);
(B) the supplemental application data sheet must be a full replacement copy of the original ADS, if any, with each of the seven section headings listed in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(b), and with all appropriate data for the section heading;
(C) the supplemental application data sheet must be submitted with all changes indicated, preferably with insertions or additions indicated by underlining, and deletions, with or without replacement data, indicated by strike-through or brackets; and
(D) the supplemental application data sheet must be signed as it is a paper and/or amendment filed in the application (see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.33(b) and 37 CFR 11.18).
Any ADS submitted after the filing date of the application is a supplemental ADS, regardless of whether an original ADS was submitted with the application papers on filing. A supplemental ADS that is being used to correct data shown in an oath or declaration, such as foreign priority or residence information for an inventor, would show the original incorrect information with strike-through or brackets, and the new information with underlining, as if an ADS had originally been used to submit the information. For example, if the original oath or declaration included a foreign priority claim, in order to delete the foreign priority claim, applicant should provide a supplemental ADS showing the foreign priority claim with strike-through or brackets to ensure that the patent will reflect such change.
III. TREATMENT OF INCONSISTENT INFORMATION
Resolution of inconsistent information supplied by both an application data sheet and other documents (e.g., the oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 , or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67) are addressed in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76 (d). If an ADS is inconsistent
with the information provided in another document that was submitted at the same time or previous to the ADS submission, the ADS will control. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d)(1) provides that the latest submitted information will govern notwithstanding whether supplied by an application data sheet, an amendment to the specification, a designation of a correspondence address, or by an oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67, except as provided by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d)(3). This is because the application data sheet is intended as the means by which applicants will provide most information to the Office. In the small number of instances where another document has more accurate information than a concurrently supplied application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(d)(2)), a supplemental application data sheet should be submitted to conform the information presented by the supplemental application data sheet with the correct information in the other document(s) (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d)(1)). The information in the application data sheet will also govern when inconsistent with the information supplied at any time in a Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request Form, Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Name or Address Form, or Patent Law Treaty Model International Request for Recordation of Change in Applicant or Owner Form.
If an application is filed with an application data sheet improperly identifying the residence of one of the inventors, inventor B, and an executed pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 declaration setting forth the correct but different residence of inventor B, the Office will capture the residence of inventor B found in the application data sheet as the residence of B, and include that information in the filing receipt. If applicant desires correction of the residence, applicant should submit a supplemental application data sheet under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(c), with the name of inventor B and the corrected residence for inventor B.
Pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d)(3), the oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67 governs inconsistencies with the application data sheet in the naming of inventors and setting forth their citizenship. If different inventors
600-58Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 601.05(b)
are listed in the application data sheet than are named in the oath or declaration for the application, the inventors, named in the oath or declaration, are considered to be the inventors named in the patent application. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d)(3). Any change in the inventorship set forth in the oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 must be by way of a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) notwithstanding identification of the correct inventive entity in an application data sheet or supplemental application data sheet. Similarly, if the oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 incorrectly sets forth the citizenship of one of the inventors, that inventor must submit a supplemental oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67 with the correct citizenship notwithstanding the correct identification of the citizenship in an application data sheet or supplemental application data sheet. If the spelling of the inventor’s name is incorrect, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) is required. See MPEP §§ 602.01(c)(2) and 602.08(b).
The Office will rely upon information supplied in the application data sheet over an oath or declaration to capture the data even where the type of information supplied (citizenship, inventorship) is governed by the oath or declaration according to statute (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 115) or other rule (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(1)). Where the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67 contains the correct information regarding inventors or their citizenship and the application data sheet does not, even though the oath or declaration governs pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d)(3), the information in the application data sheet must be corrected by submission of a request for correction and a supplemental application data sheet. If the spelling of the inventor’s name is incorrect, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) is required. See MPEP §§ 602.01(c)(2) and 602.08(b).
If an application is filed with an application data sheet correctly setting forth the citizenship of inventor B, and an executed pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 declaration setting forth a different incorrect citizenship of inventor B, the Office will capture the citizenship of inventor B found in the application data sheet. Applicant, however, must submit a supplemental oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67 by inventor B setting forth the correct
citizenship even though it appears correctly in the application data sheet. A supplemental application data sheet cannot be used to correct the citizenship error in the oath or declaration. If, however, the error is one of residence, no change would be required (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d)(2)).
IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As to the submission of class/subclass information in the application data sheet, the Office notes that there is a distinction between permitting applicants to aid in the identification of the appropriate Art Unit to examine the application and requiring the Office to always honor such identification/request, which could lead to misuse by some applicants of forum shopping. Even when an applicant’s identification of an Art Unit is appropriate, internal staffing/workload requirements may dictate that the application be handled by another Art Unit qualified to do so, particularly when the art or claims encompass the areas of expertise of more than one Art Unit.
If the applicant is not an inventor, the applicant information should also include the applicant’s authority to apply for the patent on behalf of the inventor (see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42, 1.43 and 1.47). For example, if the inventor is deceased or legally incapacitated, the applicant should include “Legal Representative” as the authority. Similarly, if a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(b) is filed, the applicant’s authority would be “Party in Interest under 35 U.S.C. 118.” If the application is filed by the Administrator of NASA, the applicant’s authority would be “Government Property Interest.”
The correspondence information may be indicated by reference to a Customer Number to which correspondence is to be directed.
Effective December 18, 2013 for all applications no matter when filed, 37 CFR 1.76 was amended by adding new paragraphs (f) and (g) to permit the use of Patent Law Treaty Model International Forms as appropriate or the Patent Cooperation Treaty Request Form in lieu of an application data sheet under 37
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-59
§ 601.05(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
CFR 1.76. See MPEP § 601.05(a), subsection IV, for more information.
602 Oaths and Declarations [R-11.2013]
35 U.S.C. 25 Declaration in lieu of oath.
(a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may be subscribed to by a written declaration in such form as the Director may prescribe, such declaration to be in lieu of the oath otherwise required.
(b) Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both ( 18 U.S.C. 1001).
35 U.S.C. 26 Effect of defective execution.
Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be executed in a specified manner may be provisionally accepted by the Director despite a defective execution, provided a properly executed document is submitted within such time as may be prescribed.
A copy, such as a photocopy or facsimile transmission, of an originally executed oath or declaration is encouraged to be filed (see MPEP § 502.01), especially since applications are maintained in electronic form, not paper. The original should be retained by applicant, or his or her representative as evidence of authenticity. If a question of authenticity arises, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may require submission of the original. See 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1)(ii).
I. OATHS
37 CFR 1.66 Statements under oath.
An oath or affirmation may be made before any person within the United States authorized by law to administer oaths. An oath made in a foreign country may be made before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths, or before any officer having an official seal and authorized to administer oaths in the foreign country in which the applicant may be, whose authority shall be proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by an apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the United States. The oath shall be attested in all cases in this and other countries, by the proper official seal of the officer before whom the oath or affirmation is made. Such oath or affirmation shall be valid as to execution if it complies with the laws of the State or country where made.
When the person before whom the oath or affirmation is made in this country is not provided with a seal, his official character shall be established by competent evidence, as by a certificate from a clerk of a court of record or other proper officer having a seal.
An oath or affirmation may be made before any person within the United States authorized by law to administer oaths. An oath made in a foreign country may be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.66. The authority of military personnel to act as a notary is set forth in 10 U.S.C. 1044(a).
The language of 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.66 is such that an attorney in the application is not barred from administering the oath as notary. The Office presumes that an attorney acting as notary is cognizant of the extent of his or her authority and jurisdiction and will not knowingly jeopardize his or her client’s rights by performing an illegal act. If such practice is permissible under the law of the jurisdiction where the oath is administered, then the oath is a valid oath.
The law of the District of Columbia prohibits the administering of oaths by the attorney in the case. If the oath is known to be void because of being administered by the attorney in a jurisdiction where the law holds this to be invalid, a new oath or declaration should be submitted. The application file may be referred to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline. See 37 CFR 1.66 and MPEP § 604.
A. SEAL
A seal is usually impressed on an oath. Documents with seals cannot be adequately scanned for retention in an Image File Wrapper, and because the Office maintains patent applications in an image form, the Office strongly encourages the use of declarations rather than oaths. However, oaths executed by military personnel in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1044(a) and those executed in many states including Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia need not be impressed with a seal. See paragraph B. below for information regarding venue.
When the person before whom the oath or affirmation is made in this country is not provided with a seal, his or her official character shall be
600-60Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602
established by competent evidence, as by a certificate from a clerk of a court of record or other proper officer having a seal, except as noted above. When the issue concerns the authority of the person administering the oath, proof of authority may be required. Depending on the jurisdiction, the seal may be either embossed or rubber stamped. The latter should not be confused with a stamped legend indicating only the date of expiration of the notary’s commission.
In some jurisdictions, the seal of the notary is not required but the official title of the officer must be on the oath. This applies to Alabama, California (certain notaries), Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, NewYork, Ohio, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia.
See MPEP § 602.04 for foreign executed oaths.
B. VENUE
That portion of an oath or affidavit indicating where the oath is taken is known as the venue. Where the county and state in the venue agree with the county and state in the seal, no problem arises. If the venue and seal do not correspond in county and state, the jurisdiction of the notary must be determined from statements by the notary appearing on the oath. Venue and notary jurisdiction must correspond or the oath is improper. The oath should show on its face that it was taken within the jurisdiction of the certifying officer or notary. This may be given either in the venue or in the body of the jurat. Otherwise, a new oath or declaration, or a certificate of the notary that the oath was taken within his or her jurisdiction, should be submitted.
II. DECLARATIONS
37 CFR 1.68 Declaration in lieu of oath.
Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may be subscribed to by a written declaration. Such declaration may be used in lieu of the oath otherwise required, if, and only if, the declarant is on the same document, warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant's own
knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
18 U.S.C. 1001 Statements or entries generally.
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
By statute, 35 U.S.C. 25, the Director has been empowered to prescribe instances when a written declaration may be accepted in lieu of the oath for “any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office.” A declaration may be submitted in lieu of an oath in any document filed in the Office provided the declaration complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.68. A 37 CFR 1.68 declaration need not be ribboned to the other papers, even if signed in a country foreign to the United States. However, because it is an integral part of the application, it must be maintained together therewith. When a declaration is used, it is unnecessary to appear before any official in connection with the making of the declaration.
The filing of a written declaration is acceptable in lieu of an original application oath that is informal.
Office personnel are authorized to accept a statutory declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746 filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in lieu of an “oath” or declaration under 35 U.S.C. 25 and 37 CFR 1.68, provided the statutory declaration otherwise complies with the requirements of law.
Section 1746 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides:
Whenever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-61
§ 602PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
before a specified official other than notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: [1] If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” [2] If executed within the United States its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
602.01 Inventorship [R-07.2015]
The inventor, or each individual who is a joint inventor of a claimed invention, in an application for patent (other than a provisional application) must execute an oath or declaration directed to the application, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64. See MPEP § 602.01(a) for the requirements of an inventor’s oath or declaration in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 602.01(b) for the requirements of an original oath or declaration in an application filed before September 16, 2012.
See MPEP § 602.09 for a discussion of joint inventorship. See MPEP § 2137.01 for the definition of, and requirements for, inventorship.
I. Naming Inventorship in application filed on or after September 16, 2012
[Editor Note: See subsection II., below, for naming inventorship in applications filed before September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.41 Applicant for patent.
(a) An application must include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application.
(b) The inventorship of a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 filed before or concurrently with the inventor's oath or declaration. If an application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the inventor's oath or declaration, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the inventor's oath or declaration, except as provided for in §§ 1.53(d)(4) and 1.63(d). Once an application data sheet or the inventor's oath or declaration is filed in a nonprovisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48. If neither an application data sheet nor the inventor's oath or declaration is filed during the pendency of a nonprovisional application, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to § 1.53(b), unless the applicant files a paper, including the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), supplying the name or names of the inventor or joint inventors.
(c) The inventorship of a provisional application is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1). Once a cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1) is filed in a provisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48. If a cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1) is not filed during the pendency of a provisional application, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to § 1.53(c), unless applicant files a paper including the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q), supplying the name or names of the inventor or joint inventors.
(d) In a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed without an application data sheet or the inventor’s oath or declaration, or in a provisional application filed without a cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1), the name and residence of each person believed to be an actual inventor should be provided when the application papers pursuant to § 1.53(b) or § 1.53(c) are filed.
(e) The inventorship of an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 filed with the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371. Unless the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 is accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 setting forth the inventor or joint inventors, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the international application, which includes any change effected under PCT Rule 92 bis .
(f) The inventorship of an international design application designating the United States is the creator or creators set forth in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). Any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48.
An application must include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application (the inventorship). See 35 U.S.C. 115(a) and 37 CFR 1.41(a).
As provided in 37 CFR 1.41(b), the applicant may name the inventorship of a nonprovisional
600-62Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01
application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in the application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 or the inventor’s oath or declaration. The inventorship of a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 filed before or concurrently with the inventor’s oath or declaration. An application data sheet must be signed to comply with 37 CFR 1.76. An unsigned application data sheet is treated as only a transmittal letter. See 37 CFR 1.76(e). If an application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the inventor’s oath or declaration, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the inventor’s oath or declaration except as provided in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(4) (continued prosecution applications for designs) and 37 CFR 1.63(d) (continuing applications). Once an application data sheet or the inventor’s oath or declaration is filed in a nonprovisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48(a). If neither an application data sheet nor inventor’s oath or declaration is filed during the pendency of a nonprovisional application, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(b), unless the applicant files a paper, including the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), supplying the name or names of the inventor or joint inventors.
Applicants who wish to take advantage of the ability to name the inventors in an application data sheet rather than the inventor’s oath or declaration should take care to ensure that an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 that is signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.33(b) is present on filing, or at least prior to the filing of any inventor’s oath or declaration in the application. If an inventor’s oath or declaration is filed in the application prior to the filing of an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 that is signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.33(b), the inventorship named in the inventor’s oath or declaration controls. For example, if an inventor’s oath or declaration naming only inventor “A” is present on filing without an accompanying application data sheet, and a signed application data sheet is filed naming inventors “A” and “B” is subsequently filed in the application, the application will be treated as naming only inventor “A” (the inventor provided in the inventor’s oath or
declaration) until the inventorship is corrected under 37 CFR 1.48(a).
As provided in 37 CFR 1.41(c), the inventorship of a provisional application is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1). Once a cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1) is filed in a provisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48. If a cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1) is not filed during the pendency of a provisional application, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(c), unless the applicant files a paper including the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q), supplying the name or names of the inventor or joint inventors.
37 CFR 1.41(d) provides that in either a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed without an application data sheet or the inventor’s oath or declaration, or in a provisional application filed without a cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1), the name and residence of each person believed to be an actual inventor should be provided when the application papers filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(b) or (c) are filed. Naming the individuals known to be inventors or the persons believed to be the inventors may enable the Office to identify the application, if applicant does not know the application number. Where no inventor(s) is known and applicant cannot name a person believed to be an inventor on filing, the Office requests that an alphanumeric identifier be submitted for the application. The use of very short identifiers should be avoided to prevent confusion. Without supplying at least a unique identifying name the Office may have no ability or only a delayed ability to match any papers submitted after filing of the application and before issuance of an identifying application number with the application file. Any identifier used that is not an inventor’s name should be specific, alphanumeric characters of reasonable length, and should be presented in such a manner that it is clear to application processing personnel what the identifier is and where it is to be found. Failure to apprise the Office of an application identifier such as the names of the inventors or the alphanumeric identifier being used may result in applicants having
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-63
§ 602.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
to resubmit papers that could not be matched with the application and proof of the earlier receipt of such papers where submission was time dependent.
37 CFR 1.41(e) provides that the inventorship of an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 filed with the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371. Thus, the applicant in an international application may change inventorship as to the U.S. at the time of national stage entry by simply filing an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 naming the inventor or joint inventors. Unless the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 is accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 setting forth the inventor or joint inventors, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the international application, which includes any change effected under PCT Rule 92bis . 37 CFR 1.41(e) does not provide the ability to name the inventor or joint inventors via the inventor’s oath or declaration even when an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 is not provided.
37 CFR 1.41(f) was added to set forth the inventorship in an international design application designating the United States. Specifically, the inventorship of an international design application designating the United States is the creator or creators set forth in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3). 37 CFR 1.41(f) further provides that any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48.
II. Naming Inventorship in an Application filed Before September 16, 2012
[Editor Note: See subsection I., above, for naming inventorship in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(1) defines the inventorship of a nonprovisional application as that inventorship set forth in the oath or declaration filed to comply with the requirements of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(4) and
pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d). See MPEP §§ 602.08(b) and 605.02 for additional information.
III. Correction of Inventorship
For correction of inventorship, see MPEP § 602.01(c) et seq. Note that requests to correct the inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 (regardless of the application filing date) are treated by OPAP. If the request is granted, OPAP will correct the Office records and send a corrected filing receipt.
602.01(a) Inventor’s Oath or Declaration in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 602.01(b) for information pertaining to an inventor's oath or declaration in applications filed before September 16, 2012.]
35 U.S.C. 115 Inventor’s oath or declaration.
(a) NAMING THE INVENTOR; INVENTOR’S OATH OR DECLARATION.—An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application. Except as otherwise provided in this section, each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute an oath or declaration in connection with the application.
(b) REQUIRED STATEMENTS.—An oath or declaration under subsection (a) shall contain statements that—
(1) the application was made or was authorized to be made by the affiant or declarant; and
(2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application.
(c) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—The Director may specify additional information relating to the inventor and the invention that is required to be included in an oath or declaration under subsection (a).
(d) SUBSTITUTE STATEMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In lieu of executing an oath or declaration under subsection (a), the applicant for patent may provide a substitute statement under the circumstances described in paragraph (2) and such additional circumstances that the Director may specify by regulation.
600-64Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(a)
(2) PERMITTED CIRCUMSTANCES.—A substitute statement under paragraph (1) is permitted with respect to any individual who—
(A) is unable to file the oath or declaration under subsection (a) because the individual—
(i) is deceased;
(ii) is under legal incapacity; or
(iii) cannot be found or reached after diligent effort; or
(B) is under an obligation to assign the invention but has refused to make the oath or declaration required under subsection (a).
(3) CONTENTS.—A substitute statement under this subsection shall—
(A) identify the individual with respect to whom the statement applies;
(B) set forth the circumstances representing the permitted basis for the filing of the substitute statement in lieu of the oath or declaration under subsection (a); and
(C) contain any additional information, including any showing, required by the Director.
(e) MAKING REQUIRED STATEMENTS IN ASSIGNMENT OF RECORD.—An individual who is under an obligation of assignment of an application for patent may include the required statements under subsections (b) and (c) in the assignment executed by the individual, in lieu of filing such statements separately.
(f) TIME FOR FILING.—The applicant for patent shall provide each required oath or declaration under subsection (a), substitute statement under subsection (d), or recorded assignment meeting the requirements of subsection (e) no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid.
(g) EARLIER-FILED APPLICATION CONTAINING REQUIRED STATEMENTS OR SUBSTITUTE STATEMENT.—
(1) EXCEPTION.—The requirements under this section shall not apply to an individual with respect to an application for patent in which the individual is named as the inventor or a joint inventor and that claims the benefit under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of the filing of an earlier-filed application, if—
(A) an oath or declaration meeting the requirements of subsection (a) was executed by the individual and was filed in connection with the earlier-filed application;
(B) a substitute statement meeting the requirements of subsection (d) was filed in connection with the earlier filed application with respect to the individual; or
(C) an assignment meeting the requirements of subsection (e) was executed with respect to the earlier-filed
application by the individual and was recorded in connection with the earlier-filed application.
(2) COPIES OF OATHS, DECLARATIONS, STATEMENTS, OR ASSIGNMENTS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director may require that a copy of the executed oath or declaration, the substitute statement, or the assignment filed in connection with the earlier-filed application be included in the later-filed application.
(h) SUPPLEMENTAL AND CORRECTED STATEMENTS; FILING ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person making a statement required under this section may withdraw, replace, or otherwise correct the statement at any time. If a change is made in the naming of the inventor requiring the filing of 1 or more additional statements under this section, the Director shall establish regulations under which such additional statements may be filed.
(2) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENTS NOT REQUIRED.—If an individual has executed an oath or declaration meeting the requirements of subsection (a) or an assignment meeting the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to an application for patent, the Director may not thereafter require that individual to make any additional oath, declaration, or other statement equivalent to those required by this section in connection with the application for patent or any patent issuing thereon.
(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—A patent shall not be invalid or unenforceable based upon the failure to comply with a requirement under this section if the failure is remedied as provided under paragraph (1).
(i) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PENALTIES.—Any declaration or statement filed pursuant to this section shall contain an acknowledgment that any willful false statement made in such declaration or statement is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.
37 CFR 1.63 Inventor's oath or declaration.
(a) The inventor, or each individual who is a joint inventor of a claimed invention, in an application for patent must execute an oath or declaration directed to the application, except as provided for in § 1.64 . An oath or declaration under this section must:
(1) Identify the inventor or joint inventor executing the oath or declaration by his or her legal name;
(2) Identify the application to which it is directed;
(3) Include a statement that the person executing the oath or declaration believes the named inventor or joint inventor to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application for which the oath or declaration is being submitted; and
(4) State that the application was made or was authorized to be made by the person executing the oath or declaration.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-65
§ 602.01(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(b) Unless the following information is supplied in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, the oath or declaration must also identify:
(1) Each inventor by his or her legal name; and
(2) A mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, for each inventor.
(c) A person may not execute an oath or declaration for an application unless that person has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims, and is aware of the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability as defined in § 1.56. There is no minimum age for a person to be qualified to execute an oath or declaration, but the person must be competent to execute, i.e., understand, the document that the person is executing.
(d)
(1) A newly executed oath or declaration under § 1.63, or substitute statement under § 1.64 , is not required under §§ 1.51(b)(2) and 1.53(f), or under §§ 1.497 and 1.1021(d), for an inventor in a continuing application that claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in compliance with § 1.78 of an earlier-filed application, provided that an oath or declaration in compliance with this section, or substitute statement under § 1.64 , was executed by or with respect to such inventor and was filed in the earlier-filed application, and a copy of such oath, declaration, or substitute statement showing the signature or an indication thereon that it was executed, is submitted in the continuing application.
(2) The inventorship of a continuing application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is the inventor or joint inventors specified in the application data sheet filed before or concurrently with the copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application. If an application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, the inventorship is the inventorship set forth in the copy of the inventor's oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, unless it is accompanied by a statement signed pursuant to § 1.33(b) stating the name of each inventor in the continuing application.
(3) Any new joint inventor named in the continuing application must provide an oath or declaration in compliance with this section, except as provided for in § 1.64 .
(e)
(1) An assignment may also serve as an oath or declaration required by this section if the assignment as executed:
(i) Includes the information and statements required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section; and
(ii) A copy of the assignment is recorded as provided for in part 3 of this chapter.
(2) Any reference to an oath or declaration under this section includes an assignment as provided for in this paragraph.
(f) With respect to an application naming only one inventor, any reference to the inventor's oath or declaration in this chapter includes a substitute statement executed under § 1.64 . With respect to an application naming more than one inventor, any reference to the inventor's oath or declaration in this chapter means the oaths, declarations, or substitute statements that have been collectively executed by or with respect to all of the joint inventors, unless otherwise clear from the context.
(g) An oath or declaration under this section, including the statement provided for in paragraph (e) of this section, must be executed (i.e., signed) in accordance either with § 1.66 or with an acknowledgment that any willful false statement made in such declaration or statement is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, or both.
(h) An oath or declaration filed at any time pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 115(h)(1) will be placed in the file record of the application or patent, but may not necessarily be reviewed by the Office. Any request for correction of the named inventorship must comply with § 1.48 in an application and § 1.324 in a patent.
I. IDENTITY OF INVENTOR(S), APPLICATION, AND REQUIRED STATEMENTS
The inventor, or each individual who is a joint inventor of a claimed invention, in an application for patent (other than a provisional application) must execute an oath or declaration directed to the application, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64 . See 37 CFR 1.63(a) and 35 U.S.C. 115. An oath or declaration must: (1) identify the inventor or joint inventor executing the oath or declaration by his or her legal name; (2) identify the application to which it is directed; (3) include a statement the person executing the oath or declaration believes the named inventor or joint inventors to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application for which the oath or declaration is being submitted; and (4) state that the application was made or authorized to be made by the person executing the oath or declaration. Items (3) and (4) above are requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115(a) and (b).
A. INVENTOR NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS
The requirements that an oath or declaration must identify the inventor or joint inventor executing the oath or declaration by his or her legal name and identify the application to which it is directed are necessary for the Office to ensure compliance with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 115(a). Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 115(a) requires that each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed
600-66Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(a)
invention in an application for patent has executed an oath or declaration in connection with the application (except as provided for in 35 U.S.C. 115). See MPEP § 602.08(b) for additional information pertaining to inventor names.
Unless such information is supplied in an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76, the oath or declaration must also identify: (1) each inventor by his or her legal name; (2) a mailing address where the inventor or each joint inventor customarily receives mail; and (3) a residence for each inventor or joint inventor who lives at a location which is different from where the inventor or joint inventor customarily receives mail. See 37 CFR 1.63(b).
For nonprovisional international design applications, 37 CFR 1.1021(d)(3) provides that the requirement in 37 CFR 1.63(b) to identify each inventor by his or her legal name, mailing address, and residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from the mailing address, will be considered satisfied by the presentation of such information in the international design application prior to international registration.
See also MPEP § 602.08(a) for additional details regarding inventor bibliographic information.
If applicant files an application data sheet (ADS) that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76, the applicant is not required to name each inventor in a single oath or declaration. This permits each joint inventor to execute an oath or declaration stating only that the joint inventor executing the oath or declaration is an original joint inventor of the claimed invention in the application for which the oath or declaration is being submitted. To be in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76, the application data sheet must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). An unsigned application data sheet will be treated only as a transmittal letter.
B. IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICATION
See MPEP § 602.08(c) for the minimum information necessary to identify the application to which an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 is directed.
C. REQUIRED STATEMENTS
An oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 is no longer required to contain the “reviewed and understands” clause and “duty to disclose” clause of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(b)(2) and (b)(3). However, 37 CFR 1.63 still requires that a person executing an oath or declaration review and understand the contents of the application, and be aware of the duty to disclose under 37 CFR 1.56. See 37 CFR 1.63(c). There is no minimum age for a person to be qualified to execute an oath or declaration, but the person must be competent to execute (i.e., understand) the document that the person is executing.
II. ASSIGNMENT-STATEMENT AS OATH OR DECLARATION
37 CFR 1.63(e) implements the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 115(e). An assignment may also serve as an oath or declaration required by 37 CFR 1.63 if the assignment: (1) includes the information and statements required under 37 CFR 1.63(a) and (b); and (2) a copy of the assignment is recorded as provided for in 37 CFR part 3. The assignment, including the information and statements required under 37 CFR 1.63(a) and (b), must be executed by the individual who is under the obligation of assignment. Any reference to an oath or declaration includes an assignment as provided for in 37 CFR 1.63(e).
Applicants should be mindful that 37 CFR 3.31 requires a conspicuous indication, such as by use of a check-box on the assignment cover sheet, to alert the Office that an assignment submitted with an application is being submitted for a dual purpose: recording in the assignment database, such as to support a power of attorney, and for use in the application as the inventor’s oath or declaration. Assignments cannot be recorded unless an application number is provided against which the assignment is to be recorded. When filing an application on paper, if an assignment is submitted for recording along with the application, the assignment is separated from the paper application after the application is assigned an application number and is forwarded to the Assignment Recordation Branch for recording in its database.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-67
§ 602.01(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
The assignment does not become part of the application file. If the applicant indicates that an assignment-statement is also an oath or declaration, the Office will scan the assignment into the Image File Wrapper (IFW) file for the application before forwarding it to theAssignment Recordation Branch.
For EFS-Web filing of application papers, EFS-Web does not accept assignments for recording purposes when filing an application. Assignments submitted via EFS-Web will be made of record in the application, and will not be forwarded to the Assignment Recordation Branch for recordation by the Office. Recording of assignments may only be done electronically in EPAS (Electronic Patent Assignment System). If an applicant files the assignment-statement for recording via EPAS and utilizes the check-box, the Office will place a copy of the assignment-statement in the application file.
III. EXECUTION OF INVENTOR’S OATH OR DECLARATION
With respect to an application naming more than one inventor, any reference to the inventor’s oath or declaration in 37 CFR chapter I means the oaths, declarations, or substitute statements that have been collectively executed by or with respect to all of the joint inventors, unless it is otherwise clear from the context. Thus, any requirement in 37 CFR chapter I for the inventor’s oath or declaration with respect to an application naming more than one inventor is met if an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, an assignment-statement under 37 CFR 1.63(e), or a substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 executed by or with respect to each joint inventor is filed. See 37 CFR 1.63(f).
An oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, including the assignment-statement provided for in 37 CFR 1.63(e), must be executed (i.e., signed) in accordance either with 37 CFR 1.66, or with an acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in such declaration or statement is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, or both. See 37 CFR 1.63(g) and 35 U.S.C. 115(i). The inventor’s oath or declaration must be executed (i.e., signed) by the inventor or the joint inventors, unless the inventor’s oath or declaration is a substitute statement under
37 CFR 1.64, which must be signed by the applicant, or an assignment-statement under 37 CFR 1.63(e), which must be signed by the inventor who is under the obligation of assignment of the patent application.
See MPEP § 602.08(b) for additional information regarding the execution of the inventor’s oath or declaration.
See 35 U.S.C. 115(g), 37 CFR 1.63(d) and MPEP § 602.05(a) regarding the use of copies of inventor’s oaths or declarations in continuing applications.
35 U.S.C. 115(h)(1) provides that any person making a statement under this section may at any time “withdraw, replace, or otherwise correct the statement at any time.” 37 CFR 1.63(h) provides that an oath or declaration filed at any time pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 115(h)(1) will be placed in the file record of the application or patent, but may not necessarily be reviewed by the Office.
IV. FORMS
Forms PTO/AIA/01 through PTO/AIA/09 may be used when submitting the inventor’s oath or declaration in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. These forms and an "AIA Inventor's Oath or Declaration Quick Reference Guide" are available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent- applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012.
602.01(b) Inventor’s Oath or Declaration in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 602.01(a) for information pertaining to an inventor’s oath or declaration in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
35 U.S.C. 115 (pre-AIA) Oath of applicant.
The applicant shall make oath that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen. Such oath may be made before any person within the United States authorized by law to administer oaths, or, when made in
600-68Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(b)
a foreign country, before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths, or before any officer having an official seal and authorized to administer oaths in the foreign country in which the applicant may be, whose authority is proved by certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the United States. Such oath is valid if it complies with the laws of the state or country where made. When the application is made as provided in this title by a person other than the inventor, the oath may be so varied in form that it can be made by him. For purposes of this section, a consular officer shall include any United States citizen serving overseas, authorized to perform notarial functions pursuant to section 1750 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (22 U.S.C. 4221).
37 CFR 1.63 (pre-AIA) Oath or declaration.
(a) An oath or declaration filed under § 1.51(b)(2) as a part of a nonprovisional application must:
(1) Be executed, i.e., signed, in accordance with either § 1.66 or § 1.68. There is no minimum age for a person to be qualified to sign, but the person must be competent to sign, i.e., understand the document that the person is signing;
(2) Identify each inventor by full name, including the family name, and at least one given name without abbreviation together with any other given name or initial;
(3) Identify the country of citizenship of each inventor; and
(4) State that the person making the oath or declaration believes the named inventor or inventors to be the original and first inventor or inventors of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought.
(b) In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the oath or declaration must also:
(1) Identify the application to which it is directed;
(2) State that the person making the oath or declaration has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims, as amended by any amendment specifically referred to in the oath or declaration; and
(3) State that the person making the oath or declaration acknowledges the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability as defined in § 1.56.
(c) Unless such information is supplied on an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, the oath or declaration must also identify:
(1) The mailing address, and the residence if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, of each inventor; and
(2) Any foreign application for patent (or inventor’s certificate) for which a claim for priority is made pursuant to § 1.55, and any foreign application having a filing date before that of the application on which priority is claimed, by specifying
the application number, country, day, month, and year of its filing.
(d)(1) A newly executed oath or declaration is not required under § 1.51(b)(2) and § 1.53(f) in a continuation or divisional application, provided that:
(i) The prior nonprovisional application contained an oath or declaration as prescribed by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section;
(ii) The continuation or divisional application was filed by all or by fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application;
(iii) The specification and drawings filed in the continuation or divisional application contain no matter that would have been new matter in the prior application; and
(iv) A copy of the executed oath or declaration filed in the prior application, showing the signature or an indication thereon that it was signed, is submitted for the continuation or divisional application.
(2) The copy of the executed oath or declaration submitted under this paragraph for a continuation or divisional application must be accompanied by a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors in the continuation or divisional application.
(3) Where the executed oath or declaration of which a copy is submitted for a continuation or divisional application was originally filed in a prior application accorded status under § 1.47, the copy of the executed oath or declaration for such prior application must be accompanied by:
(i) A copy of the decision granting a petition to accord § 1.47 status to the prior application, unless all inventors or legal representatives have filed an oath or declaration to join in an application accorded status under § 1.47 of which the continuation or divisional application claims a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); and
(ii) If one or more inventor(s) or legal representative(s) who refused to join in the prior application or could not be found or reached has subsequently joined in the prior application or another application of which the continuation or divisional application claims a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), a copy of the subsequently executed oath(s) or declaration(s) filed by the inventor or legal representative to join in the application.
(4) Where the power of attorney or correspondence address was changed during the prosecution of the prior application, the change in power of attorney or correspondence address must be identified in the continuation or divisional application. Otherwise, the Office may not recognize in the continuation or divisional application the change of power of attorney or correspondence address during the prosecution of the prior application.
(5) A newly executed oath or declaration must be filed in a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-69
§ 602.01(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(e) A newly executed oath or declaration must be filed in any continuation-in-part application, which application may name all, more, or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application.
The inventor, or each individual who is a joint inventor of a claimed invention, in an application for patent (other than a provisional application) must execute an oath or declaration directed to the application, except as provided for in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 115. When joint inventors execute separate oaths or declarations, each oath or declaration should make reference to the fact that the affiant is a joint inventor together with each of the other inventors indicating them by name. This may be done by stating that he or she does verily believe himself or herself to be the original, first and joint inventor together with “A” or “A & B, etc.” as the facts may be.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(a) and (b) set forth the basic requirements for an oath or declaration in an application filed before September 16, 2012.
See MPEP § 602.08 et seq. for details specific to the required inventor bibliographic information,
signature, and name, and to the identification of the application to which the oath or declaration applies.
Unless included in an application data sheet, oaths and declarations must make reference to any foreign application for patent (or inventor’s certificate) for which priority is claimed and any foreign application filed prior to the filing date of an application on which priority is claimed. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(c)(2).
The applicant is required to recite all foreign applications filed prior to the application on which priority is claimed. It is required to give the foreign application number and name of the country or office in which filed, as well as the filing date of each foreign application to which priority is claimed.
See MPEP § 602.03 for information pertaining to defective oaths or declarations.
Forms PTO/SB/01 and PTO/SB/01A may be used when submitting the inventor’s oath or declaration in an application filed before September 16, 2012.
600-70Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(b)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-71
§ 602.01(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-72Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(b)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-73
§ 602.01(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-74Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(b)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-75
§ 602.01(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-76Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(b)
602.01(c) Correction of Inventorship, Name of Inventor, and Order of Names in an Application [R-07.2015]
I. NAMING INVENTORSHIP
The Office will issue a filing receipt listing the inventors identified at the time of filing of the application even if the application was filed without an executed oath or declaration.
A. Applications Filed on or After September 16, 2012
As provided in 37 CFR 1.41(b), the inventorship of a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 filed before or concurrently with the inventor’s oath or declaration. If the application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the inventor’s oath or declaration, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the inventor’s oath or declaration (except as otherwise provided in 37 CFR 1.41(b)). Once an application data sheet or the inventor’s oath or declaration is filed in a nonprovisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48(a).
As provided in 37 CFR 1.41(c), the inventorship of a provisional application is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1). Once a cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1) is filed in a provisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48.
See MPEP § 602.01, subsection I for information specific to naming inventorship in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection II for information regarding completion of an nonprovisional application subsequent to the filing date pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(f) (e.g., because the inventor’s oath or declaration was not present on filing date). See MPEP § 601.01(b) for information regarding completion of a provisional application subsequent to the filing date.
B. Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(1) defines the inventorship of a nonprovisional application as that inventorship set forth in the oath or declaration filed to comply with the requirements of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63, except as otherwise provided. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, where the first-filed executed oath or declaration sets forth an inventive entity which is different from the inventive entity initially set forth at the time of filing of the application, the actual inventorship of the application will be taken from the executed oath or declaration. See Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(1).
As provided in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(2), the inventorship of a provisional application is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1).
II. REQUESTS FOR CORRECTION OF INVENTORSHIP UNDER 37 CFR 1.48
Correction of inventorship in an application is permitted by amendment under 35 U.S.C. 116, which is implemented by 37 CFR 1.48.
For requests for correction of inventorship filed under 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (d) on or after September 16, 2012 (without regard to the filing date of the application), see MPEP § 602.01(c)(1).
For requests filed on or after September 16, 2012, under 37 CFR 1.48(f) to correct or update inventor names, or to change the order of inventor names, see MPEP § 602.01(c)(2). Note that requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 will be handled by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).
For requests for correction of inventorship filed before September 16, 2012 (without regard to the filing date of the application), see MPEP § 602.01(c)(3).
37 CFR 1.48 does not apply to reissue applications as is noted in its title, whether correcting an inventorship error in the patent to be reissued or in the reissue application itself. Where an error in inventorship in a patent is to be corrected via a
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-77
§ 602.01(c)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
reissue application, see 37 CFR 1.171- 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1412.04. Where such an error is to be corrected via a certificate of correction under 37 CFR 1.324, see MPEP § 1481. See 37 CFR 1.48(i) for correction of inventorship in interferences and contested cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Although 37 CFR 1.48 does not contain a diligence requirement for filing the request, once an inventorship error is discovered, timeliness requirements under 37 CFR 1.116 and 37 CFR 1.312 apply.
A request under 37 CFR 1.48 will not be required:
(A)Where an application is to issue with the correct inventorship based on the allowed claims even though the application may have been filed with an incorrect inventorship based on the claims as originally submitted; and
(B)Where a court has issued an order under 35 U.S.C. 256 for correction of the inventorship of a patent. Such request should be submitted directly to the Certificate of Correction Division along with form PTO/SB/44 (see MPEP § 1485).
III. CORRECTION OF INVENTORSHIP BY FILING CONTINUING APPLICATION
Correction of inventorship may also be obtained by the filing of a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53 without the need for filing a request under 37 CFR 1.48, although it should be noted that the requirements for a request under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 are minimal.
35 U.S.C. 120 permits a continuing application to claim the benefit of the filing date of a copending, previously filed, parent application provided there is inventorship overlap between the continuing application and the parent application. If the inventive entity of a continuing application includes an inventor named in the parent application, the inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met. However, refiling to change inventorship could result in the loss of a benefit claim if there is no overlap in inventorship between the two applications.
Note that a correction of inventorship may result in the loss of power of attorney. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.32(e) provides that if the power of attorney was granted by the originally named inventive entity, and an added inventor pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48 does not provide a power of attorney consistent with the power of attorney granted by the originally named inventive entity, the addition of the inventor results in the loss of that power of attorney upon grant of the 37 CFR 1.48 request. This provision does not preclude a practitioner from acting in a representative capacity pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34, if applicable.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the inventorship in the continuing application is the inventor or joint inventors specified in the ADS filed before or with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application. If an ADS is not filed before or with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration, then the inventorship is the inventorship in the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, unless accompanied by a statement, signed by a 37 CFR 1.33(b) party, stating the name of each inventor in the continuing application. Any new joint inventor named in the continuing application must execute an inventor’s oath or declaration, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64.
602.01(c)(1) Correction of Inventorship in an Application – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 602.01(c)(3) for information about correction of inventorship for requests filed before September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.48 Correction of inventorship pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116 or correction of the name or order of names in a patent application, other than a reissue application.
(a) Nonprovisional application: Any request to correct or change the inventorship once the inventorship has been established under § 1.41 must include:
(1) An application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name; and
(2) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i).
(b) Inventor's oath or declaration for added inventor: An oath or declaration as required by § 1.63, or a substitute statement in compliance with § 1.64, will be required for any
600-78Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(c)(1)
actual inventor who has not yet executed such an oath or declaration.
(c) Any request to correct or change the inventorship under paragraph (a) of this section filed after the Office action on the merits has been given or mailed in the application must also be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(d), unless the request is accompanied by a statement that the request to correct or change the inventorship is due solely to the cancelation of claims in the application.
(d) Provisional application . Once a cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1) is filed in a provisional application, any request to correct or change the inventorship must include:
(1) A request, signed by a party set forth in § 1.33(b), to correct the inventorship that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name; and
(2) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q).
(e) Additional information may be required. The Office may require such other information as may be deemed appropriate under the particular circumstances surrounding the correction of inventorship.
*****
Requests for correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 will be handled by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).
I. 37 CFR 1.48(a) - Nonprovisional Application
Under 37 CFR 1.48(a), an applicant may submit a request for correction of inventorship in a nonprovisional patent application once the inventorship has been established. See MPEP § 602.08(b), subsection III, for details regarding naming inventorship in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.
A request to correct the inventorship filed under 37 CFR 1.48(a) should identify the inventorship change and must be accompanied by a signed application data sheet (ADS) including the legal name, residence, and mailing address of the inventor or each actual joint inventor (see 37 CFR 1.76(b)(1)) and the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The application data sheet submitted with a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must identify the information being changed with underlining for insertions and strike-through or brackets for text removed.
37 CFR 1.48(a) enables an applicant to correct inventorship where an application sets forth improper
inventorship as well as where the prosecution of an application results in the need to add or delete one or more inventors (e.g., due to the addition or deletion of claims or an amendment to the claims).
II. 37 CFR 1.48(b) – Inventor’s Oath or Declaration for Added Inventor
37 CFR 1.48(b) provides that an oath or declaration as required by 37 CFR 1.63, or a substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64, will be required for any actual inventor who has not yet executed such an oath or declaration.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration required by 37 CFR 1.48(b) must comply with 37 CFR 1.63 in effect for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 602.01(a). A substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64 is only available for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 604 for the requirements for substitute statements.
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the oath or declaration required by 37 CFR 1.48(b) for an added inventor must comply with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 which remains in effect for applications filed before September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 602.01(b).
III. 37 CFR 1.48(c) – Request filed after Office Action on the Merits
37 CFR 1.48(c) provides that the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(d) (in addition to the processing fee) is required when requests under 37 CFR 1.48 are filed after the Office action on the merits has been given or mailed in the application. However, the fee will not be required when inventors are deleted if the request to correct or change inventorship is accompanied by a statement that the request to correct or change the inventorship is due solely to the cancelation of claims in the application.
IV. 37 CFR 1.48(d) – Provisional Application
37 CFR 1.48(d) provides for correcting inventorship in provisional applications. Under 37 CFR 1.41(c), the inventorship of a provisional application is the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-79
§ 602.01(c)(1)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
inventor or joint inventors set forth in the cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1). Once a cover sheet is filed in a provisional application, any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48. If a cover sheet as prescribed by 37 CFR 1.51(c)(1) is not filed during the pendency of a provisional application, the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors set forth in the application papers filed pursuant 37 CFR 1.53(c), unless the applicant files a paper, including the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q), supplying the name or names of the inventor or joint inventors.
37 CFR 1.48(d) provides a procedure for adding or deleting or correcting or updating the name of an inventor in a provisional application. 37 CFR 1.48(d) requires that the submission include: (1) a request, signed by a party set forth in 37 CFR 1.33(b), to correct the inventorship that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name; and (2) the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q). When an inventor is being added, applicants should also file a corrected application data sheet or a new cover sheet providing the residence of all inventors. See 37 CFR 1.51(c). For provisional applications, it may not be necessary to correct the inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(d) unless there would be no overlap of inventors upon the filing of the nonprovisional application with the correct inventorship. The need to correct the inventorship in any U.S. nonprovisional or provisional application may in part be dependent upon whether a foreign filing under the Paris Convention will occur subsequent to the U.S. filing. See MPEP § 213.
602.01(c)(2) Correcting or Updating Inventor Name 37 CFR 1.48(f) – Request Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 602.01(c)(3) for a discussion of the requirements for requests to correct or update inventor name filed before September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.48 Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.
*****
(f) Correcting or updating the name of an inventor: Any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint
inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application must include:
(1) An application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order; and
(2) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i).
*****
The change in the order of the names of inventors in a provisional application is not provided for since provisional applications do not become application publications or patents.
As of September 16, 2012, it is no longer necessary to have distinct procedures for correction of inventorship and for correction to the name of an inventor or to the order of the names of the inventors. 37 CFR 1.48(f) permits an applicant to change or update a particular inventor’s name if his/her legal name has changed (e.g., due to marriage), or an inventor’s name contains an error (e.g., typographical or transliteration mistake or the reversal of family or given names) and allows an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). 37 CFR 1.48(f) specifically provides that any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application must include: (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order (identifying the information that is being changed as required by 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2)); and (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). In addition to the corrected application data sheet, the request should also identify the desired inventor name change.
602.01(c)(3) Correction of Inventorship in an Application – Request Under 37 CFR 1.48 Filed Prior to September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 602.01(c)(1) for requests for correction of inventorship filed on or after September 16, 2012 and MPEP § 602.01(c)(2) for a discussion of the requirements for requests to correct or update inventor name filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
600-80Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(c)(2)
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
37 CFR 1.48 (pre-AIA) Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.
(a) Nonprovisional application after oath/declaration filed . If the inventive entity is set forth in error in an executed § 1.63 oath or declaration in a nonprovisional application, and such error arose without any deceptive intention on the part of the person named as an inventor in error or on the part of the person who through error was not named as an inventor, the inventorship of the nonprovisional application may be amended to name only the actual inventor or inventors. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change;
(2) A statement from each person being added as an inventor and from each person being deleted as an inventor that the error in inventorship occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part;
(3) An oath or declaration by the actual inventor or inventors as required by § 1.63 or as permitted by §§ 1.42, 1.43 or § 1.47;
(4) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i); and
(5) If an assignment has been executed by any of the original named inventors, the written consent of the assignee (see § 3.73(b) of this chapter).
(b) Nonprovisional application—fewer inventors due to amendment or cancellation of claims. If the correct inventors are named in a nonprovisional application, and the prosecution of the nonprovisional application results in the amendment or cancellation of claims so that fewer than all of the currently named inventors are the actual inventors of the invention being claimed in the nonprovisional application, an amendment must be filed requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request, signed by a party set forth in § 1.33(b), to correct the inventorship that identifies the named inventor or inventors being deleted and acknowledges that the inventor’s invention is no longer being claimed in the nonprovisional application; and
(2) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i).
(c) Nonprovisional application—inventors added for claims to previously unclaimed subject matter. If a nonprovisional application discloses unclaimed subject matter by an inventor or inventors not named in the application, the application may be amended to add claims to the subject matter and name the correct inventors for the application. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change;
(2) A statement from each person being added as an inventor that the addition is necessitated by amendment of the
claims and that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part;
(3) An oath or declaration by the actual inventors as required by § 1.63 or as permitted by §§ 1.42, 1.43, or § 1.47;
(4) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i); and
(5) If an assignment has been executed by any of the original named inventors, the written consent of the assignee (see § 3.73(b) of this chapter).
(d) Provisional application—adding omitted inventors. If the name or names of an inventor or inventors were omitted in a provisional application through error without any deceptive intention on the part of the omitted inventor or inventors, the provisional application may be amended to add the name or names of the omitted inventor or inventors. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request, signed by a party set forth in § 1.33(b), to correct the inventorship that identifies the inventor or inventors being added and states that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention on the part of the omitted inventor or inventors; and
(2) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q).
Requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed before September 16, 2012 are governed by the provisions of 37 CFR 1.48 in effect prior to September 16, 2012 (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48) as discussed below. However, for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, where a 37 CFR 1.48 request is filed on or after September 16, 2012, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.48 in effect as of September 16, 2012 apply because it is the date of the request for correction that controls which version of the rule is applicable. See MPEP § 602.01(c).
If a request to correct inventorship filed before September 16, 2012 is deficient, any new request to correct the inventorship must comply with 37 CFR 1.48 as revised effective September 16, 2012.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) is directed at correcting the inventorship in an application where the inventorship was improperly set forth in the executed oath or declaration filed in the application. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b) is directed at correcting the inventorship where the executed oath or declaration had correctly set forth the inventorship but due to prosecution of the application, e.g., claim cancellation or amendment, fewer than all of the currently named inventors are the actual inventors of the remaining claims. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(c) is directed at correcting the inventorship where the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-81
§ 602.01(c)(3)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
executed oath or declaration had correctly set forth the inventorship but due to amendment of the claims to include previously unclaimed but disclosed subject matter, one or more inventors of the amended subject matter must be added to the current inventorship. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(d) is directed at provisional applications where an inventor is to be added. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(e) is directed at provisional applications where an inventor is to be deleted. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(f) operates to automatically correct the inventorship upon filing of a first executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 by any of the inventors in a nonprovisional application or upon filing of a cover sheet in a provisional application.
Requests under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48 are generally decided by the primary examiner except:
(A) When the application is involved in an interference (decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board);
(B) When the application is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 which, as of the date of filing of the request, has not been accepted as satisfying the requirements for entry into the national stage (decided in the International Patent Legal Administration); and
(C) When accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of a requirement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (c), e.g., waiver of the statement of lack of deceptive intent by an inventor to be added or deleted, or waiver of the reexecution of the declaration by all of the inventors (decided in the Office of Petitions).
When any request for correction of inventorship under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a)-(c) is granted, the examiner will acknowledge any addition or deletion of the names of inventors by using either form paragraph 2.14 or form paragraph 2.14.01 in the next Office communication to applicant. The application will be forwarded to OPAP for issuance of a corrected filing receipt and correction of Office records.
¶ 2.14 Correction of Inventorship Under 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (c) Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012, Sufficient
In view of the request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 and the accompanying papers filed before September 16,
2012, it has been found that this nonprovisional application, as filed, through error and without deceptive intent, improperly set forth the inventorship, and accordingly, this application has been corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48 ([1]). The inventorship of this application has been changed by [2].
The application will be forwarded to the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) for issuance of a corrected filing receipt, and correction of Office records to reflect the inventorship as corrected.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert --a-- or --c--, as appropriate.
2. In bracket 2, insert explanation of correction made, including addition or deletion of appropriate names.
3. This form paragraph should only be used if the request to correct inventorship was filed before September 16, 2012. Requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012, are handled by the Office of Patent Application Processing.
¶ 2.14.01 Correction of Inventorship Under 37 CFR 1.48(b) Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012, Sufficient
In view of the request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and accompanying papers filed before September 16, 2012, the inventorship of this nonprovisional application has been changed by the deletion of [1].
The application will be forwarded to the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) for issuance of a corrected filing receipt, and correction of Office records to reflect the inventorship as corrected.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used only for 37 CFR 1.48(b) corrections.
2. In bracket 1, insert the names of the deleted inventor(s).
3. This form paragraph should only be used if the request to correct inventorship was filed before September 16, 2012. Requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012, are handled by the Office of Patent Application Processing.
The grant or denial of a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) may result in the lack of inventorship overlap between a parent application and a continuing application and the consequent inability to claim benefit in the continuing application of the parent application’s filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120. Intervening references must then be considered.
For correction of inventorship in a patent, see 37 CFR 1.324 and MPEP § 1481.
600-82Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(c)(3)
II. APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 37 CFR 1.53(f) - NO OATH/DECLARATION
The Office will issue a filing receipt listing the inventors identified at the time of filing of the application even if the application was filed under 37 CFR 1.53(f) without an executed oath or declaration. A request under 37 CFR 1.48(a), (b), or (c) will not be necessary. See 37 CFR 1.48(f).
Where the first-filed executed oath or declaration was submitted prior to December 1, 1997 in an application filed without an executed oath or declaration, if the inventive entity identified on the executed oath or declaration differs from the inventive entity identified at the time of filing of the application, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (c) must also be submitted.
Example
A nonprovisional application is filed (either prior to, on or after December 1, 1997 but prior to September 16, 2012) naming A as the sole inventor without an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63. Only claim 1 is presented.
A “Notice to File Missing Parts of Application” is mailed to the applicant requiring an oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63. In timely reply thereto after December 1, 1997 but prior to September 16, 2012, a preliminary amendment adding claim 2, and a declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 executed by inventors A and B are submitted with B being added in view of claim 2. A request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(c) is not required, in that pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(f)(1) will act to set forth an inventorship of A and B.
Similarly, where a preliminary amendment canceling or amending claims concomitantly requires the deletion of an inventor, such deletion may be accomplished by the submission of a first-filed executed oath or declaration on or after December 1, 1997 naming the actual inventive entity. A request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b) would not be necessary.
III. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a)
37 CFR (pre-AIA) 1.48 Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.
(a) Nonprovisional application after oath/declaration filed . If the inventive entity is set forth in error in an executed § 1.63 oath or declaration in a nonprovisional application, and such error arose without any deceptive intention on the part of the person named as an inventor in error or on the part of the person
who through error was not named as an inventor, the inventorship of the nonprovisional application may be amended to name only the actual inventor or inventors. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change;
(2) A statement from each person being added as an inventor and from each person being deleted as an inventor that the error in inventorship occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part;
(3) An oath or declaration by the actual inventor or inventors as required by § 1.63 or as permitted by §§ 1.42, 1.43 or § 1.47;
(4) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i); and
(5) If an assignment has been executed by any of the original named inventors, the written consent of the assignee (see § 3.73(b) of this chapter).
*****
Under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a), if the correct inventor or inventors are not named in an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 in a nonprovisional application for patent, the application can be amended to name only the actual inventor or inventors so long as the error in the naming of the inventor or inventors occurred without any deceptive intention on the part of the person named as an inventor in error or the person who through error was not named as an inventor.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) requires that the amendment be accompanied by: (1) a request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change; (2) a statement from each person being added and from each person being deleted as an inventor that the error occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part; (3) an oath or declaration by each actual inventor or inventors as required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 or as permitted by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42, 1.43 or 1.47; (4) the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i); and (5) the written consent of any existing assignee, if any of the originally named inventors has executed an assignment.
Correction may be requested in cases where the person originally named as inventor was in fact not an inventor or the sole inventor of the subject matter being claimed. If such error occurred without any deceptive intention on the part of the inventor named and/or not named in error, the Office has the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-83
§ 602.01(c)(3)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
authority to substitute the true inventive entity for the erroneously named inventive entity. Instances where corrections can be made include changes from: a mistaken sole inventor to a different but actual sole inventor; a mistakenly identified sole inventor to different, but actual, joint inventors; a sole inventor to joint inventors to include the original sole inventor; erroneously identified joint inventors to different but actual joint inventors; erroneously identified joint inventors to a different, but actual, sole inventor. (Note that 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 require an overlap of inventorship, hence, refiling, rather than requesting under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48 to change inventorship where the change would not result in an inventorship overlap may result in the loss of a benefit claim.)
A. Statement of Lack of Deceptive Intention
Where a similar inventorship error has occurred in more than one application for which correction is requested wherein petitioner seeks to rely on identical statements, only one original set need be supplied if copies are submitted in all other applications with a reference to the application containing the originals (original oaths or declarations under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 and written consent of assignees along with separate processing fees must be filed in each application).
The statement required from each inventor being added or deleted may simply state that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention. The statement need not be a verified statement (see MPEP § 410).
Note that if a request to correct inventorship filed before September 16, 2012 is deficient, any new request to correct the inventorship must comply with 37 CFR 1.48 as revised effective September 16, 2012. Requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012 do not require a “lack of deceptive intention” statement.
B. Oath or Declaration
An oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 by each actual inventor must be presented. While each inventor need not execute the same oath or declaration, each oath or declaration executed by an
inventor must contain a complete listing of all inventors so as to clearly indicate what each inventor believes to be the appropriate inventive entity. Where individual declarations are executed, they must be submitted as individual declarations rather than combined into one declaration. For example, where the inventive entity is A and B, a declaration may not be executed only by A naming only A as the inventor and a different declaration may not be executed only by B naming only B as the inventor, which two declarations are then combined into one declaration with a first page of boiler plate, a second page with A’s signature, and a second page with B’s signature (so that it appears that the declaration was executed with the entire inventive entity appearing in the declaration when it did not).
Conflicting oaths or declarations filed: If the first executed oaths or declarations that are submitted name different inventive entities (e.g., one declaration names A, B, and C as inventors and a second declaration names D as the inventor) and are filed on the same day, the application will be considered to name the inventors named in both declarations (A, B, C, and D) and a new oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 including the entire inventive entity will be required. Where an application is filed with an executed declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 naming an inventive entity that is in conflict with another paper filed in the application, such as the transmittal letter, the executed declaration will govern. However, where an executed declaration is never submitted and the application papers are in conflict as to the inventorship, each party identified as an inventor on filing will be considered to have been named as part of the inventive entity. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(1).
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 is available in applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, to meet the requirement for an oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 as for example where A, B, and C were originally named as inventors and D who refuses to cooperate is to be later added as an inventor. The oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 of inventor D may be supplied pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47(a), but note that the required pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a)(2) statement must still be supplied by inventor D (an unlikely event in view of the inability
600-84Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(c)(3)
to obtain the executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63), or waiver thereof petitioned under 37 CFR 1.183. Alternatively, where D is to be added as an inventor (where inventors A, B, and C have previously executed the application under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63) and it is original inventor A who refuses to cooperate, the statement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a)(2) is only required to be signed by inventor D. Originally named inventor A is merely required to reexecute an oath or declaration in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63. Petitions under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 are only applicable to an original oath or declaration and are not applicable to the reexecution of another oath or declaration by A. In such circumstances, a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.183 should be considered requesting waiver of the requirement of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64 that each of the actual inventors, i.e., inventor A, execute the oath or declaration, particularly where assignee consent is given to the requested correction. Absent assignee consent, the petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of the reexecution of the oath or declaration will be evaluated as to whether the nonsigning inventor was actually given the opportunity to reexecute the oath or declaration, or whether the nonsigning inventor could not be reached.
Applications filed with a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 and a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) will be forwarded to the Office of Petitions, after mailing the filing receipt by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP), for consideration of the petition and the request. In those instances wherein a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) and a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 have both been filed in an application, the Office of Petitions may first issue a decision on the request under 37 CFR 1.48(a) so as to determine the appropriate oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 required for the petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47.
The oath or declaration submitted subsequent to the filing date (37 CFR 1.53(f)) of an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) must clearly identify the previously filed specification it is intended to execute. See MPEP § 601.01(a) and § 602.
C. Fee
Where waiver under 37 CFR 1.183 is requested in relation to a requirement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a), a processing fee under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) and a petition fee under 37 CFR 1.183 are required. Similarly, where in addition to a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48, two petitions under 37 CFR 1.183 are presented, e.g., one requesting waiver of a requirement under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48 and the other requesting waiver of the reexecution of an oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64, three fees are required (one for the request filed under 37 CFR 1.48 and two for the two petitions filed under 37 CFR 1.183).
Where a similar error has occurred in more than one application a separate processing fee must be submitted in each application in which correction is requested.
If the processing fee has not been submitted or authorized the request will be dismissed.
D. Written Consent of Assignee
The written consent of every existing assignee of the original named inventors must be submitted. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a)(5). Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) does not limit assignees to those who are recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records. The Office employee deciding the request should check the file record for any indication of the existence of an assignee (e.g., a small entity assertion from an assignee).
Where no assignee exists, requester should affirmatively state that fact. If the file record, including the request, is silent as to the existence of an assignee it will be presumed that no assignee exists. Such presumption should be set forth in the decision to alert requesters to the requirement.
The individual signing on behalf of the assignee giving its consent to the requested inventorship correction, should specifically state that he or she has the authority to act on behalf of the assignee. In the absence of such a statement, the consent will be accepted if it is signed by an appropriate official of the assignee (e.g., president, vice president,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-85
§ 602.01(c)(3)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
secretary, treasurer, or derivative thereof) if the official’s title has been made of record. A general statement of authority to act for the assignee, or on the specific matter of consent, or the appropriate title of the party signing on behalf of the assignee should be made of record in the consent. However, if it appears in another paper of record, e.g., small entity assertion, it is also acceptable. Further, the assignee must establish its ownership of the application in accordance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73. MPEP § 324.
E. Continuing Applications
35 U.S.C. 120 permits a continuing application to claim the benefit of the filing date of a copending, previously filed, parent application provided there is inventorship overlap between the continuing application and the parent application. If the inventive entity of a continuing application includes an inventor named in the parent application, the inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met.
Example
The parent application names inventors A and B and claims inventions 1 and 2. Inventor A contributes only to invention 1 and inventor B contributes only to invention 2. A restriction requirement is made and invention 1 was elected. Upon allowance of claims directed to invention 1 and cancellation of claims directed to invention 2, a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b) was filed requesting deletion of inventor B. The request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b) was granted by the primary examiner. Prior to the issuance of the parent application, a divisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to the parent application, is filed claiming only invention 2 and naming only inventor B. The inventorship overlap required by 35 U.S.C. 120 is met in this instance even though at the time of filing of the divisional application, the inventorship overlap was lost as a result of the deletion of an inventor in the parent application. The overlap of inventorship need not be present on the date the continuing application is filed nor present when the parent application issues or becomes abandoned.
On filing a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) it should not be assumed that an error in inventorship made in a parent application was in fact corrected therein in response to a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) unless a decision from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to that effect was received by the requester. A continuing application naming the additional inventor can be filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53(b) with a newly
executed oath or declaration by the new inventive entity along with a request for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 without the need for a decision on the request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48 filed in the parent application.
Should an error in inventorship in a parent application be discovered, whether it is the need to add and/or to delete inventors, when preparing to file a continuing application, the continuing application may be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with the correct inventive entity without the need for a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) in the parent or continuing application provided the parent application is to be abandoned on filing of the continuing application. In filing a continuation or divisional application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), a copy of an oath or declaration from the prior application can only be used where inventors are to be deleted (37 CFR 1.53(b)(1) and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1)(ii)), but not where inventors are to be added. Where inventors are to be added, a newly executed oath or declaration must be submitted. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)(5).
In a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) or (c) to add an inventor to a parent application that was not acted on (e.g., filed after final rejection) will be automatically considered in the CPA. Until the request is granted, the inventorship remains the same as the prior application. Note, however, that effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice has been eliminated as to utility and plant applications. If the application is a design application, after discovery of an inventorship error, the application can also be refiled under 37 CFR 1.53(d)(4) as a CPA where inventors are only to be deleted.
In filing a continuing application to correct the inventorship, it is important to recognize that 37 CFR 1.78 requires for purposes of claiming the benefit of the prior application that the prior application must have had the filing fee paid within the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(f) so as to establish copendency. The basic filing fee must be paid within the pendency of a nonprovisional application in order to permit benefit of the application to be claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121,
600-86Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(c)(3)
or 365(c) in a subsequent nonprovisional or international application.
Should a continuation or divisional application be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b)(1) where a copy of the oath or declaration from the prior application is utilized (or under 37 CFR 1.53(d) as a CPA if the prior application is a design application) purporting to add an inventor, the inventorship of the prior application will be retained in the continuing application as addition of an inventor is not permitted in these instances. The absence of a request to correct the inventorship submitted with the continuing application will not affect the filing date of the continuing application. However, the retained inventorship must then be corrected by the filing of a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(a) in the continuation or divisional application stating that the error in failing to name the additional inventor in the prior application was without deceptive intention. Where an inventor is to be added, it is recommended that a continuation or divisional application be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with a newly executed oath or declaration and not be filed with a copy of the oath or declaration from the prior application. This procedure eliminates the need for a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48.
An inventorship error discovered while prosecuting a continuing application that occurred in both an abandoned parent application and the continuing application can be corrected in both applications by filing a single request in the continuing application (e.g., A + B named in parent, B + C named in continuing application, actual inventorship is C + D thereby eliminating inventorship overlap and resulting loss of benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 if the error is not corrected in abandoned parent application as well as in continuation application). Absent such loss of inventorship overlap, correction need not be made in the abandoned application.
When entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, correction of inventorship is via the provisions of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.497(d). See MPEP § 1893.01(e).
¶ 2.13 Correction of Inventorship Under 37 CFR 1.48(a), Insufficient
The request to correct the inventorship of this nonprovisional application under 37 CFR 1.48(a) is deficient because:
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in response to requests to correct an error in the naming of the prior inventors in nonprovisional applications. If the request is merely to delete an inventor because claims were canceled or amended such that the deleted inventor is no longer an actual inventor of any claim in the application, use form paragraph 2.13.01 instead of this form paragraph.
Potential rejections
A rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) must be considered if the request is denied.
The grant or denial of the request may result in the loss of inventorship overlap between a parent application and a continuing application and an inability to claim benefit in the continuing application of the parent application’s filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120. Intervening references must then be considered.
2. A primary examiner may not decide the request if the request is also accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of one of the requirements explicitly set forth in 37 CFR 1.48(a) (typically a refusal of one of the inventors to be added or deleted to execute the required statement of facts) – the request for correction of inventorship and request for waiver of the rules should be forwarded to the Office of Petitions.
3. One or more of form paragraphs 2.13a - 2.13e should follow this form paragraph, as applicable.
4. Where it appears that: 1) the inventor(s) to be added or deleted may be hostile and will not execute a required statement of facts; and 2) the actual inventorship would overlap the original inventorship (37 CFR 1.78), follow this form paragraph with form paragraph 2.13f.
5. Requests under 37 CFR 1.41 to change inventorship where an executed oath or declaration has not been filed are to be acted upon by OPAP.
6. Where there is a correction in a person’s name, e.g., due to misspelling, or marriage, a request under 37 CFR 1.48 is inappropriate. SeeMPEP § 602.08(b) for name changes.
7. An initial executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 may change the inventorship as originally set forth when the application is filed without an executed oath or declaration without request for correction of inventorship (37 CFR 1.48(f)).
8. This form paragraph should only be used if the request to correct inventorship was filed before September 16, 2012. Requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-87
§ 602.01(c)(3)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
2012, are handled by the Office of Patent Application Processing.
¶ 2.13a Statement of Facts Problem (for Use Following FP 2.13, If Applicable)
The statement of facts by an inventor or inventors to be added or deleted does not explicitly state that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intent on his or her part or cannot be construed to so state.
¶ 2.13b No New Oath or Declaration (for Use Following FP 2.13 or 2.13.02, If Applicable)
An oath or declaration by each actual inventor or inventors listing the entire inventive entity has not been submitted.
¶ 2.13c Required Fee Not Submitted (for Use Following FP 2.13, 2.13.01 or 2.13.02, If Applicable)
It lacks the required fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
¶ 2.13d Written Consent Missing (for Use Following FP 2.13 or 2.13.02, If Applicable)
It lacks the written consent of any assignee of one of the originally named inventors.
¶ 2.13e 37 CFR 3.73(b) Submission (for Use Following FP 2.13 or 2.13.02, If Applicable)
A 37 CFR 3.73(b) submission has not been received to support action by the assignee.
¶ 2.13f Hostile Inventor(s)/Inventorship Overlap (for Use Following FP 2.13, If Applicable)
As it appears that a party required by 37 CFR 1.48(a)(2) to submit a statement of facts may not be willing to submit such statement, applicant should consider either: a) submission of a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 to waive that requirement if the original named inventor(s) has assigned the entire right and interest to an assignee who has given its consent to the requested inventorship correction, MPEP § 602.01(c)(3), subsection III.A., or b) refiling the application (where addition is needed) under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with a new oath or declaration and any necessary petition under 37 CFR 1.47, or where only deletion is needed, either under 37 CFR 1.53(b) utilizing a copy of a prior oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1)(iv), or under 37 CFR 1.53(d)) (design applications only), thereby eliminating the need for a 37 CFR 1.48 request.
¶ 2.13.01 Correction of Inventorship Under 37 CFR 1.48(b), Insufficient
The request for the deletion of an inventor in this nonprovisional application under 37 CFR 1.48(b) is deficient because:
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used when the inventorship was previously correct when originally executed
but an inventor is being deleted because claims have been amended or canceled such that he or she is no longer an inventor of any remaining claim in the non-provisional application. If the inventorship is being corrected because of an error in naming the correct inventors, use form paragraph 2.13 instead of this form paragraph.
2. Follow this form paragraph with one or both of form paragraphs 2.13c and 2.13g.
3. See note 1 of form paragraph 2.13, Potential rejections.
¶ 2.13g Statement Under 37 CFR 1.48(b)(2) Problem (for Use Following FP 2.13.01, If Applicable)
The request was not accompanied by the statement required under 37 CFR 1.48(b)(2).
¶ 2.13.02 Correction of Inventorship Under 37 CFR 1.48(c), Insufficient
The request to correct the inventorship in this nonprovisional application under 37 CFR 1.48(c) requesting addition of an inventor(s) is deficient because:
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used when the inventorship was previously correct when the application was originally executed, but the inventorship now needs to be changed due to subsequent addition of subject matter from the specification to the claims, which subject matter was contributed by a party not originally named as an inventor.
2. See note 2 of form paragraph 2.13.
3. Follow this form paragraph with any of form paragraphs 2.13b-2.13e or 2.13h.
4. See note 1 of form paragraph 2.13, Potential rejections.
5. See notes 4-7 of form paragraph 2.13.
¶ 2.13h Statement of Facts, Added Inventor (for Use Following FP 2.13.02, If Applicable)
The statement of facts by the inventor(s) to be added does not explicitly state that the amendment of the inventorship is necessitated by amendment of the claims and that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intent on the part of the inventor(s) to be added, or cannot be construed to so state.
¶ 2.14.01 Correction of Inventorship Under 37 CFR 1.48(b) Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012, Sufficient
In view of the request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and accompanying papers filed before September 16, 2012, the inventorship of this nonprovisional application has been changed by the deletion of [1].
The application will be forwarded to the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) for issuance of a corrected filing receipt, and correction of Office records to reflect the inventorship as corrected.
600-88Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(c)(3)
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used only for 37 CFR 1.48(b) corrections.
2. In bracket 1, insert the names of the deleted inventor(s).
3. This form paragraph should only be used if the request to correct inventorship was filed before September 16, 2012. Requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on or after September 16, 2012, are handled by the Office of Patent Application Processing.
IV. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b)
37 CFR 1.48 (pre-AIA) Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.
*****
(b) Nonprovisional application—fewer inventors due to amendment or cancellation of claims. If the correct inventors are named in a nonprovisional application, and the prosecution of the nonprovisional application results in the amendment or cancellation of claims so that fewer than all of the currently named inventors are the actual inventors of the invention being claimed in the nonprovisional application, an amendment must be filed requesting deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request, signed by a party set forth in § 1.33(b), to correct the inventorship that identifies the named inventor or inventors being deleted and acknowledges that the inventor's invention is no longer being claimed in the nonprovisional application; and
(2) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i).
*****
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b) provides for deleting the names of persons originally properly included as inventors, but whose invention is no longer being claimed in a nonprovisional application. Such a situation would arise where claims have been amended or deleted during prosecution because they are unpatentable or as a result of a requirement for restriction of the application to one invention, or for other reasons. A request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b) to delete an inventor would be appropriate prior to an action by the TC where it is decided not to pursue particular aspects of an invention attributable to some of the original named inventors.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b) requires that the amendment be accompanied by: (1) a request including a statement identifying each named inventor who is being deleted and acknowledging
that the inventor’s invention is no longer being claimed in the application; and (2) a fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The statement may be signed by applicant’s registered attorney or agent who then takes full responsibility for ensuring that the inventor is not being improperly deleted from the application. Written consent of any assignee is not required for requests filed under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(b).
V. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(c)
37 CFR 1.48 (pre-AIA) Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.
*****
(c) Nonprovisional application—inventors added for claims to previously unclaimed subject matter. If a nonprovisional application discloses unclaimed subject matter by an inventor or inventors not named in the application, the application may be amended to add claims to the subject matter and name the correct inventors for the application. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change;
(2) A statement from each person being added as an inventor that the addition is necessitated by amendment of the claims and that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part;
(3) An oath or declaration by the actual inventors as required by § 1.63 or as permitted by §§ 1.42, 1.43, or § 1.47;
(4) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i); and
(5) If an assignment has been executed by any of the original named inventors, the written consent of the assignee (see § 3.73(b) of this chapter).
*****
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(c) provides for the situation where a nonprovisional application discloses unclaimed subject matter by an inventor or inventors not named in the application when an executed declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 was first filed. In such a situation, the nonprovisional application may be amended pursuant to pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(c) to add claims directed to the originally unclaimed but disclosed subject matter and also to name the correct inventors for the application based on the newly added claims. Any claims added to the application must be supported by the disclosure as filed and cannot add new matter.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(c) requires that the amendment must be accompanied by: (1) a request
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-89
§ 602.01(c)(3)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change; (2) a statement from each person being added as an inventor that the amendment is necessitated by an amendment to the claims and that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part; (3) an oath or declaration by each actual inventor; (4) the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i); and (5) the written consent of any assignee of the original named inventors.
VI. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(d)
37 CFR 1.48 (pre-AIA) Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.
*****
(d) Provisional application—adding omitted inventors. If the name or names of an inventor or inventors were omitted in a provisional application through error without any deceptive intention on the part of the omitted inventor or inventors, the provisional application may be amended to add the name or names of the omitted inventor or inventors. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request, signed by a party set forth in § 1.33(b), to correct the inventorship that identifies the inventor or inventors being added and states that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention on the part of the omitted inventor or inventors; and
(2) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q).
*****
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(d) provides a procedure for adding the name of an inventor in a provisional application, where the name was originally omitted without deceptive intent.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(d) requires that the amendment be accompanied by: (1) a request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change; (2) a statement that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention on the part of the omitted inventor or inventors; and (3) the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q). The statement of lack of deceptive intent may be included in the request and may be signed by a registered attorney or agent. A statement of lack of deceptive intent is not required from any of the original or to be added inventors.
See also discussion below regarding requests filed under 37 CFR 1.48(e).
VII. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(e)
37 CFR 1.48 (pre-AIA) Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.
*****
(e) Provisional application—deleting the name or names of the inventor or inventors. If a person or persons were named as an inventor or inventors in a provisional application through error without any deceptive intention on the part of such person or persons, an amendment may be filed in the provisional application deleting the name or names of the person or persons who were erroneously named. Amendment of the inventorship requires:
(1) A request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change;
(2) A statement by the person or persons whose name or names are being deleted that the inventorship error occurred without deceptive intention on the part of such person or persons;
(3) The processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q); and
(4) If an assignment has been executed by any of the original named inventors, the written consent of the assignee (see § 3.73(b) of this chapter).
*****
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(e) provides a procedure for deleting the name of a person who was erroneously named as an inventor in a provisional application.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(e) requires that the amendment be accompanied by: (1) a request to correct the inventorship that sets forth the desired inventorship change; (2) a statement of lack of deceptive intent by the person whose name is being deleted establishing that the error occurred without deceptive intention on his or her part; (3) the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q); and (4) the written consent of any assignee.
Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), a later filed nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that is filed within twelve months of an earlier provisional application may claim benefits based on the earlier filed provisional application so long as both applications have at least one inventor in common. An error in not naming or in naming a person as an inventor in a provisional application would not require correction under either pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(d) (to add an inventor) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(e) (to delete an inventor) in the provisional application so long as the nonprovisional application naming the correct inventorship would contain an
600-90Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.01(c)(3)
overlap of at least one inventor with the provisional application. The existence of inventorship overlap would prevent the original inventorship error from having any effect upon the ability of the provisional application to serve as a basis for a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. If, however, applicant chooses to correct the inventive entity of a provisional application, for example, to permit the provisional application to serve as the basis of a priority claim in a foreign country, pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(d) and (e) set forth the procedures for adding one or more actual inventors and for deleting one or more erroneously named inventors respectively. In the situation where an inventor was not named in a provisional application and an inventor was also erroneously named in the same provisional application and correction is desired, a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(d) and a request under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(e) would be required. Where an inventorship error in a provisional application is desired to be corrected after expiration of twelve months from the filing date of the provisional application, a request under 37 CFR 1.48(d) and/or 37 CFR 1.48(e) may still be filed with OPAP, which handles requests under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(d) and (e), to correct the inventorship in provisional applications.
VIII. Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(f)
37 CFR 1.48 (pre-AIA) Correction of inventorship in a patent application, other than a reissue application, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 116.
*****
(f)(1) Nonprovisional application—filing executed oath/declaration corrects inventorship . If the correct inventor or inventors are not named on filing a nonprovisional application under § 1.53(b) without an executed oath or declaration under § 1.63 by any of the inventors, the first submission of an executed oath or declaration under § 1.63 by any of the inventors during the pendency of the application will act to correct the earlier identification of inventorship. See §§ 1.41(a)(4) and 1.497(d) and (f) for submission of an executed oath or declaration to enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 naming an inventive entity different from the inventive entity set forth in the international stage.
(2) Provisional application filing cover sheet corrects inventorship. If the correct inventor or inventors are not named on filing a provisional application without a cover sheet under § 1.51(c)(1), the later submission of a cover sheet under § 1.51(c)(1) during the pendency of the application will act to correct the earlier identification of inventorship.
*****
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(f)(1) and (f)(2) will act to automatically correct an earlier identification of inventorship in a nonprovisional application by the filing of an initial executed oath or declaration and in a provisional application by the filing of an initial cover sheet. A request and fee is not required for the inventorship correction to occur.
The provision in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(f)(1) for changing the inventorship only applies if an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 has not been submitted by any of the inventors. In this situation, the submission of an executed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 by any of the inventors is sufficient to correct an earlier identification of inventorship. A first-filed oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 executed by less than all of the inventors initially identified will, under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(f)(1), determine the inventorship in the application. Any subsequent oath or declaration filed by a different inventive entity will not be effective under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(f)(1) to correct the inventorship that was specified in the first-filed oath or declaration.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48(f)(1) is not applicable for national stage applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 where the inventorship has been erroneously named in the international application. Accordingly, if the inventorship set forth in the oath or declaration filed in the national stage application differs from the inventorship specified in the international application, the requirements of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.497(d) must be satisfied. See MPEP § 1893.01(e).
602.02 New Oath or Substitute for Original [R-11.2013]
Applicant may submit a new inventor’s oath or declaration to correct any deficiencies or inaccuracies present in an earlier-filed inventor’s oath or declaration. See 37 CFR 1.67(a). Some deficiencies or inaccuracies can be corrected with an application data sheet (ADS) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76. See MPEP § 601.05.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, joint inventors may execute separate oaths or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-91
§ 602.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
declarations in which only the person executing the oath or declaration is identified if an ADS is filed that provides the required inventor information. If such an ADS is not filed, then each oath or declaration must name all of the inventors. See 37 CFR 1.63(a) and (b). Each separate oath or declaration by an inventor should be complete in itself.
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, where neither the original oath or declaration, nor the substitute oath or declaration is complete in itself, but each oath or declaration names all of the inventors and the two taken together give all the required data, no further oath or declaration is needed.
602.03 Office Finds the Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Defective [R-07.2015]
Examiners are no longer required to review inventor’s oaths or declarations that are filed in non-reissue applications. Non-examiner staff will review inventor’s oaths or declarations that are filed before allowance of an application for compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 and may send an informational notice to the applicant regarding any deficiencies. Similarly, non-examiner staff will review inventor’s oaths or declarations at or after allowance of an application for compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 and will send a requirement to the applicant to correct any deficiencies. If an application data sheet has been submitted, applicant may postpone the filing of the inventor’s oath or declaration until the application is in condition for allowance for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. If an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, or a substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64, executed by or with respect to each inventor has not been submitted at the time of allowance, a notice requiring the inventor’s oath or declaration may be sent with the Notice of Allowability. The required inventor’s oath or declaration must be submitted no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid. See 35 U.S.C. 115(f).
The Office does not check the date of execution of the oath or declaration and will not require a newly executed oath or declaration based on an oath or
declaration being stale (i.e., when the date of execution is more than three months prior to the filing date of the application) or where the date of execution has been omitted. However, applicants are reminded that they have a continuing duty of disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56.
The wording of an oath or declaration should not be amended, altered or changed in any manner after it has been signed. If the wording is not correct or if all of the required affirmations have not been made, or if it has not been properly subscribed to, a new oath or declaration should be submitted. However, in some cases, a deficiency in the oath or declaration can be corrected by a supplemental paper such as an application data sheet (see 37 CFR 1.76 and MPEP § 601.05) and a new oath or declaration is not necessary. See 37 CFR 1.63(b). For example, if the oath does not set forth evidence that the notary was acting within his or her jurisdiction at the time he or she administered the oath, a certificate of the notary that the oath was taken within his or her jurisdiction will correct the deficiency. See MPEP § 602.
The inventor’s oath or declaration must include certain inventor bibliographic information (see MPEP § 602.08(a)), name the inventor or each joint inventor and except as otherwise provided be signed by each inventor (see MPEP § 602.08(b)), and identify the application to which it is directed (see MPEP § 602.08(c)). See MPEP § 602.04 for a defective foreign executed oath.
602.04 Foreign Executed Oath [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.66 Statements under oath.
[Editor Note: Applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), 363, or 385 on or after September 16, 2012. See 37 CFR 1.66 (pre-AIA) for the rule otherwise in effect.]
An oath or affirmation may be made before any person within the United States authorized by law to administer oaths. An oath made in a foreign country may be made before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths, or before any officer having an official seal and authorized to administer oaths in the foreign country in which the applicant may be, whose authority shall be proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by an apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the United States. The oath shall be attested in all cases in this and other countries, by the proper official seal of the officer before whom the oath or affirmation
600-92Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.03
is made. Such oath or affirmation shall be valid as to execution if it complies with the laws of the State or country where made. When the person before whom the oath or affirmation is made in this country is not provided with a seal, his official character shall be established by competent evidence, as by a certificate from a clerk of a court of record or other proper officer having a seal.
An oath executed in a foreign country must be properly authenticated.
I. HAGUE CONVENTION APOSTILLE
On October 15, 1981, the Hague “Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents” entered into force between the United States and 28 foreign countries as parties to the Convention. Subsequently, additional countries have become parties to the Convention. The Convention applies to any document submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for filing or recording, which is sworn to or acknowledged by a notary public in any one of the member countries. The Convention abolishes the certification of the authority of the notary public in a member country by a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States and substitutes certification by a special certificate, or apostille, executed by an officer of the member country.
Accordingly, the Office will accept for filing or recording a document sworn to or acknowledged before a notary public in a member country if the document bears, or has appended to it, an apostille certifying the notary’s authority. The requirement for a diplomatic or consular certificate, specified in 37 CFR 1.66, will not apply to a document sworn to or acknowledged before a notary public in a member country if an apostille is used.
A list of the current member countries that are parties to the Hague Convention can be obtained from the Internet website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law at www.hcch.net/index_en.php by selecting “Apostille Section” under “International Legal Co-operation and Litigation” and then selecting “Status table of the Apostille Convention” under “Contracting States.”
The Convention prescribes the following form for the apostille:
Model of Certificate
The certificate will be in the form of a square with sides at least 9 centimeters long.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-93
§ 602.04PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
II. CERTIFICATE OF DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OFFICER
When the oath is made in a foreign country not a member of the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, the authority of any officer other than a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths must be proved by certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the
United States. See 37 CFR 1.66. This proof may be through an intermediary, e.g., the consul may certify as to the authority and jurisdiction of another official who, in turn, may certify as to the authority and jurisdiction of the officer before whom the oath is taken.
Where the oath is taken before an officer in a foreign country other than a diplomatic or consular officer
600-94Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.04
of the United States and whose authority is not authenticated or accompanied with an apostille certifying the notary’s authority, the application is nevertheless accepted for purposes of examination. Applicant should submit a new oath properly authenticated by an appropriate diplomatic or consular officer, the filing of proper apostille, or a declaration (37 CFR 1.68). The Office does not return improperly authenticated oaths for proper authentication.
602.05 Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications [R-11.2013]
A copy of an oath or declaration from a prior application may be submitted with a continuation or divisional application, or with a continuation-in-part application filed on or after September 16, 2012, even if the oath or declaration identifies the application number of the prior application. However, if such a copy of the oath or declaration is filed after the filing date of the continuation or divisional application and an application number has been assigned to the continuation or divisional application (see 37 CFR 1.5(a)), the cover letter accompanying the oath or declaration should identify the application number of the continuation or divisional application. The cover letter should also indicate that the oath or declaration submitted is a copy of the oath or declaration from a prior application to avoid the oath or declaration being incorrectly matched with the prior application file. Furthermore, applicant should also label the copy of the oath or declaration with the application number of the continuation or divisional application in the event that the cover letter is separated from the copy of the oath or declaration.
A copy of the oath or declaration from a prior nonprovisional application may be filed in a continuation or divisional application even if the specification for the continuation or divisional application is different from that of the prior application, in that revisions have been made to clarify the text to incorporate amendments made in the prior application, or to make other changes provided the changes do not constitute new matter relative to the prior application. If the examiner determines that the continuation or divisional application contains new matter relative to the prior
application, the examiner should so notify the applicant in the next Office action and indicate that the application should be redesignated as a continuation-in-part.
See MPEP § 602.05(a) for information regarding an oath or declaration in a continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 602.05(b) for information regarding an oath or declaration in a continuing application filed before September 16, 2012.
602.05(a) Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 602.05(b) for information regarding oath or declaration in a continuing application filed before September 16, 2012.]
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, a continuing application, including a continuation-in-part application, may be filed with a copy of an oath or declaration or substitute statement from the prior nonprovisional application, provided that the oath or declaration is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or the substitute statement is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64. See 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1). It should be noted that a copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration submitted in a continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012 must comply with requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 in effect for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. For example, the inventor’s oath or declaration must include a statement that the application was made or was authorized to be made by the person executing the oath or declaration. Accordingly, a new inventor’s oath or declaration may need to be filed in a continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012, where the prior application was filed before September 16, 2012, in order to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.63 (or 1.64) in effect for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.
For continuing applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 under 37 CFR 1.53(b), the inventorship is the inventor or joint inventors
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-95
§ 602.05(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
specified in the application data sheet filed before or concurrently with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application. If an application data sheet is not filed before or concurrently with the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, the inventorship is the inventorship set forth in the copy of the inventor’s oath or declaration from the earlier-filed application, unless it is accompanied by a signed statement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b) that states the name of each inventor in the continuing application. See 37 CFR 1.63(d)(2). Any new joint inventor named in the continuing application must provide an oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63, except as provided in 37 CFR 1.64. See 37 CFR 1.63(d)(3).
602.05(b) Oath or Declaration in Continuing Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 602.05(a) for information regarding oath or declaration in a continuing application filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
A continuation or divisional application filed before September 16, 2012 under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (other than a continuation-in-part (CIP)) may be filed with a copy of the oath or declaration from the prior nonprovisional application. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1)(iv).
A continuation or divisional application of a prior application accorded status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 will be accorded status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 if a copy of the decision according pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 status in the prior application is filed in the continuation or divisional application, unless an oath or declaration signed by all of the inventors is included upon filing the continuation or divisional application. An oath or declaration in an application accorded status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 is generally not signed by all of the inventors. Accordingly, if a copy of an oath or declaration of a prior application is submitted in a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) and the copy of the oath or declaration omits the signature of one or more inventors, the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) should send
a “Notice to File Missing Parts” requiring the signature of the nonsigning inventor, unless a copy of the decision according status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 is also included at the time of filing of the continuation or divisional application. If OPAP mails such a Notice, a copy of the decision according status under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47, together with a surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) for its late filing, will be an acceptable reply to the Notice. Alternatively, applicant may submit an oath or declaration signed by the previously nonsigning inventor together with the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f) in reply to the Notice.
If an inventor named in a prior application is not an inventor in a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), the continuation or divisional application may either be filed (A) with a copy of an oath or declaration from a prior application and a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the continuation or divisional application (see pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d)), or (B) with a newly executed oath or declaration naming the correct inventive entity. If an inventor named in a prior application is not an inventor in a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (continued prosecution design application), the request for filing the continuation or divisional application must be accompanied by a statement requesting the deletion of the name or names of the person or persons who are not inventors of the invention being claimed in the continuation or divisional application (see 37 CFR 1.53(d)(4)).
A continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) of a prior application in which a petition (or request) under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48 to add an inventor was filed should be filed with a copy of the executed declaration naming the correct inventive entity from the prior application or a newly executed declaration naming the correct inventive entity. A copy of any decision under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.48 from the prior application is not required
600-96Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.05(b)
to be filed in the continuation or divisional application.
602.06 Non-English Oath or Declaration [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.69 Foreign language oaths and declarations.
(a) Whenever an individual making an oath or declaration cannot understand English, the oath or declaration must be in a language that such individual can understand and shall state that such individual understands the content of any documents to which the oath or declaration relates.
(b) Unless the text of any oath or declaration in a language other than English is in a form provided by the Patent and Trademark Office or in accordance with PCT Rule 4.17(iv), it must be accompanied by an English translation together with a statement that the translation is accurate, except that in the case of an oath or declaration filed under § 1.63, the translation may be filed in the Office no later than two months from the date applicant is notified to file the translation.
37 CFR 1.69 requires that oaths and declarations be in a language which is understood by the individual making the oath or declaration, i.e., a language which the individual comprehends. If the individual comprehends the English language, he or she should preferably use it. If the individual cannot comprehend the English language, any oath or declaration must be in a language which the individual can comprehend. If an individual uses a language other than English for an oath or declaration, the oath or declaration must include a statement that the individual understands the content of any documents to which the oath or declaration relates. If the documents are in a language the individual cannot comprehend, the documents may be explained to him or her so that he or she is able to understand them.
The Office will accept a single non-English language oath or declaration where there are joint inventors, of which only some understand English but all
understand the non-English language of the oath or declaration.
602.07 Oath or Declaration Filed in United States as a Designated Office [R-08.2012]
See MPEP § 1893.01(e).
602.08 Inventor andApplication Information [R-11.2013]
The inventor, or each individual who is a joint inventor of a claimed invention, in an application for patent (other than a provisional application) must execute an oath or declaration directed to the application, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64. See MPEP § 602.01(a) for the requirements of an inventor’s oath or declaration in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See MPEP § 602.01(b) for the requirements of an original oath or declaration in an application filed before September 16, 2012.
The inventor’s oath or declaration must include certain inventor bibliographic information (see MPEP § 602.08(a)), name the inventor or each joint inventor and except as otherwise provided be signed by each inventor (see MPEP § 602.08(b)), and identify the application to which it is directed (see MPEP § 602.08(c)).
602.08(a) Inventor Bibliographic Information [R-07.2015]
I. INVENTOR’S CITIZENSHIP
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the citizenship of the inventor is no longer required by 35 U.S.C. 115 or 37 CFR 1.63.
For nonprovisional applications filed before September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 115 requires the inventor(s) to state his or her citizenship. Where an inventor is not a citizen of any country, a statement to this effect is accepted as satisfying the statutory requirement, but a statement as to citizenship applied for or first papers taken out looking to future citizenship in this (or any other) country does not meet the requirement.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-97
§ 602.08(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
II. INVENTOR’S RESIDENCE
Each inventor’s place of residence, that is, the city and either state or foreign country, is required to be included in the oath or declaration in a nonprovisional application for compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 unless it is included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76). In the case of an inventor who is in one of the U.S. Armed Services, a statement to that effect is sufficient as to residence. For change of residence, see MPEP § 719.02. Each inventor’s residence must be included on the cover sheet for a provisional application unless it is included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76).
If only a mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail is provided, the Office will presume that the inventor’s residence is the city and either state or foreign country of the mailing address. If the inventor lives at a location which different from the inventor’s mailing address, the inventor’s residence (city and either state or foreign country) must be included in the inventor’s oath or declaration or an application data sheet.
III. INVENTOR’S MAILING OR POST OFFICE ADDRESS
Each inventor’s mailing or post office address is required to be supplied on the oath or declaration, if not stated in an application data sheet. See 37 CFR 1.63(b), pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(c), and 37 CFR 1.76. If the mailing address of any inventor has been omitted, OPAP will notify applicant of the omission and require the omitted mailing address in response to the notice.
The inventor’s mailing address means that address at which he or she customarily receives his or her mail, even if it is not the main mailing address of the inventor. Either the inventor’s home or business address is acceptable as the mailing address. A post office box is also acceptable. The mailing address should include the ZIP Code designation. The object of requiring each inventor’s mailing address is to enable the Office to communicate directly with the inventor if desired; hence, the address of the attorney with instruction to send communications to the inventor in care of the attorney is not sufficient.
In situations where an inventor does not execute the oath or declaration and the inventor is not deceased or legally incapacitated, such as in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 in which a substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 is filed, the inventor’s most recent home address must be given to enable the Office to communicate directly with the inventor as necessary.
602.08(b) Inventor Signature and Name [R-07.2015]
I. SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT - EXECUTION OF INVENTOR’S OATHS OR DECLARATIONS
United States patent applications which have not been prepared and executed in accordance with the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code and Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations may be abandoned. Although the statute and the rules have been in existence for many years, the Office continues to receive a number of applications which have been improperly executed and/or filed. Since the improper execution and/or filing of patent applications can ultimately result in a loss of rights, it is appropriate to emphasize the importance of proper execution and filing.
There is no requirement that a signature be made in any particular manner. See MPEP § 402.03. It is permissible for an applicant to use a title of nobility or other title, such as “Dr.”, in connection with his or her signature. The title will not appear in the printed patent. If applicant signs his or her name using non-English characters, then such a signature will be accepted. If the applicant is unable to write, his or her mark as affixed to the oath or declaration must be attested to by a witness. In the case of the oath, the notary’s signature to the jurat is sufficient to authenticate the mark. See MPEP § 602.
Applications filed through EFS-Web must also contain an oath or declaration personally signed by the inventor.
It is improper for an applicant to sign an oath or declaration which is not attached to or does not identify the application (e.g., a specification and drawings) to which it is directed.
600-98Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.08(b)
Attached does not necessarily mean that all the papers must be literally fastened. It is sufficient that the specification, including the claims, and the oath or declaration are physically located together at the time of execution. Physical connection is not required. Copies of declarations are encouraged. See MPEP § 502.01, § 502.02, § 602, and § 602.05(a).
An oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 by each actual inventor must be presented. Each inventor need not execute the same oath or declaration. For nonprovisional international design applications, see also 37 CFR 1.1021(d) and 1.1067. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, each oath or declaration executed by an inventor must contain a complete listing of all inventors so as to clearly indicate what each inventor believes to be the appropriate inventive entity. Where individual declarations are executed, they must be submitted as individual declarations rather than combined into one declaration (by combining the signature pages).
The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 363 for filing an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) which designates the United States and thereby has the effect of a regularly filed United States national application, except as provided in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), are somewhat different than the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 111. The oath or declaration requirements for an international application before the Patent and Trademark Office are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(4) and 37 CFR 1.497.
37 CFR 1.52(c) states that “[i]nterlineation, erasure, cancellation, or other alteration of the application papers may be made before or after the signing of the inventor's oath or declaration referring to those application papers, provided that the statements in the inventor's oath or declaration pursuant to § 1.63 remain applicable to those application papers. A substitute specification (§ 1.125) may be required if the application papers do not comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.”
An inventor is not required to re-execute a new inventor’s oath or declaration after alteration of the application papers provided that the changes are minor, for example, correction of typographical errors, grammatical problems, and clarifying
sentences. If the changes would amount to the introduction of new matter had the change been made to a filed application, however, then the inventor should execute a new oath or declaration after reviewing the amended application. The rule permits alterations to the specification without the inventor re-executing an oath or declaration only where the statements in the executed declaration remain applicable. Additionally, an inventor must before executing the oath or declaration (i) review and understand the contents of the application; and (ii) be aware of his or her duty of disclosure. See 37 CFR 1.63(c). If the changes made to the specification before an application is filed result in substantial alterations to the application, then an inventor may not understand the contents of the application or be aware of his/her duty to disclose information relating to the substantial alteration.
The signing and execution by the applicant of oaths or declarations in certain continuation or divisional applications may be omitted. See MPEP § 201.06, § 201.07, and § 602.05(a). For the signature on a reply, see MPEP §§ 714.01(a), 714.01(c), and 714.01(d).
II. SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT - EXECUTION OF OATH OR DECLARATION ON BEHALF OF INVENTOR
A. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012
The inventor, or each individual who is a joint inventor of a claimed invention, in an application for patent must execute an oath or declaration directed to the application, except as provided under 37 CFR 1.64. Only inventors can execute an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. The applicant for patent may execute a substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 in lieu of an oath or declaration under the permitted circumstances. For information on the execution of a substitute statement, see MPEP § 604.
B. For applications filed before September 16, 2012
The oath or declaration required by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 115 must be signed by all of the actual inventors, except under limited circumstances. 35 U.S.C. 116 provides that joint inventors can sign on
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-99
§ 602.08(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
behalf of an inventor who cannot be reached or refuses to join. See MPEP § 409.03(a). 35 U.S.C. 117 provides that the legal representative of a deceased or incapacitated inventor can sign on behalf of the inventor. If a legal representative executes an oath or declaration on behalf of a deceased inventor, the legal representative must state that the person is a legal representative and provide the citizenship, residence, and mailing address of the legal representative. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.64 and MPEP § 409.01(b). Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 118 provides that a party with proprietary interest in the invention claimed in an application can sign on behalf of the inventor, if the inventor cannot be reached or refuses to join in the filing of the application. See MPEP § 409.03(b) and § 409.03(f). The oath or declaration may not be signed by an attorney on behalf of the inventor, even if the attorney has been given a power of attorney to do so. Opinion of Hon. Edward Bates, 10 Op. Atty. Gen. 137 (1861). See also Staeger v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, 189 USPQ 272 (D.D.C. 1976) and In re Striker, 182 USPQ 507 (PTO Solicitor 1973) (In each case, an oath or declaration signed by the attorney on behalf of the inventor was defective because the attorney did not have a proprietary interest in the invention.).
III. INVENTOR’S NAME
For nonprovisional applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.63 requires the identification of the inventor by his or her legal name. 37 CFR 1.63(a)(1) simplifies the requirement for the inventor’s name to be his or her legal name and no longer refers to a family or given name. The requirement for an inventor’s legal name is sufficient, given that individuals do not always have both a family name and a given name, or have varying understandings of what a “given” name requires.
For nonprovisional applications filed before September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(a)(2) requires that each inventor be identified by full name, including the family name, and at least one given name without abbreviation together with any other given name or initial in the oath or declaration. For example, if the applicant's full name is “John Paul Doe,” either “John P. Doe” or “J. Paul Doe” is acceptable. A situation may arise where an inventor’s
full given name is a singular letter, or is a plurality of singular letters. For example, an inventor’s full given name may be “J. Doe” or “J.P. Doe,” i.e., the “J” and the “P” are not initials. In such a situation, identifying the inventor by his or her family name and the singular letter(s) is acceptable, since that is the inventor’s full given name. In order to avoid an objection under 37 CFR 1.63(a)(2), applicant should point out in the oath or declaration that the singular lettering set forth is the inventor’s given name. A statement to this effect, accompanying the filing of the oath or declaration, will also be acceptable.
A. Correction of Name
In an application where the name is typewritten with a middle name or initial, but the signature does not contain such middle name or initial, the typewritten version of the name will be used as the inventor’s name for the purposes of the application and any patent that may issue from the application. No objection should be made in this instance, since the inventor’s signature may differ from his or her legal name. Effective September 16, 2012, any request to have the name of the inventor or a joint inventor in a nonprovisional application corrected or updated, including correction of a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor’s name, must be by way of a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f). A request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) must include (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name, and (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). Requests under 37 CFR 1.48(f) filed on or after September 16, 2012, are treated by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). If the request complies with 37 CFR 1.48(f), OPAP will correct the Office records and send a corrected filing receipt.
If the error in the inventor’s name is not detected until after the payment of the issue fee, because amendments are not permitted after the payment of the issue fee, either (A) the application must be withdrawn from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2) and a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) to correct the inventor’s name submitted with a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, or (B) a certificate of correction, along with a petition under 37 CFR 1.182, must be filed after the
600-100Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.08(b)
patent issues requesting correction of inventor’s name.
Effective September 16, 2012, any request to correct or change inventorship, or correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, in a provisional application must be made pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48(d). 37 CFR 1.48(d) requires a request signed by a party set forth in 37 CFR 1.33(b), that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name, and the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q). OPAP treats requests under 37 CFR 1.48(d) and will correct the Office records and send a corrected filing receipt if the request complies with 37 CFR 1.48(d).
B. Change of Name
Effective September 16, 2012, when an inventor’s name has been changed after the nonprovisional application has been filed and the inventor desires to change his or her name on the application, he or she must submit a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f), including an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76, that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). The corrected application data sheet must identify the information being changed as required by 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2). The Office of PatentApplication Processing (OPAP) treats requests under 37 CFR 1.48(f) and will correct the Office records and send a corrected filing receipt if the request complies with 37 CFR 1.48(f).Since amendments are not permitted after the payment of the issue fee (37 CFR 1.312), a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) to change the name of the inventor cannot be granted if filed after the payment of the issue fee.
If the application is assigned, applicant should submit a corrected assignment document along with a cover sheet and the recording fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.21(h) to theAssignment Division for a change in the assignment record.
C. Order of Joint Inventor Names
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the order of names of joint patentees in the heading of the patent is taken from the order in which the names appear in the application data sheet
if submitted before or with the inventor’s oath or declaration. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the order of names of joint patentees in the heading of the patent is taken from the order in which the typewritten names appear in the original oath or declaration. Care should therefore be exercised in selecting the preferred order of the typewritten names of the joint inventors, before filing, as requests for subsequent shifting of the names would entail changing numerous records in the Office.
Because the particular order in which the names appear is of no consequence insofar as the legal rights of the joint inventors are concerned, no changes will be made except when a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) (filed on or after September 16, 2012) is granted. It is suggested that all typewritten and signed names appearing in the application papers should be in the same order as the typewritten names in the oath or declaration. The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) treats requests under 37 CFR 1.48(f) and if the request is granted OPAP will change the order of the names in the Office computer records and send a corrected filing receipt. Because a change to the order of names of joint inventors is an amendment to the application and amendments are not permitted after the payment of the issue fee (37 CFR 1.312), a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) to change the order of the names of joint inventors cannot be granted if filed after the payment of the issue fee.
In those instances where the joint inventors file separate oaths or declarations in an application filed before September 16, 2012, the order of names is taken from the order in which the several oaths or declarations appear in the application papers unless a different order is requested at the time of filing or a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) is granted. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the order of inventors is taken from an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 if filed before or with the inventor’s oath or declaration unless a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) is granted. A request under 37 CFR 1.48(f) may be filed on or after September 16, 2012 to change the order of the names of joint inventors in a nonprovisional
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-101
§ 602.08(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
application regardless of the filing date of the application.
602.08(c) Identification of Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.63 requires that an oath or declaration identify the application (e.g., specification and drawings) to which it is directed.
The following combination of information supplied in an oath or declaration filed on the application filing date with a specification are acceptable as minimums for identifying the application and compliance with any one of the items below will be accepted as complying with the identification requirement of 37 CFR 1.63:
(A) name of inventor(s), and reference to an attached specification or application which is both attached to the oath or declaration at the time of execution and submitted with the oath or declaration on filing;
(B) name of inventor(s), and attorney docket number which was on the specification as filed; or
(C) name of inventor(s), and title of the invention which was on the specification as filed.
Filing dates are granted on applications filed without an inventor’s oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63. The following combinations of information supplied in an oath or declaration filed after the filing date of the application are acceptable as minimums for identifying the application and compliance with any one of the items below will be accepted as complying with the identification requirement of 37 CFR 1.63:
(A) application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number, e.g., 08/123,456);
(B) serial number and filing date;
(C) international application number of an international application;
(D) international registration number of an international design application;
(E) attorney docket number which was on the specification as filed;
(F) title of the invention which was on the specification as filed and reference to an attached specification or application which is both attached to the oath or declaration at the time of execution and submitted with the oath or declaration; or
(G) title of the invention which was on the specification as filed and accompanied by a cover letter accurately identifying the application for which it was intended by either the application number (consisting of the series code and the serial number, e.g., 08/123,456), or serial number and filing date. Absent any statement(s) to the contrary, it will be presumed that the application filed in the USPTO is the application which the inventor(s) executed by signing the oath or declaration.
Any specification that is filed attached to an oath or declaration on a date later than the application filing date will not be compared with the specification submitted on filing. Absent any statement(s) to the contrary, the “attached” specification will be presumed to be a copy of the specification and any amendments thereto, which were filed in the USPTO in order to obtain a filing date for the application.
Any variance from the above guidelines will only be considered upon the filing of a petition for waiver of the rules under 37 CFR 1.183 accompanied by a petition fee (37 CFR 1.17(f)).
Further an oath or declaration attached to a cover letter referencing an incorrect application may not become associated with the correct application and, therefore, could result in the abandonment of the correct application.
See MPEP § 1896 for the identification requirements for a declaration filed in a U.S. national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371.
602.09 Joint Inventors [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: Applicable to proceedings commenced on or after September 16, 2012. See 35 U.S.C. 116 (pre-AIA) for the law otherwise applicable.]
35 U.S.C. 116 Inventors.
(a) JOINT INVENTIONS.—When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided
600-102Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 602.08(c)
in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.
(b) OMITTED INVENTOR.—If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself and the omitted inventor. The Director, on proof of the pertinent facts and after such notice to the omitted inventor as he prescribes, may grant a patent to the inventor making the application, subject to the same rights which the omitted inventor would have had if he had been joined. The omitted inventor may subsequently join in the application.
(c) CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN APPLICATION.—Whenever through error a person is named in an application for patent as the inventor, or through an error an inventor is not named in an application, the Director may permit the application to be amended accordingly, under such terms as he prescribes.
35 U.S.C. 116 (pre-AIA) Inventors.
[Editor Note: Not applicable to proceedings commenced on or after September 16, 2012. See 35 U.S.C. 116 for the law otherwise applicable.]
When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.
*****
37 CFR 1.45 Joint inventors.
(b) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though:
(1) They did not physically work together or at the same time;
(2) Each inventor did not make the same type or amount of contribution; or
(3) Each inventor did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the application.
(c) If multiple inventors are named in a nonprovisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter of at least one claim of the application and the application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116. If multiple inventors are named in a provisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter disclosed in the provisional application and the provisional application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116.
*****
Because provisional applications may be filed without claims, 37 CFR 1.45(c) states that each inventor named in a joint provisional application must have made a contribution to the subject matter disclosed in the application.
35 U.S.C. 116 recognizes the realities of modern team research. A research project may include many inventions. Some inventions may have contributions made by individuals who are not involved in other, related inventions.
35 U.S.C. 116 (and 37 CFR 1.45) allows inventors to apply for a patent jointly even though
(A) they did not physically work together or at the same time,
(B) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or
(C) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.
The significant features of 35 U.S.C. 116 are the following:
(A) The joint inventors do not have to separately “sign the application,” but only need apply for the patent jointly and make the required oath or declaration by signing the same.
(B) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though “they did not physically work together or at the same time,” thereby clarifying (a) that it is not necessary that the inventors physically work together on a project, and (b) that one inventor may “take a step at one time, the other an approach at different times.” ( Monsanto Co. v. Kamp, 269 F. Supp. 818, 824, 154 USPQ 259, 262 (D.D.C. 1967)). While 35 U.S.C. 116 does not require joint inventors to physically work together at the same time, see Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., 973 F.2d 911, 916-17, 23 USPQ 2d 1921, 1925-26 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (some quantum of collaboration or connection is required in order for persons to be “joint” inventors under 35 U.S.C. 116, and thus individuals who are completely ignorant of what each other has done until years after their individual independent efforts cannot be considered joint inventors).
(C) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though “each did not make the same type or amount
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-103
§ 602.09PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
of contribution,” thereby clarifying the “fact that each of the inventors play a different role and that the contribution of one may not be as great as that of another does not detract from the fact that the invention is joint, if each makes some original contribution, though partial, to the final solution of the problem.” Monsanto Co. v. Kamp, 269 F. Supp. at 824, 154 USPQ at 262.
(D) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though “each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.”
(E) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly as long as each inventor made a contribution, i.e., was an inventor or joint inventor, of the subject matter of at least one claim of the patent; there is no requirement that all the inventors be joint inventors of the subject matter of any one claim.
(F) If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, restriction may be required with the possible result of a necessity to change the inventorship named in the application if the elected invention was not the invention of all the originally named inventors.
(G) 35 U.S.C. 116 increases the likelihood that different claims of an application or patent may have different dates of invention even though the patent covers only one independent and distinct invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 121. When necessary, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or a court may inquire of the patent applicant or owner the inventorship or ownership of each claimed invention on its effective filing date, or on its date of invention, as applicable. 37 CFR 1.110. Pending nonprovisional applications will be permitted to be amended by complying with 37 CFR 1.48 to add claims to inventions by inventors not named when the application was filed as long as such inventions were disclosed in the application as filed since 37 CFR 1.48 permits correction of inventorship where the correct inventor or inventors are not named in an application for patent.
Applicants are responsible for correcting, and are required to correct, the inventorship in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48 when the application is amended to change the claims so that one (or more) of the named inventors is no longer an inventor of the subject matter of a claim remaining in the application. Requests under 37 CFR 1.48 filed on
or after September 16, 2012 (regardless of the application filing date) are treated by OPAP. If the request is granted, OPAP will correct the Office records and send a corrected filing receipt.
Like other patent applications, jointly filed applications are subject to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 121 that an application be directed to only a single invention. If more than one invention is included in the application, the examiner may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. In such a case, a “divisional” application complying with 35 U.S.C. 120 would be entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the original application. In requiring restriction in an application filed by joint inventors, the examiner should remind applicants of the necessity to correct the inventorship pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48 if an invention is elected and the claims to the invention of one or more inventors are canceled.
The examiner should not inquire of the patent applicant concerning the inventors and the invention dates for the subject matter of the various claims until it becomes necessary to do so in order to properly examine the application. If an application is filed with joint inventors, the examiner should assume that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time the inventions covered therein were made, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
603 Supplemental Oath or Declaration [R-07.2015]
I. APPLICATIONS FILED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
[Editor Note: See subsection II., below, for information regarding supplemental oath or declaration in an application filed before September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.67 Supplemental oath or declaration.
(a) The applicant may submit an inventor's oath or declaration meeting the requirements of § 1.63, § 1.64, or § 1.162 to correct any deficiencies or inaccuracies present in an earlier-filed inventor's oath or declaration. Deficiencies or inaccuracies due to the failure to meet the requirements of § 1.63(b) in an oath or declaration may be corrected with an
600-104Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 603
application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, except that any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to § 1.48.
(b) A supplemental inventor's oath or declaration under this section must be executed by the person whose inventor’s oath or declaration is being withdrawn, replaced, or otherwise corrected.
(c) The Office will not require a person who has executed an oath or declaration in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 115 and § 1.63 or 1.162 for an application to provide an additional inventor's oath or declaration for the application.
(d) No new matter may be introduced into a nonprovisional application after its filing date even if an inventor's oath or declaration is filed to correct deficiencies or inaccuracies present in the earlier-filed inventor's oath or declaration.
37 CFR 1.67 provides for a supplemental inventor’s oath or declaration (which includes oaths, declarations, assignment-statements under 37 CFR 1.63(e), and substitute statements under 37 CFR 1.64) under 35 U.S.C. 115(h).
37 CFR 1.67(a) provides that the applicant may submit an inventor’s oath or declaration meeting the requirements of 37 CFR 1.63, 1.64, or 1.162 to correct any deficiencies or inaccuracies present in an earlier-filed inventor’s oath or declaration. See 35 U.S.C. 115(h)(1). 37 CFR 1.67(a) also provides that deficiencies or inaccuracies due to the failure to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.63(b) in an oath or declaration may be corrected with an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76, except that any correction of inventorship must be pursuant to 37 CFR 1.48. Thus, an error in an inventor’s mailing address may be corrected with an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76. See 37 CFR 1.76(c). Any request to correct or change inventorship in a nonprovisional application must be by way of a request under 37 CFR 1.48(a). Any request to correct or update the name of an inventor in a nonprovisional application must be by way of a request under 37 CFR 1.48(f).
37 CFR 1.67(b) provides that a supplemental inventor’s oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.67 must be executed by the person whose inventor’s oath or declaration is being withdrawn, replaced, or otherwise corrected.
37 CFR 1.67(c) provides that the Office will not require a person who has executed an oath or declaration in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.162 for an application to provide
an additional inventor’s oath or declaration for the application. See 35 U.S.C. 115(h)(2).
37 CFR 1.67(d) contains the provision of former 37 CFR 1.67(b) that no new matter may be introduced into a nonprovisional application after its filing date even if an inventor’s oath or declaration is filed to correct deficiencies or inaccuracies present in the earlier-filed oath or declaration.
II. APPLICATIONS FILED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
[Editor Note: See subsection I., above, for information regarding supplemental oath or declaration in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.67 (pre-AIA) Supplemental oath or declaration.
(a) The Office may require, or inventors and applicants may submit, a supplemental oath or declaration meeting the requirements of § 1.63 or § 1.162 to correct any deficiencies or inaccuracies present in the earlier filed oath or declaration.
(1) Deficiencies or inaccuracies relating to all the inventors or applicants (§§ 1.42, 1.43, or § 1.47) may be corrected with a supplemental oath or declaration signed by all the inventors or applicants.
(2) Deficiencies or inaccuracies relating to fewer than all of the inventor(s) or applicant(s) (§§ 1.42, 1.43 or § 1.47) may be corrected with a supplemental oath or declaration identifying the entire inventive entity but signed only by the inventor(s) or applicant(s) to whom the error or deficiency relates.
(3) Deficiencies or inaccuracies due to the failure to meet the requirements of § 1.63(c) (e.g ., to correct the omission of a mailing address of an inventor) in an oath or declaration may be corrected with an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76.
(4) Submission of a supplemental oath or declaration or an application data sheet (§ 1.76), as opposed to who must sign the supplemental oath or declaration or an application data sheet, is governed by § 1.33(a)(2) and paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) A supplemental oath or declaration meeting the requirements of § 1.63 must be filed when a claim is presented for matter originally shown or described but not substantially embraced in the statement of invention or claims originally presented or when an oath or declaration submitted in accordance with § 1.53(f) after the filing of the specification and any required drawings specifically and improperly refers to an amendment which includes new matter. No new matter may be introduced into a nonprovisional application after its filing date even if a supplemental oath or declaration is filed. In proper situations, the oath or declaration here required may be made on information and belief by an applicant other than the inventor.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-105
§ 603PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(c) [Reserved]
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67 requires in the supplemental oath or declaration substantially all the data called for in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 for the original oath or declaration. As to the purpose to be served by the supplemental oath or declaration, the examiner should bear in mind that it cannot be availed of to introduce new matter into an application.
Deficiencies or inaccuracies in an oath or declaration may be corrected by a supplemental oath or declaration. The supplemental oath or declaration must (1) identify the entire inventive entity, and (2) be signed by all the inventors when the correction relates to all the inventors or applicants (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42, 1.43, or 1.47), or by only those inventor(s) or applicants (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42, 1.43, or 1.47) to whom the corrections relates. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67(a). A deficiency or inaccuracy relating to information required by pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(c) may also be corrected with an application data sheet (pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.67(a)(3)). The following examples illustrate how certain deficiencies or inaccuracies in an oath or declaration may be corrected:
Example 1: An application was filed with a declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 executed by inventors A, B, and C. If it is later determined that the citizenship of inventor C was in error, a supplemental declaration identifying inventors A, B, and C may be signed by inventor C alone correcting C’s citizenship.
Example 2: An application was filed with a declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 executed by inventors A, B, and C. If it is later determined that the duty to disclose clause was omitted, a supplemental declaration identifying inventors A, B, and C must be signed by inventors A, B, and C. If separate declarations had been executed by each of the inventors and the duty to disclose clause had been omitted only in the declaration by inventor B, then only inventor B would need to execute a supplemental declaration identifying the entire inventive entity.
Example 3: An application was filed with a declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 executed
by inventors A, and B, and the legal representative of deceased inventor C. It is later determined that an error was made in the citizenship of deceased inventor C. A supplemental declaration identifying A, B, and C as the inventors would be required to be signed by the legal representative of deceased inventor C alone correcting C’s citizenship.
Example 4: An application was filed with a declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63 executed by inventors A and B. If it is later determined that an error exists in the mailing address of inventor B, the mailing address of inventor B may be corrected by a supplemental declaration identifying the entire inventive entity and signed by inventor B alone, or an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 containing only a change in inventor B’s mailing address.
When an inventor who executed the original declaration is refusing or cannot be found to execute a required supplemental declaration, the requirement for that inventor to sign the supplemental declaration may be suspended or waived in accordance with 37 CFR 1.183. All available joint inventor(s) must sign the supplemental declaration on behalf of themselves, if appropriate, and on behalf of the nonsigning inventor. See MPEP § 409.03(a). If there are no joint inventor(s), then the party with sufficient proprietary interest must sign the supplemental declaration on behalf of the nonsigning inventor. See MPEP § 409.03(b).
603.01 Supplemental Oath or Declaration Filed After Allowance [R-11.2013]
Supplemental oaths and declarations covering the claims in the application may be filed after allowance as a matter of right. When received they will be placed in the file by the Office of Data Management, but their receipt will not be acknowledged to the party filing them. They should not be filed or considered as amendments under 37 CFR 1.312,
600-106Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 603.01
since they make no change in the wording of the papers on file. See MPEP § 714.16.
604 Substitute Statements [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to patent applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.64 Substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration.
(a) An applicant under § 1.43, 1.45 or 1.46 may execute a substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration under § 1.63 if the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, has refused to execute the oath or declaration under § 1.63, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort.
(b) A substitute statement under this section must:
(1) Comply with the requirements of § 1.63(a), identifying the inventor or joint inventor with respect to whom a substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration is executed, and stating upon information and belief the facts which such inventor is required to state;
(2) Identify the person executing the substitute statement and the relationship of such person to the inventor or joint inventor with respect to whom the substitute statement is executed, and unless such information is supplied in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, the residence and mailing address of the person signing the substitute statement;
(3) Identify the circumstances permitting the person to execute the substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration under § 1.63, namely whether the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, cannot be found or reached after a diligent effort was made, or has refused to execute the oath or declaration under § 1.63; and
(4) Unless the following information is supplied in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76, also identify:
(i) Each inventor by his or her legal name; and
(ii) The last known mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and last known residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, for each inventor who is not deceased or under a legal incapacity.
(c) A person may not execute a substitute statement provided for in this section for an application unless that person has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims, and is aware of the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability as defined in § 1.56.
(d) Any reference to an inventor's oath or declaration includes a substitute statement provided for in this section.
(e) A substitute statement under this section must contain an acknowledgment that any willful false statement made in
such statement is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.
(f) A nonsigning inventor or legal representative may subsequently join in the application by submitting an oath or declaration under § 1.63. The submission of an oath or declaration by a nonsigning inventor or legal representative in an application filed under § 1.43, 1.45 or 1.46 will not permit the nonsigning inventor or legal representative to revoke or grant a power of attorney.
37 CFR 1.64 implements the substitute statement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 115(d) and applies to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.
37 CFR 1.64(a) provides that an applicant under 37 CFR 1.43, 1.45 or 1.46 may execute a substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 if the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, has refused to execute the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort. Thus, the following applicant entities may sign a substitute statement on behalf of an inventor when such a statement is permitted in a patent application:
(i) the inventor’s legal representative under 37 CFR 1.43, where the inventor is deceased or legally incapacitated;
(ii) the other joint inventors under 37 CFR 1.45, where the inventor refuses to execute the oath or declaration or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort;
(iii) an applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 who is the assignee or party to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign, where the inventor is deceased, legally incapacitated, refuses to execute the oath or declaration, or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort; or
(iv) an applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 who is a party who otherwise shows a sufficient proprietary interest in the claimed invention under 37 CFR 1.46(b), where the inventor is deceased, legally incapacitated, refuses to sign the declaration or cannot be reached or located after diligent effort.
A non-inventor applicant need not submit proof of the permitted circumstance to file a substitute statement (e.g., inventor’s death certificate to establish that a named inventor is deceased). However, where the permitted circumstance identified in accordance with 37 CFR 1.64(b)(3) is
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-107
§ 604PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
other than the inventor’s death or legal incapacity, the inventor must have refused to execute the oath or declaration, or applicant must have exercised diligent effort to find or reach the inventor. Though proof is not required to be submitted to the Office, proof of attempts to secure the inventor’s signature should be kept in applicant’s file. There is no change to what is considered a good faith attempt to contact an inventor and what constitutes a refusal to sign.
A substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 must: (1) comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.63(a), identifying the inventor or joint inventor with respect to whom a substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration is executed, and stating upon information and belief the facts which such inventor is required to state; (2) identify the person executing the substitute statement and the relationship of such person to the inventor or joint inventor with respect to whom the substitute statement is executed, and unless such information is supplied in an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76, the residence and mailing address of the person signing the substitute statement; and (3) identify the circumstances permitting the person to execute the substitute statement, namely whether the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, cannot be found or reached after a diligent effort was made, or has refused to execute the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. For nonprovisional international design applications, the requirement in 37 CFR 1.64(b)(2) to identify the residence and mailing address of the person signing the substitute statement will be considered satisfied by the presentation of such information in the international design application prior to international registration. See 37 CFR 1.1021(d)(3).
Where an assignee executes a substitute statement, the assignee must supply his/her residence and mailing address. If the assignee is a juristic entity,
the residence and mailing address of the juristic entity should be used. Additionally, if the assignee is a juristic entity, the applicant name and the title of the person executing the substitute statement must be included. In addition, unless such information is supplied in an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76, or in an international design application prior to registration (see 37 CFR 1.1021(d)(3)), the substitute statement must also identify: (1) each inventor by his or her legal name; and (2) the last known mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and last known residence, if an inventor lives at a location which is different from where the inventor customarily receives mail, for each inventor who is not deceased or under a legal incapacity.
A non-inventor applicant is not required to state in the substitute statement that he/she has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims. Nevertheless, it should be noted that a person may not execute a substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 unless that person has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims, and is aware of the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56. See 37 CFR 1.64(c). Any reference to an inventor’s oath or declaration also includes a substitute statement as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64.
A substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 must contain an acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in such statement is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, or both.
A nonsigning inventor may subsequently join in the application by submitting an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63.
600-108Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 604
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-109
§ 604PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-110Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 604
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-111
§ 604PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-112Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 604
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-113
§ 604PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-114Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 604
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-115
§ 604PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-116Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 604
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-117
§ 604PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-118Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 604
605 Applicant [R-11.2013]
Effective September 16, 2012, the Office revised the rules of practice to permit a person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign an invention to file and prosecute an application for patent as the applicant, and to permit a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter to file and prosecute an application for patent as the applicant on behalf of the inventor. See MPEP § 605.01 for information regarding the applicant in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, a person to whom the inventor assigned an invention could file and prosecute an application for patent, but the inventor is considered the applicant. See MPEP § 605.02 for information regarding the applicant in applications filed before September 16, 2012.
605.01 Applicant for Application filed on or after September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 605.02 for information regarding the applicant in applications filed before September 16, 2012.]
The owner or assignee of a patent property can take action in a patent application as the applicant. The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of an application for an original patent, and any patent that may issue therefrom in the absence of an assignment. 37 CFR 3.73. An assignee who is not the original applicant must become the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 in order to request or take action in a patent application. See MPEP § 325.
I. DEFINITION OF APPLICANT
37 CFR 1.42 Applicant for patent.
(a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.
(b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46, the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and not the inventor.
(c) If fewer than all joint inventors are applying for a patent as provided in § 1.45, the phrase "the applicant" means the joint inventors who are applying for the patent without the omitted inventor(s).
(d) Any person having authority may deliver an application and fees to the Office on behalf of the applicant. However, an oath or declaration, or substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration, may be executed only in accordance with § 1.63 or 1.64 , a correspondence address may be provided only in accordance with § 1.33(a), and amendments and other papers must be signed in accordance with § 1.33(b).
(e) The Office may require additional information where there is a question concerning ownership or interest in an application, and a showing may be required from the person filing the application that the filing was authorized where such authorization comes into question.
37 CFR 1.43 Application for patent by a legal representative of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor.
If an inventor is deceased or under legal incapacity, the legal representative of the inventor may make an application for patent on behalf of the inventor. If an inventor dies during the time intervening between the filing of the application and the granting of a patent thereon, the letters patent may be issued to the legal representative upon proper intervention. See § 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by a legal representative in lieu of an oath or declaration.
37 CFR 1.45 Application for patent by joint inventors.
(a) Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly, and each must make an inventor's oath or declaration as required by § 1.63, except as provided for in § 1.64. If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the other joint inventor or inventors may make the application for patent on behalf of themselves and the omitted inventor. See § 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by the other joint inventor or inventors in lieu of an oath or declaration.
(b) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though:
(1) They did not physically work together or at the same time;
(2) Each inventor did not make the same type or amount of contribution; or
(3) Each inventor did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the application.
(c) If multiple inventors are named in a nonprovisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter of at least one claim of the application and the application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116. If multiple inventors are named in a provisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter disclosed in the provisional application and the provisional application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-119
§ 605.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
37 CFR 1.46 Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.
[Editor Note: Applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 363 on or after September 16, 2012. See 37 CFR 1.46 (pre-AIA) for the rule otherwise in effect.]
(a) A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.
(b) If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under paragraph (a) of this section, the application must contain an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter. If an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or a nonprovisional international design application, is applied for by a person other than the inventor under paragraph (a) of this section, the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter must have been identified as the applicant for the United States in the international stage of the international application or as the applicant in the publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3).
(1) If the applicant is the assignee or a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, documentary evidence of ownership ( e.g., assignment for an assignee, employment agreement for a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention) should be recorded as provided for in part 3 of this chapter no later than the date the issue fee is paid in the application.
(2) If the applicant is a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, such applicant must submit a petition including:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g);
(ii) A showing that such person has sufficient proprietary interest in the matter; and
(iii) A statement that making the application for patent by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter on behalf of and as agent for the inventor is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.
(c) Any request to correct or update the name of the applicant after an applicant has been specified under paragraph (b) of this section must include an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying the correct or updated name of the applicant in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)). Any request to change the applicant after an original applicant has been specified under paragraph (b) of this section must include an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying the applicant in
the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) and comply with §§ 3.71 and 3.73 of this title.
(1) Correction or update in the name of the applicant. Any request to correct or update the name of the applicant after an applicant under this section must include an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying the correct or updated name of the applicant in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)). in accordance with § 1.76(c)(2). A change in the name of the applicant recorded pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 16(1)(ii) will be effective to change the name of the applicant in a nonprovisional international design application.
(2) Change in the applicant. Any request to change the applicant under this section after an original applicant has been specified must include an application data sheet under § 1.76 specifying the applicant in the applicant information section (§ 1.76(b)(7)) and comply with §§ 3.71 and 3.73 of this title.
(d) Even if the whole or a part interest in the invention or in the patent to be issued is assigned or obligated to be assigned, an oath or declaration must be executed by the actual inventor or each actual joint inventor, except as provided for in § 1.64. See § 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by an assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.
(e) If a patent is granted on an application filed under this section by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest. Otherwise, the patent may be issued to the assignee or jointly to the inventor and the assignee as provided in § 3.81. Where a real party in interest has filed an application under § 1.46, the applicant shall notify the Office of any change in the real party in interest no later than payment of the issue fee. The Office will treat the absence of such a notice as an indication that there has been no change in the real party in interest.
(f) The Office may publish notice of the filing of the application by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the Official Gazette.
37 CFR 1.42 defines who is the applicant for a patent. The word “applicant” when used in title 37 refers to the inventor or all joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in 37 CFR 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46. If a person is applying for a patent as provided in 37 CFR 1.46, the word “applicant” refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for the patent under 37 CFR 1.46 and not the inventor. If fewer than all joint inventors are applying for the patent as provided in 37 CFR 1.45, the phrase “the applicant” means the joint inventors who are applying for the patent without the omitted inventor(s).
600-120Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 605.01
37 CFR 1.43 provides that if an inventor is deceased or under legal incapacity, the legal representative of the inventor may make an application for patent on behalf of the inventor. See also MPEP § 409.01(a).
37 CFR 1.45 pertains to an application filed by joint inventors. Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly and each joint inventor must make the inventor’s oath or declaration required by 37 CFR 1.63, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.64. See 35 U.S.C. 116(a) and 37 CFR 1.45(a). If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the other joint inventor or inventors may make the application for patent on behalf of themselves and the omitted inventor. See 35 U.S.C. 116(b) and 37 CFR 1.45(a). See also MPEP § 409.02.
37 CFR 1.46 provides for the filing of an application for patent by an assignee, a person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter under 35 U.S.C. 118. If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111 is made by a person other than the inventor under 37 CFR 1.46(a), the application must contain an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying in the applicant information section the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter. While identifying the party making the application for patent (the applicant) in an application data sheet is not a filing date requirement, a delay in naming the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 may cause it to appear that applicant is the inventor and thus requiring the party to file a request under 37 CFR 1.46(c) to become the applicant, which requires compliance with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73. See MPEP § 325. If an assignee is filing an application under 37 CFR 1.46, but the assignee is not the assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the application, then the assignee would need to be named as the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 together with the other party who has an ownership interest. For example, if there are two joint inventors, and one inventor has assigned his rights in the invention to the assignee, but the other inventor has not assigned his rights in the invention and is under no obligation to assign his rights, the assignee and the other inventor should
be identified as the applicant in the applicant information section of the application data sheet. See 37 CFR 3.71.
If the applicant is the assignee or person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, the documentary evidence of ownership (e.g., assignment for an assignee, employment agreement for an obligated assignee) should be recorded as provided for in 37 CFR part 3 no later than the date the issue fee is paid. See 37 CFR 1.46(b)(1).
If the applicant is a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, such applicant must submit a petition including: (1) the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g); (2) a showing that such person has sufficient proprietary interest in the matter; and (3) a statement that making the application for patent by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest on behalf of and as agent for the inventor is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. See 37 CFR 1.46(b)(2). A discussion of the evidence necessary for a showing that a person has sufficient proprietary interest in the matter is set forth in MPEP § 409.05. The Office may publish notice of the filing of the application by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the Official Gazette . See 37 CFR 1.46(f).
Any request to correct or update the name of the applicant after an applicant has been specified under 37 CFR 1.46(b) must include an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the correct or updated name of the applicant in in the applicant information section. See 37 CFR 1.46(c)(1). Thus, if there is no change in the applicant itself but just the applicant’s name (due to a correction or name change), the applicant need only submit an application data sheet specifying the correct or updated name of the applicant in the applicant information section. Any corrected application data sheet must identify the information being changed with underlining for insertions and strike-through or brackets for text removed as required by 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2). A change in the name of the applicant recorded pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 16(1)(ii) will be effective to change the name of the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-121
§ 605.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
applicant in a nonprovisional international design application.
II. CHANGE OF APPLICANT
Where no applicant is identified, the Office will, by default, consider the inventor to be the applicant (e.g., to complete processing of the application so that it can be forwarded for examination). Any request to change the applicant must include an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 specifying the applicant in the applicant information section in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2) and must comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73. See 37 CFR 1.46(c)(2). Thus, if there is a change of applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 (e.g., from the inventor to the assignee, or from one assignee to another assignee), the new applicant must establish its ownership of the application under 37 CFR 3.71(b) and 3.73.
37 CFR 1.46(e) provides that if a patent is granted on an application filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest (e.g., the current assignee for an application that has been assigned). Otherwise, the patent may be issued to the assignee or jointly to the inventor and the assignee as provided in 37 CFR 3.81.
Where a real party in interest has filed an application under 37 CFR 1.46, the applicant shall notify the Office of any change in the real party in interest no later than payment of the issue fee. The Office will treat the absence of such a notice as an indication that there has been no change in the real party in interest. See 35 U.S.C. 118 and 37 CFR 1.46(e). The use of box 3 of the Part B – Fee(s) Transmittal form, PTOL-85B will be required where the real party in interest has changed from filing of the application and the application was filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.46.
605.02 Applicant for Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: See MPEP § 605.01 for information regarding the applicant in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012.]
37 CFR 1.41 (pre-AIA) Applicant for patent.
(a) A patent is applied for in the name or names of the actual inventor or inventors.
(1) The inventorship of a nonprovisional application is that inventorship set forth in the oath or declaration as prescribed by § 1.63, except as provided for in §§ 1.53(d)(4) and 1.63(d). If an oath or declaration as prescribed by § 1.63 is not filed during the pendency of a nonprovisional application, the inventorship is that inventorship set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to § 1.53(b), unless applicant files a paper, including the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), supplying or changing the name or names of the inventor or inventors.
(2) The inventorship of a provisional application is that inventorship set forth in the cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1). If a cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1) is not filed during the pendency of a provisional application, the inventorship is that inventorship set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to § 1.53(c), unless applicant files a paper including the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(q), supplying or changing the name or names of the inventor or inventors.
(3) In a nonprovisional application filed without an oath or declaration as prescribed by § 1.63 or a provisional application filed without a cover sheet as prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1), the name, residence, and citizenship of each person believed to be an actual inventor should be provided when the application papers pursuant to § 1.53(b) or § 1.53(c) are filed.
(4) The inventorship of an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is that inventorship set forth in the international application, which includes any change effected under PCT Rule 92bis. See § 1.497(d) and (f) for filing an oath or declaration naming an inventive entity different from the inventive entity named in the international application, or if a change to the inventive entity has been effected under PCT Rule 92bis subsequent to the execution of any declaration filed under PCT Rule 4.17(iv) (§ 1.48(f)(1) does not apply to an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371).
(b) Unless the contrary is indicated the word “applicant” when used in these sections refers to the inventor or joint inventors who are applying for a patent, or to the person mentioned in §§ 1.42, 1.43 or 1.47 who is applying for a patent in place of the inventor.
(c) Any person authorized by the applicant may physically or electronically deliver an application for patent to the Office on behalf of the inventor or inventors, but an oath or declaration for the application (§ 1.63) can only be made in accordance with § 1.64.
(d) A showing may be required from the person filing the application that the filing was authorized where such authorization comes into question.
37 CFR 1.45 (pre-AIA) Joint inventors.
(a) Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly and each must make the required oath or declaration; neither of them alone, nor less than the entire number, can apply for a patent for an invention invented by them jointly, except as provided in § 1.47.
(b) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though
600-122Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 605.02
(1) They did not physically work together or at the same time,
(2) Each inventor did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or
(3) Each inventor did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the application.
(c) If multiple inventors are named in a nonprovisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter of at least one claim of the application and the application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116. If multiple inventors are named in a provisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter disclosed in the provisional application and the provisional application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116.
Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a) defines the inventorship of a nonprovisional application as that inventorship set forth in the oath or declaration filed to comply with the requirements of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.53(d)(4) and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(d). The oath or declaration may be filed on the filing date of the application or on a later date. If an oath or declaration is not filed during the pendency of a nonprovisional application, the inventorship is that inventorship set forth in the application papers filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(b), unless an applicant files a paper under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a)(1) accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) supplying or changing the name or names of the inventor or inventors.
For correction of inventorship, see MPEP § 602.01(c) et seq.
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, if the application is filed by another, see MPEP § 409.03 et seq.
For assignments of application by inventor, see MPEP § 301.
For applications filed before September 16, 2012 by another on behalf of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor, see MPEP § 409.01(b). For applications filed before September 16, 2012 where
at least one inventor is unavailable, see MPEP § 409.03 et seq.
606 Title of Invention [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.72 Title and abstract.
(a) The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible. Characters that cannot be captured and recorded in the Office’s automated information systems may not be reflected in the Office’s records in such systems or in documents created by the Office. Unless the title is supplied in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), the title of the invention should appear as a heading on the first page of the specification.
*****
The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless it is provided in the application data sheet (see 37 CFR 1.76). The title should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive and should contain fewer than 500 characters. Inasmuch as the words “new,” “improved,” “improvement of,” and “improvement in” are not considered as part of the title of an invention, these words should not be included at the beginning of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues. Similarly, the articles “a,” “an,” and “the” should not be included as the first words of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues.
606.01 Examiner May Require Change in Title [R-07.2015]
Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Form paragraphs 6.11 and 6.11.01 may be used.
¶ 6.11 Title of Invention Is Not Descriptive
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Examiner Note:
If a change in the title of the invention is being suggested by the examiner, follow with form paragraph 6.11.01.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-123
§ 606.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
¶ 6.11.01 Title of Invention, Suggested Change
The following title is suggested: “[1]”
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a). When the Technology Center (TC) technical support staff prepares the application for issue and sees that the title has been changed, the TC technical support staff will make the required change in the Office computer record systems.
607 Filing Fee [R-07.2015]
Patent application filing fees are set in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 41 and the Fee Setting Authority set forth in section 10 of Public Law 112-29, September 16, 2011 (the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act). The fee amounts are available from the USPTO’s website at www.uspto.gov/learning-and- resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule.
I. BASIC FILING, SEARCH, AND EXAMINATION FEES
For nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 8, 2004 (including reissue applications), the following fees are required: basic filing fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(a), (b), (c) or (e); search fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(k), (l), (m), or (n); examination fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(o),(p), (q), or (r) ; application size fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(s), if applicable (see subsection II. below); excess claims fees as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(h), (i), or (j), if applicable (see subsection III. below); and non-electronic filing fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(t), if applicable (see subsection IV. below).
The basic filing, search and examination fees are due on filing of the nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). These fees may be paid on a date later than the filing date of the application provided they are paid within the time period set forth in 37
CFR 1.53(f) and include the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f).
For provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), the basic filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(d) is required. The basic filing fee is due on filing of the provisional application, but may be paid later, if paid within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g) and accompanied by payment of a surcharge as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(g).
For international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, see 37 CFR 1.492 for the required fees. See also MPEP § 1893.01(c). For international design applications under 35 U.S.C. 385, see 37 CFR 1.1031 for the required fees.
See also MPEP § 1415 for reissue application fees.
II. APPLICATION SIZE FEE
The application size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(s) applies to any application (including any provisional applications and any reissue applications) filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 the specification (including claims) and drawings of which, excluding a sequence listing or computer program listing filed in an electronic medium in compliance with the rules (see 37 CFR 1.52(f)), exceed 100 sheets of paper. The application size fee applies for each additional 50 sheets or fraction thereof over 100 sheets of paper. A preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application is part of the original disclosure of the application. See MPEP § 714.01(e), subsection II. Thus, the Office will count the pages of a preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application, including multiple sets of drawings or multiple sets of a specification, e.g., clean and marked-up versions, in determining the application size fee required. Accordingly, the Office does not recommend filing a substitute specification or multiple sets of drawings with the initial filing of the application. The Office will not count the sheets of paper making up any English translation of a non-English language specification if submitted with the application on filing. However, if the originally-filed application papers did not comply with 37 CFR 1.52, any papers filed to comply with 37 CFR 1.52 (if the page count of such papers is larger than the page count of the initial submission)
600-124Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 607
will be counted for the purpose of determining the application size fee due, in place of the originally-filed specification and drawings. Any sequence listing in an electronic medium in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing filed in an electronic medium in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.96, will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s).
For purposes of determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s), for an application the specification (including claims) and drawings of which, excluding any sequence listing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing filed in an electronic medium in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 37 CFR 1.96, are submitted in whole or in part on an electronic medium other than the Office electronic filing system, each three kilobytes of content submitted on an electronic medium shall be counted as a sheet of paper. See 37 CFR 1.52(f)(1).
The paper size equivalent of the specification (including claims) and drawings of an application submitted via the Office electronic filing system will be considered to be seventy five percent of the number of sheets of paper present in the specification (including claims) and drawings of the application when entered into the Office file wrapper after being rendered by the Office electronic filing system for purposes of computing the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s). Any sequence listing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96, submitted via the Office electronic filing system will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s) if the listing is submitted in American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) text as part of an associated file of the application. See 37 CFR 1.52(f)(2). Sequence listings or computer program listings submitted via the Office electronic filing system in Portable Document Format (PDF) as part of the specification or as Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) drawing files would not be excluded when determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s).
III. EXCESS CLAIMS FEES
37 CFR 1.16(h) sets forth the excess claims fee for each independent claim in excess of three. 37 CFR 1.16(i) sets forth the excess claims fee for each claim (whether independent or dependent) in excess of twenty. The excess claims fees specified in 37 CFR 1.16(h) and (i).
also apply to all reissue applications. Under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(2), the claims in the original patent are not taken into account in determining the excess claims fee for a reissue application. The excess claims fees specified in 37 CFR 1.16(h) and (i) are required for each independent claim in excess of three that is presented in a reissue application and for each claim (whether independent or dependent) in excess of twenty that is presented in a reissue application.
Fees for a proper multiple dependent claim are calculated based on the number of claims to which the multiple dependent claim refers, 37 CFR 1.75(c), and a separate fee is required in each application containing a proper multiple dependent claim. See 37 CFR 1.16(j). For an improper multiple dependent claim, the fee charged is that charged for a single dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n) for multiple dependent claims.
For nonprovisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) without claims, if more than three independent claims, more than twenty total claims, or a multiple dependent claim, are presented in the application, the excess claims fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(h), (i), and/or (j) is due when the excess claims are presented in the application.
Upon submission of an amendment (whether entered or not) affecting the claims, payment of fees for those claims in excess of the number previously paid for is required.
Amendments before the first action, or not filed in reply to an Office action, presenting additional claims in excess of the number already paid for, not accompanied by the full additional fee due, will not be entered in whole or in part and applicant will be so advised. Such amendments filed in reply to an Office action will be regarded as not responsive
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-125
§ 607PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
thereto and the practice set forth in MPEP § 714.03 will be followed.
The additional fees, if any, due with an amendment are calculated on the basis of the claims (total and independent) which would be present, if the amendment were entered. The amendment of a claim, unless it changes a dependent claim to an independent claim or adds to the number of claims referred to in a multiple dependent claim, and the replacement of a claim by a claim of the same type, unless it is a multiple dependent claim which refers to more prior claims, do not require any additional fees.
For purposes of determining the fee due the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a claim will be treated as dependent if it contains reference to one or more other claims in the application. A claim determined to be dependent by this test will be entered if the fee paid reflects this determination.
Any claim which is in dependent form but which is so worded that it, in fact, is not a proper dependent claim, as for example it does not include every limitation of the claim on which it depends, will be required to be canceled as not being a proper dependent claim; and cancellation of any further claim depending on such a dependent claim will be similarly required. The applicant may thereupon amend the claims to place them in proper dependent form, or may redraft them as independent claims, upon payment of any necessary additional fee.
After a requirement for restriction, nonelected claims will be included in determining the fees due in connection with a subsequent amendment unless such claims are canceled.
An amendment canceling claims accompanying the papers constituting the application will be effective to diminish the number of claims to be considered in calculating the filing fees to be paid. A preliminary amendment filed concurrently with a response to a Notice To File Missing Parts of Application that required the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.16, which preliminary amendment cancels or adds claims, will be taken into account in determining the appropriate fees due in response to the Notice To File Missing Parts of Application. No refund will be
made for claims being canceled in the response that have already been paid for.
The additional fees, if any, due with an amendment are required prior to any consideration of the amendment by the examiner.
Money paid in connection with the filing of a proposed amendment will not be refunded by reason of the nonentry of the amendment. However, unentered claims will not be counted when calculating the fee due in subsequent amendments.
Amendments affecting the claims cannot serve as the basis for granting any refund. See MPEP § 607.02 subsection V for refund of excess claims fees.
Excess claims fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) and (c)(4) apply to excess claims that are presented during a reexamination proceeding.
IV. NON-ELECTRONIC FILING FEE
Section 10(h) of Public Law 112-29, September 16, 2011 (the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act) provides that an additional fee of $400 ($200 for a small entity) shall be established for each application for an original (i.e., non-reissue) patent, except for a design, plant, or provisional application, not filed by electronic means. See 37 CFR 1.16(t) for the non-electronic fee applicable to applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed on or after November 15, 2011 other than by the USPTO’s electronic filing system (EFS-Web). See 37 CFR 1.445(a)(1)(ii) for the non-electronic filing fee portion of the transmittal fee due in an international application filed with the USPTO as receiving Office on or after November 15, 2011.
V. APPLICANT DOES NOT SPECIFY FEES TO WHICH PAYMENT IS TO BE APPLIED
In situations in which a payment submitted for the fees due on filing in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is insufficient and the applicant has not specified the fees to which the payment is to be applied, the Office will apply the payment in the following order until the payment is expended:
600-126Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 607
(1) the basic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(a), (b), (c), or (e));
(2) the non-electronic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(t));
(3) the application size fee (37 CFR 1.16(s));
(4) the late filing surcharge (37 CFR 1.16(f));
(5) the processing fee for an application filed in a language other than English (37 CFR 1.17(i));
(6) the search fee (37 CFR 1.16(k), (l), (m), or (n));
(7) the examination fee (37 CFR 1.16(o), (p), (q), or (r)); and
(8) the excess claims fee (37 CFR 1.16(h), (i), and (j)).
In situations in which a payment submitted for the fees due on filing in a provisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) is insufficient and the applicant has not specified the fees to which the payment is to be applied, the Office will apply the payment in the following order until the payment is expended:
(1) the basic filing fee (37 CFR 1.16(d));
(2) the application size fee (37 CFR 1.16(s)); and
(3) the late filing surcharge (37 CFR 1.16(g)).
See also MPEP § 509.
Since the basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee under the new patent fee structure are often referred to as the “filing fee,” the Office will treat a deposit account authorization to charge “the filing fee” as an authorization to charge the applicable fees under 37 CFR 1.16 (the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, any excess claims fee, and any application size fee) to the deposit account. The Office will also treat a deposit account authorization to charge “the basic filing fee” as an authorization to charge the applicable basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee to the deposit account. Any deposit account authorization to charge the filing fee but not the search fee or examination fee must specifically limit the authorization by
reference to one or more of paragraphs (a) through (e) of 37 CFR 1.16. See MPEP § 509.01.
607.01 [Reserved]
607.02 Returnability of Fees [R-11.2013]
35 U.S.C. 42 Patent and Trademark Office funding
*****
(d) The Director may refund any fee paid by mistake or any amount paid in excess of that required.
*****
37 CFR 1.26 Refunds.
(a) The Director may refund any fee paid by mistake or in excess of that required. A change of purpose after the payment of a fee, such as when a party desires to withdraw a patent filing for which the fee was paid, including an application, an appeal, or a request for an oral hearing, will not entitle a party to a refund of such fee. The Office will not refund amounts of twenty-five dollars or less unless a refund is specifically requested, and will not notify the payor of such amounts. If a party paying a fee or requesting a refund does not provide the banking information necessary for making refunds by electronic funds transfer (31 U.S.C. 3332 and 31 CFR part 208), or instruct the Office that refunds are to be credited to a deposit account, the Director may require such information, or use the banking information on the payment instrument to make a refund. Any refund of a fee paid by credit card will be by a credit to the credit card account to which the fee was charged.
(b) Any request for refund must be filed within two years from the date the fee was paid, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph or in § 1.28(a). If the Office charges a deposit account by an amount other than an amount specifically indicated in an authorization (§ 1.25(b)), any request for refund based upon such charge must be filed within two years from the date of the deposit account statement indicating such charge, and include a copy of that deposit account statement. The time periods set forth in this paragraph are not extendable.
(c) If the Director decides not to institute a reexamination proceeding in response to a request for reexamination or supplemental examination, fees paid with the request for reexamination or supplemental examination will be refunded or returned in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section. The reexamination requester or the patent owner who requested a supplemental examination proceeding, as appropriate, should indicate the form in which any refund should be made ( e.g., by check, electronic funds transfer, credit to a deposit account). Generally, refunds will be issued in the form that the original payment was provided.
(1) For an ex parte reexamination request, the ex parte reexamination filing fee paid by the reexamination requester, less the fee set forth in § 1.20(c)(7), will be refunded to the requester if the Director decides not to institute an ex parte reexamination proceeding.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-127
§ 607.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(2) For an inter partes reexamination request, a refund of $7,970 will be made to the reexamination requester if the Director decides not to institute an inter partes reexamination proceeding.
(3) For a supplemental examination request, the fee for reexamination ordered as a result of supplemental examination, as set forth in § 1.20(k)(2), will be returned to the patent owner who requested the supplemental examination proceeding if the Director decides not to institute a reexamination proceeding.
Under 35 U.S.C. 42(d) and 37 CFR 1.26, the Office may refund: (1) a fee paid by mistake (e.g., fee paid when no fee is required); or (2) any fee paid in excess of the amount of fee that is required. See Ex parte Grady, 59 USPQ 276, 277 (Comm’r Pat. 1943) (the statutory authorization for the refund of fees under the “by mistake” clause is applicable only to a mistake relating to the fee payment).
When an applicant or patentee takes an action “by mistake” (e.g., files an application or maintains a patent in force “by mistake”), the submission of fees required to take that action (e.g., a filing fee submitted with such application or a maintenance fee submitted for such patent) is not a “fee paid by mistake” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 42(d).
37 CFR 1.26(a) also provides that a change of purpose after the payment of a fee, as when a party desires to withdraw the filing of a patent application for which the fee was paid, will not entitle the party to a refund of such fee.
All questions pertaining to the return of fees are referred to the Refunds Section of the Receipts Division of the Office of Finance. No opinions should be expressed to attorneys or applicants as to whether or not fees are returnable in particular cases. Such questions may also be treated, to the extent appropriate, in decisions on petition decided by various U.S. Patent and Trademark Office officials.
I. MANNER OF MAKING A REFUND
Effective November 7, 2000, 37 CFR 1.26(a) was amended to authorize the Office to obtain the banking information necessary for making refunds by electronic funds transfer, or obtain the deposit account information to make the refund to the deposit account. If a party paying a fee or requesting
a refund does not instruct the refund to be credited to a deposit account, the Office will attempt to make the refund by electronic fund transfer. The Office may (1) use the banking information on a payment instrument (e.g., a personal check) to refund an amount paid by the payment instrument in excess of that required, or (2) in other situations, require the banking information necessary for electronic funds transfer or require instructions to credit a deposit account. If it is not cost effective to require the banking information, the Office may obtain the deposit account information or simply issue any refund by treasury check.
37 CFR 1.26(a) further provides that any refund of a fee paid by credit card will be by a credit to the credit card account to which the fee was charged. The Office will not refund a fee paid by credit card by treasury check, electronic funds transfer, or credit to a deposit account.
II. TIME PERIOD FOR REQUESTING A REFUND
Any request for a refund which is not based upon subsequent entitlement to small entity status (see 37 CFR 1.28(a)) must be filed within the two-year nonextendable time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.26(b).
III. FEES PAID BY DEPOSIT ACCOUNT
The Office treats authorizations to charge a deposit account as being received by the Office on the date of receipt as defined in 37 CFR 1.6 for purposes of refund payments under 37 CFR 1.26 and 37 CFR 1.28. Payment by authorization to charge a deposit account is treated for refund purposes the same as payments by other means (e.g., check or credit card charge authorization). Accordingly, the time period for requesting a refund of any fee paid by a deposit account begins on the date the charge authorization is received in the Office. For refund purposes: where a 37 CFR 1.8 certificate is used, the refund period will begin on the date of actual receipt (not the 37 CFR 1.8 date of mailing); where Priority Mail Express® under 37 CFR 1.10 is used, the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® label will control (not the actual date of receipt by the Office). The use of payment receipt date for refund purposes has no effect on the certificate of mailing practice
600-128Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 607.02
under 37 CFR 1.8 for making a timely reply to an Office action.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Office charges a deposit account by an amount other than an amount specifically indicated on the charge authorization, any request for refund based upon such charge must be filed within two years from the date of the deposit account statement indicating such charge, and must include a copy of that deposit account statement. This provision of 37 CFR 1.26(b) applies, for example, in the following types of situations: (1) a deposit account charged for an extension of time pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3) as a result of there being a prior general authorization in the application; or (2) a deposit account charged for the outstanding balance of a fee as a result of an insufficient fee submitted with an authorization to charge the deposit account for any additional fees that are due. In these situations, the party providing the charge authorization is not in a position to know the exact amount by which the deposit account will be charged until the date of the deposit account statement indicating the amount of the charge. Therefore, the two-year time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.26(b) does not begin until the date of the deposit account statement indicating the amount of the charge.
IV. LATER ESTABLISHMENT OF SMALL ENTITY STATUS
Effective November 7, 2000, 37 CFR 1.28(a) was amended to provide a three-month period (instead of the former two-month period) for requesting a refund based on later establishment of small entity status. As the Office now treats the receipt date of a deposit account charge authorization as the fee payment date (for refund purposes), any request for a refund under 37 CFR 1.28(a) must be made within three months from the date the charge authorization is received in the Office.
V. REFUND OF SEARCH FEE AND EXCESS CLAIMS FEE
The Office may refund the search fee and any excess claims fee paid in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) if applicant files a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) to expressly abandon the application
before an examination has been made of the application. See MPEP § 711.01.
The basic filing fee, non-electronic filing fee, the examination fee, and the application size fee cannot be refunded unless the fee was paid by mistake or in excess of that required.
608 Disclosure [R-11.2013]
To obtain a valid patent, a patent application as filed must contain a full and clear disclosure of the invention in the manner prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent. All amendments and claims must find descriptive basis in the original disclosure. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. Applicant may rely for disclosure upon the specification with original claims and drawings, as filed. See also 37 CFR 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04.
If during the course of examination of a patent application, an examiner notes the use of language that could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality, he or she should object to the use of the language as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.3 which proscribes the presentation of papers which are lacking in decorum and courtesy. The inclusion of such proscribed language in a federal government publication would not be in the public interest. Also, the inclusion in application drawings of any depictions or caricatures that might reasonably be considered offensive to any group should be similarly objected to.
An application should not be classified for publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) and an examiner should not pass the application to issue until such language or drawings have been deleted, or questions relating to the propriety thereof fully resolved.
For design application practice, see MPEP § 1504 et seq.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-129
§ 608PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
See MPEP § 714.25 for information pertaining to amendments and other papers presented in violation of 37 CFR 1.3.
608.01 Specification [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 22 Printing of papers filed.
The Director may require papers filed in the Patent and Trademark Office to be printed, typewritten, or on an electronic medium.
37 CFR 1.71 Detailed description and specification of the invention.
(a) The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
(b) The specification must set forth the precise invention for which a patent is solicited, in such manner as to distinguish it from other inventions and from what is old. It must describe completely a specific embodiment of the process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter or improvement invented, and must explain the mode of operation or principle whenever applicable. The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention must be set forth.
(c) In the case of an improvement, the specification must particularly point out the part or parts of the process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter to which the improvement relates, and the description should be confined to the specific improvement and to such parts as necessarily cooperate with it or as may be necessary to a complete understanding or description of it.
(d) A copyright or mask work notice may be placed in a design or utility patent application adjacent to copyright and mask work material contained therein. The notice may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent application disclosure. For notices in drawings, see § 1.84(s). The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements provided for by law. For example, “©1983 John Doe”(17 U.S.C. 401) and “*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited and, under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work, respectively. Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the authorization language set forth in paragraph (e) of this section is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification.
(e) The authorization shall read as follows:
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or
records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.
(f) The specification must commence on a separate sheet. Each sheet including part of the specification may not include other parts of the application or other information. The claim(s), abstract and sequence listing (if any) should not be included on a sheet including any other part of the application.
(g)(1) The specification may disclose or be amended to disclose the names of the parties to a joint research agreement as defined in § 1.9(e).
(2) An amendment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth § 1.17(i) if not filed within one of the following time periods:
(i) Within three months of the filing date of a national application;
(ii) Within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application;
(iii) Before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits; or
(iv) Before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under § 1.114.
(3) If an amendment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent as issued may not necessarily include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. If the patent as issued does not include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, the patent must be corrected to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323 for the amendment to be effective.
The specification is a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using the same. The specification must be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention pertains to make and use the same. See 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.71. If a newly filed application obviously fails to disclose an invention with the clarity required by 35 U.S.C. 112, revision of the application should be required. See MPEP § 702.01. The written description must not include information that is not related to applicant’s invention, e.g., prospective disclaimers regarding comments made by examiners. If such information is included in the written description, the examiner will object to the specification and require applicant to take appropriate action, e.g., cancel the information. The specification must commence on a separate sheet. Each sheet including part of the
600-130Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01
specification may not include other parts of the application or other information. The claim(s), abstract and sequence listing (if any) should not be included on a sheet including any other part of the application (37 CFR 1.71(f)). That is, the claim(s), abstract and sequence listings (if any) should each begin on a new page since each of these sections (specification, abstract, claims, sequence listings) of the disclosure are separately indexed in the Image File Wrapper (IFW). There should be no overlap on a single page of more than one section of the disclosure.
The specification does not require a date.
Certain cross references to other related applications may be made. References to foreign applications or to applications identified only by the attorney’s docket number should be required to be canceled. U.S. applications identified only by the attorney’s docket number may be amended to properly identify the earlier application(s). See 37 CFR 1.78.
As the specification is never returned to applicant under any circumstances, the applicant should retain an accurate copy thereof. In amending the specification, the attorney or the applicant must comply with 37 CFR 1.121 (see MPEP § 714).
Examiners should not object to the specification and/or claims in patent applications merely because applicants are using British English spellings (e.g., colour) rather than American English spellings. It is not necessary to replace the British English spellings with the equivalent American English spellings in the U.S. patent applications. Note that 37 CFR 1.52(b)(1)(ii) only requires the application to be in the English language. There is no additional requirement that the English must be American English.
Form paragraph 7.29 may be used where the disclosure contains minor informalities.
¶ 7.29 Disclosure Objected to, Minor Informalities
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [1]. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Note:
Use this paragraph to point out minor informalities such as spelling errors, inconsistent terminology, numbering of elements, etc., which should be corrected. See form paragraphs 6.28 to 6.31 for specific informalities.
Form paragraphs 6.29-6.31 should be used where appropriate.
¶ 6.29 Specification, Spacing of Lines
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced on good quality paper are required.
¶ 6.30 Numerous Errors in Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA). Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: [1].
¶ 6.31 Lengthy Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
I. PAPER REQUIREMENTS
37 CFR 1.52 Language, paper, writing, margins, compact disc specifications.
(a) Papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
(1) All papers, other than drawings, that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission, and are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, must be on sheets of paper that are the same size, not permanently bound together, and:
(i) Flexible, strong, smooth, non-shiny, durable, and white;
(ii) Either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches), with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch);
(iii) Written on only one side in portrait orientation;
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-131
§ 608.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(iv) Plainly and legibly written either by a typewriter or machine printer in permanent dark ink or its equivalent; and
(v) Presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition.
(2) All papers that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission and are to become a part of the permanent records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office should have no holes in the sheets as submitted.
(3) The provisions of this paragraph and paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to the pre-printed information on paper forms provided by the Office, or to the copy of the patent submitted on paper in double column format as the specification in a reissue application or request for reexamination.
(4) See § 1.58 for chemical and mathematical formulae and tables, and § 1.84 for drawings.
(5) Papers that are submitted electronically to the Office must be formatted and transmitted in compliance with the Office’s electronic filing system requirements.
(b) The application (specification, including the claims, drawings, and the inventor’s oath or declaration) or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, any amendments to the application or reexamination proceeding, or any corrections to the application, or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
(1) The application or proceeding and any amendments or corrections to the application (including any translation submitted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section) or proceeding, except as provided for in § 1.69 and paragraph (d) of this section, must:
(i) Comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section; and
(ii) Be in the English language or be accompanied by a translation of the application and a translation of any corrections or amendments into the English language together with a statement that the translation is accurate.
(2) The specification (including the abstract and claims) for other than reissue applications and reexamination or supplemental examination proceedings, and any amendments for applications (including reissue applications) and reexamination proceedings to the specification, except as provided for in §§ 1.821 through 1.825, must have:
(i) Lines that are 1 1/2 or double spaced;
(ii) Text written in a nonscript type font ( e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high ( e.g., a font size of 6); and
(iii) Only a single column of text.
(3) The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page (§ 1.75(h)).
(4) The abstract must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page or be submitted as the first page of the patent in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding (§ 1.72(b)).
(5) Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the pages of the specification including claims and abstract must be numbered consecutively, starting with 1, the numbers being centrally located above or preferably below, the text.
(6) Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered usingArabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros ( e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements ( e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered. Paragraph or section headers (titles), whether abutting the left margin or centered on the page, are not considered paragraphs and should not be numbered.
(c) Interlineation, erasure, cancellation, or other alteration of the application papers may be made before or after the signing of the inventor's oath or declaration referring to those application papers, provided that the statements in the inventor's oath or declaration pursuant to § 1.63 remain applicable to those application papers. A substitute specification (§ 1.125) may be required if the application papers do not comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) A nonprovisional or provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111 may be in a language other than English.
(1) Nonprovisional application . If a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is filed in a language other than English, an English language translation of the non-English language application, a statement that the translation is accurate, and the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i) are required. If these items are not filed with the application, applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which they must be filed in order to avoid abandonment.
(2) Provisional application . If a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) is filed in a language other than English, an English language translation of the non-English language provisional application will not be required in the provisional application. See § 1.78(a) for the requirements for claiming the
600-132Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01
benefit of such provisional application in a nonprovisional application.
(e) Electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application, or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
(1) The following documents may be submitted to the Office on a compact disc in compliance with this paragraph:
(i) A computer program listing (see § 1.96);
(ii) A “Sequence Listing” (submitted under § 1.821(c)); or
(iii) Any individual table (see § 1.58) if the table is more than 50 pages in length, or if the total number of pages of all the tables in an application exceeds 100 pages in length, where a table page is a page printed on paper in conformance with paragraph (b) of this section and § 1.58(c).
(2) A compact disc as used in this part means a Compact Disc-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) or a Compact Disc-Recordable (CD-R) in compliance with this paragraph. A CD-ROM is a “read-only” medium on which the data is pressed into the disc so that it cannot be changed or erased. A CD-R is a “write once” medium on which once the data is recorded, it is permanent and cannot be changed or erased.
(3)(i) Each compact disc must conform to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9660 standard, and the contents of each compact disc must be in compliance with the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII).
(ii) Each compact disc must be enclosed in a hard compact disc case within an unsealed padded and protective mailing envelope and accompanied by a transmittal letter on paper in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section. The transmittal letter must list for each compact disc the machine format ( e.g., IBM-PC, Macintosh), the operating system compatibility ( e.g., MS-DOS, MS-Windows, Macintosh, Unix), a list of files contained on the compact disc including their names, sizes in bytes, and dates of creation, plus any other special information that is necessary to identify, maintain, and interpret ( e.g. , tables in landscape orientation should be identified as landscape orientation or be identified when inquired about) the information on the compact disc. Compact discs submitted to the Office will not be returned to the applicant.
(4) Any compact disc must be submitted in duplicate unless it contains only the “Sequence Listing” in computer readable form required by § 1.821(e). The compact disc and duplicate copy must be labeled “Copy 1” and “Copy 2,” respectively. The transmittal letter which accompanies the compact disc must include a statement that the two compact discs are identical. In the event that the two compact discs are not identical, the Office will use the compact disc labeled “Copy 1” for further processing. Any amendment to the information on a compact disc must be by way of a replacement compact disc in compliance with this paragraph containing the substitute information, and must be accompanied by a statement that the replacement compact disc contains no new matter. The compact
disc and copy must be labeled “COPY 1 REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY” (with the month, day and year of creation indicated), and “COPY 2 REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY,” respectively.
(5) The specification must contain an incorporation-by-reference of the material on the compact disc in a separate paragraph (§ 1.77(b)(5)), identifying each compact disc by the names of the files contained on each of the compact discs, their date of creation and their sizes in bytes. The Office may require applicant to amend the specification to include in the paper portion any part of the specification previously submitted on compact disc.
(6) A compact disc must also be labeled with the following information:
(i) The name of each inventor (if known);
(ii) Title of the invention;
(iii) The docket number, or application number if known, used by the person filing the application to identify the application;
(iv) A creation date of the compact disc;
(v) If multiple compact discs are submitted, the label shall indicate their order ( e.g. “1 of X”); and
(vi) An indication that the disc is “Copy 1” or “Copy 2” of the submission. See paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(7) If a file is unreadable on both copies of the disc, the unreadable file will be treated as not having been submitted. A file is unreadable if, for example, it is of a format that does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section, it is corrupted by a computer virus, or it is written onto a defective compact disc.
(f)(1) Any sequence listing in an electronic medium in compliance with §§ 1.52(e) and 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing filed in an electronic medium in compliance with §§ 1.52(e) and 1.96, will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) or § 1.492(j). For purposes of determining the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) or § 1.492(j), for an application the specification and drawings of which, excluding any sequence listing in compliance with § 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing filed in an electronic medium in compliance with §§ 1.52(e) and 1.96, are submitted in whole or in part on an electronic medium other than the Office electronic filing system, each three kilobytes of content submitted on an electronic medium shall be counted as a sheet of paper.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the paper size equivalent of the specification and drawings of an application submitted via the Office electronic filing system will be considered to be seventy-five percent of the number of sheets of paper present in the specification and drawings of the application when entered into the Office file wrapper after being rendered by the Office electronic filing system for purposes of determining the application size fee required by § 1.16(s). Any sequence listing in compliance with § 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing in compliance with § 1.96, submitted via the Office electronic filing system will be excluded when
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-133
§ 608.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
determining the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) if the listing is submitted in ASCII text as part of an associated file.
37 CFR 1.58 Chemical and mathematical formulae and tables.
(a) The specification, including the claims, may contain chemical and mathematical formulae, but shall not contain drawings or flow diagrams. The description portion of the specification may contain tables, but the same tables should not be included in both the drawings and description portion of the specification. Claims may contain tables either if necessary to conform to 35 U.S.C. 112 or if otherwise found to be desirable.
(b) Tables that are submitted in electronic form (§§ 1.96(c) and 1.821(c)) must maintain the spatial relationships ( e.g., alignment of columns and rows) of the table elements when displayed so as to visually preserve the relational information they convey. Chemical and mathematical formulae must be encoded to maintain the proper positioning of their characters when displayed in order to preserve their intended meaning.
(c) Chemical and mathematical formulae and tables must be presented in compliance with § 1.52(a) and (b), except that chemical and mathematical formulae or tables may be placed in a landscape orientation if they cannot be presented satisfactorily in a portrait orientation. Typewritten characters used in such formulae and tables must be chosen from a block (nonscript) type font or lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.422 cm. (0.166 inch) high ( e.g., preferably Arial, Times Roman, or Courier with a font size of 12), but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high ( e.g., a font size of 6). A space at least 0.64 cm. (1/4 inch) high should be provided between complex formulae and tables and the text. Tables should have the lines and columns of data closely spaced to conserve space, consistent with a high degree of legibility.
The pages of the specification including claims and abstract must be numbered consecutively, starting with 1, the numbers being centrally located above or preferably, below, the text. The lines of the specification, and any amendments to the specification, must be 1 1/2 or double spaced. The text must be written in a nonscript type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g., a font size of 6) (37 CFR1.52(b)(2)(ii)). The text may not be written solely in capital letters.
All application papers (specification, including claims, abstract, any drawings, oath or declaration, and other papers), and also papers subsequently filed, must have each page plainly written on only one side of a sheet of paper. The specification must commence on a separate sheet. Each sheet including part of the specification may not include other parts
of the application or other information. The claim(s), abstract and sequence listing (if any) should not be included on a sheet including any other part of the application (37 CFR 1.71(f)). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page and any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material (37 CFR 1.75(h)). The abstract must commence on a separate sheet and any sheet including an abstract or portion of an abstract may not contain any other parts of the application or other material (37 CFR 1.72(b)).
All application papers that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission which are to become a part of the permanent record of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must be on sheets of paper which are the same size (for example, an amendment should not have two different sizes of paper, but the specification can have one size of paper and the drawings a different size) and are either 21.0 cm. by 29.7 cm. (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm. by 27.9 cm. (8 1/2 by 11 inches). See 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84(f). Each sheet, other than the drawings, must include a top margin of at least 2.0 cm. (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 2.0 cm. (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm. (3/4 inch). No holes should be made in the sheets as submitted.
Application papers that are submitted electronically to the Office must be formatted and transmitted in compliance with the Office’s electronic filing system requirements. See 37 CFR 1.52(a)(5). See also MPEP § 502.05 and the EFS-Web Legal Framework (www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/ applying-online/legal-framework-efs-web-06april11) for details regarding correspondence transmitted to the Office using EFS-Web, the Office’s system for the electronic filing of patent correspondence.
Applicants must make every effort to file patent applications, and papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application or a reexamination proceeding, in a form that is clear and reproducible. If the papers are not of the required quality, substitute papers of suitable quality will be required. See 37 CFR 1.125 for filing rewritten papers constituting a substitute specification required
600-134Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01
by the Office. See also MPEP § 608.01(q). All papers which are to become a part of the permanent records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must be legibly written either by a typewriter or mechanical printer in permanent dark ink or its equivalent in portrait orientation on flexible, strong, smooth, nonshiny, durable, and white paper. Typed, mimeographed, xeroprinted, multigraphed or nonsmearing carbon copy forms of reproduction are acceptable. So-called “Easily Erasable” paper having a special coating so that erasures can be made more easily may not provide a “permanent” copy, 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(iv). Since application papers are now maintained in an Image File Wrapper, the type of paper is unlikely to be an issue so long as the Office is able to scan and reproduce the papers that were filed.
Where an application is filed with papers that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.52, the Office of Patent Application Processing will mail a “Notice to File Corrected Application Papers” indicating the deficiency and setting a time period within which the applicant must correct the deficiencies to avoid abandonment. The failure to submit application papers in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52 does not affect the grant of a filing date, and original application papers that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.52 will be retained in the application file as the original disclosure of the invention. The USPTO will not return papers simply because they do not comply with 37 CFR 1.52.
Legibility includes ability to be photocopied and scanned so that suitable reprints can be made and paper can be electronically reproduced by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition. This requires a high contrast, with black lines and a white background. Gray lines and/or a gray background sharply reduce photo reproduction quality.
Some of the patent application papers received by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are copies of the original, ribbon copy. These are acceptable if, in the opinion of the Office, they are legible and permanent.
¶ 6.32.01 Application Papers Must Be Legible
The specification (including the abstract and claims), and any amendments for applications, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825, must have text written plainly and legibly either by a typewriter or machine printer in a nonscript type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g. , a font size of 6) in portrait orientation and presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition; and only a single column of text. See 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b).
The application papers are objected to because [1].
A legible substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) and 1.125 is required.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the part of the specification that is illegible: all of the specification; or certain pages of the specification.
2. Do not use this form paragraph for reissue applications or reexamination proceedings.
II. ALTERATION OF APPLICATION PAPERS
Effective September 16, 2012, 37 CFR 1.52(c) no longer prohibits interlineations and other alterations of the application papers from being made after the signing of the inventor’s oath or declaration. It should be noted that if such interlineations or other alterations are made after the signing of the inventor’s oath or declaration, then the statements in the inventor’s oath or declaration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.63 must remain applicable to the application papers. Otherwise, the inventor may need to execute a new inventor’s oath or declaration. See also MPEP § 602.08(b).
III. CERTIFIED COPIES OF AN APPLICATION-AS-FILED
If an application-as-filed does not meet the sheet size/margin and quality requirements of 37 CFR 1.52 and 1.84(f) and (g), certified copies of such application may be illegible and/or ineffective as priority documents. When an applicant requests that the USPTO provide a certified copy of an application-as-filed and pays the fee set forth in 37
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-135
§ 608.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
CFR 1.19(b)(1), the USPTO will make a copy of the application-as-filed from the records in the IFW database (or the microfilm database). If papers submitted in the application-as-filed are not legible, certified copies of the application as originally filed will not be legible.
The USPTO performs exception processing when scanning application papers that do not comply with the sheet size/margin and quality requirements. If papers submitted in the application-as-filed (including any transmittal letter or cover sheet) do not meet the sheet size requirement of 37 CFR 1.52 and 1.84(f) (e.g., the papers are legal size (8 1/2 by 14 inches)), the USPTO must reduce such papers to be able to image-scan the entire application and record it in the IFW database. In addition, if papers submitted in the application-as-filed do not meet the quality requirements of 37 CFR 1.52 (e.g., the papers are shiny or non-white), the USPTO will attempt to enhance such papers before scanning to make the resulting electronic record in the IFW database more readable. However, if exception processing is required to make the IFW copy, certified copies of the application as originally filed may not be legible.
If application papers are filed that do not meet sheet size/margin and quality requirements, the USPTO will require the applicant to file substitute papers that do comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52 and 1.84(e), (f) and (g). The substitute papers submitted in reply to the above-mentioned requirement will provide the USPTO with an image- and OCR-scannable copy of the application for printing the application as a patent publication or patent. However, the USPTO will not treat application papers submitted after the filing date of an application as the original disclosure of the application for making a certified copy of the application-as-filed or any other purpose. That is, even if an applicant subsequently files substitute application papers that comply with 37 CFR 1.52 and then requests that the USPTO provide a certified copy of an application-as-filed, paying the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(1), the USPTO will still make a copy of the application-as-filed rather than a copy of the subsequently filed substitute papers.
IV. USE OF METRIC SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENTS IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.
The initials S.I. stand for “Le Système International d’ Unités,” the French name for the International System of Units, a modernized metric system adopted in 1960 by the International General Conference of Weights and Measures based on precise unit measurements made possible by modern technology.
V. FILING OF NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE APPLICATIONS
37 CFR 1.52 Language, Paper, Writing, Margins, Compact Disc Specifications.
*****
(d) A nonprovisional or provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111 may be in a language other than English.
(1) Nonprovisional application . If a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is filed in a language other than English, an English language translation of the non-English language application, a statement that the translation is accurate, and the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i) are required. If these items are not filed with the application, applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which they must be filed in order to avoid abandonment.
(2) Provisional application . If a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) is filed in a language other than English, an English language translation of the non-English language provisional application will not be required in the provisional application. See § 1.78(a) for the requirements for claiming the benefit of such provisional application in a nonprovisional application.
*****
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will accord a filing date to an application meeting the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 111(a), or a provisional application in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 111(b), even though some or all of the application papers, including the written description and any claims, is
600-136Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01
in a language other than English and hence does not comply with 37 CFR 1.52.
As provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III, for more information on the filing and treatment of such applications.
If a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is filed in a language other than English, an English translation of the non-English language papers, a statement that the translation is accurate, the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.16, the oath or declaration and fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) should either accompany the nonprovisional application papers or be filed in the Office within the time set by the Office. If a provisional application is filed in a language other than English, an English translation of the non-English language provisional application and a statement that the translation is accurate must be submitted if benefit of the provisional application is claimed in a later-filed nonprovisional application (see 37 CFR 1.78(a)(5)). If the translation and statement were not previously filed in the provisional application, applicant will be notified in the nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application and be given a period of time within which to file the translation and statement in the provisional application. Applicants may file the translation and statement in the provisional application even if the provisional application has become abandoned. A timely reply to such notice must include the filing in the nonprovisional application of either a confirmation that the translation and statement were filed in the provisional application or withdrawal of the benefit claim. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, an amendment or Supplemental Application Data Sheet withdrawing the benefit claim may be filed. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, a corrected application data sheet withdrawing the benefit claim may be filed. Failure to take one of the above actions will result in the abandonment of the nonprovisional application.
A subsequently filed English translation must contain the complete identifying data for the application in order to permit prompt association with the papers initially filed. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that the original application papers be filed via EFS-Web or be accompanied by a cover letter and a self-addressed return postcard, each containing the following identifying data in English: (a) applicant’s name(s); (b) title of invention; (c) number of pages of specification, claims, and sheets of drawings; (d) whether an oath or declaration was filed and (e) amount and manner of paying the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.16.
The translation must be a literal translation and must be accompanied by a statement that the translation is accurate. The translation must also be accompanied by a signed request from the applicant, his or her attorney or agent, asking that the English translation be used as the copy for examination purposes in the Office. If the English translation does not conform to idiomatic English and United States practice, it should be accompanied by a preliminary amendment making the necessary changes without the introduction of new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132. If such an application is published as a patent application publication, the document that is published is the translation. See 37 CFR 1.215(a) and MPEP § 1121 regarding the content of the application publication. In the event that the English translation and the statement are not timely filed in the nonprovisional application, the nonprovisional application will be regarded as abandoned.
It should be recognized that this practice is intended for emergency situations to prevent loss of valuable rights and should not be routinely used for filing applications. There are at least two reasons why this should not be used on a routine basis. First, there are obvious dangers to applicant and the public if he or she fails to obtain a correct literal translation. Second, the filing of a large number of applications under the procedure will create significant administrative burdens on the Office. See also MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III, for information on reference filing, which is also a practice intended for emergency situations to prevent the loss of rights and should not be routinely used for filing applications.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-137
§ 608.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
VI. ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE SPECIFICATION
Graphical illustrations, diagrammatic views, flowcharts, and diagrams in the descriptive portion of the specification do not come within the purview of 37 CFR 1.58(a), which permits tables, chemical and mathematical formulas in the specification in lieu of drawings. The examiner should object to such descriptive illustrations in the specification and request drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.81 when an application contains graphs, drawings, or flow charts in the specification.
The specification, including any claims, may contain chemical formulas and mathematical equations, but the written description portion of the specification must not contain drawings or flow diagrams. A claim may incorporate by reference to a specific figure or table where there is no practical way to define the invention in words. See MPEP § 2173.05(s). The description portion of the specification may contain tables, but the same tables should not be included in both the drawings as a figure and in the description portion of the specification. Claims may contain tables either if necessary to conform to 35 U.S.C. 112 or if otherwise found to be desirable. See MPEP § 2173.05(s). When such a patent is printed, however, the table will not be included as part of the claim, and instead the claim will contain a reference to the table number.
VII. Hyperlinks and Other Forms of Browser-Executable Code in the Specification
Examiners must review patent applications to make certain that hyperlinks and other forms of browser-executable code, especially commercial site URLs, are not included in a patent application. 37 CFR 1.57(e) states that an incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted. Examples of a hyperlink or a browser-executable code are a URL placed between these symbols “< >” and http:// followed by a URL address. When a patent application with embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code issues as a patent (or is published as a patent application publication) and the patent document is placed on the USPTO Web page, when the patent document is retrieved and viewed via a Web browser, the URL is interpreted as a valid HTML
code and it becomes a live web link. When a user clicks on the link with a mouse, the user will be transferred to another Web page identified by the URL, if it exists, which could be a commercial website. USPTO policy does not permit the USPTO to link to any commercial sites since the USPTO exercises no control over the organization, views or accuracy of the information contained on these outside sites.
If hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code are embedded in the text of the patent application, examiners should object to the specification and indicate to applicants that the embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code are impermissible and that references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. This requirement does not apply to electronic documents listed on forms PTO-892 and PTO/SB/08 where the electronic document is identified by reference to a URL.
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into the patent application by reference to a hyperlink and/or other forms of browser-executable code is considered to be an improper incorporation by reference. See 37 CFR 1.57(e) and MPEP § 608.01(p), paragraph I regarding incorporation by reference. Where the hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable codes themselves rather than the contents of the site to which the hyperlinks are directed are part of applicant’s invention and it is necessary to have them included in the patent application in order to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and applicant does not intend to have these hyperlinks be active links, examiners should not object to these hyperlinks. The Office will disable these hyperlinks when preparing the text to be loaded onto the USPTO Web database.
Note that nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence data placed between the symbols “< >” are not considered to be hyperlinks and/or browser-executable code and therefore should not be objected to as being an improper incorporation by reference (see 37 CFR 1.821 – 1.825).
600-138Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01
¶ 7.29.04 Disclosure Objected To, Embedded Hyperlinks or Other Forms of Browser-Executable Code
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner Note:
1. Examples of a hyperlink or a browser-executable code are a URL placed between these symbols “< >” and “http://” followed by a URL address. Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence data placed between the symbols “< >” are not considered to be hyperlinks and/or browser-executable code.
2. If the application attempts to incorporate essential or nonessential subject matter into the patent application by reference to the contents of the site to which a hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code is directed, use form paragraph 6.19 or 6.19.01 instead. See also MPEP § 608.01(p).
3. The requirement to delete an embedded hyperlink or other form of browser-executable code does not apply to electronic documents listed on forms PTO-892 and PTO/SB/08B where the electronic document is identified by reference to a URL.
4. Examiners should not object to hyperlinks where the hyperlinks and/or browser-executable codes themselves (rather than the contents of the site to which the hyperlinks are directed) are necessary to be included in the patent application in order to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and applicant does not intend to have those hyperlinks be active links.
608.01(a) Arrangement of Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.77 Arrangement of application elements.
(a) The elements of the application, if applicable, should appear in the following order:
(1) Utility application transmittal form.
(2) Fee transmittal form.
(3) Application data sheet (see § 1.76).
(4) Specification.
(5) Drawings.
(6) The inventor’s oath or declaration.
(b) The specification should include the following sections in order:
(1) Title of the invention, which may be accompanied by an introductory portion stating the name, citizenship, and residence of the applicant (unless included in the application data sheet).
(2) Cross-reference to related applications.
(3) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.
(4) The names of the parties to a joint research agreement.
(5) Reference to a “Sequence Listing,” a table, or a computer program listing appendix submitted on a compact disc and an incorporation-by-reference of the material on the compact disc (see § 1.52(e)(5)). The total number of compact discs including duplicates and the files on each compact disc shall be specified.
(6) Statement regarding prior disclosures by the inventor or a joint inventor.
(7) Background of the invention.
(8) Brief summary of the invention.
(9) Brief description of the several views of the drawing.
(10) Detailed description of the invention.
(11) A claim or claims.
(12) Abstract of the disclosure.
(13) “Sequence Listing,” if on paper (see §§ 1.821 through 1.825).
(c) The text of the specification sections defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(12) of this section, if applicable, should be preceded by a section heading in uppercase and without underlining or bold type.
For design patent specification, see MPEP § 1503.01.
For plant patent specification, see MPEP § 1605.
For reissue patent specification, see MPEP § 1411.
The order of arrangement of specification elements as set forth in 37 CFR 1.77(b) is preferable (e.g., not required) in framing the nonprovisional specification and each of the items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as section headings. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading. It is recommended that provisional applications follow the same general format, although claims are not required. If an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) is used, data supplied in the application data sheet need not be provided elsewhere in the application except that for applications filed before September 16, 2012, the citizenship of each inventor must be provided in the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 even if this information is provided in the application data sheet.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-139
§ 608.01(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, if there is a discrepancy between the information submitted in an application data sheet and the information submitted elsewhere in the application, the application data sheet will control except for the naming of inventors. The naming of the inventorship is governed by 37 CFR 1.41, and changes to inventorship or the names of inventors is governed by 37 CFR 1.48. In addition, for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the most recent application data sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 will govern with respect to foreign priority claims or domestic benefit claims. See 37 CFR 1.76(d) and MPEP § 601.05(a).
For applications filed before September 16, 2012, if there is a discrepancy between the information submitted in an application data sheet and the information submitted elsewhere in the application, the application data sheet will control except for the naming of the inventors and the citizenship of the inventors. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d) and MPEP § 601.05(b).
Applicant (typically a pro se) may be advised of the proper arrangement by using Form Paragraph 6.01 or 6.02.
¶ 6.01 Arrangement of the Sections of the Specification in a Utility Application
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TOA JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC OR AS A TEXT FILE VIA THE OFFICE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM (EFS-WEB).
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on compact disc or as a text file via the Office electronic filing system (EFS-Web.)
Examiner Note:
For the arrangement of the sections of the specification in a design application, see 37 CFR 1.154(b). Form paragraph 15.05 may be used for a design application. For the arrangement of the sections of the specification in a plant application, see 37 CFR 1.163(c). For the requirements of the specification in a reissue application, see 37 CFR 1.173(a)(1).
¶ 6.02 Content of Specification
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
600-140Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(a)
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TOA JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC OR AS A TEXT FILE VIA THE OFFICE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM (EFS-WEB): The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.52(e) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for EFS-Web posted on the USPTO website ( w w w. u s p t o . g o v / p a t e n t s - a p p l i c a t i o n - p ro c e s s / applying-online/legal-framework-efs-web-06april11) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b)and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g).A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72(b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821-1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421-2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Examiner Note:
In this paragraph an introductory sentence will be necessary. This paragraph is intended primarily for use in pro se applications.
608.01(b) Abstract of the Disclosure [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.72 Title and abstract. *****
(b) A brief abstract of the technical disclosure in the specification must commence on a separate sheet, preferably following the claims, under the heading “Abstract” or “Abstract of the Disclosure.” The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-141
§ 608.01(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will review all applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for compliance with 37 CFR 1.72 and will require an abstract, if one has not been filed. In all other applications which lack an abstract, the examiner in the first Office action should require the submission of an abstract directed to the technical disclosure in the specification. See Form Paragraph 6.12 (below). Applicants may use either “Abstract” or “Abstract of the Disclosure” as a heading.
If the abstract contained in the application does not comply with the guidelines, the examiner should point out the defect to the applicant in the first Office action, or at the earliest point in the prosecution that the defect is noted, and require compliance with the guidelines. Since the abstract of the disclosure has been interpreted to be a part of the specification for the purpose of compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 ( In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678-79, 185 USPQ 152, 154 (CCPA 1975)), it would ordinarily be preferable that the applicant make the necessary changes to the abstract to bring it into compliance with the guidelines. See Form Paragraphs 6.13-6.16 (below).
Replies to such actions requiring either a new abstract or amendment to bring the abstract into compliance with the guidelines should be treated under 37 CFR 1.111(b) practice like any other formal matter. Any submission of a new abstract or amendment to an existing abstract should be carefully reviewed for introduction of new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132, MPEP § 608.04. The abstract will be printed on the patent.
Upon passing the application to issue, the examiner should make certain that the abstract is an adequate and clear statement of the contents of the disclosure and generally in line with the guidelines. If the application is otherwise in condition for allowance except that the abstract does not comply with the guidelines, the examiner generally should make any necessary revisions by a formal examiner’s amendment after obtaining applicant’s authorization
(see MPEP § 1302.04) rather than issuing an Ex parte Quayle action requiring applicant to make the necessary revisions.
I. GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF PATENT ABSTRACTS
A. Background
The Rules of Practice in Patent Cases require that each application for patent include an abstract of the disclosure, 37 CFR 1.72(b).
The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.
B. Content
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure.
If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be included in the abstract.
600-142Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(b)
With regard particularly to chemical patents, for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as the use thereof, e.g., “The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas, useful as oral anti-diabetics.” Exemplification of a species could be illustrative of members of the class. For processes, the type of reaction, reagents and process conditions should be stated, generally illustrated by a single example unless variations are necessary.
C. Language and Format
The abstract must commence on a separate sheet, preferably following the claims, under the heading “Abstract” or “Abstract of the Disclosure.” The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. Form paragraph 6.16.01 (below) may be used if the abstract does not commence on a separate sheet. Note that the abstract for a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 may be found on the front page of the Patent Cooperation Treaty publication (i.e., pamphlet). See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should not exceed 15 lines of text. Abstracts exceeding 15 lines of text or 150 words should be checked to see that they are as concise as the disclosure permits. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract should sufficiently describe the disclosure to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “This disclosure describes,” etc.
D. Responsibility
Preparation of the abstract is the responsibility of the applicant. Background knowledge of the art and an appreciation of the applicant’s contribution to the art are most important in the preparation of the
abstract. The review of the abstract for compliance with these guidelines is the responsibility of the examiner. Any necessary amendment to the abstract at the time of allowance or a printer query must be made either by the applicant or by the examiner with applicant’s approval. See MPEP § 1302.04.
E. Sample Abstracts
(1) A heart valve which has an annular valve body defining an orifice and a plurality of struts forming a pair of cages on opposite sides of the orifice. A spherical closure member is captively held within the cages and is moved by blood flow between open and closed positions in check valve fashion. A slight leak or backflow is provided in the closed position by making the orifice slightly larger than the closure member. Blood flow is maximized in the open position of the valve by providing an inwardly convex contour on the orifice-defining surfaces of the body. An annular rib is formed in a channel around the periphery of the valve body to anchor a suture ring used to secure the valve within a heart.
(2) A method for sealing whereby heat is applied to seal, overlapping closure panels of a folding box made from paperboard having an extremely thin coating of moisture-proofing thermoplastic material on opposite surfaces. Heated air is directed at the surfaces to be bonded, the temperature of the air at the point of impact on the surfaces being above the char point of the board. The duration of application of heat is made so brief, by a corresponding high rate of advance of the boxes through the air stream, that the coating on the reverse side of the panels remains substantially non-tacky. Under such conditions the heat applied to soften the thermoplastic coating is dissipated after completion of the bond by absorption into the board acting as a heat sink without the need for cooling devices.
(3) Amides are produced by reacting an ester of a carbonized acid with an amine, using as catalyst an dioxide of an alkali
metal. The ester is first heated to at least 75°C under a pressure of no more than 500 mm. of mercury to remove moisture and acid gases which would prevent the reaction, and then converted to an amide without heating to initiate the reaction.
F. Form Paragraphs
¶ 6.12 Abstract Missing (Background)
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
Examiner Note:
1. For a pro se applicant, consider following this paragraph with form paragraphs 6.14 to 6.16 as applicable.
2. This form paragraph should not be used during the national stage prosecution of international applications (“371
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-143
§ 608.01(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
applications”) if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21.
¶ 6.13 Abstract Objected To
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because [1]. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, indicate the informalities that require correction such as the inclusion of legal phraseology, undue length, etc.
2. For a pro se applicant, this paragraph should be followed by form paragraphs 6.14 to 6.16 as applicable.
¶ 6.14 Abstract of the Disclosure: Content
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Examiner Note:
See form paragraph 6.16
¶ 6.15 Abstract of the Disclosure: Chemical Cases
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
In chemical patent abstracts for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as its use, e.g., “The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas, useful as oral anti-diabetics.”
Exemplification of a species could be illustrative of members of the class. For processes, the type of reaction, reagents and process conditions should be stated, generally illustrated by a single example unless variations are necessary.
Examiner Note:
See also form paragraphs 6.12 – 6.14 and 6.16.
¶ 6.16 Abstract of the Disclosure: Language
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Examiner Note:
See also form paragraph 6.12 - 6.15.
¶ 6.16.01 Abstract of the Disclosure: Placement
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Examiner Note:
1. 37 CFR 1.72(b) requires that the abstract be set forth on a separate sheet. This requirement applies to amendments to the abstract as well as to the initial filing of the application.
2. This form paragraph should not be used during the national stage prosecution of international applications (“371 applications”) if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21.
608.01(c) Background of the Invention [R-07.2015]
The Background of the Invention may (but is not required to) include the following parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions. The statement
600-144Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(c)
should be directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention.
(2) Description of the related art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A paragraph(s) describing to the extent practical the state of the prior art or other information disclosed known to the applicant, including references to specific prior art or other information where appropriate. Where applicable, the problems involved in the prior art or other information disclosed which are solved by the applicant’s invention should be indicated. See also MPEP § 608.01(a), § 608.01(p) and § 707.05(b).
608.01(d) Brief Summary of Invention [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.73 Summary of the invention.
A brief summary of the invention indicating its nature and substance, which may include a statement of the object of the invention, should precede the detailed description. Such summary should, when set forth, be commensurate with the invention as claimed and any object recited should be that of the invention as claimed.
Since the purpose of the brief summary of invention is to apprise the public, and more especially those interested in the particular art to which the invention relates, of the nature of the invention, the summary should be directed to the specific invention being claimed, in contradistinction to mere generalities which would be equally applicable to numerous preceding patents. That is, the subject matter of the invention should be described in one or more clear, concise sentences or paragraphs.
The brief summary, if properly written to set out the exact nature, operation, and purpose of the invention, will be of material assistance in aiding ready understanding of the patent in future searches. The brief summary should be more than a mere statement of the objects of the invention, which statement is also permissible under 37 CFR 1.73.
The brief summary of invention should be consistent with the subject matter of the claims. Note final
review of application and preparation for issue, MPEP § 1302.
608.01(e) Reservation Clauses Not Permitted [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.79 Reservation clauses not permitted.
A reservation for a future application of subject matter disclosed but not claimed in a pending application will not be permitted in the pending application, but an application disclosing unclaimed subject matter may contain a reference to a later filed application of the same applicant or owned by a common assignee disclosing and claiming that subject matter.
608.01(f) Brief Description of Drawings [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.74 Reference to drawings.
When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures, and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter).
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will review the specification, including the brief description, to determine whether all of the figures of drawings described in the specification are present. If the specification describes a figure which is not present in the drawings or lacks any drawings if the application, other than a design application, is filed on or after December 18, 2013, the application will be treated as an application filed without all figures of drawings in accordance with MPEP § 601.01(g). If the application is filed prior to December 18, 2013 or is a design application and lacks any drawings, the application will be treated as an application filed without drawings in accordance with MPEP § 601.01(f).
The examiner should see to it that the figures are correctly described in the brief description of the drawing, that all section lines used are referred to, and that all needed section lines are used. If the drawings show Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C and the brief description of the drawings refers only to Figure 1, the examiner should object to the brief description, and require applicant to provide a brief description of Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-145
§ 608.01(f)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
The specification must contain or be amended to contain proper reference to the existence of drawings executed in color as required by 37 CFR 1.84.
37 CFR 1.84 Standards for drawings.
(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications.
(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or
(2) Color. Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and the specification must contain the reference required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. On rare occasions, color drawings may be necessary as the only practical medium by which to disclose the subject matter sought to be patented in a utility patent application. The color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color drawings are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13). The Office will accept color drawings in utility patent applications only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h);
(ii) One (1) set of color drawings if submitted via the Office electronic filing system, or three (3) sets of color drawings if not submitted via the Office electronic filing system; and
(iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
(b) Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots ( e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits
of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
(2) Color photographs. Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.
*****
(y) Types of drawings . See § 1.152 for design drawings, § 1.1026 for international design reproductions, § 1.165 for plant drawings, and § 1.173(a)(2) for reissue drawings.
608.01(g) Detailed Description of Invention [R-11.2013]
A detailed description of the invention and drawings follows the general statement of invention and brief description of the drawings. This detailed description, required by 37 CFR 1.71, MPEP § 608.01, must be in such particularity as to enable any person skilled in the pertinent art or science to make and use the invention without involving extensive experimentation. An applicant is ordinarily permitted to use his or her own terminology, as long as it can be understood. Necessary grammatical corrections, however, should be required by the examiner, but it must be remembered that an examination is not made for the purpose of securing grammatical perfection.
The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.
The description is a dictionary for the claims and should provide clear support or antecedent basis for all terms used in the claims. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i), § 608.01(o), and § 1302.01, and § 2111.01.
600-146Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(g)
For completeness of the specification, see MPEP § 608.01(p).
608.01(h) Mode of Operation of Invention [R-11.2013]
The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his or her invention must be set forth in the description. See 35 U.S.C. 112. There is no statutory requirement for the disclosure of a specific example. A patent specification is not intended nor required to be a production specification. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d
1524, 1536, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 135 USPQ 311 (CCPA
1962). The absence of a specific working example is not necessarily evidence that the best mode has not been disclosed, nor is the presence of one evidence that it has. In re Honn, 364 F.2d 454, 150 USPQ 652 (CCPA 1966). In determining the adequacy of a best mode disclosure, only evidence of concealment (accidental or intentional) is to be considered. That evidence must tend to show that the quality of an applicant’s best mode disclosure is so poor as to effectively result in concealment. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d
1524, 1536, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Sherwood, 613 F.2d 809, 204 USPQ 537
(CCPA 1980).
The question of whether an inventor has or has not disclosed what he or she feels is his or her best mode is a question separate and distinct from the question of sufficiency of the disclosure. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1532, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228, 181 USPQ 31 (CCPA 1974); In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 135 USPQ 311 (CCPA 1962). See 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.71(b).
If the best mode contemplated by the inventor at the time of filing the application is not disclosed, such defect cannot be cured by submitting an amendment seeking to put into the specification something required to be there when the application was originally filed. In re Hay, 534 F.2d 917, 189 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1976). Any proposed amendment of this type should be treated as new matter.
For completeness, see MPEP § 608.01(p). For a discussion of the best mode requirement see MPEP § 2165 to § 2165.04.
608.01(i) Claims [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.75 Claims.
(a) The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.
(b) More than one claim may be presented provided they differ substantially from each other and are not unduly multiplied.
(c) One or more claims may be presented in dependent form, referring back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application. Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim (“multiple dependent claim”) shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes under § 1.16, a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein. For fee calculation purposes also, any claim depending from a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made in that multiple dependent claim. In addition to the other filing fees, any original application which is filed with, or is amended to include, multiple dependent claims must have paid therein the fee set forth in § 1.16(j). Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of each of the particular claims in relation to which it is being considered.
(d)(1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description (See § 1.58(a).)
(2) See §§ 1.141 to 1.146 as to claiming different inventions in one application.
(e) Where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement, any independent claim should contain in the following order:
(1) A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,
(2) A phrase such as “wherein the improvement comprises,” and
(3) Those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.
(f) If there are several claims, they shall be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-147
§ 608.01(i)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(g) The least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.
(h) The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material.
(i) Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
For numbering of claims, see MPEP § 608.01(j).
For form of claims, see MPEP § 608.01(m).
For dependent claims, see MPEP § 608.01(n).
For examination of claims, see MPEP § 706.
For claims in excess of fee, see MPEP § 714.10.
608.01(j) Numbering of Claims [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.126 Numbering of claims.
The original numbering of the claims must be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When claims are added, they must be numbered by the applicant consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claim previously presented (whether entered or not). When the application is ready for allowance, the examiner, if necessary, will renumber the claims consecutively in the order in which they appear or in such order as may have been requested by applicant.
In a single claim case, the claim is not numbered.
Form paragraph 6.17 may be used to notify applicant.
¶ 6.17 Numbering of Claims, 37 CFR 1.126
The numbering of claims is not accordance with 37 CFR 1.126, which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim [1] been renumbered [2].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert appropriate claim number(s) and --has-- or -- have --.
2. In bracket 2, insert correct claim number(s) and --, respectively -- if more than one claim is involved.
608.01(k) Statutory Requirement of Claims [R-08.2012]
35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the applicant shall particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which he or she regards as his or her invention. The portion of the application in which he or she does this forms the claim or claims. This is an important part of the application, as it is the definition of that for which protection is granted.
608.01(l) Claims Present on the Application Filing Date [R-07.2015]
In establishing a disclosure, applicant may rely not only on the description and drawing as filed but also on the claims present on the filing date of the application if their content justifies it.
Where subject matter not shown in the drawing or described in the description is claimed in the application as filed, and such claim itself constitutes a clear disclosure of this subject matter, then the claim should be treated on its merits, and requirement made to amend the drawing and description to show this subject matter. The claim should not be objected to or rejected because this subject matter is lacking in the drawing and description. It is the drawing and description that are defective, not the claim.
It is, of course, to be understood that this disclosure in the claim must be sufficiently specific and detailed to support the necessary amendment of the drawing and description.
608.01(m) Form of Claims [R-07.2015]
The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other
600-148Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(j)
material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with “I (or we) claim,” “The invention claimed is” (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).
There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. In general, the printed patent copies will follow the format used but printing difficulties or expense may prevent the duplication of unduly complex claim formats.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. The use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims.
Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept.
Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. Where separate species are claimed, the claims of like species should be grouped together where possible. Similarly, product and process claims should be separately grouped. Such arrangements are for the purpose of facilitating classification and examination.
The form of claim required in 37 CFR 1.75(e) is particularly adapted for the description of improvement-type inventions. It is to be considered a combination claim. The preamble of this form of claim is considered to positively and clearly include all the elements or steps recited therein as a part of the claimed combination.
The following form paragraphs may be used to object to the form of the claims.
¶ 6.18.01 Claims: Placement
The claims in this application do not commence on a separate sheet or electronic page in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(3) and 1.75(h). Appropriate correction is required in response to this action.
¶ 7.29.01 Claims Objected to, Minor Informalities
Claim[1] objected to because of the following informalities: [2]. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to point out minor informalities such as spelling errors, inconsistent terminology, etc., which should be corrected.
2. If the informalities render the claim(s) indefinite, use form paragraph 7.34.01 instead to reject the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph.
¶ 7.29.02 Claims Objected to, Reference Characters Not Enclosed Within Parentheses
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner Note:
1. If the lack of parentheses renders the claim(s) indefinite, use form paragraph 7.34.01 instead to reject the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , second paragraph.
¶ 7.29.03 Claims Objected to, Spacing of Lines
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-149
§ 608.01(m)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
Amendments to the claims must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c).
608.01(n) Dependent Claims [R-07.2015]
I. MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIMS
35 U.S.C. 112 Specification.
*****
(e) REFERENCE IN MULTIPLE DEPENDENT FORM. — A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.
*****
37 CFR 1.75 Claim(s). *****
(c) One or more claims may be presented in dependent form, referring back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application. Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim (“multiple dependent claim”) shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes under § 1.16, a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein. For fee calculation purposes also, any claim depending from a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made in that multiple dependent claim. In addition to the other filing fees, any original application which is filed with, or is amended to include, multiple dependent claims must have paid therein the fee set forth in § 1.16(j). Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of each of the particular claims in relation to which it is being considered.
*****
Generally, a multiple dependent claim is a dependent claim which refers back in the alternative to more than one preceding independent or dependent claim.
35 U.S.C. 112(e), authorizes multiple dependent claims in applications as long as they are in the alternative form (e.g., “A machine according to claims 3 or 4, further comprising ---”). Cumulative claiming (e.g., “A machine according to claims 3 and 4, further comprising ---”) is not permitted. A multiple dependent claim may refer in the alternative
to only one set of claims. A claim such as “A device as in claims 1, 2, 3, or 4, made by a process of claims 5, 6, 7, or 8” is improper. 35 U.S.C. 112 allows reference to only a particular claim. Furthermore, a multiple dependent claim may not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly. These limitations help to avoid undue confusion in determining how many prior claims are actually referred to in a multiple dependent claim.
A multiple dependent claim which depends from another multiple dependent claim should be objected to by using form paragraph 7.45.
¶ 7.45 Improper Multiple Dependent Claims
Claim [1] objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim [2]. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim [3] not been further treated on the merits.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert --should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim--.
2. Use this paragraph rather than 35 U.S.C. 112(e) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), fifth paragraph.
3. In bracket 3, insert --has-- or --s have--.
Assume each claim example given below is from a different application.
A. Acceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording
Claim 5. A gadget according to claims 3 or 4, further comprising ---
Claim 5. A gadget as in any one of the preceding claims, in which ---
Claim 5. A gadget as in any one of claims 1, 2, and 3, in which ---
Claim 3. A gadget as in either claim 1 or claim 2, further comprising ---
Claim 4. A gadget as in claim 2 or 3, further comprising ---
600-150Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(n)
Claim 16. A gadget as in claims 1, 7, 12, or 15, further comprising ---
Claim 5. A gadget as in any of the preceding claims, in which ---
Claim 8. A gadget as in one of claims 4-7, in which ---
Claim 5. A gadget as in any preceding claim, in which ---
Claim 10. A gadget as in any of claims 1-3 or 7-9, in which ---
Claim 11. A gadget as in any one of claims 1, 2, or 7-10 inclusive, in which ---
B. Unacceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording
1. Claim Does Not Refer Back in the Alternative Only
Claim 5. A gadget according to claim 3 and 4, further comprising ---
Claim 9. A gadget according to claims 1-3, in which ---
Claim 9. A gadget as in claims 1 or 2 and 7 or 8, which ---
Claim 6. A gadget as in the preceding claims in which ---
Claim 6. A gadget as in claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and/or 5, in which ---
Claim 10. A gadget as in claims 1-3 or 7-9, in which ---
2. Claim Does Not Refer to a Preceding Claim
Claim 3. A gadget as in any of the following claims, in which ---
Claim 5. A gadget as in either claim 6 or claim 8, in which ---
3. Reference to Two Sets of Claims to Different Features
Claim 9. A gadget as in claim 1 or 4 made by the process of claims 5, 6, 7, or 8, in which ---
4. Reference Back to Another Multiple Dependent Claim
Claim 8. A gadget as in claim 5 (claim 5 is a multiple dependent claim) or claim 7, in which ---
35 U.S.C. 112 indicates that the limitations or elements of each claim incorporated by reference into a multiple dependent claim must be considered separately. Thus, a multiple dependent claim, as such, does not contain all the limitations of all the alternative claims to which it refers, but rather contains in any one embodiment only those limitations of the particular claim referred to for the embodiment under consideration. Hence, a multiple dependent claim must be considered in the same manner as a plurality of single dependent claims.
C. Restriction Practice
For restriction purposes, each embodiment of a multiple dependent claim is considered in the same manner as a single dependent claim. Therefore, restriction may be required between the embodiments of a multiple dependent claim. Also, some embodiments of a multiple dependent claim may be held withdrawn while other embodiments are considered on their merits.
D. Handling of Multiple Dependent Claims by the Office of Patent Application Processing
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) is responsible for verifying whether multiple dependent claims filed with the application are in proper alternative form, that they depend only upon prior independent or single dependent claims and also for calculating the amount of the filing fee. Form PTO/SB/07 has been designed to be used in conjunction with the current fee calculation form PTO/SB/06.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-151
§ 608.01(n)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
E. Handling of Multiple Dependent Claims by the Technology Center Technical Support Staff
The Technology Center (TC) technical support staff is responsible for verifying compliance with the statute and rules of multiple dependent claims added by amendment and for calculating the amount of any additional fees required. This calculation should be performed on form PTO/SB/07.
There is no need for a TC technical support staff to check the accuracy of the initial filing fee since this has already been verified by the Office of Patent Application Processing.
If a multiple dependent claim (or claims) is added in an amendment without the proper fee, either by adding references to prior claims or by adding a new multiple dependent claim, the amendment should not be entered until the fee has been received. In view of the requirements for multiple dependent claims, no amendment containing new claims or changing the dependency of claims should be entered before checking whether the paid fees cover the costs of the amended claims. The applicant, or his or her attorney or agent, should be contacted to pay the additional fee. Where a letter is written in an insufficient fee situation, a copy of the multiple dependent claim fee calculation, form PTO/SB/07 should be included for applicant’s information.
Where the TC technical support staff notes that the reference to the prior claims is improper in an added or amended multiple dependent claim, a notation should be made in the left margin next to the claim itself and the number 1, which is inserted in the “Dep. Claim” column of that amendment on form PTO/SB/07 should be circled in order to call this matter to the examiner’s attention.
F. Handling of Multiple Dependent Claims by the Examiner
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c), a claim in dependent form must refer only to a claim or claims previously set forth. The following procedures are to be followed by examiners when faced with claims which refer to numerically succeeding claims:
If any series of dependent claims contains a claim with an improper reference to a numerically following claim which cannot be understood, the claim referring to a following claim should normally be objected to and not treated on the merits.
However, in situations where a claim refers to a numerically following claim and the dependency is clear, both as presented and as it will be renumbered at issue, all claims should be examined on the merits and no objection as to form need be made. In such cases, an examiner’s amendment should be prepared if the order of the claims is changed. (See Example B, below.)
Any unusual problems should be brought to the supervisor’s attention.
Example A
(Claims 4 and 6 should be objected to as not being understood and should not be treated on the merits.)
1. Independent
2. Dependent on claim 5
3. Dependent on claim 2
4. “. . . as in any preceding claim”
5. Independent
6. Dependent on claim 4
Example B
Note: Parenthetical numerals represent the claim numbering for issue should all claims be allowed.
(All claims should be examined.)
1. (1) Independent
2. (5) Dependent on claim 5 (4)
3. (2) Dependent on claim 1 (1)
4. (3) Dependent on claim 3 (2)
5. (4) Dependent on either claim 1 (1) or claim 3 (2)
600-152Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(n)
The following practice is followed by patent examiners when making reference to a dependent claim either singular or multiple:
(A) When identifying a singular dependent claim which does not include a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, reference should be made only to the number of the dependent claim.
(B) When identifying the embodiments included within a multiple dependent claim, or a singular dependent claim which includes a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, each embodiment should be identified by using the number of the claims involved, starting with the highest, to the extent necessary to specifically identify each embodiment.
(C) When all embodiments included within a multiple dependent claim or a singular dependent claim which includes a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, are subject to a common rejection, objection, or requirement, reference may be made only to the number of the dependent claim.
The following table illustrates the current practice where each embodiment of each claim must be treated on an individual basis:
Approved practice
Identification All claims
Claim dependency
Claim No.
11Independent1 22/1Depends from 12 33/2/1Depends from 23 4/2 4/34/2/1 4/3/2/1Depends from 2
or 3 4
55/3/2/1Depends from 35 6/2 6/3 6/56/2/1 6/3/2/1
6/5/3/2/1 Depends from 2, 3, or 5
6
7/6/2 7/6/3 7/6/5
7/6/2/1 7/6/3/2/1 7/6/5/3/2/1
Depends from 67
When all embodiments in a multiple dependent claim situation (claims 4, 6, and 7 above) are subject to a common rejection, objection, or requirements, reference may be made to the number of the individual dependent claim only. For example, if 4/2 and 4/3 were subject to a common ground of
rejection, reference should be made only to claim 4 in the statement of that rejection.
The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 132 require that each Office action make it explicitly clear what rejection, objection and/or requirement is applied to each claim embodiment.
G. Fees for Multiple Dependent Claims
1. Use of Form PTO/SB/07
To assist in the computation of the fees for multiple dependent claims, a separate “Multiple Dependent Claim Fee Calculation Sheet,” form PTO/SB/07 has been designed for use with the current “Patent Application Fee Determination Record,” form PTO/SB/06. Form PTO/SB/07 will be placed in the application file by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) where multiple dependent claims are in the application as filed or submitted in response to an OPAP notice requiring claims. If multiple dependent claims are not included upon filing or submitted in response to an OPAP notice requiring claims, but are later added by amendment, the TC technical support staff will place the form in the application file. If there are multiple dependent claims in the application, the total number of independent and dependent claims for fee purposes will be calculated on form PTO/SB/07 and the total number of claims and number of independent claims is then placed on form PTO/SB/06 for final fee calculation purposes.
2. Calculation of Fees
(a) Proper Multiple Dependent Claim
35 U.S.C. 41(a), provides that claims in proper multiple dependent form may not be considered as single dependent claims for the purpose of calculating fees. Thus, a multiple dependent claim is considered to be that number of dependent claims to which it refers. Any proper claim depending directly or indirectly from a multiple dependent claim is also considered as the number of dependent claims as referred to in the multiple dependent claim from which it depends.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-153
§ 608.01(n)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(b) Improper Multiple Dependent Claim
If none of the multiple dependent claims is proper, the multiple dependent claim fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(j) will not be required. However, the multiple dependent claim fee is required if at least one multiple dependent claim is proper.
If any multiple dependent claim is improper, OPAP may indicate that fact by placing an encircled numeral “1” in the “Dep. Claims” column of form
PTO/SB/07. The fee for any improper multiple dependent claim, whether it is defective for either not being in the alternative form or for being directly or indirectly dependent on a prior multiple dependent claim, will only be one, since only an objection to the form of such a claim will normally be made. This procedure also greatly simplifies the calculation of fees. Any claim depending from an improper multiple dependent claim will also be considered to be improper and be counted as one dependent claim.
(c) Fee calculation example
i) Comments On Fee Calculation Example
Claim 1 — This is an independent claim; therefore, a numeral “1” is placed opposite claim number 1 in the “Ind.” column.
Claim 2 — Since this is a claim dependent on a single independent claim, a numeral “1” is placed opposite claim number 2 of the “Dep.” column.
Claim 3 — Claim 3 is also a single dependent claim, so a numeral “1” is placed in the “Dep.” column.
Claim 4 — Claim 4 is a proper multiple dependent claim. It refers directly to two claims in the alternative, namely, claim 2 or 3. Therefore, a numeral “2” to indicate direct reference to two claims is placed in the “Dep.” column opposite claim number 4.
Claim 5 — This claim is a singularly dependent claim depending from a multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes, such a claim is counted as being that number of claims to which direct reference is made in the multiple dependent claim from which it depends. In this case, the multiple dependent claim number 4 it depends from counts as 2 claims; therefore, claim 5 also counts as 2 claims. Accordingly, a numeral “2” is placed opposite claim number 5 in the “Dep.” column.
Claim 6 — Claim 6 depends indirectly from a multiple dependent claim 4. Since claim 4 counts as 2 claims, claim 6 also counts as 2 dependent claims. Consequently, a numeral “2” is placed in the “Dep.” column after claim 6.
Claim 7 — This claim is a multiple dependent claim since it refers to claims 4, 5, or 6. However, as can be seen by looking at the “2” in the “Dep.” column
600-154Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(n)
opposite claim 4, claim 7 depends from a multiple dependent claim. This practice is improper under 35 U.S.C.112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c). Following the procedure for calculating fees for improper multiple dependent claims, a numeral “1” is placed in the “Dep.” column with a circle drawn around it to alert the examiner that the claim is improper.
Claim 8 — Claim 8 is improper since it depends from an improper claim. If the base claim is in error, this error cannot be corrected by adding additional claims depending therefrom. Therefore, a numeral “1” with a circle around it is placed in the “Dep.” column.
Claim 9 — Here again we have an independent claim which is always indicated with a numeral “1” in the “Ind.” column opposite the claim number.
Claim 10 — This claim refers to two independent claims in the alternative. A numeral “2” is, therefore, placed in the “Dep.” column opposite claim 10.
Claim 11 — Claim 11 is a dependent claim which refers to two claims in the conjunctive (“1” and “9”) rather than in the alternative (“1” or “9”). This form is improper under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c). Accordingly, since claim 11 is improper, an encircled number “1” is placed in the “Dep.” column opposite Claim 11.
ii) Calculation of Fee in Fee Example
After the number of “Ind.” and “Dep.” claims are noted on form PTO/SB/07, each column is added. In this example, there are 2 independent claims and 13 dependent claims or a total of 15 claims. The number of independent and total claims can then be placed on form PTO/SB/06 and the fee calculated.
II. TREATMENT OF IMPROPER DEPENDENT CLAIMS
The initial determination, for fee purposes, as to whether a claim is dependent must be made by persons other than examiners; it is necessary, at that time, to accept as dependent virtually every claim which refers to another claim, without determining whether there is actually a true dependent relationship. The initial acceptance of a claim as a
dependent claim does not, however, preclude a subsequent holding by the examiner that a claim is not a proper dependent claim.
The fact that a dependent claim which is otherwise proper might relate to a separate invention which would require a separate search or be separately classified from the claim on which it depends would not render it an improper dependent claim.
The fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. Thus, if claim 1 recites a specific product, a claim for the method of making the product of claim 1 in a particular manner would be a proper dependent claim since it could not be infringed without infringing claim 1. Similarly, if claim 1 recites a method of making a product, a claim for a product made by the method of claim 1 could be a proper dependent claim. On the other hand, if claim 1 recites a method of making a specified product, a claim to the product set forth in claim 1 would not be a proper dependent claim since it is conceivable that the product claim can be infringed without infringing the base method claim if the product can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim.
When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, and include all the limitations of the previous claim. If the dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the examiner should reject the dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph (now 35 U.S.C. 112(d))). Although the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are related to matters of form, non-compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) renders the claim unpatentable just as non-compliance with other paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112 would. For example, a dependent claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) if it omits an
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-155
§ 608.01(n)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
element from the claim upon which it depends or it fails to add a limitation to the claim upon which it depends.
Claims which are in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim, or for not including every limitation of the claim from which it depends, should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph by using form paragraphs 7.36 and 7.36.01.
¶ 7.36 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Fourth Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Examiner Note:
1. The statute is no longer being recited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.
2. Form paragraph 7.36 is to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.
¶ 7.36.01 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th Paragraph, Improper Dependent Claim
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. [2]. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert an explanation of what is in the claim and why it does not constitute a further limitation.
2. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that although the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, are related to matters of form, non-compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, renders the claim unpatentable just as non-compliance with other paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112 would. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph). Therefore, if a dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, the dependent claim should be rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim. See also MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection III, “Infringement Test” for dependent claims.
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.36.
III. INFRINGEMENT TEST
The test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends (35 U.S.C. 112(d)) or in other words that it shall not conceivably be infringed by anything which would not also infringe the basic claim. Another requirement is that the dependent claim must specify a further limitation(s) of the subject matter claimed.
A dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) simply because there is a question as to the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim.
Thus, for example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.
Examiners are reminded that a dependent claim is directed to a combination including everything recited in the base claim and what is recited in the dependent claim. It is this combination that must be compared with the prior art, exactly as if it were presented as one independent claim.
600-156Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(n)
IV. CLAIM FORM AND ARRANGEMENT
A singular dependent claim 2 could read as follows:
2. The product of claim 1 in which . . . .
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated therefrom by any claim which does not also depend from said “dependent claim.” It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer back to any preceding independent claim. These are the only restrictions with respect to the sequence of claims and, in general, applicant’s sequence should not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(j). Applicant may be so advised by using form paragraph 6.18.
¶ 6.18 Series of Singular Dependent Claims
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant’s sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
During prosecution, the order of claims may change and be in conflict with the requirement that dependent claims refer to a preceding claim. Accordingly, the numbering of dependent claims and the numbers of preceding claims referred to in dependent claims should be carefully checked when claims are renumbered upon allowance.
V. REJECTION AND OBJECTION
If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete. If the base claim is rejected, the dependent claim should be objected to rather than rejected, if it is otherwise allowable.
Form paragraph 7.43 can be used to state the objection.
¶ 7.43 Objection to Claims, Allowable Subject Matter
Claim [1] objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
608.01(o) Basis for Claim Terminology in Description [R-07.2015]
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-157
§ 608.01(o)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.
The specification should be objected to if it does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claims by using form paragraph 7.44.
¶ 7.44 Claimed Subject Matter Not in Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: [1]
608.01(p) Completeness of Specification [R-07.2015]
Newly filed applications obviously failing to disclose an invention with the clarity required are discussed in MPEP § 702.01.
The contents of an application, to be complete, must include a specification containing a written description of the invention using such description and details as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention pertains to make and use the invention as of its filing date. See 35 U.S.C. 112. At least one specific operative embodiment or example of the invention must be set forth. The example(s) and description should be of sufficient scope as to justify the scope of the claims.
For the written description requirement, an applicant’s specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as of the date of invention. See MPEP § 2163 et seq. for further guidance with respect to the evaluation of a patent application for compliance with the written description requirement.
An applicant’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The fact that experimentation is complex, however, will not make it undue if a person of skill in the art typically engages in such complex experimentation. See MPEP § 2164 et seq. for detailed guidance with regard to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.
See also MPEP § 2161.01 regarding computer programming and 35 U.S.C. 112; and MPEP § 2181 and § 2185 regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 in the context of functional claims.
The specification should include a statement which identifies a specific and substantial credible utility for the claimed invention. This usually presents no problem in mechanical or electrical cases. Questions regarding compliance with the utility requirement arise more often in biotechnological or chemical cases.
For “Guidelines For Examination Of Applications For Compliance With The Utility Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101,” see MPEP § 2107.
For “General Principles Governing Utility Rejections,” see MPEP § 2107.01.
For a discussion of the utility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in drug cases, see MPEP § 2107.03 and § 2164.06(a).
For “Procedural Considerations Related to Rejections for Lack of Utility,” see MPEP § 2107.02.
For “Special Considerations forAsserted Therapeutic or Pharmacological Utilities,” see MPEP § 2107.03.
I. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
37 CFR 1.57 Incorporation by reference.
[Editor Note: Paragraph (a) below is only applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013.]
(a) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, a reference made in the English language in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 upon the filing
600-158Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(p)
of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to a previously filed application, indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application, and specifying the previously filed application by application number, filing date, and the intellectual property authority or country in which the previously filed application was filed, shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for purposes of a filing date under § 1.53(b).
(1) If the applicant has provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, an English language translation of the previously filed application, and the fee required by § 1.17(i) if it is in a language other than English, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment. Such a notice may be combined with a notice under § 1.53(f).
(2) If the applicant has not provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a)), the applicant has three months from the filing date of the application to file a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, an English language translation of the previously filed application, and the fee required by § 1.17(i) if it is in a language other than English, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment.
(3) An application abandoned under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section shall be treated as having never been filed, unless:
(i) The application is revived under § 1.137; and
(ii) A copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are filed in the Office.
(4) A certified copy of the previously filed application must be filed in the Office, unless the previously filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 363, or the previously filed application is a foreign priority application and the conditions set forth in § 1.55(i) are satisfied with respect to such foreign priority application. The certified copy of the previously filed application, if required by this paragraph, must be filed within the later of four months from the filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the previously filed application, or be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
(b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or 1.78 shall also be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s).
(1) The application must be amended to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by § 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The applicant is also required to:
(i) Supply a copy of the prior-filed application, except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111;
(ii) Supply an English language translation of any prior-filed application that is in a language other than English; and
(iii) Identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings can be found in the prior-filed application.
(2) Any amendment to an international application pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be effective only as to the United States, and shall have no effect on the international filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international application designating the United States will be acted upon by the Office prior to the entry and commencement of the national stage (§ 1.491) or the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit of the international application. Any omitted portion of the international application which applicant desires to be effective as to all designated States, subject to PCT Rule 20.8(b), must be submitted in accordance with PCT Rule 20.
(3) If an application is not otherwise entitled to a filing date under § 1.53(b), the amendment must be by way of a petition pursuant to § 1.53(e) accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(f).
(4) Any amendment to an international design application pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be effective only as to the United States and shall have no effect on the filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international design application will be acted upon by the Office prior to the international design application becoming a nonprovisional application.
(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, an incorporation by reference must be set forth in the specification and must:
(1) Express a clear intent to incorporate by reference by using the root words “incorporat(e)” and “reference” ( e.g. , “incorporate by reference”); and
(2) Clearly identify the referenced patent, application, or publication.
(d) “Essential material” may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. “Essential material” is material that is necessary to:
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-159
§ 608.01(p)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(1) Provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a);
(2) Describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b); or
(3) Describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
(e) Other material (“Nonessential material”) may be incorporated by reference to U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, foreign patents, foreign published applications, prior and concurrently filed commonly owned U.S. applications, or non-patent publications. An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted.
(f) The examiner may require the applicant to supply a copy of the material incorporated by reference. If the Office requires the applicant to supply a copy of material incorporated by reference, the material must be accompanied by a statement that the copy supplied consists of the same material incorporated by reference in the referencing application.
(g) Any insertion of material incorporated by reference into the specification or drawings of an application must be by way of an amendment to the specification or drawings. Such an amendment must be accompanied by a statement that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter.
(h) An incorporation of material by reference that does not comply with paragraphs (c), (d), or (e) of this section is not effective to incorporate such material unless corrected within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by § 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. In addition:
(1) A correction to comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this section is permitted only if the application as filed clearly conveys an intent to incorporate the material by reference. A mere reference to material does not convey an intent to incorporate the material by reference.
(2) A correction to comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this section is only permitted for material that was sufficiently described to uniquely identify the document.
(i) An application transmittal letter limited to the transmittal of a copy of the specification and drawings from a previously filed application submitted under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section may be signed by a juristic applicant or patent owner.
The Director has considerable discretion in determining what may or may not be incorporated by reference in a patent application. General Electric
Co. v. Brenner, 407 F.2d 1258, 159 USPQ 335 (D.C. Cir. 1968). In 2004, the Office codified in 37 CFR 1.57(b) – (g) existing practice with respect to explicit incorporations by reference with a few changes to reflect the eighteen-month publication of applications. In addition, in 2004, 37 CFR 1.57(a) was added to provide a safeguard for applicants when a page(s) of the specification, or a portion thereof, or a sheet(s) of the drawing(s), or a portion thereof, is inadvertently omitted from an application, such as through a clerical error. In 2013, the Office moved the provisions of former 37 CFR 1.57(a) to 37 CFR 1.57(b) in order to provide for reference filing in 37 CFR 1.57(a), which is a new procedure provided by the implementation of section 201(a) of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) (Public Law 112-211). 37 CFR 1.57(b) permits inadvertently omitted material to be added to the application by way of a later filed amendment if the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in a prior-filed application (for which priority/benefit is claimed) even though there is no explicit incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application. See MPEP § 217 for discussion regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b).
As mentioned above, 37 CFR 1.57 was revised, effective December 18, 2013, to implement the reference filing provisions in title II of the PLTIA, which amended the patent laws in accordance with the Patent Law Treaty. As provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), as amended by the PLTIA, a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III, for information on the conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, under which a reference made upon the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to a previously filed application shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the subsequent application for purposes of a filing date.
The incorporation by reference practice with respect to applications which issue as U.S. patents provides the public with a patent disclosure which minimizes
600-160Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(p)
the public’s burden to search for and obtain copies of documents incorporated by reference which may not be readily available. Through the Office’s incorporation by reference policy, the Office ensures that reasonably complete disclosures are published as U.S. patents. The following is the manner in which the Director has elected to exercise that discretion. Section A provides the guidance for incorporation by reference in applications which are to issue as U.S. patents. Section B provides guidance for incorporation by reference in benefit applications; i.e., those domestic (35 U.S.C. 120) or foreign (35 U.S.C. 119(a)) applications relied on to establish an earlier effective filing date. See MPEP § 2181 for the impact of incorporation by reference on the determination of whether applicant has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
A. Review of Applications Which Are To Issue as Patents
An application as filed must be complete in itself in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112. Material nevertheless may be incorporated by reference. An application for a patent when filed may incorporate “essential material” by reference to (1) a U.S. patent, or (2) a U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. See 37 CFR 1.57(d).
“Essential material” is defined in 37 CFR 1.57(d) as that which is necessary to (1) provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (2) describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b); or (3) describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In any application that is to issue as a U.S. patent, essential material may only be incorporated by reference to a U.S. patent or patent application publication.
Other material (“nonessential subject matter”)may be incorporated by reference to (1) patents or applications published by the United States or foreign countries or regional patent offices, (2) prior and concurrently filed, commonly owned U.S. applications, or (3) non-patent publications . Nonessential subject matter is subject matter referred to for purposes of indicating the background of the invention or illustrating the state of the art. See 37 CFR 1.57(e).
An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.57(e) and MPEP § 608.01.
Mere reference to another application, patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything therein into the application containing such reference for the purpose of the disclosure required by 35 U.S.C. 112. In re de Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 177 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1973). 37 CFR 1.57(c)(1) limits a proper incorporation by reference (except as provided in 37 CFR 1.57(b)) to instances only where the perfecting words “incorporated by reference” or the root of the words “incorporate” (e.g., incorporating, incorporated) and “reference” (e.g., referencing) appear. The requirement for specific root words will bring greater clarity to the record and provide a bright line test as to where something is being referred to is an incorporation by reference. The Office intends to treat references to documents that do not meet this “bright line” test as noncompliant incorporations by reference and may require correction pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(h). If a reference to a document does not clearly indicate an intended incorporation by reference, examination will proceed as if no incorporation by reference statement has been made and the Office will not expend resources trying to determine if an incorporation by reference was intended. In addition to other requirements for an application, the referencing application must include an identification of the referenced patent, application, or publication. See 37 CFR 1.57(c)(2). Particular attention should be directed to specific portions of the referenced document where the subject matter being incorporated may be found. Guidelines for situations where applicant is permitted to fill in a number for Application No. __________ left blank in the application as filed can be found in In re Fouche,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-161
§ 608.01(p)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971) (Abandoned applications less than 20 years old can be incorporated by reference to the same extent as copending applications; both types are open to the public upon the referencing application issuing as a patent.). See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(i), (iv), and (vi), and MPEP § 103.
1. Complete Disclosure Filed
If an application is filed with a complete disclosure, essential material may be canceled by amendment and may be substituted by reference to a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement signed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material canceled from the application is the same material that has been incorporated by reference and no new matter has been included (see 37 CFR 1.57(g)). The same procedure is available for nonessential material.
If an application as filed incorporates material by reference, a copy of the incorporated by reference material may be required to be submitted to the Office even if the material is properly incorporated by reference. The examiner may require a copy of the incorporated material to review and to understand what is being incorporated or to put the description of the material in its proper context. Another instance where a copy of the incorporated material may be required is where the material is being inserted by amendment into the body of the application to replace an improper incorporation by reference statement so that the Office can determine that the material being added by amendment in lieu of the incorporation is the same material as was attempted to be incorporated. If the Office requires the applicant to supply a copy of the material incorporated by reference, the material must be accompanied by a statement that the copy supplied consists of the same material incorporated by reference in the referencing application. See 37 CFR 1.57(f).
2. Improper Incorporation
37 CFR 1.57(g) addresses corrections of incorporation by reference by inserting the material previously incorporated by reference. A
noncompliant incorporation by reference statement may be corrected by an amendment. 37 CFR 1.57(g). However, the amendment must not include new matter. Incorporating by reference material that was not incorporated by reference on filing of an application may introduce new matter. An incorporation by reference of essential material to an unpublished U.S. patent application, a foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper under 37 CFR 1.57(d). The improper incorporation by reference is not effective to incorporate the material unless corrected by the applicant (37 CFR 1.57(h)). Any underlying objection or rejection (e.g., under 35 U.S.C. 112) should be made by the examiner until applicant corrects the improper incorporation by reference by submitting an amendment to amend the specification or drawings to include the material incorporated by reference. A statement that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter is also required. 37 CFR 1.57(g). See also In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 569, 179 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1973); In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 579, 179 USPQ 163 (CCPA 1973); In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 577, 179 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1973). Improper incorporation by reference statements and late corrections thereof require expenditure of unnecessary examination resources and slow the prosecution process. Applicants know (or should know) whether they want material incorporated by reference, and must timely correct any incorporation by reference errors. Correction must be done within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.57(h).
An incorporation by reference that does not comply with 37 CFR 1.57(c), (d), or (e) is not effective to incorporate such material unless corrected within any time period set by the Office (should the noncompliant incorporation by reference be first noticed by the Office and applicant informed thereof), but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by 37 CFR 1.114(b) (should applicant be the first to notice the noncompliant incorporation by reference and the Office informed thereof), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The phrase “or abandonment of the application” is included in 37 CFR 1.57(h) to address the situations where an application is abandoned prior to the close of
600-162Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(p)
prosecution, e.g., the situation where an application is abandoned after a non-final Office action.
37 CFR 1.57(h)(1) authorizes the correction of noncompliant incorporation by reference statements that do not use the root of the words “incorporate” and “reference” in the incorporation by reference statement when the application as filed clearly conveys an intent to incorporate the material by reference. This correction can usually be made, for example, when an originally filed claim of an application identifies an amino acid or nucleotide sequence by database accession number. In making the determination of clear intent the examiner should consider the language used in referencing the sequence, the context in which it is disclosed, and any additional arguments or evidence presented by applicants.
37 CFR 1.57(h)(2) states that a citation of a document can be corrected where the document is sufficiently described to uniquely identify the document. Correction of a citation for a document that cannot be identified as the incorporated document may be new matter and is not authorized by 37 CFR 1.57(h)(2). An example would be where applicant intended to incorporate a particular journal article but supplied the citation information for a completely unrelated book by a different author, and there is no other information to identify the correct journal article. Since it cannot be determined from the citation originally supplied what article was intended to be incorporated, it would be improper (e.g., new matter) to replace the original incorporation by reference with the intended incorporation by reference. A citation of a patent application by attorney docket number, inventor name, filing date and title of invention may sufficiently describe the document, but even then correction should be made to specify the application number.
A petition under 37 CFR 1.183 to suspend the time period requirement set forth in 37 CFR 1.57(h) will not be appropriate. After the application has been abandoned, applicant must file a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 for the purpose of correcting the incorporation by reference. After the application has issued as a patent, applicant may correct the patent by filing a reissue application. Correcting an
improper incorporation by reference with a certificate of correction is not an appropriate means of correction because it may alter the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims may be altered because 37 CFR 1.57(h) provides that an incorporation by reference that does not comply with paragraph (c), (d), or (e) is not an effective incorporation. For example, an equivalent means omitted from a patent disclosure by an ineffective incorporation by reference would be outside the scope of the patented claims. Hence, a correction of an incorporation by reference pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57 may alter the scope of the claims by adding the omitted equivalent means. Changes involving the scope of the claims should be done via the reissue process. Additionally, the availability of the reissue process for corrections would make a successful showing required under 37 CFR 1.183 unlikely. The following examples show when an improper incorporation by reference is required to be corrected:
Example 1:
Upon review of the specification, the examiner noticed that the specification included an incorporation by reference statement incorporating essential material disclosed in a foreign patent. In a non-final Office action, the examiner required the applicant to amend the specification to include the essential material.
In reply to the non-final Office action, applicant must correct the improper incorporation by reference by filing an amendment to add the essential material disclosed in the foreign patent and a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(g) within the time period for reply set forth in the non-final Office action.
Example 2:
Upon review of the specification, the examiner determined that the subject matter incorporated by reference from a foreign patent was “nonessential material” and therefore, did not object to the incorporation by reference. In reply to a non-final Office action, applicant filed an amendment to the claims to add a new limitation that was supported only by the foreign patent. The amendment filed by the applicant caused the examiner to re-determine that the incorporated subject matter was “essential material” under 37 CFR 1.57(d). The examiner rejected the claims that include the new limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in a final Office action.
Since the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) was necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, the finality of the Office action is proper. If the applicant wishes to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by filing an amendment under 37 CFR 1.57(g) to add the subject material disclosed in the foreign patent into the specification, applicant may file the amendment as an after final amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-163
§ 608.01(p)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
Alternatively, applicant may file an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 accompanied by the appropriate fee, and an amendment per 37 CFR 1.57(g) within the time period for reply set forth in the final Office action.
The following form paragraphs may be used:
¶ 6.19 Incorporation by Reference, Unpublished U.S. Application, Foreign Patent or Application, Publication
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Examiner Note:
Since the material that applicant is attempting to incorporate in the specification is considered to be essential material, an appropriate objection to the specification under 35 U.S.C. 132 and/or rejection of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, should be made. One or more of form paragraphs 7.31.01 to 7.31.04, as for example, should be used following this form paragraph.
¶ 6.19.01 Ineffective Incorporation by Reference, General
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to [1] is ineffective because [2].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the document such as an application or patent number or other identification.
2. In bracket 2, give reason(s) why it is ineffective (e.g., the root words “incorporate” and/or “reference” have been omitted, see 37 CFR 1.57(c)(1); the reference document is not clearly identified as required by 37 CFR 1.57(c)(2)).
3. This form paragraph should be followed by form paragraph 6.19.03.
¶ 6.19.03 Correction of Ineffective Incorporation by Reference
The incorporation by reference will not be effective until correction is made to comply with 37 CFR 1.57(c), (d), or (e). If the incorporated material is relied upon to meet any outstanding objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office, the correction must be made within any time period set by the Office for responding to the objection, rejection, or other requirement for the incorporation to be effective. Compliance will not be held in abeyance with respect to responding to the objection, rejection, or other requirement
for the incorporation to be effective. In no case may the correction be made later than the close of prosecution as defined in 37 CFR 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier.
Any correction inserting material by amendment that was previously incorporated by reference must be accompanied by a statement that the material being inserted is the material incorporated by reference and the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
The filing date of any application wherein essential material is improperly incorporated by reference will not be affected by applicant’s correction where (A) there is a clear intent to incorporate by reference the intended material and the correction is to add the root words of “incorporate” and “reference,” (B) the incorporated document can be uniquely identified and the correction is to clarify the document’s identification, and (C) where the correction is to insert the material from the reference where incorporation is to an unpublished U.S. patent application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication.
Reliance on a commonly assigned, prior filed or concurrently filed copending application by a different inventor may ordinarily be made for the purpose of completing the disclosure provided the incorporated material is directed to nonessential material. See 37 CFR 1.57(e). See In re Fried, 329 F.2d 323, 141 USPQ 27 (CCPA 1964), and General Electric Co. v. Brenner, 407 F.2d 1258, 159 USPQ 335 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
Since a disclosure must be complete as of the filing date, subsequent publications or subsequently filed applications cannot be relied on to establish a constructive reduction to practice or an enabling disclosure as of the filing date. White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc., 713 F.2d 788, 218 USPQ 961 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974); In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228, 181 USPQ 31 (CCPA 1974).
B. Review of Applications Which Are Relied on To Establish an Earlier Effective Filing Date
The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to
600-164Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(p)
applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
The reason for incorporation by reference practice with respect to applications which are to issue as U.S. patents is to provide the public with a patent disclosure which minimizes the public’s burden to search for and obtain copies of documents incorporated by reference which may not be readily available. Through the Office’s incorporation by reference policy, the Office ensures that reasonably complete disclosures are published as U.S. patents. The same policy concern does not apply where the sole purpose for which an applicant relies on an earlier U.S. or foreign application is to establish an earlier filing date. Incorporation by reference in the earlier application of (1) patents or applications published by foreign countries or regional patent offices, (2) nonpatent publications, (3) a U.S. patent or application which itself incorporates “essential material” by reference, or (4) a foreign application, is not critical in the case of a “benefit” application.
When an applicant, or a patent owner in a reexamination or interference, claims the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application which incorporates material by reference, the applicant or patent owner may be required to supply copies of the material incorporated by reference. For example, an applicant may claim the benefit of the filing date of a foreign application which itself incorporates by reference another earlier filed foreign application. If necessary, due to an intervening reference, applicant should be required to supply a copy of the earlier filed foreign application, along with an English language translation. A review can then be made of the foreign application and all material incorporated by reference to determine whether the foreign application discloses the invention sought to be patented in the manner required by 35 U.S.C.
112(a) so that benefit may be accorded. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As a safeguard against the omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, applicant may include a statement at the time of filing of the later application incorporating by reference the prior application. See MPEP § 201.06(c) and 211 et seq. where domestic benefit is claimed. See MPEP §§ 213 - 216 where foreign priority is claimed. See MPEP § 217 regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b). The inclusion of such an incorporation by reference statement in the later-filed application will permit applicant to include subject matter from the prior application into the later-filed application without the subject matter being considered as new matter. For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
II. SIMULATED OR PREDICTED TEST RESULTS OR PROPHETIC EXAMPLES
Simulated or predicted test results and prophetical examples (paper examples) are permitted in patent applications. Working examples correspond to work actually performed and may describe tests which have actually been conducted and results that were achieved. Paper examples describe the manner and process of making an embodiment of the invention which has not actually been conducted. Paper examples should not be represented as work actually done. No results should be represented as actual results unless they have actually been achieved. Paper examples should not be described using the past tense. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Promega Corp., 323 F.3d 1354, 1367, 66 USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-165
§ 608.01(p)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
For problems arising from the designation of materials by trademarks and trade names, see MPEP § 608.01(v).
608.01(q) Substitute or Rewritten Specification [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.125 Substitute specification.
(a) If the number or nature of the amendments or the legibility of the application papers renders it difficult to consider the application, or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, the Office may require the entire specification, including the claims, or any part thereof, be rewritten.
(b) Subject to § 1.312, a substitute specification, excluding the claims, may be filed at any point up to payment of the issue fee if it is accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter.
(c) A substitute specification submitted under this section must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown pursuant to this paragraph.
(d) A substitute specification under this section is not permitted in a reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding.
The specification is sometimes in such faulty English that a new specification is necessary; in such instances, a new specification should be required.
Form paragraph 6.28 may be used where the specification is in faulty English.
¶ 6.28 Idiomatic English
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
37 CFR 1.125(a) applies to a substitute specification required by the Office. If the number or nature of the amendments or the legibility of the application papers renders it difficult to consider the application, or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, the Office may require the entire specification, including
the claims, or any part thereof be rewritten. Note that legibility includes ability to be photocopied and scanned so that suitable reprints can be made and papers can be electronically reproduced by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition. See MPEP § 608.01.
Form paragraph 6.28.01 may be used where the examiner, for reasons other than faulty English, requires a substitute specification.
¶ 6.28.01 Substitute Specification Required by Examiner
A substitute specification [1] the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because [2].
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strikethrough except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strikethrough cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert either --excluding-- or --including--.
2. In bracket 2, insert clear and concise examples of why a new specification is required.
3. A new specification is required if the number or nature of the amendments render it difficult to consider the application or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, 37 CFR 1.125.
4. See also form paragraph 13.01 for partial rewritten specification.
37 CFR 1.125(b) applies to a substitute specification voluntarily filed by the applicant. Subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.312, a substitute specification, excluding claims, may be voluntarily filed by the applicant at any point up to the payment of the issue fee provided it is accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter. The Office will accept a substitute specification voluntarily filed by the applicant if the requirements of 37 CFR 1.125(b) are satisfied.
600-166Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(q)
37 CFR 1.125(c) requires a substitute specification filed under 37 CFR 1.125(a) or (b) be submitted in clean form without markings. A marked-up copy of the substitute specification showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record must also be submitted. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five of fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown under 37 CFR 1.125(c). The paragraphs of any substitute specification, other than the claims, should be individually numbered in Arabic numerals (for example [0001]) so that any amendment to the specification may be made by replacement paragraph in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1).
A substitute specification filed under 37 CFR 1.125(b) must be accompanied by a statement indicating that no new matter was included. There is no obligation on the examiner to make a detailed comparison between the old and the new specifications for determining whether or not new matter has been added. If, however, an examiner becomes aware that new matter is present, objection thereto should be made.
The filing of a substitute specification rather than amending the original application has the advantage for applicants of eliminating the need to prepare an amendment of the specification. The Office receives the advantage of saving the time needed to enter amendments in the specification and a reduction in the number of printing errors. A substitute specification is not permitted in a reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.125(d).
A substitute specification which complies with 37 CFR 1.125 should normally be entered. A substitute specification which is denied entry should be so marked.
Form paragraph 6.28.02 may be used to notify applicant that a substitute specification submitted under 37 CFR 1.125(b) has not been entered.
¶ 6.28.02 Substitute Specification Filed Under 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) Not Entered.
The substitute specification filed [1] has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: [2]
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert statement of why the substitute specification is improper, for example: -- the statement as to a lack of new matter under 37 CFR 1.125(b) is missing--, -- a marked-up copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to the clean copy)--; -- a clean copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to the marked-up copy)--; or, -- the substitute specification has been filed: - in a reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding, 37 CFR 1.125(d)-, or - after payment of the issue fee-, or - containing claims (to be amended)- --.
2. A substitute specification filed after final action or appeal (prior to the date an appeal brief is filed pursuant to 37 CFR 41.37, see 37 CFR 41.33(a)) is governed by 37 CFR 1.116. A substitute specification filed after the mailing of a notice of allowance is governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
See MPEP § 714.20 regarding entry of amendments which include an unacceptable substitute specification.
For new matter in amendment, see MPEP § 608.04.
For application prepared for issue, see MPEP § 1302.02.
608.01(r) Derogatory Remarks About Prior Art in Specification [R-08.2012]
The applicant may refer to the general state of the art and the advance thereover made by his or her invention, but he or she is not permitted to make derogatory remarks concerning the inventions of others. Derogatory remarks are statements disparaging the products or processes of any particular person other than the applicant, or statements as to the merits or validity of applications or patents of another person. Mere comparisons with
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-167
§ 608.01(r)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
the prior art are not considered to be disparaging, per se.
608.01(s) Restoration of Canceled Matter [R-08.2012]
Canceled text in the specification can be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the previously canceled matter as a new insertion. 37 CFR 1.121(b)(4). A claim canceled by amendment (deleted in its entirety) may be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number. 37 CFR 1.121(c)(5). See MPEP § 714.
608.01(t) Use in Subsequent Application [R-11.2013]
A reservation for a future application of subject matter disclosed but not claimed in a pending application will not be permitted in the pending application. 37 CFR 1.79; MPEP § 608.01(e).
No part of a specification can normally be transferred to another application. Similarly, drawings cannot normally be transferred to another application See MPEP § 608.02(i).
608.01(u) [Reserved]
608.01(v) Marks Used in Commerce and Trade Names [R-07.2015]
15 U.S.C. 1127 Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
*****
The terms "trade name" and "commercial name" mean any name used by a person to identify his or her business or vocation.
The term "trademark" includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof-
(1) used by a person, or
(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.
The term "service mark" means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof-
(1) used by a person, or
(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown. Titles, character names, and other distinctive features of radio or television programs may be registered as service marks notwithstanding that they, or the programs, may advertise the goods of the sponsor.
The term "certification mark" means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof-
(1) used by a person other than its owner, or
(2) which its owner has a bona fide intention to permit a person other than the owner to use in commerce and files an application to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to certify regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of such person's goods or services or that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization.
The term "collective mark" means a trademark or service mark-
(1) used by the members of a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization, or
(2) which such cooperative, association, or other collective group or organization has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
and includes marks indicating membership in a union, an association, or other organization.
The term "mark" includes any trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark.
*****
I. PERMISSIBLE USE IN PATENTAPPLICATIONS
A mark as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1127 (i.e., trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark) or trade name may be used in a
600-168Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(s)
patent application to identify an article or product, service, or organization if:
(A) its meaning is established by an accompanying definition in the specification which is sufficiently descriptive, enabling, precise and definite such that a claim including the mark or trade name complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, or
(B) its meaning is well-known to one skilled in the relevant art and is satisfactorily defined in the literature.
See, e.g., United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F3d 1209, ____ n.6, 37 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Condition (A) or (B) must be met at the time of filing of the complete application.
The relationship between a mark or trade name and the product, service, or organization it identifies is sometimes indefinite, uncertain, and arbitrary. For example, the formula or characteristics of a product may change from time to time and yet it may continue to be sold under the same mark or trade name. In patent specifications, the details of the product, service, or organization identified by a mark or trade name should be set forth in positive, exact, intelligible language, so that there will be no uncertainty as to what is meant. Arbitrary marks or trade names which are liable to mean different things at the pleasure of the owner do not constitute such language. Ex Parte Kattwinkle, 12 USPQ 11 (Bd. App. 1931).
If the product, service, or organization to which a mark refers is set forth in such language that its identity is clear, examiners are authorized to permit the use of the mark if it is distinguished from common descriptive nouns by capitalization. See subsection II, below. If a mark or trade name has a fixed and definite meaning, it constitutes sufficient identification unless some specific characteristic of the product, service, or organization is involved in the invention such that further description is necessary to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. In that event, as also in those cases where the mark or trade name has no fixed and definite meaning, identification by scientific or other explanatory language is necessary. See, e.g., United
States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F3d 1209, ____ n.6, 37 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Gebauer-Fuelnegg, 121 F.2d 505, 50 USPQ 125 (CCPA 1941).
The matter of sufficiency of disclosure must be decided on an individual case-by-case basis. In re Metcalfe, 410 F.2d 1378, 161 USPQ 789 (CCPA 1969).
Where the identification of a mark or trade name is introduced by amendment, it must be restricted to the characteristics of the product, service, or organization known at the time the application was filed to avoid any question of new matter.
If proper identification of the product, service, or organization identified by a mark or a trade name is omitted from the specification and such identification is deemed necessary under the principles set forth above, the examiner should hold the disclosure insufficient and reject, on the ground of insufficient disclosure, any claims based on the identification of the product, service, or organization merely by mark or trade name. If, for example, a product cannot be otherwise defined, an amendment defining the process of its manufacture may be permitted unless such amendment would result in the introduction of new matter. Such amendments must be supported by satisfactory showings establishing that the specific nature or process of manufacture of the product as set forth in the amendment was known at the time of filing of the application.
II. PROPRIETARY NATURE OF MARKS USED IN COMMERCE
Although the use of marks having definite meanings is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected. Marks should be identified by capitalizing each letter of the mark (in the case of word or letter marks) or otherwise indicating the description of the mark (in the case of marks in the form of a symbol or device or other nontextual form). Every effort should be made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as marks.
Examiners may conduct a search for registered marks by using the Trademark Electronic Search System
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-169
§ 608.01(v)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(TESS) which is available on the USPTO website to determine whether an apparent or identified mark in the patent application is a registered mark or to what particular goods a registered mark applies.
Form paragraph 6.20 may be used to inform applicant of the proprietary nature of marks used in commerce.
¶ 6.20 Trade Names, Trademarks, and Other Marks Used in Commerce
The use of the term [1], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. It should be capitalized wherever it appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trade marks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Examiner Note:
1. Capitalize each letter of the word in the bracket or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce
such as ™, SM, or ® following the word.
2. Examiners may conduct a search for registered marks by using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) which is available on the USPTO website to determine whether a mark identified in the patent application is a registered mark or not.
The examiner should not permit the use of language such as “the product X (a descriptive name) commonly known as Y (trade name or mark)” since such language does not bring out the fact that the latter is a trade name or mark. Language such as “the product X (a descriptive name) sold under the trademark Y” is permissible.
The use of a mark in the title of an application should be avoided as well as the use of a mark coupled with the word “type”, e.g., “Band-Aid type bandage.”
In the event that a registered mark is a “symbol or device” depicted in a drawing, either the brief description of the drawing or the detailed description of the drawing should specify that the “symbol or device” is a registered mark of Company X. The owner of a mark may be identified in the specification.
Technology Center Directors should reply to all complaint letters regarding the misuse of marks used in commerce and forward a copy of the complaint letter and reply to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. Where a letter demonstrates the misuse of a mark in a patent application publication, the Office should, where the application is still pending, ensure that the mark is replaced by appropriate generic terminology.
608.01(w) Copyright and Mask Work Notices [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.71 Detailed description and specification of the invention
*****
(d) A copyright or mask work notice may be placed in a design or utility patent application adjacent to copyright and mask work material contained therein. The notice may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent application disclosure. For notices in drawings, see § 1.84(s). The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements provided for by law. For example, “©1983 John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 401) and “*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited and, under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work, respectively. Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the authorization language set forth in paragraph (e) of this section is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification.
(e) The authorization shall read as follows:
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.
*****
37 CFR 1.84 Standards for drawings *****
(s) Copyright or Mask Work Notice. A copyright or mask work notice may appear in the drawing, but must be placed within the sight of the drawing immediately below the figure representing the copyright or mask work material and be limited to letters having a print size of .32 cm. to .64 cm. (1/8 to 1/4 inches) high. The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements provided for by law. For example, “ ©1983 John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 401) and “*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited and, under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work, respectively. Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the authorization language set forth in § 1.71(e) is
600-170Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.01(w)
included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification.
*****
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will permit the inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice in a design or utility patent application, and thereby any patent issuing therefrom, which discloses material on which copyright or mask work protection has previously been established, under the following conditions:
(A) The copyright or mask work notice must be placed adjacent to the copyright or mask work material. Therefore, the notice may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent application disclosure, including the drawing. However, if appearing in the drawing, the notice must comply with 37 CFR 1.84(s). If placed on a drawing in conformance with these provisions, the notice will not be objected to as extraneous matter under 37 CFR 1.84.
(B) The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements required by law. For example, “©1983 John Doe”(17 U.S.C. 401) and “*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited, and under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work respectively.
(C) Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the following authorization in 37 CFR 1.71(e) is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification to be printed for the patent:
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.
(D) Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice after a Notice of Allowance has been mailed will be permitted only if the criteria of 37 CFR 1.312 have been satisfied.
The inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice in a design or utility patent application, and thereby
any patent issuing therefrom, under the conditions set forth above will serve to protect the rights of the author/inventor, as well as the public, and will serve to promote the mission and goals of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, the inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice which complies with these conditions will be permitted. However, any departure from these conditions may result in a refusal to permit the desired inclusion. If the authorization required under condition (C) above does not include the specific language “(t)he (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records,...” the notice will be objected to as improper by the examiner of the application. If the examiner maintains the objection upon reconsideration, a petition may be filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.181.
608.02 Drawing [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 113 Drawings.
The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented. When the nature of such subject matter admits of illustration by a drawing and the applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the Commissioner may require its submission within a time period of not less than two months from the sending of a notice thereof. Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used (i) to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or (ii) to supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of interpretation of the scope of any claim.
37 CFR 1.81 Drawings required in patent application.
[Editor Note: Para. (a) below is only applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013.]
(a) The applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. Since corrections are the responsibility of the applicant, the original drawing(s) should be retained by the applicant for any necessary future correction.
(b) Drawings may include illustrations which facilitate an understanding of the invention (for example, flow sheets in cases of processes, and diagrammatic views).
(c) Whenever the nature of the subject matter sought to be patented admits of illustration by a drawing without its being necessary for the understanding of the subject matter and the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-171
§ 608.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the examiner will require its submission within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof.
(d) Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or to supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of interpretation of the scope of any claim.
37 CFR 1.81 (pre-PLT) Drawings required in patent application
[Editor Note: Para. (a) below is applicable to patent applications filed before December 18, 2013.]
(a) The applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented; this drawing, or a high quality copy thereof, must be filed with the application. Since corrections are the responsibility of the applicant, the original drawing(s) should be retained by the applicant for any necessary future correction.
*****
I. FILING DATE IN THE ABSENCE OF DRAWING
A. Applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013
For applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, other than design applications, 35 U.S.C. 111 no longer requires that an application contain a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented to be entitled to a filing date. 35 U.S.C. 113 continues to provide, however, that “[t]he applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented” and that “[d]rawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used (i) to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or (ii) to supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of interpretation of the scope of any claim.” Thus, the absence of any drawing on the filing date of an application where a drawing is necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented may result in an applicant not being able to obtain a patent for any claimed invention presented in the application, but except for design applications, the absence of any drawing on the filing of an application no longer raises a question as to whether the application is entitled to a filing date.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 171, a design application (whether filed before, on, or after December 18, 2013) must be filed with any required drawing to be entitled to a filing date.
The preparation of drawings for a provisional or nonprovisional application is prudent where a drawing is necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented, and inclusion of such drawing(s) with the application on filing will help ensure that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 113 are satisfied for any such claimed invention.
B. Applications filed before December 18, 2013
For applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 before December 18, 2013, a drawing (where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented), or a high quality copy thereof, must be filed with the application. See pre-PLT 35 U.S.C. 111, 35 U.S.C. 113, and pre-PLT 37 CFR 1.81.
In accordance with pre-PLT 35 U.S.C. 111, a specification and any necessary drawing(s) are among the requirements for an application to be given a filing date. The first sentence of 35 U.S.C 113 requires a drawing to be submitted where such drawing is necessary for the understanding of the invention. In this situation, the lack of a drawing renders the application incomplete and, as such, the application cannot be given a filing date until the drawing is received. The second sentence of 35 U.S.C. 113 addresses the situation wherein a drawing is not necessary for the understanding of the invention, but the subject matter sought to be patented admits of illustration and no drawing was submitted on filing. The lack of a drawing in this situation does not render the application incomplete but rather is treated as an informality. The examiner should require such drawings in almost all such instances. Such drawings could be required during the initial processing of the application but do not have to be furnished at the time the application is filed. The applicant is given at least two months from the date of the letter requiring drawings to submit the drawing(s).
600-172Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02
II. RECEIPT OF DRAWING AFTER THE FILING DATE
If the examiner discovers new matter in a substitute or additional drawing, the drawing should not be entered. The drawing should be objected to as containing new matter. A new drawing without such new matter may be required if the examiner determines that a drawing is needed under 37 CFR 1.81 or 37 CFR 1.83. The examiner’s decision would be reviewable by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.181. The Technology Center (TC) Director would decide such a petition.
III. HANDLING OF DRAWING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 35 U.S.C. 113
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will make the initial decision in all new applications as to whether a drawing is “necessary” under the first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 113. A drawing will be considered necessary under the first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 113 in all applications where the drawing is referred to in the specification and one or more figures have been omitted.
The determination under 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence) as to when a drawing is necessary will be handled in OPAP in accordance with the following procedure. OPAP will make the initial determination as to whether drawings are required for the understanding of the subject matter of the invention. When no drawings are included in the application as filed and drawings are required, the applicant is so informed by OPAP. A filing date will not be granted if the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 before December 18, 2013 and applicant will be notified to complete the application (37 CFR 1.53(e)). If a drawing is later furnished in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 before December 18, 2013, a filing date may be granted as of the date of receipt of such drawing.
An OPAP formality examiner should not treat an application without drawings as incomplete if drawings are not required. A drawing is not required for a filing date for applications, other than design applications, filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after December 18, 2013. For applications filed before December 18, 2013 a drawing is not required for a
filing date under pre-PLT 35 U.S.C. 111 if the application contains:
(A) at least one process claim including the term “process” or “method” in its introductory phrase;
(B) at least one composition claim including the term “composition,” “compound,” “mixture” or “pharmaceutical” in its introductory phrase;
(C) at least one claim directed to a coated article or product or to an article or product made from a particular material or composition (i.e., an article of known and conventional character (e.g., a table), coated with or made of a particular composition (e.g., a specified polymer such as polyvinyl-chloride));
(D) at least one claim directed to a laminated article or product (i.e., a laminated article of known and conventional character (e.g., a table)); or
(E) at least one claim directed to an article, apparatus, or system where the sole distinguishing feature is the presence of a particular material (e.g., a hydraulic system using a particular hydraulic fluid, or a conventional packaged suture using a particular material).
For a more complete explanation about when a drawing is required, see MPEP § 601.01(f). For applications submitted without all of the drawings described in the specification, see MPEP § 601.01(g).
If an examiner determines that a filing date should not have been granted in an application filed before December 18, 2013 because it does not contain drawings, the matter should be brought to the attention of the supervisory patent examiner (SPE) for review. If the SPE decides that drawings are required to understand the subject matter of the invention, the SPE should return the application to OPAP with a typed, signed, and dated memorandum requesting cancellation of the filing date and identifying the subject matter required to be illustrated.
IV. HANDLING OF DRAWING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE SECOND SENTENCE OF 35 U.S.C.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-173
§ 608.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
113 - ILLUSTRATION SUBSEQUENTLY REQUIRED
35 U.S.C.113 addresses the situation wherein a drawing is not necessary for the understanding of the invention, but the subject matter sought to be patented admits of illustration by a drawing and the applicant has not furnished a drawing. The lack of a drawing in this situation is treated as an informality. A filing date will be accorded with the original presentation of the papers. The acceptance of an application without a drawing does not preclude the examiner from requiring an illustration in the form of a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). In requiring such a drawing, the examiner should clearly indicate that the requirement is made under 37 CFR 1.81(c) which applies when the nature of the subject matter sought to be patented admits of illustration by a drawing without its being necessary for the understanding of the subject matter. Examiners making such requirements are to specifically require, as a part of the applicant’s next reply, at least an ink sketch or permanent print of any drawing in reply to the requirement, even though no allowable subject matter is yet indicated. This will afford the examiner an early opportunity to determine the sufficiency of the illustration and the absence of new matter. See 37 CFR 1.121 and 37 CFR 1.81(d). One of the following form paragraphs may be used to require a drawing:
¶ 6.23 Subject Matter Admits of Illustration
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Examiner Note:
When requiring drawings before examination use form paragraph 6.23.01 with a PTOL-90 or PTO-90C form as a cover sheet.
¶ 6.23.01 Subject Matter Admits of Illustration (No Examination of Claims)
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81. No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing.
Applicant is given a TWO MONTH time period to submit a drawing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). Failure to timely submit a drawing will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. Use of this form paragraph should be extremely rare and limited to those instances where no examination can be performed due to lack of an illustration of the invention resulting in a lack of understanding of the claimed subject matter.
2. Use a PTOL-90 or PTO-90C form as a cover sheet for this communication.
Applicant should also amend the specification accordingly to refer to the new illustration at the time of submission of the drawing(s). This may obviate further correspondence where an amendment places the application in condition for allowance.
V. DRAWING STANDARDS
37 CFR 1.84 Standards for drawings.
(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications.
(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or
(2) Color.Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and the specification must contain the reference required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. On rare occasions, color drawings may be necessary as the only practical medium by which to disclose the subject matter sought to be patented in a utility patent application. The color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color drawings are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13). The Office will accept color drawings in utility patent applications only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h);
(ii) One (1) set of color drawings if submitted via the Office electronic filing system, or three (3) sets of color drawings if not submitted via the Office electronic filing system; and
(iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings:
600-174Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
(b) Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots ( e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
(2) Color photographs. Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.
(c) Identification of drawings . Identifying indicia should be provided, and if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet within the top margin. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be identified as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to § 1.121(d). If a marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure including annotations indicating the changes made is filed, such marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” pursuant to § 1.121(d)(1).
(d) Graphic forms in drawings. Chemical or mathematical formulae, tables, and waveforms may be submitted as drawings and are subject to the same requirements as drawings. Each chemical or mathematical formula must be labeled as a separate figure, using brackets when necessary, to show that information is properly integrated. Each group of waveforms must be presented as a single figure, using a common vertical axis with time extending along the horizontal axis. Each individual waveform discussed in the specification must be identified with a separate letter designation adjacent to the vertical axis.
(e) Type of paper. Drawings submitted to the Office must be made on paper which is flexible, strong, white, smooth, non-shiny, and durable. All sheets must be reasonably free from cracks, creases, and folds. Only one side of the sheet may be used for the drawing. Each sheet must be reasonably free from
erasures and must be free from alterations, overwritings, and interlineations. Photographs must be developed on paper meeting the sheet-size requirements of paragraph (f) of this section and the margin requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. See paragraph (b) of this section for other requirements for photographs.
(f) Size of paper. All drawing sheets in an application must be the same size. One of the shorter sides of the sheet is regarded as its top. The size of the sheets on which drawings are made must be:
(1) 21.0 cm. by 29.7 cm. (DIN size A4), or
(2) 21.6 cm. by 27.9 cm. (8 1/2 by 11 inches).
(g) Margins. The sheets must not contain frames around the sight ( i.e., the usable surface), but should have scan target points ( i.e., cross-hairs) printed on two cater-corner margin corners. Each sheet must include a top margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 1.5 cm. (5/8 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 1.0 cm. (3/8 inch), thereby leaving a sight no greater than 17.0 cm. by 26.2 cm. on 21.0 cm. by 29.7 cm. (DIN size A4) drawing sheets, and a sight no greater than 17.6 cm. by 24.4 cm. (6 15/16 by 9 5/8 inches) on 21.6 cm. by 27.9 cm. (8 1/2 by 11 inch) drawing sheets.
(h) Views. The drawing must contain as many views as necessary to show the invention. The views may be plan, elevation, section, or perspective views. Detail views of portions of elements, on a larger scale if necessary, may also be used. All views of the drawing must be grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space, preferably in an upright position, clearly separated from one another, and must not be included in the sheets containing the specifications, claims, or abstract. Views must not be connected by projection lines and must not contain center lines. Waveforms of electrical signals may be connected by dashed lines to show the relative timing of the waveforms.
(1) Exploded views. Exploded views, with the separated parts embraced by a bracket, to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts are permissible. When an exploded view is shown in a figure which is on the same sheet as another figure, the exploded view should be placed in brackets.
(2) Partial views. When necessary, a view of a large machine or device in its entirety may be broken into partial views on a single sheet, or extended over several sheets if there is no loss in facility of understanding the view. Partial views drawn on separate sheets must always be capable of being linked edge to edge so that no partial view contains parts of another partial view. A smaller scale view should be included showing the whole formed by the partial views and indicating the positions of the parts shown. When a portion of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes, the view and the enlarged view must each be labeled as separate views.
(i) Where views on two or more sheets form, in effect, a single complete view, the views on the several sheets must be so arranged that the complete figure can be assembled without concealing any part of any of the views appearing on the various sheets.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-175
§ 608.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(ii) A very long view may be divided into several parts placed one above the other on a single sheet. However, the relationship between the different parts must be clear and unambiguous.
(3) Sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.
(4) Alternate position. A moved position may be shown by a broken line superimposed upon a suitable view if this can be done without crowding; otherwise, a separate view must be used for this purpose.
(5) Modified forms. Modified forms of construction must be shown in separate views.
(i) Arrangement of views . One view must not be placed upon another or within the outline of another. All views on the same sheet should stand in the same direction and, if possible, stand so that they can be read with the sheet held in an upright position. If views wider than the width of the sheet are necessary for the clearest illustration of the invention, the sheet may be turned on its side so that the top of the sheet, with the appropriate top margin to be used as the heading space, is on the right-hand side. Words must appear in a horizontal, left-to-right fashion when the page is either upright or turned so that the top becomes the right side, except for graphs utilizing standard scientific convention to denote the axis of abscissas (of X) and the axis of ordinates (of Y).
(j) Front page view. The drawing must contain as many views as necessary to show the invention. One of the views should be suitable for inclusion on the front page of the patent application publication and patent as the illustration of the invention. Views must not be connected by projection lines and must not contain center lines. Applicant may suggest a single
view (by figure number) for inclusion on the front page of the patent application publication and patent.
(k) Scale. The scale to which a drawing is made must be large enough to show the mechanism without crowding when the drawing is reduced in size to two-thirds in reproduction. Indications such as “actual size” or “scale 1/2” on the drawings are not permitted since these lose their meaning with reproduction in a different format.
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
(n) Symbols. Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate. The elements for which such symbols and labeled representations are used must be adequately identified in the specification. Known devices should be illustrated by symbols which have a universally recognized conventional meaning and are generally accepted in the art. Other symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.
(o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.
(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.
600-176Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02
(2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas.
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
(q) Lead lines. Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See paragraph (l) of this section.
(r) Arrows. Arrows may be used at the ends of lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows:
(1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points;
(2) On a lead line, an arrow touching a line to indicate the surface shown by the line looking along the direction of the arrow; or
(3) To show the direction of movement.
(s) Copyright or Mask Work Notice . A copyright or mask work notice may appear in the drawing, but must be placed within the sight of the drawing immediately below the figure representing the copyright or mask work material and be limited to letters having a print size of .32 cm. to .64 cm. (1/8 to 1/4 inches) high. The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements provided for by law. For example, “©1983 John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 401) and “*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited and, under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work, respectively. Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the authorization language set forth in § 1.71(e) is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification.
(t) Numbering of sheets of drawings. The sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals,
starting with 1, within the sight as defined in paragraph (g) of this section. These numbers, if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. The numbers can be placed on the right-hand side if the drawing extends too close to the middle of the top edge of the usable surface. The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking.
(u) Numbering of views.
(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.
(2) Numbers and letters identifying the views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets, circles, or inverted commas. The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.
(v) Security markings . Authorized security markings may be placed on the drawings provided they are outside the sight, preferably centered in the top margin.
(w) Corrections. Any corrections on drawings submitted to the Office must be durable and permanent.
(x) Holes. No holes should be made by applicant in the drawing sheets.
(y) Types of drawings . See § 1.152 for design drawings, § 1.1026 for international design reproductions, § 1.165 for plant drawings, and § 1.173(a)(2) for reissue drawings.
See MPEP § 608.02(b) for information pertaining to the acceptability of drawings. Note that good quality copies are acceptable if the lines are uniformly thick, black, and solid.
Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be identified as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” so that the Office will recognize how to treat such a drawing sheet for entry into the application. See 37 CFR 1.84(c). Corrections to drawings must be made in the form of replacement sheets labeled, in the header, “Replacement Sheet” since the Office does not release drawings for correction. See 37 CFR 1.85. If a marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-177
§ 608.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
is filed, such marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet.”
Black and white drawings are permitted to be transmitted by facsimile if the drawings are being submitted after the filing date of the application. Applicants should ensure that the facsimile transmission process does not unreasonably degrade the quality of the drawings. Color drawings are not permitted to be transmitted by facsimile. See 37 CFR 1.6(d)(4).
Drawings are currently accepted in two different size formats. It is, however, required that all drawing sheets in a particular application be the same size for ease of handling.
For information regarding certified copies of an application-as-filed which does not meet the sheet size/margin and quality requirements of 37 CFR 1.52, 1.84(f), and 1.84(g), see MPEP § 608.01, subsection III.
For design patent drawings, 37 CFR 1.152, see MPEP § 1503.02.
For international design reproductions, see 37 CFR 1.1026. Note that pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1061, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.84, except for 1.84(c), do not apply to international design applications.
For plant patent drawings, 37 CFR 1.165, see MPEP § 1606.
For reissue application drawings, see MPEP § 1413.
For correction of drawings, see MPEP § 608.02(p). For return of drawings, see MPEP § 608.02(y).
For amendment of drawings, 37 CFR 1.121(d), see MPEP § 714.
The filing of a divisional or continuation application under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.53(b) does not obviate the need for acceptable drawings. See MPEP § 608.02(b).
See MPEP § 601.01(f) for treatment of design applications without drawings or applications filed
prior to December 18, 2013 without drawings and MPEP § 601.01(g) for treatment of applications filed without all figures of drawings or applications, other than a design application, filed on or after December 18, 2013 without drawings.
VI. DEFINITIONS
A number of different terms are used when referring to drawings in patent applications. The following definitions are used in this Manual.
Original drawings: The drawing submitted with the application when filed.
Substitute drawing: A drawing filed later than the filing date of an application. Usually submitted to replace an original drawing that was unacceptable.
Acceptable drawing: A drawing that is acceptable for publication of the application or issuance of the patent.
Corrected drawing: A drawing that includes corrections of informalities and changes approved by the examiner.
Unacceptable drawing: The Office no longer considers drawings as formal or informal; drawings are either acceptable or unacceptable. Drawings that do not comply with all of the form requirements of 37 CFR 1.84, e.g., because they are not on the proper size sheets, or the quality of the lines is poor, may be acceptable for the purposes of publication and examination if the drawings are readable and reproducible for publication purposes. An objection will generally only be made to a drawing that does not comply with the form requirements of 37 CFR 1.84 if the Office is unable to reproduce the drawing or the contents of the drawing are unacceptable to the examiner.
Plan: This term is used to illustrate the top view.
Elevation: This term is used to illustrate views showing the height of objects.
VII. BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND LINE DRAWINGS
37 CFR 1.84 Standards for drawings.
600-178Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02
(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications.
(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or
*****
(b) Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots ( e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
*****
A. BLACK AND WHITE DRAWINGS
Black and white drawings are normally required in utility patent applications. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. See MPEP § 608.02(c) for information relating to the location of drawings in IFW applications.
B. BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND GRAYSCALE DRAWINGS
Black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. Photographs or photomicrograph printed on sensitized paper are acceptable as drawings, in lieu of India ink drawings, as are photographic images submitted via EFS-Web, to illustrate inventions which are incapable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings, e.g., electrophoresis gels, blots, (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline
structures, metallurgical microstructures, textile fabrics, grain structures and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects. The photographs or photomicrographs must show the invention more clearly than they can be done by India ink drawings and otherwise comply with the rules concerning such drawings.
Black and white photographs submitted in lieu of ink drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.84(b). There is no requirement for a petition or petition fee, and only one set of photographs is required. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
To be acceptable, such photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. If several photographs are used to make one sheet of drawings, the photographs must be contained on a single sheet.
See MPEP § 608.02(c) for information relating to the location of drawings in IFW applications. See MPEP § 1503.02 for discussion of photographs used in design patent applications.
VIII. COLOR DRAWINGS OR COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS
37 CFR 1.84 Standards for drawings.
(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications:
*****
(2) Color. Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and the specification must contain the reference required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. On rare occasions, color drawings may be necessary as the only practical medium by which to disclose the subject matter sought to be patented in a utility patent application. The color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color drawings are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13). The Office will accept color drawings in utility patent applications only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h);
(ii) One (1) set of color drawings if submitted via the Office electronic filing system, or three (3) sets of color
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-179
§ 608.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
drawings if not submitted via the Office electronic filing system; and
(iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
(b) Photographs .
*****
(2) Color photographs. Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.
*****
Color drawings and color photographs are permitted in design applications without the need for a petition. However, the specification of design applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) must include, or be amended to include, the reference to a drawing executed in color as provided for in 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(iii). Note that the drawing requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.84 do not apply to nonprovisional international design applications, except for those set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(c). See 37 CFR 1.1061(b).
Color drawings and color photographs are not accepted in utility applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) or (b)(2) is granted. Color drawings and color photographs are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13).
Unless a petition is filed and granted, color drawings or color photographs will not be accepted in a utility patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111. The examiner must object to the color drawings or color photographs as being improper and require applicant either to cancel the drawings or to provide substitute black and white drawings.
Under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and (b)(2), the applicant must file a petition with fee requesting acceptance of the color drawings or color photographs. Color drawings and photographs must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color photographs may be acceptable if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs are met. One set of color drawings or color photographs is required if submitted via the Office electronic filing system, or three sets of color drawings or color photographs are required if not submitted via the Office electronic filing system (37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)(ii)). The petition is decided by a Supervisory Patent Examiner. See MPEP § 1002.02(d).
Color photographs or color drawings will be stored in SCORE and a black and white copy thereof will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet. Color drawings or color photographs submitted in paper are also maintained in an artifact folder.
Where color drawings or color photographs are filed in a continuing utility application, applicant must renew the petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and (b)(2) even though a similar petition was filed in the prior application. Until the renewed petition is granted, the examiner must object to the color drawings or color photographs in the utility patent application as being improper.
In light of the substantial administrative and economic burden associated with printing a utility patent with color drawings or color photographs, the patent copies which are printed at issuance of the patent will depict the drawings in black and white only. However, a set of color drawings or color photographs will be attached to the Letters Patent. Moreover, copies of the patent with color drawings or color photographs attached thereto will be provided by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office upon special request and payment of the fee necessary to recover the actual costs associated therewith.
Accordingly, the petition must also be accompanied by a proposed amendment to insert the following language as the first paragraph in the portion of the
600-180Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02
specification containing a brief description of the drawings:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
If color drawings or color photographs have been filed, but the required petition has not, form paragraph 6.24.01 may be used to notify applicant that a petition is needed.
¶ 6.24.01 Color Photographs and Color Drawings, Petition Required
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used only if the application contains color photographs or color drawings as the drawings required by 37 CFR 1.81.
2. This form paragraph should not be used in design applications.
It is anticipated that such a petition will be granted only when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has determined that a color drawing or color photograph is the only practical medium by which to disclose in a printed utility patent the subject matter to be patented.
It is emphasized that a decision to grant the petition should not be regarded as an indication that color
drawings or color photographs are necessary to comply with a statutory requirement. In this latter respect, clearly it is desirable to file any desired color drawings or color photographs as part of the original application papers in order to avoid issues concerning statutory defects (e.g., lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112 or new matter under 35 U.S.C. 132).
See MPEP § 608.02(c) for information relating to the location of drawings in IFW applications.
IX. DRAWING SYMBOLS
37 CFR 1.84(n) indicates that graphic drawing symbols and other labeled representations may be used for conventional elements where appropriate, subject to approval by the Office. Also, suitable legends may be used, or may be required, in proper cases. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (www.ansi.org) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (www.iso.org) are organizations whose numerous publications include some that pertain to graphical symbols,; the symbols therein are considered to be generally acceptable in patent drawings. Although ANSI and ISO documents and other published sources may be used as guides during the selection of graphic symbols for patent drawings, the Office will not “approve” any published collection of symbols as a group because their use and clarity must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Overly specific symbols should be avoided. Symbols with unclear meanings should be labeled for clarification.
Since design patents protect the appearance of an article, the use of graphic drawing symbols in design patent applications to indicate a particular material is generally not appropriate and will not be approved unless the material contributes to the appearance of the article. In addition, because color drawings may now be filed in a design application without the need for a petition, the use of graphic symbols to represent color is generally not appropriate and will not normally be approved by the Office. See MPEP § 1503.02, subsection V, and MPEP § 608.02,subsection VIII, for the submission of color drawings in design applications.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-181
§ 608.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
In utility patent applications, the following symbols should be used to indicate various materials where the material is an important feature of the invention.
The use of conventional features is very helpful in making prior art searches.
600-182Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-183
§ 608.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
608.02(a) New Drawing — When Replacement is Required Before Examination [R-07.2015]
See MPEP § 608.02 for the procedure to follow when drawings have not been filed, but a drawing will aid in the understanding of the invention. See MPEP § 601.01(f) or 601.01(g) for the procedures
to follow when applications appear to be missing drawing(s). Drawings in utility and plant applications will be reviewed by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) for compliance with certain requirements of 37 CFR 1.84. OPAP will send a Notice to File Corrected Application Papers if the drawings are unacceptable for purposes of publication. The notice will give applicant a time
600-184Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02(a)
period of two (2) months from the mailing date of the notice to file acceptable drawings. This time period for reply is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a). OPAP will not release applications to the Technology Centers until acceptable drawings are filed in the applications.
If at the time of the initial assignment of an application to an examiner’s docket, or if at the time the application is taken up for action, the supervisory patent examiner believes the drawings to be of such a condition as to not permit reasonable examination of the application, applicant should be required to immediately submit corrected drawings. However, if the drawings do permit reasonable examination and the supervisory patent examiner believes the drawings are of such a character as to render the application defective under 35 U.S.C. 112, examination should begin immediately with a requirement for corrected drawings and a rejection of the claims as not being in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) being made.
If the drawings have been indicated by the applicant as "informal," but the drawings are considered acceptable by OPAP, the examiner should not require replacement of the drawings. If the examiner does make objections to the drawings, the examiner should require correction in reply to the Office action and not permit the objection to be held in abeyance. See MPEP § 608.02(b), § 608.02(d) - § 608.02(h) and § 608.02(p) for further information on specific grounds for finding drawings informalities.
I. UNTIMELY FILED DRAWINGS
If a drawing is not timely received in reply to a notice from the Office or a letter from the examiner who requires a drawing, the application becomes abandoned for failure to reply.
For the handling of replacement drawings, see MPEP § 608.02(h).
608.02(b) Acceptability of Drawings [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.85 Corrections to drawings.
(a) A utility or plant application will not be placed on the files for examination until objections to the drawings have been
corrected. Except as provided in § 1.215(c), any patent application publication will not include drawings filed after the application has been placed on the files for examination. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action (§ 1.135(c)). If a drawing in a design application meets the requirements of § 1.84(e), (f), and (g) and is suitable for reproduction, but is not otherwise in compliance with § 1.84, the drawing may be admitted for examination.
(b) The Office will not release drawings for purposes of correction. If corrections are necessary, new corrected drawings must be submitted within the time set by the Office.
(c) If a corrected drawing is required or if a drawing does not comply with § 1.84 or an amended drawing submitted under § 1.121(d) in a nonprovisional international design application does not comply with § 1.1026 at the time an application is allowed, the Office may notify the applicant in a notice of allowability and set a three-month period of time from the mail date of the notice of allowability within which the applicant must file a corrected drawing in compliance with § 1.84 or 1.1026, as applicable, to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under § 1.136 (see § 1.136(c)).
In instances where the drawing is such that the prosecution can be carried on without the corrections, applicant is informed of the reasons why the drawing is objected to in an examiner’s action, and that the drawing is admitted for examination purposes only (see MPEP § 707.07(a)). To be fully responsive, an amendment must include corrected drawings. See 37 CFR 1.85(c) and 37 CFR 1.121(d). The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
I. ACCEPTABILITY OF DRAWINGS
The Office no longer considers drawings as formal or informal. Drawings are either acceptable or unacceptable. Drawings will be accepted by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) if the drawings are readable and reproducible for publication purposes. See MPEP § 507.
Examiners should review the drawings for disclosure of the claimed invention and for proper use of reference numerals. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance. A request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-185
§ 608.02(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
action (37 CFR 1.135(c)). Drawing corrections should be made promptly before allowance of the application in order to avoid delays in issuance of the application as a patent or a reduction to any term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10).
II. NOTIFYING APPLICANT
If the original drawings are unacceptable, applicant will be notified and informed of what the objections are and that new corrected drawings are required. In either case, the drawings will be accepted as satisfying the requirements of 37 CFR 1.51. The examiners are directed to advise the applicants (see MPEP § 707.07(a)) in the first Office action of the reasons why the drawings are unacceptable. If the examiner discovers a defect in the content of the drawing, one or more of the form paragraphs reproduced below may be used to notify applicant.
¶ 6.21 New Drawings, Competent Draftsperson
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because [1]. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
¶ 6.22 Drawings Objected To
The drawings are objected to because [1]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the reason for the objection, for example, --the drawings do not show every feature of the invention
specified in the claims-- or --the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels--.
2. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
3. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
¶ 6.26 Drawings Do Not Permit Examination
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a TWO MONTH time period to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. Use of this form paragraph should be extremely rare and limited to those instances where no examination can be performed due to the poor quality of the drawings resulting in a lack of understanding of the claimed subject matter.
2. Use a PTOL-90 or PTO-90C form as a cover sheet for this communication.
¶ 6.27 Requirement for Marked-up Copy of Drawing Corrections
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the corrected drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. When this form paragraph is used by the examiner, the applicant must provide a marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made in the drawing replacement sheets. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(2).
600-186Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02(b)
2. Applicants should be encouraged to submit corrected drawings before allowance in order to avoid having any term adjustment reduced pursuant to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10).
III. HANDLING OF REPLACEMENT DRAWINGS
In those situations where an application is filed with unacceptable drawings, applicants will be notified by OPAP to file new acceptable drawings complying with 37 CFR 1.84 and 1.121(d) or 37 CFR 1.1026, as applicable. If the requirement for corrected drawings appears on the notice of allowability (PTOL-37), the drawings must be filed within three months of the date of mailing of the notice of allowability. Also, each sheet of the drawing should include the application number and the art unit in the upper center margin (37 CFR 1.84(c)) and labeled, in the header, “Replacement Sheet.”
In utility applications, the examination will normally be conducted using the originally presented drawings. The sufficiency of disclosure, as concerns the subject matter claimed, will be made by the examiner utilizing the original drawings. IT IS APPLICANT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT NO NEW MATTER IS ADDED when submitting replacement drawings after allowance since they will not normally be reviewed by an examiner. Of course, if the examiner notices new matter in the replacement drawings, appropriate action to have the new matter deleted should be undertaken.
608.02(c) Location of Drawings [R-07.2015]
Black and white line drawings submitted in: (i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); (ii) nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility patent applications; (iii) international applications (PCT) and national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; and (iv) reexamination proceedings for utility patents will be converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW.
Black and white line drawings in design applications, including reissue design patent applications, international design applications, and reexamination proceedings for design patents will be stored in SCORE, and a black and white copy will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.
Black and white photographs and grayscale drawings in: (i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); (ii) nonprovisional utility and design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility and design patent applications; (iii) national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; (iv) international applications (PCT); (v) international design applications ; (vi) reexamination proceedings for utility patents and design patents; and (vii) supplemental examination proceedings will be stored in SCORE, and a black and white copy will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.
Color drawings and color photographs are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13). Except for international applications, color photographs and color drawings in utility and design applications and proceedings will be stored in SCORE and a black and white copy thereof will be stored in IFW along with a SCORE placeholder sheet.
Originally submitted drawings on paper that are photographs or in color may be maintained in an artifact folder.
608.02(d) Complete Illustration in Drawings [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.83 Content of drawing.
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation ( e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-187
§ 608.02(d)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
If an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or under 35 U.S.C. 371 includes a sequence listing or a table, such a sequence listing or table should not be included in both the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification. 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 1.58(a).
Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing. ( Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911).)
Form paragraph 6.22.01, 6.22.04, or 6.36, where appropriate, may be used to require illustration.
¶ 6.22.01 Drawings Objected To, Details Not Shown
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show [1] as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the structural details not shown in the drawings.
2. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
3. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
¶ 6.22.04 Drawings Objected to, Incomplete
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. Supply a full explanation, if it is not readily apparent how the drawings are incomplete.
2. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
3. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
¶ 6.36 Drawings Do Not Show Claimed Subject Matter
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the [1] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing
600-188Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02(d)
should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, insert the features that must be shown.
See also MPEP § 608.02.
608.02(e) Examiner Determines Completeness and Consistency of Drawings [R-07.2015]
The examiner should ensure that the figures are correctly described in the brief description of the several views of the drawing section of the specification, that the reference characters are properly applied, that no single reference character is used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part, and that there are no superfluous illustrations.
One or more of the following form paragraphs may be used to require correction.
¶ 6.22.01 Drawings Objected To, Details Not Shown
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show [1] as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New
Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the structural details not shown in the drawings.
2. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
3. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
¶ 6.22.02 Drawings Objected to, Different Numbers Refer to Same Part
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “[1]” and [2] have both been used to designate [3]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. In brackets 1 and 2, identify the numbers which refer to the same part.
2. In bracket 3, identify the part which is referred to by different numbers.
3. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
4. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
¶ 6.22.03 Drawings Objected to, Different Parts Referred to by Same Number
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “[1]” has been used to designate both [2] and [3]. Corrected drawing sheets in
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-189
§ 608.02(e)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet ” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the number which refers to the different parts.
2. In brackets 2 and 3, identify the parts which are referred to by the same number.
3. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
4. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
¶ 6.22.06 Drawings Objected to, Reference Numbers Not in Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: [1]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, specify the reference characters which are not found in the drawings, including the page and line number where they first occur in the specification.
2. This form paragraph may be modified to require or allow the applicant to delete the reference character(s) from the description instead of adding them to the drawing(s).
3. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
4. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
¶ 6.22.07 Drawings Objected to, Reference Numbers Not in Specification
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: [1]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, specify the reference characters which are not found in the specification, including the figure in which they occur.
2. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
3. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
608.02(f) Modifications in Drawings [R-08.2012]
Modifications may not be shown in broken lines on figures which show in solid lines another form of the invention. Ex parte Badger, 1901 C.D. 195, 97 OG 1596 (Comm’r Pat. 1901).
All modifications described must be illustrated, or the text canceled. ( Ex parte Peck, 1901 C.D. 136, 96 OG 2409 (Comm’r Pat. 1901).) This requirement does not apply to a mere reference to minor variations nor to well-known and conventional parts.
600-190Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02(f)
Form paragraph 6.22.05 may be used to require correction.
¶ 6.22.05 Drawings Objected to, Modifications in Same Figure
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figure [1] show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the appropriate Figure number(s).
2. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
3. This form paragraph may be followed by form paragraph 6.27 to require a marked up copy of the amended drawing figure(s) including annotations indicating the changes made in the corrected drawings.
608.02(g) Illustration of Prior Art [R-08.2012]
Figures showing the prior art are usually unnecessary and should be canceled. Ex parte Elliott, 1904 C.D. 103, 109 OG 1337 (Comm’r Pat. 1904). However, where needed to understand applicant’s invention, they may be retained if designated by a legend such as “Prior Art.”
If the prior art figure is not labeled, form paragraph 6.36.01 may be used.
¶ 6.36.01 Illustration of “Prior Art”
Figure [1] should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
608.02(h) Replacement Drawings [R-11.2013]
All sheets of replacement drawings will be routinely entered into the contents of the application. However, the examiner should not overlook such factors as new matter, the necessity for the replacement sheets and consistency with other sheets. If the examiner decides that the sheets should not be entered, the examiner should provide the applicant with the complete, explicit reasoning for the denial of entry. The entries previously made will be marked "not entered."
Form paragraph 6.37 may be used to acknowledge replacement drawing sheets.
¶ 6.37 Acknowledgment of Replacement Drawing Sheets
The drawings were received on [1]. These drawings are [2].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert either --acceptable-- or --unacceptable--.
2. If unacceptable because of noncompliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), an explanation must be provided. Form PTOL-324 may be used instead of this form paragraph to provide the explanation.
Alternatively, PTOL-326 Office Action Summary includes a block for acknowledgment of replacement drawings.
When an amendment is filed stating that replacement sheets of drawings are filed with the amendment and such drawings are not in the IFW, in the next communication by the examiner, the applicant must be notified that replacement drawings do not appear to have been received and thus have not been entered in the application.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-191
§ 608.02(h)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
Note that drawings will not be returned to the applicant. See MPEP § 608.02(y).
608.02(i) Transfer of Drawings From Prior Applications [R-11.2013]
Drawings cannot normally be transferred from a first pending application to another as the Office no longer considers drawings as formal or informal. Drawings that do not comply with all of the form requirements of 37 CFR 1.84 may be acceptable for the purposes of publication and examination if the drawings are readable and reproducible for publication purposes.
608.02(j) -608.02(o) [Reserved]
608.02(p) Correction of Drawings [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.121 Manner of making amendments in applications.
*****
(d) Drawings. One or more application drawings shall be amended in the following manner: Any changes to an application drawing must be in compliance with § 1.84 or, for a nonprovisional international design application, in compliance with §§ 1.84(c) and 1.1026 and must be submitted on a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document and, in the top margin, labeled “Replacement Sheet.” Any replacement sheet of drawings shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Any new sheet of drawings containing an additional figure must be labeled in the top margin as “New Sheet.” All changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper.
(1) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be included. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
(2) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, must be provided when required by the examiner.
*****
37 CFR 1.85 Corrections to drawings.
(a) A utility or plant application will not be placed on the files for examination until objections to the drawings have been corrected. Except as provided in § 1.215(c), any patent
application publication will not include drawings filed after the application has been placed on the files for examination. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action (§ 1.135(c)). If a drawing in a design application meets the requirements of § 1.84(e), (f), and (g) and is suitable for reproduction, but is not otherwise in compliance with § 1.84, the drawing may be admitted for examination.
(b) The Office will not release drawings for purposes of correction. If corrections are necessary, new corrected drawings must be submitted within the time set by the Office.
(c) If a corrected drawing is required or if a drawing does not comply with § 1.84 or an amended drawing submitted under § 1.121(d) in a nonprovisional international design application does not comply with § 1.1026 at the time an application is allowed, the Office may notify the applicant in a notice of allowability and set a three-month period of time from the mail date of the notice of allowability within which the applicant must file a corrected drawing in compliance with § 1.84 or 1.1026, as applicable, to avoid abandonment. This time period is not extendable under § 1.136 (see § 1.136(c)).
See also MPEP § 608.02(b). For correction at allowance and issue, see MPEP § 608.02(w) and MPEP § 1302.05.
A canceled figure may be reinstated. An amendment should be made to the specification adding the brief description of the view if a canceled figure is reinstated.
The following form paragraphs may be used to notify applicants of drawing corrections.
¶ 6.39 USPTO Does Not Make Drawing Changes
The United States Patent and Trademark Office does not make drawing changes. It is applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the drawings are corrected. Corrections must be made in accordance with the instructions below.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is to be used whenever the applicant has filed a request for the Office to make drawing changes. Form paragraph 6.40 must follow.
¶ 6.40 Information on How To Effect Drawing Changes
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply
600-192Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02(i)
with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
¶ 6.41 Reminder That USPTO Does Not Make Drawing Changes
Applicant is reminded that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not make drawing changes and that it is applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the drawings are corrected in accordance with the instructions set forth in the paper mailed on [1].
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is to be used when the applicant has been previously provided with information on how to effect drawing changes.
¶ 6.42 Reminder That Applicant Must Make Drawing Changes
Applicant is reminded that in order to avoid an abandonment of this application, the drawings must be corrected in accordance with the instructions set forth in the paper mailed on [1].
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is to be used when allowing the application and when applicant has previously been provided with information on how to effect drawing changes.
¶ 6.43 Drawings Contain Informalities, Application Allowed
The drawings filed on [1] are acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph when allowing the application, particularly at time of first action issue. Supply an explanation of drawings informalities (see MPEP § 608.02(b), § 608.02(d) - § 608.02(h) and § 608.02(p)).
2. Form paragraph 6.40 or 6.41 must follow.
¶ 6.47 Examiner’s Amendment Involving Drawing Changes
The following changes to the drawings have been approved by the examiner and agreed upon by applicant: [1]. In order to avoid abandonment of the application, applicant must make these agreed upon drawing changes.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the agreed upon drawing changes.
2. Form paragraphs 6.39 and 6.40 must follow.
608.02(q) -608.02(s) [Reserved]
608.02(t) Cancelation of Figures [R-08.2012]
If a drawing figure is canceled, a replacement sheet of drawings must be submitted without the figure (see 37 CFR 1.121(d)). If the canceled drawing figure was the only drawing on the sheet, then only a marked-up copy of the drawing sheet including an annotation showing that the drawing has been cancelled is required. The marked-up (annotated) copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Sheet" and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section of the amendment document which explains the changes to the drawings (see 37 CFR
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-193
§ 608.02(t)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
1.121(d)(1)). The brief description of the drawings should also be amended to reflect this change.
608.02(u) [Reserved]
608.02(v) Drawing Changes Which Require Annotated Sheets [R-08.2012]
When changes are to be made in the drawing itself, other than mere changes in reference characters, designations of figures, or inking over lines pale and rough, a marked-up copy of the drawing should be filed with a replacement drawing. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet.” See 37 CFR 1.84(c) and 1.121(d). Ordinarily, broken lines may be changed to full without a sketch.
Annotated sheets filed by an applicant and used for correction of the drawing will not be returned. All such annotated sheets must be in ink or permanent prints.
608.02(w) Drawing Changes Which May Be Made Without Applicant’s Annotated Sheets [R-11.2013]
Where an application is ready for issue except for a slight defect in the drawing not involving change in structure, the examiner will prepare a letter to the applicant indicating the change to be made and may include a marked-up copy of the drawing showing the addition or alteration to be made. The marked-up copy of the drawing should be attached to the letter to the applicant made of record in the application file.
As a guide to the examiner, the following corrections are illustrative of those that may be suggested without requiring annotated sheets from the applicant:
(A) Adding two or three reference characters or exponents.
(B) Changing one or two numerals or figure ordinals.
(C) Removing superfluous matter.
(D) Adding or reversing directional arrows.
(E) Changing Roman Numerals to Arabic Numerals to agree with specification.
(F) Adding section lines or brackets, where easily executed.
(G) Changing lead lines.
(H) Correcting misspelled legends.
608.02(x) Drawing Corrections or Changes Accepted Unless Notified Otherwise [R-08.2012]
Drawing corrections or changes will be entered at the time they are presented, unless applicant is notified to the contrary by the examiner in the action following the amended drawing submission.
CORRECTION OR CHANGE NOT ACCEPTED
Where the corrected or changed drawing is not accepted, for example, because the submitted corrections or changes are erroneous, or involve new matter or do not include all necessary corrections, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The examiner should explicitly and clearly set forth all the reasons for not approving the corrections to the drawings in the next communication to the applicant. See MPEP § 608.02(p) for suggested form paragraphs that may be used by examiners to notify applicants of drawing corrections.
608.02(y) Return of Drawing [R-08.2012]
Drawings will not be returned to the applicant.
608.02(z) Allowable Applications Needing Drawing Corrections or Corrected Drawings [R-07.2015]
If the drawings submitted in an application have been indicated by the applicant as “informal,” but the drawings are considered acceptable by OPAP, the examiner should not require replacement of the drawings.
In IFW applications, generally, the most recently filed drawings will be used for printing, unless they have been indicated as “Not Entered.”
600-194Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.02(u)
If the examiner makes an objection to the drawings, the examiner should require correction in reply to the Office action that sets forth the objection. If an application is being allowed, and corrected drawings have not been filed, form PTOL-37 provides an appropriate check box for requiring corrected drawings.
Extensions of time to provide acceptable drawings in response to a notice of allowability are not permitted. If the Office of Data Management receives drawings that cannot be scanned or are otherwise unacceptable for publication, the Office of Data Management will mail a requirement for corrected drawings, giving applicant a shortened statutory period of two months to reply. The drawings will ordinarily not be returned to the examiner for corrections.
I. UTILITY PATENTAPPLICATIONS RECEIVING REPLACEMENT DRAWINGS AFTER THE NOTICE OF ALLOWABILITY
Where replacement drawings are received in utility patent applications after the Notice of Allowability was mailed, the replacement drawings are handled by the Office of Data Management. Submission to the examiner is not necessary unless an amendment to the specification accompanies the drawings, such as an amendment where the description of figures is added or canceled. It is applicant’s responsibility to see that no new matter is added when submitting replacement drawings after allowance because they will not normally be reviewed by an examiner.
II. 37 CFR 1.312 AMENDMENTS
For information on handling amendments to drawings filed under 37 CFR 1.312, see MPEP § 714.16.
608.03 Models, Exhibits, Specimens [R-08.2012]
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
The Director may require the applicant to furnish a model of convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his invention.
When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the Director may require the applicant to furnish specimens or ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment.
37 CFR 1.91 Models or exhibits not generally admitted as part of application or patent.
(a) A model or exhibit will not be admitted as part of the record of an application unless it:
(1) Substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84;
(2) Is specifically required by the Office; or
(3) Is filed with a petition under this section including:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h); and
(ii) An explanation of why entry of the model or exhibit in the file record is necessary to demonstrate patentability.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a model, working model, or other physical exhibit may be required by the Office if deemed necessary for any purpose in examination of the application.
(c) Unless the model or exhibit substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84 under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, it must be accompanied by photographs that show multiple views of the material features of the model or exhibit and that substantially conform to the requirements of § 1.84.
Models or exhibits are generally not admitted as part of an application or patent unless the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 are satisfied.
With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.
Models or exhibits that are required by the Office or filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.91(a)(3) must be accompanied by photographs that (A) show multiple views of the material features of the model or exhibit, and (B) substantially conform to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84. See 37 CFR 1.91(c). Material features are considered to be those features which represent that portion(s) of the model or exhibit forming the basis for which the model or exhibit has been submitted. Where a video or DVD or similar item is submitted as a model or exhibit, applicant must submit photographs of what is depicted in the video or DVD (the content of the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-195
§ 608.03PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
material such as a still image single frame of a movie) and not a photograph of a video cassette, DVD disc, or compact disc.
37 CFR 1.93 Specimens.
When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the applicant may be required to furnish specimens of the composition, or of its ingredients or intermediates, for the purpose of inspection or experiment.
See MPEP Chapter 2400 regarding treatment of biological deposits.
608.03(a) Handling of Models, Exhibits, and Specimens [R-07.2015]
All models and exhibits received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should be taken to the Technology Center (TC) assigned the related application for examination. The receipt of all models and exhibits which are to be entered into the application file record must be properly recorded on an artifact sheet.
A label indicating the application number, filing date, and attorney’s name and address should be attached to the model or exhibit so that it is clearly identified and easily returned. The Office may return the model, exhibit, or specimen, at any time once it is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office and return of the model or exhibit is appropriate. See 37 CFR 1.94.
If the model or exhibit cannot be conveniently stored in an artifact folder, it should not be accepted.
Models and exhibits may be presented for demonstration purposes during an interview. The models and exhibits should be taken away by applicant or his/her attorney or agent at the conclusion of the interview since models or exhibits are generally not permitted to be admitted as part of the application or patent unless the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 are satisfied. See MPEP § 713.08. A full description of what was demonstrated or exhibited during the interview must be made of record. See 37 CFR 1.133. Any model or exhibit that is left with the examiner at the conclusion of the interview, which is not made part of the application
or patent, may be disposed of at the discretion of the Office.
37 CFR 1.94 Return of models, exhibits or specimens.
(a) Models, exhibits, or specimens may be returned to the applicant if no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office. When applicant is notified that a model, exhibit, or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office and will be returned, applicant must arrange for the return of the model, exhibit, or specimen at the applicant’s expense. The Office will dispose of perishables without notice to applicant unless applicant notifies the Office upon submission of the model, exhibit or specimen that a return is desired and makes arrangements for its return promptly upon notification by the Office that the model, exhibit or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office.
(b) Applicant is responsible for retaining the actual model, exhibit, or specimen for the enforceable life of any patent resulting from the application. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to a model or exhibit that substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84, where the model or exhibit has been described by photographs that substantially conform to § 1.84, or where the model, exhibit or specimen is perishable.
(c) Where applicant is notified, pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, of the need to arrange for return of a model, exhibit or specimen, applicant must arrange for the return within the period set in such notice, to avoid disposal of the model, exhibit or specimen by the Office. Extensions of time are available under § 1.136, except in the case of perishables. Failure to establish that the return of the item has been arranged for within the period set or failure to have the item removed from Office storage within a reasonable amount of time notwithstanding any arrangement for return, will permit the Office to dispose of the model, exhibit or specimen.
When applicant is notified that a model, exhibit, or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office and will be returned, applicant must make arrangements for the return of the model, exhibit, or specimen at applicant’s expense. The Office may return the model, exhibit, or specimen at any time once it is no longer necessary for the conduct of business and need not wait until the close of prosecution or later. Where the model, exhibit, or specimen is a perishable, the Office will be presumed to have permission to dispose of the item without notice to applicant, unless applicant notifies the Office upon submission of the item that a return is desired and arrangements are promptly made for the item’s return upon notification by the Office.
600-196Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.03(a)
For models, exhibits, or specimens that are returned, applicant is responsible for retaining the actual model, exhibit, or specimen for the enforceable life of any patent resulting from the application except where: (A) the model or exhibit substantially conforms to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52 or 1.84; (B) the model or exhibit has been described by photographs that substantially conform to 37 CFR 1.84; or (C) the model, exhibit, or specimen is perishable.Applicant may be called upon to resubmit such returned model, exhibit, or specimen under appropriate circumstances, such as where a continuing application is filed.
The notification to applicant that a model, exhibit, or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office will set a time period within which applicant must make arrangements for a return of a model, exhibit, or specimen. The time period is normally two months from the mailing date of the notification, unless the item is perishable, in which case the time period will be shorter. Extensions of time are available under 37 CFR 1.136, except in the case of perishables. Failure by applicant to establish that arrangements for the return of a model, exhibit, or specimen have been made within the time period set in the notice will result in the disposal of the model, exhibit, or specimen by the Office.
Form paragraph 6.48 may be used to notify applicant that the model, exhibit, or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office and that applicant must make arrangement for the return of the model, exhibit, or specimen.
¶ 6.48 Model, Exhibit, or Specimen - Applicant Must Make Arrangements for Return
The [1] is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office. Applicant must arrange for the return of the model, exhibit or specimen at the applicant’s expense in accordance with 37 CFR 1.94(a).
Applicant is given TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter to make arrangements for return of the above-identified model, exhibit, or specimen to avoid its disposal in accordance with 37 CFR 1.94(c). Extensions of time are available under 37 CFR 1.136, except in the case of perishables.
Applicant is responsible for retaining the actual model, exhibit, or specimen for the enforceable life of any patent resulting from
the application unless one of the exceptions set forth in 37 CFR 1.94(b) applies.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the model, exhibit, or specimen that is no longer needed by the Office.
2. The Office will dispose of perishables without notice to Applicant unless applicant notifies the Office upon submission of the model, exhibit or specimen that a return is desired and makes arrangements for its return promptly upon notification by the Office that the model, exhibit or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office.
For plant specimens, see MPEP § 1607 and 37 CFR 1.166.
37 CFR 1.95 Copies of exhibits.
Copies of models or other physical exhibits will not ordinarily be furnished by the Office, and any model or exhibit in an application or patent shall not be taken from the Office except in the custody of an employee of the Office specially authorized by the Director.
608.04 New Matter [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.121 Manner of making amendments in applications.
*****
(f) No new matter. No amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application.
*****
In establishing a disclosure, applicant may rely not only on the specification and drawing as filed but also on the claims present on the filing date of the application if their content justifies it. See MPEP § 608.01(l).
While amendments to the specification and claims involving new matter are ordinarily entered, such matter is required to be canceled from the descriptive portion of the specification, and the claims affected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
When new matter is introduced into the specification, the amendment should be objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 (35 U.S.C. 251 if a reissue application) and a requirement made to cancel the new matter. The subject matter which is considered to be new matter must be clearly identified by the examiner. If the new matter has been entered into the claims or affects the scope of the claims, the claims affected
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-197
§ 608.04PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the new matter is not described in the application as originally filed.
A “new matter” amendment of the drawing is ordinarily not entered; neither is an additional or substitute sheet containing “new matter” even though provisionally entered by the TC technical support staff. See MPEP § 608.02(h).
The examiner’s holding of new matter may be petitionable or appealable. See MPEP § 608.04(c).
For new matter in reissue application, see MPEP § 1411.02. For new matter in substitute specification, see MPEP § 608.01(q). For new matter in a continuation or divisional application, see MPEP § 211.05.
Note: No amendment is permitted in a provisional application after it receives a filing date.
608.04(a) Matter Not Present in Specification, Claims, or Drawings on the Application Filing Date [R-07.2015]
Matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that is added after the application filing is usually new matter. See MPEP §§ 2163.06 and 2163.07 for guidance in determining whether an amendment adds new matter. See MPEP § 2163.07(a) to determine whether added characteristics such as chemical or physical properties, a new structural formula or a new use are inherent characteristics that do not introduce new matter. For rejection of claim involving new matter, see MPEP § 706.03(o).
For completeness of specification, see MPEP § 608.01(p). For trademarks and trade names, see MPEP § 608.01(v).
608.04(b) New Matter by Preliminary Amendment [R-11.2013]
A preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application (e.g., filed along with the filing of the application) is considered a part of the original disclosure. See MPEP § 714.01(e) and § 602. A
preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the application is not part of the original disclosure of the application. See MPEP § 706.03(o). For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, the Office will automatically treat any preliminary amendment under 37 CFR 1.115(a)(1) that is present on the filing date of the application as part of the original disclosure. Applicants can avoid the need to file a preliminary amendment by incorporating any desired amendments into the text of the specification, even where the application is a continuation or divisional application of a prior-filed application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to avoid submitting any preliminary amendments so as to minimize the burden on the Office in processing preliminary amendments and reduce delays in processing the application.
608.04(c) Review of Examiner’s Holding of New Matter [R-11.2013]
Where the new matter is confined to amendments to the specification, review of the examiner’s requirement for cancelation is by way of petition. But where the alleged new matter is introduced into or affects the claims, thus necessitating their rejection on this ground, the question becomes an appealable one, and should not be considered on petition even though that new matter has been introduced into the specification also. See also MPEP § 2163.06.
608.05 Sequence Listing, Table, or Computer Program Listing Appendix Submitted in Electronic Form [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.52 Language, paper, writing, margins, compact disc specifications.
(a)
*****
(5) Papers that are submitted electronically to the Office must be formatted and transmitted in compliance with the Office’s electronic filing system requirements.
*****
(e) Electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
600-198Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.04(a)
(1) The following documents may be submitted to the Office on a compact disc in compliance with this paragraph:
(i) A computer program listing (see § 1.96);
(ii) A “Sequence Listing” (submitted under § 1.821(c)); or
(iii) Any individual table (see § 1.58) if the table is more than 50 pages in length, or if the total number of pages of all of the tables in an application exceeds 100 pages in length, where a table page is a page printed on paper in conformance with paragraph (b) of this section and § 1.58(c).
(2) A compact disc as used in this part means a Compact Disc-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) or a Compact Disc-Recordable (CD-R) in compliance with this paragraph. A CD-ROM is a “read-only” medium on which the data is pressed into the disc so that it cannot be changed or erased. A CD-R is a “write once” medium on which once the data is recorded, it is permanent and cannot be changed or erased.
(3)(i) Each compact disc must conform to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9660 standard, and the contents of each compact disc must be in compliance with the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII).
(ii) Each compact disc must be enclosed in a hard compact disc case within an unsealed padded and protective mailing envelope and accompanied by a transmittal letter on paper in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section. The transmittal letter must list for each compact disc the machine format ( e.g., IBM-PC, Macintosh), the operating system compatibility ( e.g., MS-DOS, MS-Windows, Macintosh, Unix), a list of files contained on the compact disc including their names, sizes in bytes, and dates of creation, plus any other special information that is necessary to identify, maintain, and interpret ( e.g., tables in landscape orientation should be identified as landscape orientation or be identified when inquired about) the information on the compact disc. Compact discs submitted to the Office will not be returned to the applicant.
(4) Any compact disc must be submitted in duplicate unless it contains only the “Sequence Listing” in computer readable form required by § 1.821(e). The compact disc and duplicate copy must be labeled “Copy 1” and “Copy 2,” respectively. The transmittal letter which accompanies the compact disc must include a statement that the two compact discs are identical. In the event that the two compact discs are not identical, the Office will use the compact disc labeled “Copy 1” for further processing. Any amendment to the information on a compact disc must be by way of a replacement compact disc in compliance with this paragraph containing the substitute information, and must be accompanied by a statement that the replacement compact disc contains no new matter. The compact disc and copy must be labeled “COPY 1 REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY” (with the month, day and year of creation indicated), and “COPY 2 REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY,” respectively.
(5) The specification must contain an incorporation-by-reference of the material on the compact disc in a separate paragraph (§ 1.77(b)(5)), identifying each compact
disc by the names of the files contained on each of the compact discs, their date of creation and their sizes in bytes. The Office may require applicant to amend the specification to include in the paper portion any part of the specification previously submitted on compact disc.
(6) A compact disc must also be labeled with the following information:
(i) The name of each inventor (if known);
(ii) Title of the invention;
(iii) The docket number, or application number if known, used by the person filing the application to identify the application;
(iv) A creation date of the compact disc.
(v) If multiple compact discs are submitted, the label shall indicate their order ( e.g. “1 of X”); and
(vi) An indication that the disc is “Copy 1” or “Copy 2” of the submission. See paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(7) If a file is unreadable on both copies of the disc, the unreadable file will be treated as not having been submitted. A file is unreadable if, for example, it is of a format that does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section, it is corrupted by a computer virus, or it is written onto a defective compact disc.
(f)(1) Any sequence listing in an electronic medium in compliance with §§ 1.52(e) and 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing filed in an electronic medium in compliance with §§ 1.52(e) and 1.96, will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) or § 1.492(j). For purposes of determining the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) or § 1.492(j), for an application the specification and drawings of which, excluding any sequence listing in compliance with § 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing filed in an electronic medium in compliance with §§ 1.52(e) and 1.96, are submitted in whole or in part on an electronic medium other than the Office electronic filing system, each three kilobytes of content submitted on an electronic medium shall be counted as a sheet of paper.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the paper size equivalent of the specification and drawings of an application submitted via the Office electronic filing system will be considered to be the number of sheets of paper present in the specification and drawings of the application when entered into the Office file wrapper after being rendered by the Office electronic filing system for purposes of computing the application size fee required by § 1.16(s). Any sequence listing in compliance with § 1.821(c) or (e), and any computer program listing in compliance with § 1.96, submitted via the Office electronic filing system will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by § 1.16(s) if the listing is submitted in ACSII text as part of an associated file.
37 CFR 1.77 Arrangement of application elements.
(a) The elements of the application, if applicable, should appear in the following order:
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-199
§ 608.05PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(1) Utility application transmittal form.
(2) Fee transmittal form.
(3) Application data sheet (see § 1.76).
(4) Specification.
(5) Drawings.
(6) The inventor’s oath or declaration.
(b) The specification should include the following sections in order:
(1) Title of the invention, which may be accompanied by an introductory portion stating the name, citizenship, and residence of the applicant (unless included in the application data sheet).
(2) Cross-reference to related applications.
(3) Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.
(4) The names of the parties to a joint research agreement.
(5) Reference to a “Sequence Listing,” a table, or a computer program listing appendix submitted on a compact disc and an incorporation-by-reference of the material on the compact disc (see § 1.52(e)(5)). The total number of compact discs including duplicates and the files on each compact disc shall be specified.
(6) Statement regarding prior disclosures by the inventor or a joint inventor.
(7) Background of the invention.
(8) Brief summary of the invention.
(9) Brief description of the several views of the drawing.
(10) Detailed description of the invention.
(11) A claim or claims.
(12) Abstract of the disclosure.
(13) “Sequence Listing,” if on paper (see §§ 1.821 through 1.825).
(c) The text of the specification sections defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(12) of this section, if applicable, should be preceded by a section heading in uppercase and without underlining or bold type.
In view of lengthy data listings being submitted as part of the disclosure in some patent applications, the Office established procedures for the presentation of large tables (37 CFR 1.58), computer program listings (37 CFR 1.96) and biotechnology sequence listings (37 CFR 1.821(c)) in electronic form. Such listings are often several hundred pages or more in length. By filing and publishing such data listings in electronic form, substantial cost savings can result
to the applicants, the public, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The following document types may be submitted as ASCII text files with a “.txt” extension via EFS-Web or as compact discs in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.821 et seq. provided the specification contains a statement in a separate paragraph that incorporates by reference the material in the ASCII text file identifying the name of the ASCII text file, the date of creation, and the size of the ASCII text file in bytes:
(1) A computer program listing (see 37 CFR 1.96);
(2) A sequence listing (submitted under 37 CFR 1.821); or
(3) Any individual table (see 37 CFR 1.58) if the table is more than 50 pages in length, or if the total number of pages of all of the tables in an application exceeds 100 pages in length, wherein a table page is a page printed on paper in conformance with 37 CFR 1.52(b) and 1.58(c).
I. TEXT FILES SUBMITTED VIA EFS-WEB
The requirements of 37 CFR 1.52(e)(3)-(6) for documents submitted on compact disc are not applicable to computer program listings, sequence listings, and tables submitted as ASCII text files via EFS-Web. However, each text file must be in compliance with ASCII and have a file name with a “.txt” extension. Further, the specification must contain an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph identifying the name of the ASCII text file, the date of creation, and the size of the ASCII text file in bytes similar to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5) for compact discs. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5).
Form paragraphs 6.61.02 and 6.71.02 (reproduced in subsection II., below) may be used to indicate the need to add or amend an incorporation by reference statement for text files submitted via EFS-Web.
A. Information Specific to Sequence Listings
It is recommended that a sequence listing be submitted in an ASCII text file via EFS-Web rather than in a PDF file. If a sequence listing text file
600-200Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.05
submitted via EFS-Web on the application filing date complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824(a)(2)-(6) and (b), and applicant has not filed a sequence listing in a PDF file (or on paper) on the same day, the text file will serve as both the paper copy required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) and the computer readable form (CRF) required by 37 CFR 1.821(e). Thus, the following are not required and should not be submitted: (1) a second copy of the sequence listing in a PDF file; (2) a statement under 37 CFR 1.821(f) (indicating that the paper copy and CRF copy of the sequence listing are identical); and (3) a request to use a compliant computer readable “Sequence Listing” that is already on file for another application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.821(e). If such a request is filed, the USPTO will not carry out the request but will use the sequence listing submitted in an ASCII text file with the application via EFS-Web. See MPEP § 2422.05. Checker software that may be used to check a sequence listing for compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824 is available on the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/ types-patent-applications/utility-patent/checker-version-446.
If a user submits a sequence listing (under 37 CFR 1.821(c) and (e)) as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web in response to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.821(g) or (h), the sequence listing text file must be accompanied by a statement that the submission does not include any new matter which goes beyond the disclosure of the application as filed. In addition, if a user submits an amendment to, or a replacement of, a sequence listing (under 37 CFR 1.821(c) and (e)) as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web, the sequence listing text file must be accompanied by: (1) a statement that the submission does not include any new matter; and (2) a statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed. See 37 CFR 1.825.
Submission of the sequence listing in a PDF file on the application filing date is not recommended. Applicant must still provide the CRF required by 37 CFR 1.821(e), and the sequence listing in the PDF file will not be excluded when determining the application size fee. The USPTO prefers the submission of a sequence listing in an ASCII text file via EFS-Web on the application filing date because as stated above, if applicant has not filed a
second copy of the sequence listing in a PDF file (or on paper) on the same day, the text file will serve as both the paper copy required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) and the CRF required by 37 CFR 1.821(e). Any sequence listing submitted in PDF format (or on paper) on the application filing date is treated as the paper copy required by 37 CFR 1.821(c). If applicant submits both a sequence listing in a PDF file and an ASCII text file via EFS-Web on the application filing date, a statement that the sequence listing content of the PDF copy and the ASCII text file copy are identical is required. In situations where applicant files the sequence listing in PDF format and requests the use of the CRF of another application under 37 CFR 1.821(e), applicant must submit a letter and request in compliance with 37 CFR 1.821(e) and a statement that the PDF copy filed in the new application is identical to the CRF filed in the other application. See also MPEP § 2422.05.
B. Application Size Fee
Any sequence listing submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web that is otherwise in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.824(a)(2)-(6) and (b), and any computer program listing submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web that is otherwise in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.96, will be excluded when determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s) or 1.492(j) as per 37 CFR 1.52(f)(1).
Regarding a table submitted as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web that is part of the specification or drawings, each three kilobytes of content submitted will be counted as a sheet of paper for purposes of determining the application size fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(s) or 1.492(j). Each table should be submitted as a separate text file. Further, the file name for each table should indicate which table is contained therein.
C. Size Limit for Text Files
One hundred (100) megabytes is the size limit for sequence listing text files submitted via EFS-Web; for all other text file types, 25 megabytes is the size limit. If a user wishes to submit an electronic copy of a file that exceeds these size limits, it is recommended that the electronic copy be submitted
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-201
§ 608.05PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
on compact disc via Priority Mail Express® from the USPS in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10, or hand delivery, on the date of the corresponding EFS-Web filing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) if the user wishes the electronic copy to be considered to be part of the application as filed.
See the EFS-Web Legal Framework (www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/ applying-online/legal-framework-efs-web-06april11) for addition information pertaining to limits on the number and size of files submitted via EFS-Web. See also MPEP § 502.05.
II. Submissions On Compact Disc
A compact disc submitted under 37 CFR 1.52(e) must either be a CD-ROM or a CD-R. A CD-ROM is made by a process of pressing the disc from a master template; the data cannot be erased or rewritten. A CD-R is a compact disc that has a recording medium only capable of writing once. CD-RW type media which are erasable and rewriteable are not acceptable. Limiting the media types to CD-ROM and CD-R media will ensure the longevity and integrity of the data submitted. The files stored on the compact disc must contain only ASCII characters. No non-ASCII characters or proprietary file formats are permitted. A text viewer is recommended for viewing ASCII files. While virtually any word processor may be used to view an ASCII file, care must be taken since a word processor will often not distinguish ASCII and non-ASCII files when displayed. For example, a word processor normally does not display hidden proprietary non-ASCII characters used for formatting when viewing a non-ASCII word processor file.
Compact disc(s) filed on the date that the application was accorded a filing date are to be treated as part of the originally filed disclosure even if the requisite “incorporation by reference” statement (see 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5)) is omitted. Similarly, if a preliminary amendment accompanies the application when it is filed in the Office and the preliminary amendment includes compact disc(s), the compact disc(s) will be treated as part of the original disclosure. The compact disc(s) is considered part of the original disclosure by virtue of its inclusion with the application on the date the application is accorded
a filing date. The incorporation by reference statement of the material on the compact disc is required to be part of the specification so it is clear to the Office, the printer, and the public that the application as originally filed includes material on compact disc. The examiner should require applicant(s) to insert this statement if it is omitted or the examiner may insert the statement by examiner’s amendment at the time of allowance.
37 CFR 1.52(e)(3)(ii) requires that each compact disc must be enclosed in a hard compact disc case within an unsealed padded and protective mailing envelope and accompanied by a transmittal letter on paper in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(a). The transmittal letter must list for each compact disc the machine format (e.g., IBM-PC, Macintosh), the operating system compatibility (e.g., MS-DOS, MS-Windows, Macintosh, Unix), a list of files contained on the compact disc including their names, sizes in bytes, and dates of creation, plus any other special information that is necessary to identify, maintain, and interpret the information on the compact disc. Compact discs submitted to the Office will not be returned to the applicant.
All compact discs submitted under 37 CFR 1.52(e) must be submitted in duplicate labeled as “copy 1” and “copy 2” respectively. If more than one compact disc is required to hold all of the information, each compact disc must be submitted in duplicate to form two sets of discs: one set labeled “copy 1” and a second set labeled “copy 2.” Both disc copies should initially be routed to the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). The compact discs will be checked by OPAP for viruses, readability, the presence of non-ASCII files, and compliance with the file and disc labeling requirements. OPAP will retain one copy of the discs and place the other copy in an artifact folder associated with the Image File Wrapper. In the event that there is not a complete set of files on both copies of the originally filed discs, OPAP will retain the originally filed discs and send a notice to the applicant to submit an additional complete copy. For provisional applications, OPAP will provide applicant notification and, where appropriate, require correction for virus infected compact discs, unreadable compact discs (or unreadable files thereon), and missing duplicate discs.
600-202Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.05
An amendment to the material on a compact disc must be done by submitting a replacement compact disc with the amended file(s) or by filing the material as text file(s) via EFS-Web. The amendment should include a corresponding amendment to the description of the incorporation by reference portion of the specification. A replacement compact disc containing the amended files must contain all of the files of the original compact disc that were not amended. This will insure that the Office, printer, and public can quickly access all of the current files in an application or patent by referencing only the latest electronic version of the ASCII file.
The following form paragraphs may be used to notify applicant of corrections needed with respect to compact disc submissions.
¶ 6.60.01 CD-ROM/CD-R Requirements (No Statement that CDs are Identical)
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.52(e)(4) because it does not contain a statement in the transmittal letter that the two compact discs are identical. Correction is required.
¶ 6.60.02 CD-ROM/CD-R Requirements (No Listing in Transmittal Letter)
This application is objected to because it contains a data file on CD-ROM/CD-R, however, the transmittal letter does not list for each compact disc, the machine format, the operating system compatibility, a list of files contained on the compact disc including their names, sizes in bytes, and dates of creation, plus any other special information that is necessary to identify, maintain, and interpret the information on the compact disc as required by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(3). A statement listing the required information is required.
¶ 6.61.01 Specification Lacking List of Compact Disc(s) and /or Associated Files
Portions of this application are contained on compact disc(s). When portions of an application are contained on a compact disc, the paper portion of the specification must identify the compact disc(s) and list the files including name, file size, and creation date on each of the compact discs. See 37 CFR 1.52(e). Compact disc labeled[1] is not identified in the paper portion of the specification with a listing of all of the files contained on the disc. Applicant is required to amend the specification to identify each disc and the files contained on each disc including the file name, file size, and file creation date.
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, insert the name on the label of the compact disc.
¶ 6.61.02 Specification Lacking An Incorporation By Reference Statement for Compact Disc or Text File Submitted Via EFS-Web
This application contains compact disc(s) or text file(s) submitted via EFS-Web as part of the originally filed subject matter, but does not contain an incorporation by reference statement for the compact discs or text files. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 502.05. Applicant(s) are required to insert in the specification an appropriate incorporation-by-reference statement.
¶ 6.62 Data File on CD-ROM/CD-R Not in ASCII File Format
This application contains a data file on CD-ROM/CD-R that is not in an ASCII file format. See 37 CFR 1.52(e). File [1] is not in an ASCII format. Applicant is required to resubmit file(s) in ASCII format. No new matter may be introduced in presenting the file(s) in ASCII format.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be used to indicate whenever a data file (table, computer program listing or Sequence Listing) is submitted in a non-ASCII file format. The file may be in a file format that is proprietary, e.g., a Microsoft Word, Excel or Word Perfect file format; and/or the file may contain non-ASCII characters.
2. In bracket 1, insert the name of the file and whether the file is a non-text proprietary file format and/or contains non-ASCII characters.
The following form paragraphs should be used to respond to amendments which include amended or substituted compact discs.
¶ 6.70.01 CD-ROM/CD-R Requirements (Amendment Does Not Include Statement that CDs are Identical)
The amendment filed [1] is objected to under 37 CFR 1.52(e)(4) because it does not contain a statement in the transmittal letter that the two compact discs are identical. Correction is required.
¶ 6.70.02 CD-ROM/CD-R Requirements (No Listing in Transmittal Letter Submitted With Amendment)
The amendment filed [1] contains data on compact disc(s). Compact disc labeled [2] is not identified in the transmittal letter and/or the transmittal letter does not list for each compact disc, the machine format, the operating system compatibility, a list of files contained on the compact disc including their names, sizes in bytes, and dates of creation, plus any other special information that is necessary to identify, maintain, and interpret the information on the compact disc as required by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(3). A statement listing the required information is required.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph when the transmittal letter does not include a listing of the files and required information.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-203
§ 608.05PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
2. In bracket 1, insert the date of the amendment.
3. In bracket 2, insert the name on the label of the compact disc.
¶ 6.71.01 Specification Lacking List of Compact Disc(s) and/or Associated Files (Amendment Filed With Compact Disc(s))
The amendment filed [1] contains data on compact disc(s). Compact disc labeled [2] is not identified in the paper portion of the specification with a listing of all of the files contained on the disc. Applicant is required to amend the specification to identify each disc and the files contained on each disc including the file name, file size, and file creation date. See 37 CFR 1.52(e).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the date of the amendment.
2. In bracket 2, insert the name on the label of the compact disc.
¶ 6.71.02 Specification Lacking Incorporation By Reference Statement for Amended or Added Compact Disc or Text File
The amendment filed [1] amends or adds compact disc(s) or text file(s) submitted via EFS-Web. Applicant is required to update or insert an appropriate incorporation-by-reference statement in the specification. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and 1.52(e)(5).
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph when a CD-ROM/CD-R or text file submitted via EFS-Web is filed with an amendment, but the required incorporation-by-reference statement is neither amended nor added to the specification.
2. In bracket 1, insert the date of the amendment.
¶ 6.72.01 CD-ROM/CD-R Requirements (CDs Not Identical)
The amendment filed [1] is objected to under 37 CFR 1.52(e)(4) because the two compact discs are not identical. Correction is required.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph when the two compact discs are not identical.
2. See also form paragraph 6.70.01 where the transmittal letter does not include a statement that the two compact discs are identical.
¶ 6.72.02 Data File, Submitted With Amendment, on CD-ROM/CD-R Not in ASCII File Format
The amendment filed [1] contains a data file on CD-ROM/CD-R that is not in an ASCII file format. File [2] is not in an ASCII format. Applicant is required to resubmit file(s) in ASCII format
as required by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(3). No new matter may be introduced in presenting the file(s) in ASCII format.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be used whenever a data file (table, computer program listing or Sequence Listing) is submitted in a non-ASCII file format. The file may be in a file format that is proprietary, e.g., a Microsoft Word, Excel or Word Perfect file format; and/or the file contains non-ASCII characters.
2. In bracket 1, insert the date of the amendment.
3. In bracket 2, insert the name of the file and whether the file is a non-text proprietary file format and/or contains non-ASCII characters.
¶ 6.72.03 CD-ROM/CD-R Are Not Readable
The amendment filed [1] contains a data file on CD-ROM/CD-R that is unreadable. Applicant is required to resubmit the file(s) in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9660 standard and American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) format as required by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(3). No new matter may be introduced in presenting the file in ISO 9660 and ASCII format.
¶ 6.72.04 CD-ROM/CD-R Contains Viruses
The amendment filed [1] is objected to because the compact disc contains at least one virus. Correction is required.
¶ 6.72.05 CD-ROM/CD-R Requirements (Missing Files On Amended Compact Disc)
The amendment to the application filed [1] is objected to because the newly submitted compact disc(s) do not contain all of the unamended data file(s) together with the amended data file(s) that were on the CD-ROM/CD-R. Since amendments to a compact disc can only be made by providing a replacement compact disc, the replacement disc must include all of the files, both amended and unamended, to be a complete replacement.
Examiner Note:
Use this form paragraph when a replacement compact disc is submitted that fails to include all of the files on the original compact disc(s) that have not been cancelled by amendment.
608.05(a) Deposit of Computer Program Listings [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.96 Submission of computer program listings.
(a) General. Descriptions of the operation and general content of computer program listings should appear in the description portion of the specification. A computer program listing for the purpose of this section is defined as a printout that lists in appropriate sequence the instructions, routines, and other contents of a program for a computer. The program listing may be either in machine or machine-independent (object or source) language which will cause a computer to perform a
600-204Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.05(a)
desired procedure or task such as solve a problem, regulate the flow of work in a computer, or control or monitor events. Computer program listings may be submitted in patent applications as set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Material which will be printed in the patent: If the computer program listing is contained in 300 lines or fewer, with each line of 72 characters or fewer, it may be submitted either as drawings or as part of the specification.
(1) Drawings . If the listing is submitted as drawings, it must be submitted in the manner and complying with the requirements for drawings as provided in § 1.84. At least one figure numeral is required on each sheet of drawing.
(2) Specification.
(i) If the listing is submitted as part of the specification, it must be submitted in accordance with the provisions of § 1.52.
(ii) Any listing having more than 60 lines of code that is submitted as part of the specification must be positioned at the end of the description but before the claims. Any amendment must be made by way of submission of a substitute sheet.
(c) As an appendix which will not be printed : Any computer program listing may, and any computer program listing having over 300 lines (up to 72 characters per line) must, be submitted on a compact disc in compliance with § 1.52(e). A compact disc containing such a computer program listing is to be referred to as a “computer program listing appendix.” The “computer program listing appendix” will not be part of the printed patent. The specification must include a reference to the “computer program listing appendix” at the location indicated in § 1.77(b)(5).
(1) Multiple computer program listings for a single application may be placed on a single compact disc. Multiple compact discs may be submitted for a single application if necessary. A separate compact disc is required for each application containing a computer program listing that must be submitted on a “computer program listing appendix.”
(2) The “computer program listing appendix” must be submitted on a compact disc that complies with § 1.52(e) and the following specifications (no other format shall be allowed):
(i) Computer Compatibility: IBM PC/XT/AT, or compatibles, or Apple Macintosh;
(ii) Operating System Compatibility: MS-DOS, MS-Windows, Unix, or Macintosh;
(iii) Line Terminator: ASCII Carriage Return plus ASCII Line Feed;
(iv) Control Codes: the data must not be dependent on control characters or codes which are not defined in the ASCII character set; and
(v) Compression: uncompressed data.
Special procedures for presentation of computer program listings in the form of ASCII text files in
U.S. national patent applications are set forth in 37 CFR 1.96. Submission via EFS-Web or the use of compact disc files is desirable in view of the number of computer program listings being submitted as part of the disclosure in patent applications. Such listings are often several hundred pages in length. By filing and publishing such computer program listings electronically or on compact discs rather than on paper, substantial cost savings can result to the applicants, the public, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
See MPEP § 608.05, subsection I., for details pertaining to submission of text files via EFS-Web, and subsection II. for details pertaining to submissions on compact disc.
I. BACKGROUND
A computer program listing, as used in these rules, means the printout that lists, in proper sequence, the instructions, routines, and other contents of a program for a computer. The listing may be either in machine or machine-independent (object or source) programming language which will cause a computer to perform a desired task, such as solving a problem, regulating the flow of work in computer, or controlling or monitoring events. The general description of the computer program listing will appear in the specification while the computer program listing may appear either directly or as a computer program listing appendix to the specification, submitted in an ASCII text file via EFS-Web or on compact disc, and incorporated into the specification by reference.
Copies of publicly available computer program listings are available via Public PAIR. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office also provides publicly available computer program listings on paper and on compact disc at the cost set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(a).
II. DISCUSSION OF THE BACKGROUND AND MAJOR ISSUES INVOLVED
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.52 and 37 CFR 1.84 for submitting specifications and drawings on paper have been found suitable for most patent applications, although submission via EFS-Web is
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-205
§ 608.05(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
preferred. When lengthy computer program listings must be disclosed in a patent application in order to provide a complete disclosure, use of paper copies can become burdensome. The cost of printing long computer programs in patent documents is also very expensive to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Under 37 CFR 1.96, several different methods for submitting computer program listings, including the use of compact discs, are set forth. A computer program listing contained on three hundred printout lines or less may be submitted either as drawings (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84), as part of the written specification (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52), on compact disc (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e)), or as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web (in compliance with the EFS-Web Legal Framework (see MPEP § 502.05)). A computer program listing contained on three hundred and one (301) printout lines or more must be submitted as ASCII files on compact discs (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96(c)) or submitted via EFS-Web.
Form paragraph 6.64.01 or 6.64.02 may be used to notify the applicant of this requirement.
¶ 6.64.01 Computer Program Listing Appendix of More Than 300 Lines in Specification
The specification of this application contains a computer program listing consisting of more than three hundred (300) lines. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.96(c), a computer program listing of more than three hundred lines must be submitted as an appendix in text format. The computer program listing appendix may be submitted as a text file via EFS-Web or on compact disc conforming to the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.96(c)(2). The computer program listing must be appropriately referenced in the specification (see 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5)). Accordingly, applicant is required to cancel the current computer program listing, file a computer program listing appendix as a text file via EFS-Web or on compact disc in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96(c), and insert an appropriate reference to the newly added computer program listing appendix at the beginning of the specification.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be used whenever a computer program listing consisting of more than three hundred lines is included as part of the descriptive portion of the specification if the computer program listing was filed on or after September 8, 2000. See MPEP § 608.05(a).
2. In bracket 1, insert the range of page numbers of the specification which include the computer program listing.
¶ 6.64.02 Computer Program Listing as Printout Within the Specification (More Than 60 Lines And Not More Than Three Hundred Lines)
This application contains a computer program listing of over sixty (60) lines and less than three hundred and one (301) lines within the written specification. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.96(b), a computer program listing contained on over sixty (60) lines and less than three hundred-one (301) lines must, if submitted as part of the specification, be positioned at the end of the specification and before the claims. Accordingly, applicant is required to cancel the computer program listing and either incorporate such listing in a text file submitted via EFS-Web or on compact disc in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96, or insert the computer program listing after the detailed description of the invention but before the claims.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be used whenever a computer program listing consisting of a paper printout of more than 60 lines and no more than three hundred lines is included as part of the descriptive portion of the specification and the computer program listing was filed on or after September 8, 2000. See MPEP § 608.05(a).
A computer program listing of more than three hundred lines will not be printed in any patent application publication or patent. See 37 CFR 1.96(c).
III. OTHER INFORMATION
A Computer Program Listing Appendix submitted electronically via EFS-Web in ASCII text or on compact disc will be identified as such in the patent but will not be part of the printed patent. A statement must be included in the specification to the effect that a computer program listing appendix on compact disc is included in the application. The specification entry should appear at the beginning of the specification following any cross-reference to related applications. 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5). When an application containing compact discs is received in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP), an artifact folder will be created. The application file will then proceed on its normal course.
The Office provided for the continuation of prior microfiche appendix practice for computer listings until March 1, 2001. All computer listings as part of the application disclosure filed prior to March 2, 2001 that are in conformance with the microfiche appendix rules as in force on September 7, 2000 may rely on the microfiche and need not submit a
600-206Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.05(a)
computer program listing appendix on compact disc; all computer listings as part of the application disclosure not in conformance with such microfiche appendix rules must conform to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52 and 37 CFR 1.96 as set forth above.
IV. TEMPORARY CONTINUATION OF MICROFICHE PRACTICE UNTIL MARCH 1, 2001
Form paragraph 6.64.04 may be used to notify applicant of an unacceptable microfiche appendix.
¶ 6.64.04 “Microfiche Appendix” Unacceptable
The computer program listing filed on [1] as a “microfiche appendix” is unacceptable. A computer program listing conforming to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.96 is required.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used if a “microfiche appendix” was filed after March 1, 2001 or if a “microfiche appendix” filed on or before March 1, 2001 was not in compliance with former rule 37 CFR 1.96(c). See MPEP § 608.05(a).
2. In bracket 1, insert the date the “microfiche appendix” was filed.
608.05(b) Compact Disc Submissions of Large Tables [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.58 Chemical and mathematical formulae and tables.
*****
(b) Tables that are submitted in electronic form (§§ 1.96(c) and 1.821(c)) must maintain the spatial relationships ( e.g. , alignment of columns and rows) of the table elements when displayed so as to visually preserve the relational information they convey. Chemical and mathematical formulae must be encoded to maintain the proper positioning of their characters when displayed in order to preserve their intended meaning.
*****
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.52 and 37 CFR 1.58 for submitting specifications and tables on paper have been found suitable for most patent applications, although submission via EFS-Web is preferred. When lengthy tables must be disclosed in a patent application in order to provide a complete disclosure, use of paper copies can become burdensome. The cost of printing long tables in patent documents is also very expensive to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In the past, all disclosures forming part of a patent application were presented
on paper with the exception of microorganisms and computer program listings. Under 37 CFR 1.58, several different methods for submitting large tables, including the use of CD-ROM and CD-R, are set forth. Applicants may also submit large tables as ASCII text files submitted via EFS-Web.
See MPEP § 608.05, subsection I., for details pertaining to submission of text files via EFS-Web, and subsection II. for details pertaining to submissions on compact disc.
The text files submitted via EFS-Web or stored on the compact disc containing the table must contain only ASCII characters. No special formatting characters or proprietary file formats are permitted. Accordingly, great care must be taken so that the spatial arrangement of the data in rows and columns is maintained in the table when the file is opened for viewing at the Office. This will allow the table to viewed with virtually any text viewer. A single table contained on fifty pages or less must be submitted either as drawings (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84) or as part of the specification in paper (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52) or PDF (if filed via EFS-Web).
A single table contained on 51 pages or more, or if there are multiple tables in an application and the total number of pages of the tables exceeds one hundred pages, the tables may be submitted on a CD-ROM or CD-R (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 37 CFR 1.58) or as an ASCII text file via EFS-Web (in compliance with the EFS-Web Legal Framework (see MPEP § 502.05)). A table page is defined in 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(iii) as a page printed on paper in conformance with 37 CFR 1.52(b) and 1.58(c). The presentation of a subheading to divide a large table into smaller sections of less than 51 pages should not be used to prevent an applicant from submitting the table on a compact disc unless the subdivided tables are presented as numerous files on the compact disc so as to lose their relationship to the overall large table.
Tables in landscape orientation should be identified as landscape orientation in the transmittal letter accompanying the compact disc to allow the Office to properly upload the tables into the Image File Wrapper (IFW) or other automated systems. 37 CFR 1.52(e)(3)(ii). Most tables filed with patent
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-207
§ 608.05(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
applications are intended to be rendered in portrait mode. Accordingly, filings without an identification of landscape mode will be rendered as portrait mode tables by the Office. Landscape oriented tables should not be filed via EFS-Web because PAIR will automatically convert the tables to portrait orientation, which may cause the images to be distorted during viewing.
If tables on more than two hundred consecutive pages, or large numbers of tables (lengthy tables) are submitted on a CD or as text files submitted via EFS-Web as provided in 37 CFR 1.52(e), or in an electronic format in response to a specific request from the Office of Data Management, these lengthy tables will not be published as part of a patent document (e.g., patent, patent application publication or Statutory Invention Registration (SIR)). The lengthy tables will be published separately on the sequence homepage of the USPTO website (http://seqdata.uspto.gov) as an XML file. See, for example, patent application publication nos. US 20030235811 A1 and US 20030237110 A9.
The Office discourages the embedding of a lengthy table in the specification of a patent application. If a lengthy table is embedded in the specification of a patent application, and if the lengthy table is available in an electronic form (either XML or a format convertible to XML), when the patent or patent application publication is published, the following single-column statement will be inserted in place of each replaced table in the document.
LENGTHY TABLE
Lengthy table referenced here. Please refer to the end of the specification for access instructions.
When the lengthy tables are separately published on the USPTO website, there will be a standardized “Lengthy Table” statement, in the patent document following the detailed description (see 37 CFR 1.77(b)(8)).
For a patent application publication, the following page-wide text would appear:
LENGTHY TABLES
The patent application contains a lengthy table section. A copy of the table is available in electronic form from the USPTO Web site (http://seq data.uspto.gov/?pageRequest=docDetail& docID=[publication number]). An electronic copy of the table will also be available from the USPTO upon request and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(3).
For a patent, the following page-wide text would appear:
LENGTHY TABLES
The patent contains a lengthy table section. A copy of the table is available in electronic form from the USPTO Web site ( h t t p : / / s e q d a t a . u s p t o . g o v / ? p a g e R e q u e s t = d o c Detail&docID=[patent number]). An electronic copy of the table will also be available from the USPTO upon request and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b)(3).
For a SIR, the following page-wide text would appear:
LENGTHY TABLES
The statutory invention registration contains a lengthy table section. A copy of the table is available in electronic form from the USPTO Web site (http://seqdata.uspto.gov/?page Request=docDetail&docID =[statutory invention registration number]). An electronic copy of the table will also be available from the USPTO upon request and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b).
Form paragraphs 6.63.01 and 6.63.02 may be used to notify applicant of corrections needed to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 37 CFR 1.58(b) with respect to tables.
¶ 6.63.01 Table Less Than 51 Pages Submitted Only as Text File
The description portion of this application contains a table consisting of less than fifty one (51) pages only in ASCII text format submitted either via EFS-Web or on compact disc. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(e), only a table of at least fifty one (51) pages may be submitted as an ASCII text file. Accordingly, applicant is required to cancel the references to the table in text format appearing in the specification on pages [1], file a paper version of the table in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52 or file a PDF version via EFS-Web, and change all appropriate references to the former table in text format to the newly added paper or PDF version of the table in the remainder of the specification.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be used whenever a table on a compact disc or submitted as a text file via EFS-Web consisting
600-208Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 608.05(b)
of less than fifty one (51) pages as part of the descriptive portion of the specification is filed on or after September 8, 2000. See MPEP § 608.05(b).
2. In bracket 1, insert the range of page numbers of the specification which reference the table.
¶ 6.63.02 Table Column/Row Relationship Not Maintained
This application contains a table in ASCII text format submitted either via EFS-Web or on compact disc. Tables submitted as an ASCII text file in compliance with 37 CFR 1.58 must maintain the spatial orientation of the cell entries. The table submitted does not maintain the data within each table cell in its proper row/column alignment. The data is misaligned in the table as follows: [1]. Applicant is required to submit a replacement text file via EFS-Web or on compact disc with the table data properly aligned.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be used whenever the data in a table cannot be accurately read because the data in the table cells do not maintain their row and column alignments.
2. In bracket 1, insert the area of the table that does not maintain the row and column alignments.
608.05(c) Submissions of Biological Sequence Listings as ASCII Files [R-07.2015]
Filing of biological sequence information on compact disc or in text format via EFS-Web is now permitted in lieu of filing on paper. See MPEP § 608.05. See also MPEP § 2422.03 for compact disc filings and MPEP § 2422.03(a) for sequence listings submitted as ASCII text files via EFS-Web. See also MPEP § 502.05 and the EFS-Web Legal Framework (www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/ applying-online/legal-framework-efs-web-06april11) for submissions via EFS-Web.
609 Information Disclosure Statement [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.97 Filing of information disclosure statement.
(a) In order for an applicant for a patent or for a reissue of a patent to have an information disclosure statement in compliance with § 1.98 considered by the Office during the pendency of the application, the information disclosure statement must satisfy one of paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section.
(b) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed by the applicant within any one of the following time periods:
(1) Within three months of the filing date of a national application other than a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d);
(2) Within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application;
(3) Before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits;
(4) Before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under § 1.114; or
(5) Within three months of the date of publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) in an international design application.
(c) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed after the period specified in paragraph (b) of this section, provided that the information disclosure statement is filed before the mailing date of any of a final action under § 1.113, a notice of allowance under § 1.311, or an action that otherwise closes prosecution in the application, and it is accompanied by one of:
(1) The statement specified in paragraph (e) of this section; or
(2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(p).
(d) An information disclosure statement shall be considered by the Office if filed by the applicant after the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, provided that the information disclosure statement is filed on or before payment of the issue fee and is accompanied by:
(1) The statement specified in paragraph (e) of this section; and
(2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(p).
(e) A statement under this section must state either:
(1) That each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement; or
(2) That no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to the knowledge of the person signing the certification after making reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was known to any individual designated in § 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement.
(f) No extensions of time for filing an information disclosure statement are permitted under § 1.136. If a bona fide attempt is made to comply with § 1.98, but part of the required content is inadvertently omitted, additional time may be given to enable full compliance.
(g) An information disclosure statement filed in accordance with this section shall not be construed as a representation that a search has been made.
(h) The filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed to be an admission that the information cited
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-209
§ 609PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability as defined in § 1.56(b).
(i) If an information disclosure statement does not comply with either this section or § 1.98, it will be placed in the file but will not be considered by the Office.
37 CFR 1.98 Content of information disclosure statement.
(a) Any information disclosure statement filed under § 1.97 shall include the items listed in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
(1) A list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office. U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications must be listed in a section separately from citations of other documents. Each page of the list must include:
(i) The application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted;
(ii) A column that provides a space, next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and
(iii) A heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement.
(2) A legible copy of:
(i) Each foreign patent;
(ii) Each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed, other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications unless required by the Office;
(iii) For each cited pending unpublished U.S. application, the application specification including the claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion; and
(iv) All other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
(3)(i) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent, publication, or other information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from applicant’s specification or incorporated therein.
(ii) A copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of a non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in § 1.56(c).
(b)(1) Each U.S. patent listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by inventor, patent number, and issue date.
(2) Each U.S. patent application publication listed in an information disclosure statement shall be identified by applicant, patent application publication number, and publication date.
(3) Each U.S. application listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by the inventor, application number, and filing date.
(4) Each foreign patent or published foreign patent application listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by the country or patent office which issued the patent or published the application, an appropriate document number, and the publication date indicated on the patent or published application.
(5) Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
(c) When the disclosures of two or more patents or publications listed in an information disclosure statement are substantively cumulative, a copy of one of the patents or publications as specified in paragraph (a) of this section may be submitted without copies of the other patents or publications, provided that it is stated that these other patents or publications are cumulative.
(d) A copy of any patent, publication, pending U.S. application or other information, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, listed in an information disclosure statement is required to be provided, even if the patent, publication, pending U.S. application or other information was previously submitted to, or cited by, the Office in an earlier application, unless:
(1) The earlier application is properly identified in the information disclosure statement and is relied on for an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120; and
(2) The information disclosure statement submitted in the earlier application complies with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) are not permitted in provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b). See 37 CFR 1.51(d). Since no substantive examination is given in provisional applications, a disclosure of information is unnecessary. Any such statement filed in a provisional application will be returned or destroyed at the option of the Office.
In nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 provide a mechanism by which patent applicants may comply with the duty of disclosure provided in 37 CFR 1.56. Applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the patent
600-210Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609
application also may want the Office to consider information for a variety of other reasons; e.g., to make sure that the examiner has an opportunity to consider the same information that was considered by these individuals, or by another patent office in a counterpart or related patent application filed in another country.
Third parties (individuals not covered by 37 CFR 1.56(c)) cannot file information disclosure statements under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Third parties may only submit patents and publications in compliance with 37 CFR 1.290 in applications published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). See MPEP § 1134.01. For unpublished, pending applications, any member of the public, including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a protest under 37 CFR 1.291 prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance under 37 CFR 1.311. See MPEP Chapter 1900. Alternatively, third parties may provide information to the applicant who may submit the information to the Office in an IDS. See 37 CFR 1.56(d). The Office will review any submission in an application filed by a third party to determine whether the submission is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.290 or 1.291. Any third party submission that does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.290 or 37 CFR 1.291 will not be entered into the application file and will be discarded. Office personnel (including the Patent Examining Corps) are instructed to: (1) not reply to or act upon any third-party inquiry or other submission in an application, except those in compliance with 37 CFR 1.290 or 37 CFR 1.291; and (2) decline to accept oral or telephone comments or submissions about applications from third parties. See MPEP § 1134.01.
An information disclosure statement filed in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will be considered by the examiner assigned to the application. Individuals associated in a substantive way with the filing and prosecution of a patent application are encouraged to submit information to the Office so the examiner can evaluate its relevance to the claimed invention. The procedures for submitting an information disclosure statement under the rules are designed to encourage individuals to submit information to the Office promptly and in a uniform manner. These rules
provide certainty for the public by defining the requirements for submitting information disclosure statements to the Office so that the Office will consider information contained therein before a patent is granted.
The filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed as a representation that a search has been made. 37 CFR 1.97(g). There is no requirement that an applicant for a patent make a patentability search. Further, the filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed to be an admission that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b). 37 CFR 1.97(h). See MPEP § 2129 regarding admissions by applicant.
In order to have information considered by the Office during the pendency of a patent application, an information disclosure statement must be (1) in compliance with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98, and (2) filed in accordance with the procedural requirements of 37 CFR 1.97. The requirements as to content are discussed in MPEP § 609.04(a). The requirements based on the time of filing the statement are discussed in MPEP § 609.04(b). Examiner handling of information disclosure statements is discussed in MPEP § 609.05. For discussion of IDS filed electronically (e-IDS) via the Office’s Electronic Filing System (EFS), see MPEP § 609.07. For discussion of electronic processing of IDS, see MPEP § 609.08.
Once the minimum requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 are met, the examiner has an obligation to consider the information. There is no requirement that the information must be prior art references in order to be considered by the examiner. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above. In addition, the following alternative electronic signature method may be used
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-211
§ 609PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
by examiners in information disclosure statements to indicate whether the information has been considered. Examiners will no longer initial each reference citation considered, but will continue to strikethrough each citation not considered. Each page of reference citations will be stamped by the examiner with the phrase “All references considered except where lined through” along with the examiner’s electronic initials, and the final page of reference citations will include the examiner’s electronic signature. Information submitted to the Office that does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will not be considered by the Office but will be placed in the application file.
Multiple information disclosure statements may be filed in a single application, and they will be
considered, provided each is in compliance with the appropriate requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Use of form PTO/SB/08A and 08B, “Information Disclosure Statement,” is encouraged as a means to provide the required list of information as set forth in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO form PTO/SB/08A and 08B when preparing an information disclosure statement because this form is updated by the Office. The form PTO/SB/08A and 08B will enable applicants to comply with the requirement to list each item of information being submitted and to provide the Office with a uniform listing of citations and with a ready way to indicate that the information has been considered. A copy of form PTO/SB/08A and 08B is reproduced at the end of this section.
600-212Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-213
§ 609PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-214Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-215
§ 609PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-216Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609
609.01 Examiner Checklist for Information Disclosure Statements [R-07.2015]
Examiners must check to see if an information disclosure statement (IDS) complies with:
(A) All the time-related requirements of 37 CFR 1.97, which are based on the time of the filing of the IDS. See MPEP § 609.04(b) for more information.
37 CFR 1.97 Requirements
Time when IDS is filed
None(1)(a) for national applications (not including CPAs), within three months of filing or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later; (b) for national stage applications, within three months of entry into national stage or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later; (c) for RCEs and CPAs before the first Office action on the merits; or (d) for international design applications, within three months of the date of publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later.
1.97(e) statement or 1.17(p) fee.
(2) After (1) but before final action, notice of allowance, or Quayle action
1.97(e) statement, and 1.17(p) fee.
(3) After (2) and before (or with) payment of issue fee.
IDS will not be considered.
(4) After payment of issue fee.
(B) All content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98. See MPEP § 609.04(a) for more information.
(1) Requirements for the IDS listing:
(a) A separate section for citations of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications;
(b) The application number of the application in which the IDS is being submitted on each page of the listing, if known;
(c) A column that provides a blank space next to each citation for the examiner’s initials when the examiner considers the cited document; and
(d) A heading on the listing that clearly indicates that the list is an Information Disclosure Statement;
(e) Proper identification of all cited references:
(i) U.S. patents cited by patent number, issue date and inventor(s);
(ii) U.S. patent application publications cited by publication number, publication date and inventor(s);
(iii) Pending U.S. applications cited by application number, filing date and inventor(s);
(iv) Foreign patent documents cited by document number (including kind code), country and publication or issue date; and
(v) Non-patent literature cited by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages, and date and place of publication.
(2) The requirement of copies for:
(a) Each cited foreign patent document;
(b) Each cited non-patent literature publication, or the portion therein which caused it to be listed;
(c) Each cited U.S. pending application that is not stored in IFW;
(d) All information cited (e.g., an affidavit or Office action), other than the specification, including claims and drawings, of a pending U.S. application; and
(e) All other cited information or the portion which caused it to be listed.
(3) For non-English documents that are cited, the following must be provided:
(a) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, unless a complete translation is provided; and/or
(b) A written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, if it is within the possession, custody or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-217
§ 609.01PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c).
After the examiner reviews the IDS for compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 (see MPEP § 609.05), the examiner should:
(A) Consider the information properly submitted in an IDS in the same manner that the examiner considers other documents in Office search files while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search.
(1) For e-IDS, use the e-IDS icon on examiner’s workstation to consider cited U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications. See MPEP § 609.07 for more information on e-IDS.
(2) Initial the blank column next to the citation to indicate that the information has been considered by the examiner, or use the alternative electronic signature method by inserting on each page of reference citations the phrase “All references considered except where lined through” along with the examiner’s electronic initials, and providing the examiner’s electronic signature on the final page of reference citations.
(B) Draw a line through the citation to show that it has not been considered if the citation fails to comply with all the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. The examiner should inform applicant the reasons why a citation was not considered.
(C) Write “not considered” on an information disclosure statement if none of the information listed complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. The examiner will inform applicant the reasons why the IDS was not considered by using form paragraphs 6.49 through 6.49.10.
(D) Sign and date the bottom of the IDS listing, or use the alternative electronic signature method noted in item (A)(2) above.
(E) Ensure that a copy of the IDS listing that is signed and dated by the examiner is entered into the file and mailed to applicant.
For discussion of electronic processing of IDS, see MPEP § 609.08.
609.02 Information Disclosure Statements in Continued Examinations or Continuing Applications [R-07.2015]
I. CONSIDERATION OF PRIOR ART CITED IN A PARENT INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION
When filing a continuing application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to a parent application (other than an international application that designated the U.S.), it will not be necessary for the applicant to submit an information disclosure statement in the continuing application that lists the prior art cited by the examiner in the parent application unless the applicant desires the information to be printed on the patent issuing from the continuing application (for continued prosecution applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), see subsection A.1. below). The examiner of the continuing application will consider information which has been considered by the Office in the parent application.
When filing a continuing application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to an international application that designated the U.S. (see MPEP § 1895), it will be necessary for the applicant to submit an information disclosure statement complying with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 in the continuing application listing the documents cited in the international search report and/or the international preliminary examination report of the international application if applicant wishes to ensure that the information is considered by the examiner in the continuing application.
See MPEP § 609.03 for consideration of documents cited in the international search report in a PCT national stage application.
600-218Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.02
II. IDS IN CONTINUED EXAMINATIONS OR CONTINUING APPLICATIONS
A. IDS That Has Been Considered (1) in the Parent Application, or (2) Prior to the Filing of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
1. Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
Information which has been considered by the Office in the parent application of a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) will be part of the file before the examiner and need not be resubmitted in the continuing application to have the information considered and listed on the patent.
2. Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, or Continuation-in-Part Applications Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(b)
The examiner will consider information which has been considered by the Office in a parent application (other than an international application; see subsection I., above) when examining: (A) a continuation application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), (B) a divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), or (C) a continuation-in-part application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). A listing of the information need not be resubmitted in the continuing application unless the applicant desires the information to be printed on the patent.
If resubmitting a listing of the information, applicant should submit a new listing that complies with the format requirements in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and the timing requirements of 37 CFR 1.97. Applicants are strongly discouraged from submitting a list that includes copies of PTO/SB/08 or PTO-892 forms from other applications. A completed PTO/SB/08 form from another application may already have initials of an examiner and the application number of another application. This information will likely confuse the record. Furthermore, when the spaces provided on the form have initials of an examiner, there are no spaces available next to the documents listed for the examiner of the subsequent application to provide his or her initials, and the previously
relevant initials may be erroneously construed as being applied for the current application.
3. Requests for Continued Examination (RCE) Under 37 CFR 1.114
Information which has been considered by the Office in the application before the filing of a RCE will be part of the file before the examiner and need not be resubmitted to have the information considered by the examiner and listed on the patent.
B. IDS That Has Not Been Considered (1) in the Parent Application, or (2) Prior to the Filing of a Request for Continued Examination
1. Continued Prosecution Applications Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
Information filed in the parent application that complies with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 will be considered by the examiner in the CPA. No specific request from the applicant that the previously submitted information be considered by the examiner is required.
2. Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, or Continuation-In-Part Applications Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(b)
For these types of applications, in order to ensure consideration of information previously submitted, but not considered, in a parent application, applicant must resubmit the information in the continuing application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.98(d), if the IDS submitted in the parent application complies with 37 CFR 1.98(a) to (c), copies of the patents, publications, pending U.S. applications, or other information submitted in the parent application need not be resubmitted in the continuing application.
When resubmitting a listing of the information, applicant should submit a new listing that complies with the format requirements in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). Applicants are strongly discouraged from submitting a list that includes copies of PTO/SB/08 or PTO-892 forms from other applications. A PTO/SB/08 form from another application may already have the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-219
§ 609.02PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
application number of another application. This information will likely confuse the record.
3. Requests for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Information filed in the application in compliance with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 before the filing of a RCE will be considered by the examiner after the filing of the RCE. For example, an applicant filed an IDS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98 after the mailing of a final Office action, but the IDS did not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(d)(1) and (d)(2) and therefore, the IDS was not considered by the examiner. After applicant files a RCE, the examiner will consider the IDS filed prior to the filing of the RCE. For more details on RCE, see MPEP § 706.07(h).
609.03 Information Disclosure Statements in National Stage Applications [R-08.2012]
The examiner will consider the documents cited in the international search report in a PCT national stage application 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 file. In such a case, the examiner should consider the documents from the international search report and indicate by a statement in the first Office action that the information has been considered. There is no requirement that the examiner list the documents on a PTO-892 form.
In a national stage application, the following form paragraphs may be used where appropriate to notify applicant regarding references listed in the search report of the international application:
¶ 6.53 References Considered in 35 U.S.C. 371 Application Based Upon Search Report - Prior to Allowance
The references cited in the PCT international search report by the [1] have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket [1], identify the office (e.g., JPO, EPO, etc.) that issued the international search report and the date it issued.
2. This form paragraph may be used for national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371 where the examiner has obtained copies of the cited references or where copies of such references are not required under 37 CFR 1.98. If receipt of copies of references required under 37 CFR 1.98 is not indicated on the PCT/DO/EO/903 form in the file, burden is on the applicant to supply such copies for consideration. See MPEP § 1893.03(g).
3. Instead of using this form paragraph, the examiner may list the references on a PTO-892, thereby notifying the applicant that the references have been considered and will be printed on any patent resulting from this application.
4. This form paragraph should only be used prior to allowance when a statutory period for reply is being set in the Office action.
5. If the application is being allowed, form paragraph 6.54 should be used with the Notice of Allowability instead of this form paragraph.
¶ 6.54 References Considered in 35 U.S.C. 371 Application Based Upon Search Report - Ready for Allowance
The references cited in the PCT international search report by the [1] have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B form, must be filed within ONE MONTH of the mailing date of this communication. NO EXTENSION OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b) to comply with this requirement.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket [1], identify the office (e.g., JPO, EPO, etc.) that issued the international search report and the date it issued.
2. This form paragraph may be used for national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371 where the examiner has obtained copies of the cited references or where copies of such references are not required under 37 CFR 1.98. If receipt of copies of references required under 37 CFR 1.98 is not indicated on the PCT/DO/EO/903 form in the file, burden is on the applicant to supply such copies for consideration. See MPEP § 1893.03(g).
3. Instead of using this form paragraph, the examiner may list the references on a PTO-892, thereby notifying the applicant that the references have been considered and will be printed on any patent resulting from this application.
¶ 6.55 References Not Considered in 35 U.S.C. 371 Application Based Upon Search Report
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a
600-220Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.03
legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information or any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the IDS, including all “statement” requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph may be used in national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371.
2. Do not use this form paragraph when the missing references are U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, or U.S. pending applications that are stored in IFW.
609.04 [Reserved]
609.04(a) Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement [R-07.2015]
An information disclosure statement (IDS) must comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98 as to content for the information listed in the IDS to be considered by the Office. Each information disclosure statement must comply with the applicable provisions of subsection I., II., and III. below.
I. LIST OF ALL PATENTS, PUBLICATIONS, U.S. APPLICATIONS, OR OTHER INFORMATION
Each information disclosure statement must include a list of all patents, publications, U.S. applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office.
37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) requires the following format for an IDS listing: (A) a specified format/identification for each page of an IDS, and that U.S. patents and
U.S. patent application publications be listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (B) a column that provides a space next to each document listed to permit the examiner’s initials; and (C) a heading that identifies the list as an IDS.
37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) specifically requires that U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications be listed separately from the citations of other documents. The separation of citations will permit the Office to obtain the U.S. patent numbers and the U.S. patent application publication numbers by optical character recognition (OCR) from the scanned documents such that the documents can be made available electronically to the examiner to facilitate searching and retrieval of the cited U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications from the Office’s search databases. Applicants will comply with this requirement if they use forms PTO/SB/08A and 08B, which provide a separate section for listing U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications. Applicants who do not use these forms for submitting an IDS must make sure that the U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications are listed in a separate section from citations of other documents.
37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) also requires that each page of the list must clearly identify the application number of the application in which the IDS is being submitted, if known. In the past, the Office has experienced problems associated with lists that do not properly identify the application in which the IDS is being submitted (e.g., when applicants submit a list that includes copies of PTO/SB/08 or PTO-892 forms from other applications). Even though the IDS transmittal letter had the proper application number, each page of the list did not include the proper application number, but instead had the application numbers of the other applications. If the pages of the list became separated, the Office could not associate the pages with the proper application.
In addition, 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) requires that the list must include a column that provides a space next to each document listed in order to permit the examiner to enter his or her initials next to the citations of the documents that have been considered by the examiner. This provides a notification to the applicant and a clear record in the application to
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-221
§ 609.04(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
indicate which documents have been considered by the examiner in the application. Applicants are strongly discouraged from submitting a list that includes copies of PTO/SB/08 or PTO-892 forms from other applications. A completed PTO/SB/08 form from another application may already have initials of an examiner and the application number of another application. This information will likely confuse the record. Furthermore, when the spaces provided on the form have initials of an examiner, there are no spaces available next to the documents listed for the examiner of the subsequent application to provide his or her initials, and the previously relevant initials may be erroneously construed as being applied for the current application.
37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) also requires that each page of the list include a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an IDS. Since the Office treats an IDS submitted by the applicant differently than information submitted by a third-party (e.g., the Office may discard any non-compliant third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.99), a heading on each page of the list to indicate that the list is an IDS would promote proper treatment of the IDS submitted by the applicant and reduce handling errors.
37 CFR 1.98(b) requires that each item of information in an IDS be identified properly. U.S. patents must be identified by the inventor, patent number, and issue date. U.S. patent application publications must be identified by the applicant, patent application publication number, and publication date. U.S. applications must be identified by the inventor, the eight digit application number (the two digit series code and the six digit serial number), and the filing date. If a U.S. application being listed in an IDS has been issued as a patent or has been published, the applicant should list the patent or application publication in the IDS instead of the application. Each foreign patent or published foreign patent application must be identified by the country or patent office which issued the patent or published the application, an appropriate document number, and the publication date indicated on the patent or published application. Each publication must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, and date and place of publication. The date of publication supplied must
include at least the month and year of publication, except that the year of publication (without the month) will be accepted if the applicant points out in the information disclosure statement that the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue. The place of publication refers to the name of the journal, magazine, or other publication in which the information being submitted was published. See MPEP § 707.05(e), for more information on data that should be used when citing publications and electronic documents. Pending U.S. applications that are being cited can be listed under the non-patent literature section or in a new section appropriately labeled.
The list of information complying with the format requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and the identification requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(b) may not be incorporated into the specification of the application in which it is being supplied, but must be submitted in a separate paper. A separate list is required so that it is easy to confirm that applicant intends to submit an information disclosure statement and because it provides a readily available checklist for the examiner to indicate which identified documents have been considered. A separate list will also provide a simple means of communication to applicant to indicate the listed documents that have been considered and those listed documents that have not been considered. Use of form PTO/SB/08A and 08B, Information Disclosure Statement, to list the documents is encouraged.
II. LEGIBLE COPIES
In addition to the list of information, each information disclosure statement must also include a legible copy of:
(A) Each foreign patent ;
(B) Each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed , other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications unless required by the Office;
(C) For each cited pending unpublished U.S. application, the application specification including the claims, and any drawings of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be
600-222Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.04(a)
listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system. The requirement in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) for a legible copy of the specification, including the claims, and drawings of each cited pending U.S. patent application (or portion of the application which caused it to be listed) is sua sponte waived where the cited pending application is stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. See Waiver of the Copy Requirement in 37 CFR 1.98 for Cited Pending U.S. Patent Applications, 1287 OG 163 (October 19, 2004); and
(D) All other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
The requirement for a copy of each U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication listed in an IDS, has been eliminated, unless required by the Office. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2).
37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) requires a copy of a pending U.S. application that is being cited in an IDS if (A) the cited information is not part of the specification, including the claims, and the drawings (e.g., an Office Action, remarks in an amendment paper, etc.), or (B) the cited application is not stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. The requirement in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) for a legible copy of the specification, including the claims, and drawings of each cited pending U.S. patent application (or portion of the application which caused it to be listed) is sua sponte waived where the cited pending application is stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. This waiver is limited to the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the U.S. application (or portion of the application). If material other than the specification, including the claims, and drawings in the file of a U.S. patent application is being cited in an IDS, the IDS must contain a legible copy of such material.
A pending U.S. application only identified in the specification’s background information rather than being cited separately on an IDS listing is not part of an IDS submission. Therefore, the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) of supplying a copy of the pending application is not applicable. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii), applicant may choose to cite only a portion of a pending application including
any claims directed to that portion rather than the entire application. There are exceptions to this requirement that a copy of the information must be provided. First, 37 CFR 1.98(d) states that a copy of any patent, publication, pending U.S. application, or other information listed in an information disclosure statement is not required to be provided if: (A) the information was previously cited by or submitted to, the Office in a prior application, provided that the prior application is properly identified in the IDS and is relied on for an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120; and (B) the IDS submitted in the earlier application complies with 37 CFR 1.98(a)-(c). If both of these conditions are met, the examiner will consider the information previously cited or submitted to the Office and considered by the Office in a prior application relied on under 35 U.S.C. 120. This exception to the requirement for copies of information does not apply to information which was cited in an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. If the information cited or submitted in the prior application was not in English, a concise explanation of the relevance of the information to the new application is not required unless the relevance of the information differs from its relevance as explained in the prior application. See subsection III. below.
Second, 37 CFR 1.98(c) states that when the disclosures of two or more patents or publications listed in an information disclosure statement are substantively cumulative, a copy of one of the patents or publications may be submitted without copies of the other patents or publications provided that a statement is made that these other patents or publications are cumulative. The examiner will then consider only the patent or publication of which a copy is submitted and will so indicate on the list, form PTO/SB/08A and 08B, submitted, e.g., by crossing out the listing of the cumulative information. But see Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1374, 54 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Reference was not cumulative since it contained a more complete combination of the claimed elements than any other reference before the examiner. “A withheld reference may be highly material when it discloses a more complete combination of relevant features, even if those
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-223
§ 609.04(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
features are before the patent examiner in other references.” (citations omitted).).
37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii) states that if a written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c), a copy of the translation shall accompany the statement. Translations are not required to be filed unless they have been reduced to writing and are actually translations of what is contained in the non-English language information. If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.
Electronic means or medium for filing IDSs are not permitted except for: (A) citations to U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, foreign patent documents, and non-patent literature (NPLs) in an IDS filed via the Office’s Electronic Filing System (EFS) (see MPEP § 609.07); or (B) a compact disc (CD) that has tables, sequence listings, or program listings included in a paper IDS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e). A CD cannot be used to submit an IDS listing or copies of the documents cited in the IDS.
III. CONCISE EXPLANATION OF RELEVANCE FOR NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE INFORMATION
Each information disclosure statement must further include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from the specification or part of the specification. If the concise explanation is part of the specification, the IDS listing should include the page(s) or line(s) numbers where the concise explanation is located in the specification.
The requirement for a concise explanation of relevance is limited to information that is not in the
English language. The explanation required is limited to the relevance as understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information at the time the information is submitted to the Office. If a complete translation of the information into English is submitted with the non-English language information, no concise explanation is required. An English-language equivalent application may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if it is, in fact, a translation of a foreign language application being listed in an information disclosure statement. There is no requirement for the translation to be verified. Submission of an English language abstract of a reference may fulfill the requirement for a concise explanation. Where the information listed is not in the English language, but was cited in a search report or other action by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, the requirement for a concise explanation of relevance can be satisfied by submitting an English-language version of the search report or action which indicates the degree of relevance found by the foreign office. This may be an explanation of which portion of the reference is particularly relevant, to which claims it applies, or merely an “X”, “Y”, or “A” indication on a search report. The requirement for a concise explanation of non-English language information would not be satisfied by a statement that a reference was cited in the prosecution of a United States application which is not relied on under 35 U.S.C. 120.
If information cited or submitted in a prior application relied on under 35 U.S.C. 120 was not in English, a concise explanation of the relevance of the information to the new application is not required unless the relevance of the information differs from its relevance as explained in the prior application.
The concise explanation may indicate that a particular figure or paragraph of the patent or publication is relevant to the claimed invention. It might be a simple statement pointing to similarities between the item of information and the claimed invention. It is permissible but not necessary to discuss differences between the cited information and the claims. However, see Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1376, 54 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir.
600-224Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.04(a)
2000) (“[A]lthough MPEP Section 609A(3) allows the applicant some discretion in the manner in which it phrases its concise explanation, it nowhere authorizes the applicant to intentionally omit altogether key teachings of the reference.”).
In Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, patentee during prosecution submitted an untranslated 29-page Japanese reference as well as a concise explanation of its relevance and an existing one-page partial English translation, both of which were directed to less material portions of the reference. The untranslated portions of the Japanese reference “contained a more complete combination of the elements claimed [in the patent] than anything else before the PTO.” 204 F.3d at 1376, 54 USPQ2d at 1005. The patentee, whose native language was Japanese, was held to have understood the materiality of the reference. “The duty of candor does not require that the applicant translate every foreign reference, but only that the applicant refrain from submitting partial translations and concise explanations that it knows will misdirect the examiner’s attention from the reference’s relevant teaching.” 204 F.3d at 1378, 54 USPQ2d at 1008.
Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.
609.04(b) Timing Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement [R-07.2015]
The procedures and requirements under 37 CFR 1.97 for submitting an information disclosure statement are linked to four stages in the processing of a patent application:
(1)(a) for national applications (not including CPAs), within three months of filing, or before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits, whichever is later;
(b) for international applications, within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 or before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits in the national stage application, whichever is later;
(c) for continued examinations (i.e., RCEs filed under 37 CFR 1.114) and CPAs filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits;
(d) for international design applications, within three months of the date of publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later;
(2) after the period in (1), but prior to the prosecution of the application closes, i.e., before the mailing of a final Office action, a Notice of Allowance, or an Ex parte Quayle action, whichever is earlier;
(3) after the period in (2) but on or before the date the issue fee is paid; and
(4) after the period in (3) and up to the time the patent application can be effectively withdrawn from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c).
These procedures and requirements apply to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (utility), 161 (plants), 171 (designs), and 251 (reissue), as well as international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
The requirements based on the time when the information disclosure statement is filed are summarized in MPEP § 609.01.
I. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE FIRSTACTION ON THE MERITS OR WITHIN THREE (3) MONTHS OF ACTUAL FILING DATE, NATIONAL STAGE ENTRY DATE, OR PUBLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 10(3) OF THE HAGUE AGREEMENT (37 CFR 1.97(b))
An information disclosure statement will be considered by the examiner if filed within any one of the following time periods:
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-225
§ 609.04(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
(A) for national applications (not including CPAs), within three months of the filing date of the national application or before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits;
(B) for international applications, within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 or before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits;
(C) for RCEs and CPAs, before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits; or
(D) for international design applications, within three months of the date of publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3) or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later
An information disclosure statement filed within one of these periods requires neither a fee nor a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e). An information disclosure statement will be considered to have been filed on the day it was received in the Office, or on an earlier date of mailing if accompanied by a properly executed certificate of mailing or facsimile transmission under 37 CFR 1.8, or if it is in compliance with the provisions of Priority Mail Express® delivery under 37 CFR 1.10. If the last day of the three months period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(b)(1) and (b)(2) falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the IDS will be considered timely if filed on the next succeeding business day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday. See 37 CFR 1.7(a). An Office action is mailed on the date indicated in the Office action.
It would not be proper to make final a first Office action in a continuing application or in an application after the filing of a RCE if the information submitted in the IDS during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(b) is used in a new ground of rejection.
A. National Applications, International Applications, and International Design Applications
The term “national application” includes continuing applications (continuations, divisions, and continuations-in-part but not CPAs), so three months will be measured from the actual filing date of an application as opposed to the effective filing date of a continuing application. For international
applications, the three months will be measured from the date of entry of the national stage. For international design applications, the three months will be measured from the date of publication of the international registration under Hague Agreement Article 10(3).
All information disclosure statements that comply with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 and are filed within three months of the filing date, will be considered by the examiner, regardless of whatever else has occurred in the examination process up to that point in time. Thus, in the rare instance that a final Office action, a notice of allowance, or an Ex parte Quayle action is mailed prior to a date which is three months from the filing date, any information contained in a complete information disclosure statement filed within that three-month window will be considered by the examiner.
Likewise, an information disclosure statement will be considered if it is filed later than three months after the application filing date but before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. An action on the merits means an action which treats the patentability of the claims in an application, as opposed to only formal or procedural requirements. An action on the merits would, for example, contain a rejection or indication of allowability of a claim or claims rather than just a restriction requirement (37 CFR 1.142) or just a requirement for additional fees to have a claim considered (37 CFR 1.16). Thus, if an application was filed on January 2 and the first Office action on the merits was not mailed until six months later on July 2, the examiner would be required to consider any proper information disclosure statement filed prior to July 2.
B. RCE and CPA
The three-month window as discussed above does not apply to a RCE filed under 37 CFR 1.114 or a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (effective July 14, 2003, CPAs are only available for design applications). An IDS filed after the filing of a RCE will be considered if the IDS is filed before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. A RCE is not the filing of an application, but merely the continuation of prosecution in the current
600-226Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.04(b)
application. After the mailing of a RCE, such application is treated as an amended application by the examiner and is subject to a short turnover time. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to file any IDS with the filing of a RCE. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for details on RCEs.
Similarly, an IDS filed in a CPA will be considered if the IDS is filed before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. Applicants are encouraged to file any IDS in a CPA as early as possible, preferably at the time of filing of the CPA request.
If an IDS cannot be filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits (generally within two months from the filing of the RCE or CPA), applicants may request a three-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(c) in an application at the time of filing of the RCE, or under 37 CFR 1.103(b) in a CPA, at the time of filing of the CPA. Where an IDS is mailed to the Office shortly before the expiration of a three-month suspension under 37 CFR 1.103(b) or (c), applicant is requested to make a courtesy call to notify the examiner as to the IDS submission.
II. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE FILED AFTER I. ABOVE BUT BEFORE MAILING OF FINAL ACTION, NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE, OR AN EX PARTE QUAYLE ACTION (37 CFR 1.97(c))
An information disclosure statement will be considered by the examiner if filed after the period specified in subsection I. above, but prior to the date the prosecution of the application closes, i.e., before (not on the same day as the mailing date of any of the following:
a final action under 37 CFR 1.113, e.g., final rejection;
a notice of allowance under 37 CFR 1.311; or
an action that closes prosecution in the application, e.g., an Ex parte Quayle action,
whichever occurs first, provided the information disclosure statement is accompanied by either (1) a statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e) (see the
discussion in subsection V below); or (2) the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). If a final action, notice of allowance, or an Ex parte Quayle action is mailed in an application and later withdrawn, the application will be considered as not having had a final action, notice of allowance, or an Ex parte Quayle action mailed for purposes of considering an information disclosure statement.
An Ex parte Quayle action is an action that closes the prosecution in the application as referred to in 37 CFR 1.97(c). Therefore, an information disclosure statement filed after an Ex parte Quayle action must comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(d).
A. Information is Used in a New Ground of Rejection
1. Final Rejection is Not Appropriate
If information submitted during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) is used in a new ground of rejection on unamended claims, the next Office action will not be made final since in this situation it is clear that applicant has submitted the information to the Office promptly after it has become known and the information is being submitted prior to a final determination on patentability by the Office.
2. Final Rejection Is Appropriate
The information submitted with a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) can be used in a new ground of rejection and the next Office action can be made final, if the new ground of rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant. Where the information is submitted during this period with a fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p), the examiner may use the information submitted, and make the next Office action final whether or not the claims have been amended, provided that no other new ground of rejection which was not necessitated by amendment to the claims is introduced by the examiner. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-227
§ 609.04(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
III. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FILED AFTER II. ABOVE BUT PRIOR TO PAYMENT OF ISSUE FEE (37 CFR 1.97(d))
An information disclosure statement will be considered by the examiner if filed on or after the mailing date of any of the following: a final action under 37 CFR 1.113; a notice of allowance under 37 CFR 1.311; or an action that closes prosecution in the application, e.g., an Ex parte Quayle action, but before or simultaneous with payment of the issue fee, provided the statement is accompanied by:
(A) a statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e) (see the discussion in subsection V; and
(B) the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).
These requirements are appropriate in view of the late stage of prosecution when the information is being submitted, i.e., after the examiner has reached a final determination on the patentability of the claims presented for examination. Payment of the fee (37 CFR 1.17(p)) and submission of the appropriate statement (37 CFR 1.97(e)) are the essential elements for having information considered at this advanced stage of prosecution, assuming the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 are satisfied.
Form paragraph 6.52 may be used to inform the applicant that the information disclosure statement is being considered.
¶ 6.52 Information Disclosure Statement Filed After Prosecution Has Been Closed
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on [1] was filed after the mailing date of the [2] on [3]. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the date the IDS was filed.
2. In bracket 2, insert --final Office action--, --Notice of Allowance--, or an -- Ex parte Quayle action-- as appropriate.
The requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 provide for consideration by the Office of information which is submitted within a reasonable time, i.e., within three months after an individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) becomes aware of the information or within three months of the information being cited in a
communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application. This undertaking by the Office to consider information would be available throughout the pendency of the application until the point where the patent issue fee was paid.
If an applicant chose not to comply, or could not comply, with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(d), the applicant may file a RCE under 37 CFR 1.114, or a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application) to have the information considered by the examiner. If the applicant files a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), the parent application could be permitted to become abandoned by not paying the issue fee required in the Notice of Allowance. If the prior application is a design application, the filing of a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) automatically abandons the prior application. See the discussion in MPEP § 609.02.
IV. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FILED AFTER PAYMENT OF ISSUE FEE
After the issue fee has been paid on an application, it is impractical for the Office to attempt to consider newly submitted information. Information disclosure statements filed after payment of the issue fee in an application will not be considered but will merely be placed in the application file. See MPEP § 609.05(b). The application may be withdrawn from issue at this point, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2) or 1.313(c)(3) so that the information can be considered in the application upon the filing of a RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 or in a continuing application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application). In this situation, a RCE, or a CPA (if the prior application is a design application), or a continuing application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) could be filed even though the issue fee had already been paid. See MPEP § 1308. Applicants are encouraged to file the petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2) with a RCE, or the petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(3) with a CPA or continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), by EFS-Web (see MPEP § 502.05) or facsimile transmission to the Office of Petitions (see MPEP § 502.01, subsection I.B. and § 1730 for the facsimile number). Alternatively, petitions to withdraw from
600-228Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.04(b)
issue may be hand-carried to the Office of Petitions (see MPEP § 502). The Office cannot ensure that any petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) will be acted upon prior to the date of patent grant. Applicants considering filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) are encouraged to call the Office of Petitions to determine whether sufficient time remains before the patent issue date to consider and grant a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c). If a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(3) is being filed by facsimile transmission, the petition need not be accompanied by the information disclosure statement if the size of the statement makes its submission by facsimile impracticable, but the petition should indicate that an IDS will be filed in the continuing application if it does not accompany the petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(3). The IDS should be filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. If a design CPA is being filed and the IDS cannot be filed within this time period, applicants may request a three-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(b) at the time of filing of the design CPA. See the discussion above in paragraph I.B. If a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2) is being filed, the RCE must be accompanied by a proper submission in order for the RCE to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. Therefore, the IDS must accompany the RCE and the petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2) if the IDS is the submission for the RCE.
Alternatively, for example, a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1) could be filed if applicant states that one or more claims are unpatentable. This statement that one or more claims are unpatentable over the information must be unequivocal. A statement that a serious question as to patentability of a claim has been raised, for example, would not be acceptable to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1). Form paragraph 13.09 may be used.
¶ 13.09 Information Disclosure Statement, Issue Fee Paid
Applicant’s information disclosure statement of [1] was filed after the issue fee was paid. Information disclosure statements filed after payment of the issue fee will not be considered, but will be placed in the file. However, the application may be withdrawn from issue in order to file a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 upon the grant of a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2), or a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the CPA is for a design patent and the prior application of the CPA is a design application filed
under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16) upon the grant of a petition filed under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.313(c)(3). Alternatively, the other provisions of 37 CFR 1.313 may apply, e.g., a petition to withdraw the application from issue under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1) may be filed together with an unequivocal statement by the applicant that one or more claims are unpatentable over the information contained in the statement. The information disclosure statement would then be considered upon withdrawal of the application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1).
Examiner Note:
1. For information disclosure statements submitted after the issue fee has been paid, use this form paragraph with form PTOL-90 or PTO-90C.
2. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the IDS.
If an application has been withdrawn from issue under one of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1)-(3), it will be treated as though no notice of allowance had been mailed and the issue fee had not yet been paid with regard to the time for filing information disclosure statements. Petitions under 37 CFR 1.313(c) should be directed to the Office of Petitions in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. See MPEP § 1308.
V. STATEMENT UNDER 37 CFR 1.97(e)
A statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) must state either
(1) that each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing of the statement, or
(2) that no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to the knowledge of the person signing the statement after making reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was known to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the statement.
A statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) can contain either of two statements. One statement is that each item of information in an information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication, such as a search report, from a patent office outside the U.S.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-229
§ 609.04(b)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing date of the statement. Applicant would not be able to make a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) where an item of information was first cited by a foreign patent office, for example, a year before the filing of the IDS, in a communication from that foreign patent office, and the same item of information is once again cited by another foreign patent office within three months prior to the filing of the IDS in the Office. Similarly, applicant would not be able to make a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) where an item of information was cited in an examination report and the same item of information was previously cited more than three months prior to the filing of the IDS in the Office, in a search report from the same foreign patent office. Under this statement, it does not matter whether any individual with a duty of disclosure actually knew about any of the information cited before receiving the search report.
The date on the communication by the foreign patent office begins the three-month period in the same manner as the mailing of an Office action starts a three-month shortened statutory period for reply. If the communication contains two dates, the mailing date of the communication is the one which begins the three-month period. The date which begins the three-month period is not the date the communication was received by a foreign associate or the date it was received by a U.S. registered practitioner. Likewise, the statement will be considered to have been filed on the date the statement was received in the Office, or on an earlier date of mailing or transmission if accompanied by a properly executed certificate of mailing or facsimile transmission under 37 CFR 1.8, or if it is in compliance with the provisions for Priority Mail Express® delivery under 37 CFR 1.10.
The term counterpart foreign patent application means that a claim for priority has been made in either the U.S. application or a foreign application based on the other, or that the disclosures of the U.S. and foreign patent applications are substantively identical (e.g., an application filed in the European Patent Office claiming the same U.K. priority as claimed in the U.S. application).
Communications from foreign patent offices in foreign applications sometimes include a list of the
family of patents corresponding to a particular patent being cited in the communication. The family of patents may include a United States patent or other patent in the English language. Some applicants submit information disclosure statements to the PTO which list and include copies of both the particular patent cited in the foreign patent office communication and the related United States or other English language patent from the family list. Since this is to be encouraged, the United States or other English language patent will be construed as being cited by the foreign patent office for purposes of a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1). The examiner should consider the United States or other English language patent if 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 are complied with.
If an information disclosure statement includes a copy of a dated communication from a foreign patent office which clearly shows that the statement is being submitted within three months of the date on the communication, the copy of the dated communication from the foreign patent office by itself will not be accepted as the required statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) since it would not be clear from the dated communication whether the information in the IDS was “first cited” in any communication from a foreign patent office not more than three months prior to the filing of the IDS as required by 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1).
In the alternative, a statement can be made if no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application and, to the knowledge of the person signing the statement after making reasonable inquiry, neither was it known to any individual having a duty to disclose more than three months prior to the filing of the statement. If an inventor of the U.S. application is also a named inventor of one of the items of information contained in the IDS, the 37 CFR 1.97(e)(2) statement cannot be made for that particular item of information, and if made, will not be accepted.
The phrase “after making reasonable inquiry” makes it clear that the individual making the statement has a duty to make reasonable inquiry regarding the facts that are being stated. The statement can be made by
600-230Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.04(b)
a registered practitioner who represents a foreign client and who relies on statements made by the foreign client as to the date the information first became known. A registered practitioner who receives information from a client without being informed whether the information was known for more than three months, however, cannot make the statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(2) without making reasonable inquiry. For example, if an inventor gave a publication to the attorney prosecuting an application with the intent that it be cited to the Office, the attorney should inquire as to when that inventor became aware of the publication and should not submit a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(2) to the Office until a satisfactory response is received. The statement can be based on present, good faith knowledge about when information became known without a search of files being made.
A statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) need not be in the form of an oath or a declaration under 37 CFR 1.68. A statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) by a registered practitioner or any other individual that the statement was filed within the three-month period of either first citation by a foreign patent office or first discovery of the information will be accepted as dispositive of compliance with this provision in the absence of evidence to the contrary. For example, a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) could read as follows:
I hereby state that each item of information contained in this Information Disclosure Statement was first cited in any communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing of this statement., or I hereby state that no item of information in the Information Disclosure Statement filed herewith was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to my knowledge after making reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in this Information Disclosure Statement was known to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of this Information Disclosure Statement.
An information disclosure statement may include two lists and two statements, similar to the above examples, in situations where some of the information listed was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office not more than three months prior to filing the statement and some was not, but was not known more than three months prior to filing the statement.
A copy of the foreign search report need not be submitted with the statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e), but an individual may wish to submit an English-language version of the search report to satisfy the requirement for a concise explanation where non-English language information is cited. The time at which information was known to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) is the time when the information was discovered in association with the application even if awareness of the materiality came later. The Office wishes to encourage prompt evaluation of the relevance of information and to have a date certain for determining if a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) can properly be made. A statement on information and belief would not be sufficient. Examiners should not remind or otherwise make any comment about an individual’s duty of candor and good faith. Questions about the adequacy of any statement received in writing by the Office should be directed to the Office of Patent Legal Administration.
VI. EXTENSIONS OF TIME (37 CFR 1.97(f))
No extensions of time for filing an information disclosure statement are permitted under 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b). If a bona fide attempt is made to comply with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98, but part of the required content is inadvertently omitted, additional time may be given to enable full compliance.
609.05 Examiner Handling of Information Disclosure Statements [R-08.2012]
Information disclosure statements will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 as discussed in MPEP § 609.04(a) and § 609.04(b). Applicant will be notified
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-231
§ 609.05PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
of compliance and noncompliance with the rules as discussed in MPEP § 609.05(a) and § 609.05(b).
609.05(a) Noncomplying Information Disclosure Statements [R-11.2013]
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.97(i), submitted information, filed before the grant of a patent, which does not comply with 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will be placed in the file, but will not be considered by the Office. Information submitted after the grant of a patent must comply with 37 CFR 1.501.
If an information disclosure statement does not comply with the requirements based on the time of filing of the IDS as discussed in MPEP § 609.04(b), including the requirements for fees and/or statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e), the IDS will be placed in the application file, but none of the information will be considered by the examiner. The examiner may use form paragraph 6.49 which is reproduced below to inform applicant that the information has not been considered. Applicant may then file a new information disclosure statement or correct the deficiency in the previously filed IDS, but the date that the new IDS or correction is filed will be the date of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing of the IDS (37 CFR 1.97).
The examiner should write “not considered” on an information disclosure statement where none of the information listed complies with the requirements, e.g., the format requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) are not met. If none of the information listed on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B form is considered, a diagonal line should also be drawn across the form and the form made of record in the application file. The examiner will inform applicant that the information has not been considered and the reasons why by using form paragraphs 6.49 through 6.49.10. If the improper citation appears as part of another paper, e.g., an amendment, which may be properly entered and considered, the portion of the paper which is proper for consideration will be considered.
If an item of information in an IDS fails to comply with all the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98, that item of information in the IDS will not be considered and a line should be drawn through
the citation to show that it has not been considered. However, other items of information that do comply with all the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will be considered by the examiner.
If information listed in the specification rather than in a separate paper, or if the other content requirements as discussed in MPEP § 609.04(a) are not complied with, the information need not be considered by the examiner, in which case, the examiner should notify applicant in the next Office action that the information has not been considered.
FORM PARAGRAPHS
¶ 6.49 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because [2]. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any resubmission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Examiner Note:
See MPEP § 609.05(a) for situations where the use of this form paragraph would be appropriate.
¶ 6.49.01 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, After First Action, But Before the Prosecution of the Application Closes, No Statement
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks a statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
¶ 6.49.02 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, After First Action, But Before the Prosecution of the Application Closes, No Fee
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
¶ 6.49.03 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, After the Prosecution of the Application Closes, Issue Fee Not Paid, No Statement
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(d) because it lacks a statement as specified
600-232Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.05(a)
in 37 CFR 1.97(e). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
¶ 6.49.05 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, After the Prosecution of the Application Closes, Issue Fee Not Paid, No Fee
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(d) because it lacks the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
¶ 6.49.06 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, References Listed in Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
¶ 6.49.07 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, No Copy of References
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Examiner Note:
Do not use this form paragraph when the missing reference(s) are U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, or U.S. pending applications (limited to the specification, including claims, and drawings) stored in IFW.
¶ 6.49.08 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, Non-Compliant List of References
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Examiner Note:
If an IDS listing includes a copy of an initialed IDS listing from another application, the IDS listing would not comply with the requirements under 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). This form paragraph is applicable for such an IDS submission.
¶ 6.49.09 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, No Explanation of Relevance of Non-English Language Information
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
¶ 6.49.10 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, Non-acceptable Electronic Medium
The information disclosure statement filed [1] was submitted on an electronic medium that was not acceptable. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Note that U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, foreign patent documents and non-patent literature cited in an information disclosure statement may be electronically submitted in compliance with the Office Electronic Filing System (EFS) requirements.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph may be used when the IDS that includes patents and non-patent literature documents is submitted on compact discs or any other electronic medium, except via EFS. Only tables, sequence listings, and program listings may be submitted on CDs. See 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (e).
¶ 6.51 Time for Completing Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on [1] does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(b) because: [2]. Since the submission appears to be bona fide , applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above-mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above-mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the non-complying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i).
Examiner Note:
Use this form paragraph if an IDS complies with the timing requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 but part of the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(b) has been inadvertently omitted.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-233
§ 609.05(a)PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of an Information Disclosure Statement or where the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.97, have not been complied with.
609.05(b) Complying Information Disclosure Statements [R-07.2015]
The information contained in information disclosure statements which comply with both the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 and the requirements, based on the time of filing the statement, of 37 CFR 1.97 will be considered by the examiner. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner will consider the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above.
In addition, the following alternative electronic signature method may be used by examiners in information disclosure statements to indicate whether the information has been considered. Examiners will no longer initial each reference citation considered, but will continue to strikethrough each citation not considered. Each page of reference citations will be stamped by the examiner with the phrase “All references considered except where lined through” along with the examiner’s electronic initials, and the final page of reference citations will include the examiner’s electronic signature.
Examiners must consider all citations submitted in conformance with the rules, and their initials when placed adjacent to the considered citations on the list or in the boxes provided on a form PTO/SB/08A and 08B (or the examiner may use the alternative electronic signature method noted above)provides a clear record of which citations have been considered by the Office. The examiner must also fill in his or her name and the date the information was considered in blocks at the bottom of the PTO/SB/08A and 08B form. If any of the citations are considered, a copy of the submitted list, form
PTO/SB/08A and 08B, as reviewed by the examiner, will be returned to the applicant with the next communication. Those citations not considered by the examiner will have a line drawn through the citation. The original copy of the list, form PTO/SB/08A and 08B will be entered into the application file. The copy returned to applicant will serve both as acknowledgement of receipt of the information disclosure statement and as an indication as to which references were considered by the examiner. Forms PTO-326 and PTOL-37 include a box to indicate the attachment of form PTO/SB/08A and 08B.
Information which complies with requirements as discussed in this section but which is in a non-English language will be considered in view of the concise explanation submitted (see MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection III.) and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches. The examiner need not have the information translated unless it appears to be necessary to do so. The examiner will indicate that the non-English language information has been considered in the same manner as consideration is indicated for information submitted in English. The examiner should not require that a translation be filed by applicant. The examiner should not make any comment such as that the non-English language information has only been considered to the extent understood, since this fact is inherent. See Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1377-78, 54 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[A]s MPEP Section 609C(2) reveals, the examiner’s understanding of a foreign reference is generally limited to that which he or she can glean from the applicant’s concise statement…Consequently, while the examiner’s initials require that we presume that he or she considered the [foreign] reference, this presumption extends only to the examiner’s consideration of the brief translated portion and the concise statement.”).
If an item of information in an IDS fails to comply with requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98, a line should be drawn through the citation to show
600-234Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.05(b)
that it has not been considered. The other items of information listed that do comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will be considered by the examiner and will be appropriately initialed.
609.05(c) Documents Submitted as Part of Applicant’s Reply to Office Action [R-08.2012]
Occasionally, documents are submitted and relied on by an applicant when replying to an Office action. These documents may be relied on by an applicant, for example, to show that an element recited in the claim is operative or that a term used in the claim has a recognized meaning in the art. Documents may be in any form but are typically in the form of an affidavit, declaration, patent, or printed publication.
To the extent that a document is submitted as evidence directed to an issue of patentability raised in an Office action, and the evidence is timely presented, applicant need not satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 in order to have the examiner consider the information contained in the document relied on by applicant. In other words, compliance with the information disclosure rules is not a threshold requirement to have information considered when submitted by applicant to support an argument being made in a reply to an Office action. However, consideration by the examiner of the document submitted as evidence directed to an issue of patentability raised in the Office action is limited to the portion of the document relied upon as rebuttal evidence; the entirety of the document may not necessarily be considered by the examiner.
At the same time, the document supplied and relied on by applicant as evidence need not be processed as an item of information that was cited in an information disclosure statement. The record should reflect whether the evidence was considered, but listing on a form (e.g., PTO-892, or PTO/SB/08A and 08B) and appropriate marking of the form by the examiner is not required.
For example, if applicant submits and relies on three patents as evidence in reply to the first Office action and also lists those patents on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B along with two journal articles, but does not file
a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) or the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p), it would be appropriate for the examiner to indicate that the teachings relied on by applicant in the three patents have been considered, but to line through the citation of all five documents on the PTO/SB/08A and 08B and to inform applicant that the information disclosure statement did not comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c).
609.06 Information Printed on Patent [R-08.2012]
A citation listed on form PTO/SB/08A and 08B and considered by the examiner will be printed on the patent. A citation listed in a separate paper, equivalent to but not on form PTO/SB/08A and 08B, and considered by the examiner will be printed on the patent if the list lends itself to easy capture of the necessary information by the Office printing contractor, i.e., each item of information is listed on a single line, the lines are at least double-spaced from each other, and the information is uniform in format for each listed item. For patents printed after January 1, 2001, citations from information disclosure statements that are printed on the face of the patent will be distinguished from citations cited by the examiner on a form PTO-892. The citations cited by the examiner on a form PTO-892 will be marked with an asterisk. If an item of information is cited more than once in an IDS and on a form PTO-892, the citation of the item will be listed only once on the patent as a citation cited by the examiner.
If the applicant does not provide classification information for a citation, or if the examiner lines through incorrect classification data, the citation will be printed on the face of the patent without the classification information. If a U.S. patent application number is listed on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B form or its equivalent and the examiner considers the information and initials the form, the application number will be printed on the patent. Applicants may wish to list U.S. patent application numbers on other than a form PTO/SB/08A and 08B format to avoid the application numbers of pending applications being published on the patent. If a citation is not printed on the patent but has been
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-235
§ 609.06PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
considered by the examiner, the patented file will reflect that fact as noted in MPEP § 609.05(b).
609.07 IDSs Electronically Submitted (e-IDS) Using EFS-Web [R-07.2015]
As of May of 2002, IDSs may be submitted to the Office via the Office’s electronic filing system. Applicants can file an e-IDS using EFS-Web by (A) entering the references’ citation information in an electronic data entry form, equivalent to the paper PTO/SB/08A form, and (B) transmitting the electronic data entry form to the Office. As of January 2007, an e-IDS filed via EFS-Web may include citations of U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, foreign patent documents, and non-patent literature (NPLs). Copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications cited in the IDS are not required to be submitted by the applicants with the e-IDS. If any references to foreign patent documents or NPLs or unpublished U.S. patent applications (that are not stored in the Office’s Image File Wrapper (IFW) system)are to be cited, applicants must submit copies of these documents in PDF using EFS-Web.
The electronic IDS form may be included with a new EFS-Web electronic application filing, or it may be submitted for previously filed patent applications. An e-IDS contains an electronic list of U.S. patent numbers, U.S. patent application publication numbers, foreign patent documents and non-patent literature (NPLs). An individual e-IDS may contain a listing of (1) a combined total of 50 U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications, (2) 50 foreign patent documents, and (3) 50 NPLs. Applicants are permitted to file more than one e-IDS if these numbers are exceeded.
If more than one e-IDS is necessary to file a complete IDS for which a fee is required under 37 CFR1.17(p), only a single fee under 37 CFR 1.17(p) will be required under the following conditions:
(A) the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(p) is included with the first e-IDS submission (since it will normally be processed first);
(B) all subsequent submissions making up the IDS should explicitly state that the fee was included in the earlier submission and request that the one fee
be accepted for the second and any subsequent submission; and
(C) all subsequent submissions (electronic or paper) must be received by the Office on the same date as the first e-IDS submission with which the fee was included.
A subsequent non-electronic submission is considered received by the Office on the same date as the first e-IDS submission with which the fee was included for purposes of the fee due under 37 CFR 1.17(p) if it is deposited in Priority Mail Express® under 37 CFR 1.10, deposited in the first class U.S. mail with a certificate of mailing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8, or transmitted by facsimile with a certificate of transmission in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8, on the same date as the first e-IDS submission with which the fee was included. If a subsequent e-IDS submission is received by the Office on a date later than the date the fee was paid, the later submission will require an additional fee.
A copy of the e-IDS form will be scanned to become part of the Image File Wrapper (IFW). In all applications, the e-IDS will be added to the application file contents listing, and to the PALM EXPO database record for the application.
If the e-IDS complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97, examiners must consider the e-IDS and complete the e-IDS form by initialing, signing, and dating the e-IDS form entries. See MPEP § 609.05(b). Examiners may notice numbering gaps in the “Citation No.” column on the printed e-IDS form due to an applicant data entry error. This data entry error will not affect the e-IDS and is not a sufficient reason not to consider the e-IDS. A copy of the initialed e-IDS form must be sent to the applicant. The completed copy of the e-IDS form sent to an applicant should be made of record in the official file when the copy is sent to the applicant.
An electronic list of all U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications on an e-IDS form is available and accessible from the examiner’s workstation by clicking on the e-IDS icon, on the workstation desktop. Consideration of the e-IDS may not be deferred and an examiner should not require an applicant to submit paper copies of e-IDS references. It is most important that the U.S. patent
600-236Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.07
and U.S. patent application publication numbers listed on the e-IDS be accurate and devoid of transcription error since no copies of the documents listed on the e-IDS are provided in the file wrapper for the examiner to review. Instead the examiner will electronically retrieve the U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications identified by the cited document numbers. The only mechanism for having the correct document reviewed and considered when an erroneous U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication is cited in an e-IDS will be by citing the correct citation number in a subsequent IDS that conforms to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
Examiners can copy and paste U.S. patent and U.S. patent application publication numbers from the e-IDS to EAST and/or WEST for searching. Examiners should copy and paste U.S. patent and U.S. patent application publication numbers from the e-IDS to EAST and/or WEST to review the references that are listed in the e-IDS.
Applicants and registered practitioners are permitted to sign portions of an EFS-Web submission, including an IDS, with an electronic signature. See 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3).
If the e-IDS transmittal letter and list of references is missing from an application file, an examiner may request that the technical support staff obtain an additional printed copy of the letter and reference list from the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP).
609.08 Electronic Processing of Information Disclosure Statement [R-07.2015]
As of January 18, 2006, the Office began electronic processing of the list of citations (e.g., form PTO/SB/08) submitted as part of an information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted in applications stored by the Office in image form. Examiners are provided with a tool to electronically annotate citations and electronically sign the IDS when reviewing the cited references. See MPEP § 609.04(b) for determining whether a cited reference has been considered by the examiner. The electronically processed IDS will be stored in the Office’s official record as an entry in the application’s image file wrapper (IFW) and a copy will be mailed to applicant as part of an Office action.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-237
§ 609.08PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-238Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.08
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-239
§ 609.08PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
600-240Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 609.08
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015600-241
§ 609.08PARTS, FORM, AND CONTENT OF APPLICATION
Chapter 700 Examination of Applications
Statutory Authority for Examination701 Requisites of the Application702
Obviously Informal Cases702.01 [Reserved]703 Search and Requirements for Information
704
Search704.01 [Reserved]704.02
-704.09 Requirements for Information704.10 What Information May Be Required704.11
Examples of Information Reasonably Required
704.11(a)
When May a Requirement for Information Be Made
704.11(b)
Replies to a Requirement for Information
704.12
Relationship of Requirement for Information to Duty of Disclosure
704.12(a)
What Constitutes a Complete Reply
704.12(b)
Treatment of an Incomplete Reply
704.12(c)
Time Periods for Reply704.13 Making a Requirement for Information
704.14
Format of the Requirement704.14(a) Examiner’s Obligation Following Applicant’s Reply
704.14(b)
Petitions to Requirements Under 37 CFR 1.105
704.14(c)
Relationship to Information Disclosure Statements
704.14(d)
Patentability Reports705 Instructions re Patentability Reports705.01
Nature of P.R., Its Use and Disposal
705.01(a)
Sequence of Examination705.01(b) Counting and Recording P.R.s705.01(c) [Reserved]705.01(d) Limitation as to Use705.01(e) Interviews With Applicants705.01(f)
Rejection of Claims706 Contrasted With Objections706.01 Rejection on Prior Art706.02
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) and Pre-AIA
706.02(a)
35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e); Printed Publication or Patent
Determining Whether To Apply 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2)
706.02(a)(1)
Determining Whether To Apply Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e)
706.02(a)(2)
Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent
706.02(b)
Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2)
706.02(b)(1)
Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent Overcoming a Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e)
706.02(b)(2)
Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
706.02(c)
102(a) or (b); Knowledge by Others or Public Use or Sale
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1); Public Use or Public Sale
706.02(c)(1)
Rejections under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b); Public Use or On Sale
706.02(c)(2)
Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c)
706.02(d)
Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)
706.02(e)
Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
706.02(f)
Examination Guidelines for Applying References Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
706.02(f)(1)
Provisional Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or
706.02(f)(2)
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e); Reference Is a Copending U.S. Patent Application
Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f)
706.02(g)
Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)
706.02(h)
Form Paragraphs for Use in Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102
706.02(i)
Contents of a 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
706.02(j)
Provisional Rejection (Obviousness) Under 35 U.S.C.
706.02(k)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-1
103 Using Provisional Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Using Prior Art
706.02(l)
Under Only Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (e), (f), or (g)
Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Using PriorArt
706.02(l)(1)
Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g); Prior Art Disqualification Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) Establishing Common Ownership or Joint Research
706.02(l)(2)
Agreement Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) Examination Procedure With Respect to Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)
706.02(l)(3)
Form Paragraphs for Use in Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
706.02(m)
Biotechnology Process Applications; Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b)
706.02(n)
Rejections Not Based on Prior Art706.03 Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101706.03(a) Barred by Atomic Energy Act706.03(b) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph
706.03(c)
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph
706.03(d)
Form Paragraphs for Use Relating to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph
706.03(e)
[Reserved]706.03(f) -706.03(j)
Duplicate Claims706.03(k) [Reserved]706.03(l) Nonelected Inventions706.03(m) [Reserved]706.03(n) New Matter706.03(o) [Reserved]706.03(p)
-706.03(r) Foreign Filing Without License706.03(s) [Reserved]706.03(t) Disclaimer706.03(u) After Interference or Former Public Use Proceeding
706.03(v)
Res Judicata706.03(w)
Reissue706.03(x) Rejection of Previously Allowed Claims
706.04
Rejection After Allowance of Application
706.05
Rejection of Claims Copied From Patent
706.06
Final Rejection706.07 Final Rejection, When Proper on Second Action
706.07(a)
Final Rejection, When Proper on First Action
706.07(b)
Final Rejection, Premature706.07(c) Final Rejection, Withdrawal of, Premature
706.07(d)
Withdrawal of Final Rejection, General
706.07(e)
Time for Reply to Final Rejection706.07(f) Transitional After-Final Practice706.07(g) Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Practice
706.07(h)
Examiner’s Letter or Action707 Primary Examiner Indicates Action for New Assistant
707.01
Applications Up for Third Action and 5-Year Applications
707.02
[Reserved]707.03-707.04 Citation of References707.05
Copies of Cited References707.05(a) Citation of Related Art and Information by Applicants
707.05(b)
Order of Listing707.05(c) Reference Cited in Subsequent Actions
707.05(d)
Data Used in Citing References707.05(e) [Reserved]707.05(f) Incorrect Citation of References707.05(g)
Citation of Decisions, Orders Memorandums, and Notices
707.06
Completeness and Clarity of Examiner’s Action
707.07
Complete Action on Formal Matters
707.07(a)
[Reserved]707.07(b) -707.07(c)
Language To Be Used in Rejecting Claims
707.07(d)
Note All Outstanding Requirements
707.07(e)
Answer All Material Traversed707.07(f) Piecemeal Examination707.07(g)
700-2Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Notify of Inaccuracies in Amendment
707.07(h)
Each Claim To Be Mentioned in Each Office Action
707.07(i)
State When Claims Are Allowable
707.07(j)
Numbering Paragraphs707.07(k) Comment on Examples707.07(l)
Reviewing and Initialing by Assistant Examiner
707.08
Signing by Primary or Other Authorized Examiner
707.09
Entry707.10 Date707.11 Mailing707.12 Returned Office Action707.13
Order of Examination708 List of Special Cases708.01 Petition To Make Special708.02
Accelerated Examination708.02(a) Prioritized Examination708.02(b) Patent Prosecution Highway Program
708.02(c)
Examiner Tenders Resignation708.03 Suspension of Action709
Overlapping Applications by Same Applicant or Owned by Same Assignee
709.01
Period for Reply710 Statutory Period710.01
Statutory Period, How Computed710.01(a) Shortened Statutory Period and Time Limit Actions Computed
710.02
[Reserved]710.02(a) Shortened Statutory Period: Situations in Which Used
710.02(b)
Specified Time Limits: Situations in Which Used
710.02(c)
Difference Between Shortened Statutory Periods for Reply and Specified Time Limits
710.02(d)
Extension of Time710.02(e) [Reserved]710.03 Two Periods Running710.04
Copying Patent Claims710.04(a) Period Ending on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal Holiday
710.05
Situations When Reply Period Is Reset or Restarted
710.06
Abandonment of Patent Application711 Express or Formal Abandonment711.01
Failure To Take Required Action During Statutory Period
711.02
Insufficiency of Reply711.02(a) Special Situations Involving Abandonment
711.02(b)
Termination of Proceedings711.02(c) Reconsideration of Holding of Abandonment; Revival
711.03
Holding Based on Insufficiency of Reply
711.03(a)
Holding Based on Failure To Reply Within Period
711.03(b)
Petitions Relating to Abandonment
711.03(c)
Examiner’s Statement on Petition To Set Aside Examiner’s Holding
711.03(d)
Public Access to Abandoned Applications
711.04
Date of Abandonment711.04(a) Ordering of Patented and Abandoned Files
711.04(b)
Notifying Applicants of Abandonment
711.04(c)
Letter of Abandonment Received After Application Is Allowed
711.05
Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive Publications
711.06
Citation and Use of Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive Publications as References
711.06(a)
[Reserved]712 Interviews713
General Policy, How Conducted713.01 Interviews Prior to First Official Action
713.02
Interview for “Sounding Out” Examiner Not Permitted
713.03
Substance of Interview Must Be Made of Record
713.04
Interviews Prohibited or Granted, Special Situations
713.05
No Inter Partes Questions Discussed Ex Parte
713.06
Exposure of Other Cases713.07 Demonstration, Exhibits, Models713.08 Finally Rejected Application713.09 Interview Preceding Filing Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.312
713.10
Amendments, Applicant’s Action714 Signatures to Amendments714.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-3
EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Unsigned or Improperly Signed Amendment
714.01(a)
[Reserved]714.01(b) Signed by Attorney or Agent Not of Record
714.01(c)
Amendment Signed by Applicant but Not by Attorney or Agent of Record
714.01(d)
Amendments Before First Office Action
714.01(e)
Must Be Fully Responsive714.02 Amendments Not Fully Responsive, Action To Be Taken
714.03
Supplemental Amendment714.03(a) Claims Presented inAmendment With No Attempt To Point Out Patentable Novelty
714.04
Examiner Should Immediately Review
714.05
[Reserved]714.06 Amendments Not in Permanent Ink714.07 [Reserved]714.08
-714.09 Claims Added in Excess of Claims Previously Paid For
714.10
Amendment Filed During Interference Proceedings
714.11
Amendments and Other Replies After Final Rejection or Action
714.12
Amendments and Other Replies After Final Rejection or Action, Procedure Followed
714.13
Amendments After Allowance of All Claims
714.14
Amendment Received in Technology Center After Mailing of Notice of Allowance
714.15
Amendment After Notice of Allowance, 37 CFR 1.312
714.16
Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312, Copied Patent Claims
714.16(a)
Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312 Filed With a Motion Under 37 CFR 41.208
714.16(b)
Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312, Additional Claims
714.16(c)
Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312, Handling
714.16(d)
Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312, Entry in Part
714.16(e)
Amendment Filed After the Period for Reply Has Expired
714.17
Entry of Amendments714.18 List of Amendments, Entry Denied714.19 List of Amendments Entered in Part714.20 Amendments Inadvertently Entered, No Legal Effect
714.21
[Reserved]714.22 -714.24
Discourtesy of Applicant or Attorney714.25 Swearing Behind a Reference — Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a)
715
37 CFR 1.131(a) Affidavits Versus 37 CFR 1.132 Affidavits
715.01
Reference Is a Joint Patent or Published Application to Applicant and Another
715.01(a)
Reference and Application Have Common Assignee
715.01(b)
Reference Is Publication of Applicant’s Own Invention
715.01(c)
Activities Applied Against the Claims
715.01(d)
How Much of the Claimed Invention Must Be Shown, Including the General Rule as to Generic Claims
715.02
Genus-Species, Practice Relative to Cases Where Predictability Is in Question
715.03
Who May Make Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a);
715.04
Formal Requirements of Affidavits and Declarations U.S. Patent orApplication Publication Claiming Same Invention
715.05
[Reserved]715.06 Facts and Documentary Evidence715.07
Diligence715.07(a) Interference Testimony Sometimes Used
715.07(b)
Acts Relied Upon Must Have Been Carried Out in This Country
715.07(c)
or a NAFTA or WTO Member Country Disposition of Exhibits715.07(d)
Decided by Primary Examiner715.08 Timely Presentation715.09 Review of Affidavit or Declaration for Evidence of Prior Public Use or Sale or Failure to Disclose Best Mode
715.10
700-4Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Affidavits or Declarations Traversing Rejections, 37 CFR 1.132
716
Generally Applicable Criteria716.01 Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness
716.01(a)
Nexus Requirement and Evidence of Nonobviousness
716.01(b)
Probative Value of Objective Evidence
716.01(c)
Weighing Objective Evidence716.01(d) Allegations of Unexpected Results716.02
Evidence Must Show Unexpected Results
716.02(a)
Burden on Applicant716.02(b) Weighing Evidence of Expected and Unexpected Results
716.02(c)
Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention
716.02(d)
Comparison With Closest Prior Art
716.02(e)
Advantages Disclosed or Inherent716.02(f) Declaration or Affidavit Form716.02(g)
Commercial Success716.03 Commercial Success Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention
716.03(a)
Commercial Success Derived From Claimed Invention
716.03(b)
Long-Felt Need and Failure of Others716.04 Skepticism of Experts716.05 Copying716.06 Inoperability of References716.07 Utility and Operability of Applicant’s Disclosure
716.08
Sufficiency of Disclosure716.09 Attribution Affidavit or Declaration to Overcome Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103
716.10
Prior Art Exceptions under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (2)
717
Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.130
717.01
Declarations or Affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130(a) – Attribution
717.01(a)
Evaluation of Declarations or Affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130(a)
717.01(a)(1)
Declarations or Affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130(b) – Prior Public Disclosure
717.01(b)
Evaluation of Declarations or Affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130(b)
717.01(b)(1)
Determining if the Subject Matter of the Intervening
717.01(b)(2)
Disclosure is the Same as the Subject Matter of the Inventor–Originated Prior Public Disclosure
Who May Make Affidavit or Declaration; Formal
717.01(c)
Requirements of Affidavits and Declarations U.S. Patent or Application Publication Claiming Same Invention
717.01(d)
Passed Upon (or Decided by) by Primary Examiner
717.01(e)
Seasonable (or Timely) Presentation
717.01(f)
Prior Art Exception for Commonly Owned or Joint Research Agreement
717.02
Subject Matter under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)
Invoking the Prior Art Exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)
717.02(a)
Evaluating Whether the Prior Art Exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) is Properly Invoked
717.02(b)
Examination Procedure With Respect to the Prior Art
717.02(c)
Exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) Form Paragraphs With Respect to the Prior Art Exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)
717.02(d)
Affidavit or Declaration to Disqualify Commonly Owned Patent as Prior Art, 37 CFR 1.131(c)
718
File Wrapper719 Papers in Image File Wrapper719.01 Residence of Inventor Changed719.02 Classification During Examination719.03 Index of Claims719.04 Field of Search719.05
Public Use Proceedings720 [Reserved]721-723 Trade Secret, Proprietary, and Protective Order Materials
724
Completeness of the Patent File Wrapper
724.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-5
EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Method of Submitting Trade Secret, Proprietary, and/or Protective Order Materials
724.02
Types of Trade Secret, Proprietary, and/or Protective Order Materials Submitted Under MPEP § 724.02
724.03
Office Treatment and Handling of Materials Submitted Under MPEP § 724.02
724.04
Materials Submitted in an Application Covered by 35 U.S.C. 122
724.04(a)
Materials Submitted in Reissue Applications Open to the Public Under 37 CFR 1.11(b)
724.04(b)
Materials Submitted in Reexamination File Open to the Public Under 37 CFR 1.11(d)
724.04(c)
Petition To Expunge Information or Copy of Papers in Application File
724.05
Handling of Petitions To Expunge Information or Copy of Papers in Application File
724.06
701 Statutory Authority for Examination [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 131 Examination of application.
The Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor.
The main conditions precedent to the grant of a patent to an applicant are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112.
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Form paragraph 7.04.01 copies 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 706.03(a).
35 U.S.C. 100 Definitions.
[Editor Note: 35 U.S.C. 100(e)-(j) as set forth below are only applicable to patent applications and patents subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 100(e) for paragraph (e) as applicable to
patent applications and patents not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.]
When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates -
(a) The term “invention” means invention or discovery.
(b) The term “process” means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
(c) The terms “United States” and “this country” mean the United States of America, its territories and possessions.
(d) The word “patentee” includes not only the patentee to whom the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the patentee.
(e) The term “third-party requester” means a person requesting ex parte reexamination under section 302 who is not the patent owner.
(f) The term "inventor" means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.
(g) The terms "joint inventor" and "coinventor" mean any 1 of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter of a joint invention.
(h) The term "joint research agreement" means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by 2 or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.
(i)
(1) The term "effective filing date" for a claimed invention in a patent or application for patent means—
(A) if subparagraph (B) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(B) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).
(2) The effective filing date for a claimed invention in an application for reissue or reissued patent shall be determined by deeming the claim to the invention to have been contained in the patent for which reissue was sought.
(j) The term "claimed invention" means the subject matter defined by a claim in a patent or an application for a patent.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 100 Definitions.
[Editor Note: Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 100(e) as set forth below is not applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). For an application or patent subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see 35 U.S.C. 100.]
700-6Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 701
When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates -
*****
(e) The term “third-party requester” means a person requesting ex parte reexamination under section 302 or inter partes reexamination under section 311 who is not the patent owner.
702 Requisites of the Application [R-07.2015]
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) reviews application papers to determine whether a new application is entitled to a filing date. Note that as a result of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA), Public Law 112-211, December 18, 2012, and specifically, the amendments to the patent laws to implement the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) in title II of the PLTIA, the filing date requirements for applications filed on or after December 18, 2013 are different from the filing date requirements for applications filed prior to December 18, 2013. Except for design applications, the filing date for nonprovisional applications filed on or after December 18, 2013 is the date on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. See MPEP § 601.01(a) for additional information. Similarly, provisional applications filed on or after December 18, 2013 may receive a filing date even if the application is filed without drawings. See MPEP § 601.01(b) for additional information. The filing date for a design application, except for a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d), is the date on which the specification as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, including at least one claim, and any required drawings are received in the Office. See MPEP § 601.01(a).Also, for applications filed on or after December 18, 2013, an application (other than an application for a design patent) is not required to include any drawings to be entitled to a filing date. It should be noted, however, 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(2) continues to require the application to include a drawing as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 113, which requires a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. Therefore, any drawings necessary for the understanding of the invention should be submitted with the application on filing.
If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding
of the invention, including where a drawing is necessary for the understanding of the invention, the Office will continue the practice of requiring a drawing. See MPEP § 608.02, subsection IV. As discussed in MPEP § 608.02, this requirement prior to examination should continue to be extremely rare and limited to the situation in which no examination can be performed due to the lack of an illustration of the invention.
In addition, as provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013 may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III.
The minimal formal requirements resulting from the implementation of the PLTIA and PLT should not be viewed as prescribing a best practice for the preparation and filing of a patent application. The preparation of claims to any claimed invention for which patent protection is desired and the inclusion of such claims with the application on filing will help ensure that the application satisfies the disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for any such claimed invention. Similarly, while the absence of any drawing on the filing of an application no longer raises a question as to whether the application is entitled to a filing date, the preparation of drawings for a provisional or nonprovisional application is prudent where a drawing is necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented, and inclusion of such drawing(s) with the application on filing will help ensure that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 113 are satisfied for any such claimed invention.
If an application (other than an application for a design patent) is filed on or after December 18, 2013, without any claims, OPAP will issue a notice giving the applicant a time period within which to submit at least one claim in order to avoid abandonment. An application will not be placed on an examiner’s docket unless and until the application includes a specification including at least one claim.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-7
§ 702EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
For applications filed under pre-PLT (AIA) 35 U.S.C. 111 prior to December 18, 2013, a filing date is assigned to a nonprovisional application as of the date a specification containing a description and claim and any necessary drawings are filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Office). See pre-PLT (AIA) 37 CFR 1.53(b).
Once OPAP determines that the application is entitled to a filing date, OPAP then determines whether the application as filed is complete, e.g., includes the required fees, the inventor’s oath or declaration, and all pages of the specification and drawings. If the papers filed are not entitled to a filing date, OPAP will send a “Notice of Incomplete Application” informing applicant of the deficiencies; if the application is entitled to a filing date but it is not complete, an OPAP notice (e.g., a “Notice of Omitted Item(s)”) will be sent indicating that the application papers so deposited have been accorded a filing date and indicating what papers must be filed to complete the application.
The examiner should be careful to see that the application is complete when taken up for examination. If, for example, pages of the specification or drawings are missing, the examiner should determine whether the application is entitled to the filing date assigned, and what action should be taken. See MPEP §§ 601.01(d) and 601.01(g) for guidance.
702.01 Obviously Informal Cases [R-07.2015]
When an application is taken up for examination and it is then discovered to be impractical to give a complete action on the merits because of an informal or insufficient disclosure, the following procedure may be followed:
(A) A reasonable search should be made of the invention so far as it can be understood from the disclosure, objects of invention and claims and any apparently pertinent art cited. In the rare case in which the disclosure is so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search, the Office action should clearly inform applicant that no search was made;
(B) Any form that lists informalities and any additional formal requirements to be made should
be included in the first Office action (see MPEP § 707.07(a));
(C) A requirement should be made that the specification be revised to conform to idiomatic English and United States patent practice;
(D) The claims should be rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112 if they are informal. A blanket rejection is usually sufficient.
The examiner should attempt to point out the points of informality in the specification and claims. The burden is on the applicant to revise the application to render it in proper form for a complete examination.
If a number of obviously informal claims are filed in an application, such claims should be treated as being a single claim for fee and examination purposes.
It is to applicant’s advantage to file the application with an adequate disclosure and with claims which conform to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office usages and requirements. This should be done whenever possible. If, however, due to the pressure of a Convention deadline or other reasons, this is not possible, applicants are urged to submit promptly, preferably within 3 months after filing, a preliminary amendment which corrects the obvious informalities. The informalities should be corrected to the extent that the disclosure is readily understood and the claims to be initially examined are in proper form, particularly as to dependency, and otherwise clearly define the invention. “New matter” must be excluded from these amendments since preliminary amendments filed after the filing date of the application do not enjoy original disclosure status. See MPEP § 608.04(b).
Whenever, upon examination, it is found that the terms or phrases or modes of characterization used to describe the invention are not sufficiently consonant with the art to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to enable the examiner to make the examination specified in 37 CFR 1.104, the examiner should make a reasonable search of the invention so far as it can be understood from the disclosure. The action of the examiner may be limited to a citation of what
700-8Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 702.01
appears to be the most pertinent prior art found and a request that applicant correlate the terminology of the specification with art-accepted terminology before further action is made.
Use form paragraph 7.01 where the terminology is such that a proper search cannot be made.
¶ 7.01 Use of Unconventional Terminology, Cannot Be Examined
A preliminary examination of this application reveals that it includes terminology which is so different from that which is generally accepted in the art to which this invention pertains that a proper search of the prior art cannot be made. For example: [1]
Applicant is required to provide a clarification of these matters or correlation with art-accepted terminology so that a proper comparison with the prior art can be made. Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this or form paragraph 7.02 when a proper search cannot be made. However, see MPEP § 702.01 which requires a reasonable search.
2. In bracket 1, fill in an appropriate indication of the terminology, properties, units of data, etc. that are the problem as well as the pages of the specification involved.
3. For the procedure to be followed when the drawing is not acceptable, see MPEP §§ 608.02(a) and 608.02(b).
Use form paragraph 7.02 where the application is so incomprehensible that a reasonable search cannot be made.
¶ 7.02 Disclosure Is Incomprehensible
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood: [1]
Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure ( i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph when a search cannot be made.
2. In bracket 1, indicate the page numbers and features which are not understood.
3. See form paragraphs 6.28 and 6.30 for improper idiomatic English.
4. Use form paragraphs 7.31.01 – 7.31.04, as appropriate, for a rejection of claims (when necessary) based on the deficiencies set forth in this form paragraph.
For the procedure to be followed when the drawing is not acceptable, see MPEP §§ 608.02(a) and 608.02(b).
703 [Reserved]
704 Search and Requirements for Information [R-08.2012]
704.01 Search [R-08.2012]
After reading the specification and claims, the examiner searches the prior art. The subject of searching is more fully treated in MPEP Chapter 900. See especially MPEP §§ 904 through 904.03. The invention should be thoroughly understood before a search is undertaken. However, informal cases, or those which can only be imperfectly understood when they come up for action in their regular turn are also given a search, in order to avoid piecemeal prosecution.
PREVIOUS EXAMINER’S SEARCH
When an examiner is assigned to act on an application which has received one or more actions by some other examiner, full faith and credit should be given to the search and action of the previous examiner unless there is a clear error in the previous action or knowledge of other prior art. In general the second examiner should not take an entirely new approach to the application or attempt to reorient the point of view of the previous examiner, or make a
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-9
§ 704.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
new search in the mere hope of finding something. See MPEP § 719.05.
704.02 -704.09 [Reserved]
704.10 Requirements for Information [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.105 Requirements for information.
(a)
(1) In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, including a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example:
(i) Commercial databases: The existence of any particularly relevant commercial database known to any of the inventors that could be searched for a particular aspect of the invention.
(ii) Search: Whether a search of the prior art was made, and if so, what was searched.
(iii) Related information: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign), by any of the inventors, that relates to the claimed invention.
(iv) Information used to draft application: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft the application.
(v) Information used in invention process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result.
(vi) Improvements: Where the claimed invention is an improvement, identification of what is being improved.
(vii) In Use: Identification of any use of the claimed invention known to any of the inventors at the time the application was filed notwithstanding the date of the use.
(viii) Technical information known to applicant. Technical information known to applicant concerning the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
(2) Requirements for factual information known to applicant may be presented in any appropriate manner, for example:
(i) A requirement for factual information;
(ii) Interrogatories in the form of specific questions seeking applicant’s factual knowledge; or
(iii) Stipulations as to facts with which the applicant may agree or disagree.
(3) Any reply to a requirement for information pursuant to this section that states either that the information required to be submitted is unknown to or is not readily available to the party or parties from which it was requested may be accepted as a complete reply.
(b) The requirement for information of paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be included in an Office action, or sent separately.
(c) A reply, or a failure to reply, to a requirement for information under this section will be governed by §§ 1.135 and 1.136.
An examiner or other Office employee may require from individuals identified under 37 CFR 1.56(c), the submission of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, in a pending or abandoned application that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding. The scope of 37 CFR 1.105 is extended to any assignee or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application because the information required may be known to some members of the assignee or obligated assignee even if not known by the inventors.
The authority for the Office to make such requirements arises from the statutory requirements of examination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 131 and 132. An examiner or other Office employee may make a requirement for information reasonably necessary to the examination or treatment of a matter in accordance with the policies and practices set forth by the Director(s) of the Technology Center or other administrative unit to which that examiner or other Office employee reports. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1283, 73 USPQ2d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Star Fruits’ argument fails to come to grips with the real issue in this case, which is whether the Office can use section 1.105 to compel disclosure of information that the examiner deems pertinent to patentability when the
700-10Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 704.02 -704.09
applicant has a contrary view of the applicable law. We answer this question in the affirmative.”)
704.11 What Information May Be Required [R-11.2013]
Information which may be required under 37 CFR 1.105 is that information reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 (including a reissue application), in a pending or abandoned application that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding.
There must be a reasonable basis for the information required that would aid in the examination of an application or treatment of some matter. A requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 places a substantial burden on the applicant that is to be minimized by clearly focusing the reason for the requirement and the scope of the expected response. Thus, the scope of the requirement should be narrowly defined, and a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 may only be made when the examiner has a reasonable basis for requiring information.
The terms “factual” and “facts” are included in 37 CFR 1.105 to make it clear that it is facts and factual information, that are known to applicant, or readily obtained after reasonable inquiry by applicant, that are sought, and that requirements under 37 CFR 1.105 are not requesting opinions that may be held or would be required to be formulated by applicant. Where the factual information requested related to the subject application, and details thereof, applicant would be expected to make a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances to find the factual information requested (37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)). Applicant need not, however, derive or independently discover a fact, such as by experimentation, in response to a requirement for information. The purpose of 37 CFR 1.105 is to improve patent quality, and render better decisions, and not to put applicants in jeopardy of meeting their duties of candor and good faith in their replies to a requirement for information.
INFORMATION REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR FINDING PRIOR ART
The criteria stated in 37 CFR 1.105 for making a requirement for information is that the information be reasonably necessary to the examination or treatment of a matter in an application. The information required would typically be that necessary for finding prior art or for resolving an issue arising from the results of the search for art or from analysis of the application file. A requirement for information necessary for finding prior art is not a substitute for the examiner performing a search of the relevant prior art; the examiner must make a search of the art according to MPEP §§ 704.01 and 904 – 904.03.
The criteria of reasonable necessity is generally met, e.g., where:
(A) the examiner’s search and preliminary analysis demonstrates that the claimed subject matter cannot be adequately searched by class or keyword among patents and typical sources of non-patent literature, or
(B) either the application file or the lack of relevant prior art found in the examiner’s search justifies asking the applicant if he or she has information that would be relevant to the patentability determination.
The first instance generally occurs where the invention as a whole is in a new area of technology which has no patent classification or has a class with few pieces of art that diverge substantially from the nature of the claimed subject matter. In this situation, the applicant is likely to be among the most knowledgeable in the art, as evidenced by the scarcity of art, and requiring the applicant’s information of areas of search is justified by the need for the applicant’s expertise.
The second instance generally occurs where the application file, or other related applications or publications authored by the applicant, suggests the applicant likely has access to information necessary to a more complete understanding of the invention and its context. In this situation, the record suggests that the details of such information may be relevant to the issue of patentability, and thus shows the need
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-11
§ 704.11EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
for information in addition to that already submitted by the applicant.
704.11(a) Examples of Information Reasonably Required [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.105(a)(1)(i)-(viii) list specific examples of information that may be reasonably required. Other examples, not meant to be exhaustive, of information that may be reasonably required for examination of an application include:
(A) The name and citation of any particularly relevant indexed journal, or treatise.
(B) The trade name of any goods or services the claimed subject matter is embodied in.
(C) The citation for, the dates initially published and copies of any advertising and promotional literature prepared for any goods or services the claimed subject matter has been embodied in.
(D) The citation for and copies of any journal articles describing any goods or services the claimed subject matter has been embodied in.
(E) The trade names and providers of any goods or services in competition with the goods or services the claimed subject matter has been embodied in.
(F) Any written descriptions or analyses, prepared by any of the inventors or assignees, of goods or services in competition with the goods or services the claimed subject matter has been embodied in.
(G) Identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee as the current application that disclose similar subject matter that are not otherwise identified in the current application. Regarding the identification of applications filed before June 8, 1995, 35 U.S.C. 122(a) requires the identified applications to be kept in confidence by the Office and no information concerning the same is to be given without authority of the applicant or owner unless necessary to carry out the provisions of an Act of Congress or in such special circumstances as may be determined by the Director. See MPEP § 103 and Hyatt v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 1:13-cv-1535 (E.D. Va., May 29, 2014) (2014 WL 2446176).
(H) A reply to a matter raised in a protest under 37 CFR 1.291.
(I) An explanation of technical material in a publication, such as one of the inventor’s publications.
(J) The identification of changes made in a reformatted continuing application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b).
(K) A mark-up for a continuation-in-part application showing the subject matter added where there is an intervening reference.
(L) Comments on a new decision by the Federal Circuit that appears on point.
(M) The publication date of an undated document mentioned by applicant that may qualify as printed publication prior art (35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b)).
(N) Comments on information of record which raises a question of whether applicant derived the invention from another under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115, and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
(O) Art related to applicant’s invention, applicant’s disclosure, or the claimed subject matter.
(P) Other factual information pertinent to patentability.
(Q) The accuracy of the examiner’s stated analysis of such items.
(R) Clarification of the correlation and identification of what structure, material, or acts set forth in the specification would be capable of carrying out a function recited in a means or steps plus function claim limitation. If it is not apparent to the examiner where in the specification and drawings there is support for a particular claim limitation reciting a means to accomplish a function, and if an inquiry by the examiner for such support is met by a stated lack of knowledge thereof by the applicant, the examiner could very well conclude that there is no such support and make appropriate rejections under, for example, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph (written description) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
(S) Interrogatories or Stipulations.
(1) Of the common technical features shared among all claims, or admission that certain groups
700-12Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 704.11(a)
of claims do not share any common technical features,
(2) About the support found in the disclosure for means or steps plus function claims (35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6),
(3) Of precisely which portion(s) of the disclosure provide the written description and enablement support for specific claim element(s),
(4) Of the meaning of claim limitations or terms used in the claims, such as what teachings in the prior art would be covered by particular limitations or terms in a claim and which dictionary definitions would define a particular claim term, particularly where those terms are not used per se in the specification,
(5) Of which portions of each claim correspond to any admitted prior art in the specification,
(6) Of the specific utility provided by the claimed subject matter on a claim-by-claim basis,
(7) As to whether a dependent claim element is known in the prior art based on the examiner having a reasonable basis for believing so,
(8) Of support for added limitations in an amended claim,
(9) Of facts related to public use or sale situations.
(T) Information from the applicant regarding a third party submission under 37 CFR 1.290. In no circumstance may an examiner direct a requirement for information to the third party that submitted the paper under 37 CFR 1.290. See MPEP § 1134.
(U) Information from the applicant regarding rescission of a statement under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78. See MPEP § 704.14(a) for form paragraph 7.104.02.
704.11(b) When May a Requirement for Information Be Made [R-08.2012]
A requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 is discretionary. A requirement may be made at any time once the necessity for it is recognized and should be made at the earliest opportunity after the necessity is recognized. The optimum time for making a requirement is prior to or with a first action on the merits because the examiner has the maximum
opportunity to consider and apply the response. Ordinarily, a request for information should not be made with or after a final rejection.
I. PRIOR TO THE FIRST ACTION ON THE MERITS
It may be appropriate to make a requirement for information prior to the first action on the merits, such as with a restriction requirement, when the examiner’s search and preliminary analysis demonstrates that the claimed subject matter cannot be adequately searched by class or keyword among patents or in areas of emerging technology where the Office has minimal prior art.
Factors to be considered for the appropriateness of a separate requirement for information prior to the first action on the merits include:
(A) Whether the claimed subject matter is in a newly established art area without a well-developed prior art resource pool;
(B) Whether the applicant submitted an Information Disclosure Statement;
(C) Whether the specification’s background description adequately describes the background of the disclosed subject matter;
(D) Whether related documents, written by an inventor or an employee of the assignee, which were not submitted, are found during the search or described in the application file;
(E) Whether non-patent literature is referred to in the disclosure, but a copy has not been supplied; and
(F) Whether the specification’s background of the invention describes information as being known or conventional, which may be considered as an admission of prior art, but such information is unfamiliar to examiner and cannot be found within the application file or from the examiner’s search, and further details of the information would be relevant to the question of patentability.
II. WITH THE FIRST ACTION ON THE MERITS
A requirement for information may be combined with a first action on the merits that includes at least one rejection, if, for example, either the application
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-13
§ 704.11(b)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
file or the lack of relevant prior art found in the examiner’s search justifies asking the applicant if he or she has information that would be relevant to the patentability determination.
It is not appropriate to make a requirement for information based on a lack of relevant prior art with a first action on the merits allowance or Ex parte Quayle action.
III. AFTER THE FIRSTACTION ON THE MERITS
A requirement for information made after the first action on the merits may be appropriate when the application file justifies asking the applicant if he or she has information that would be relevant to the patentability determination. It is rarely appropriate to require information because of a lack of relevant prior art after the first action on the merits.
A requirement for information is not proper when no further action would be taken by the examiner. The reasonable necessity criteria for a requirement for information implies further action by the examiner. This means that actions in which requirements for information necessary for examination are made should generally be a non-final action because the applicant’s reply must be considered and applied as appropriate.
Under limited circumstances, requirements under 37 CFR 1.105 may be made in an application that is issued or abandoned. Such a requirement would normally be made only during part of some ongoing proceeding involving the issued patent or abandoned application. Examples of proceedings when an examiner or other Office employee would issue such a request in an abandoned application include proceedings to revive the abandoned application. Examples of proceedings when an examiner or other Office employee would issue such a request in a patent include proceedings to change inventorship and reexamination proceedings.
704.12 Replies to a Requirement for Information [R-08.2012]
Replies to requirements for information must be complete and filed within the time period set including any extensions. Failure to reply within the
time period set will result in the abandonment of the application. All replies for a request for information should be checked for completeness.Any incomplete reply can be completed within the original time period set including any extensions. Supplemental replies filed after the expiration of the original period for reply including any extensions of time must comply with all other rules for submissions of information.
704.12(a) Relationship of Requirement for Information to Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2012]
The duty of candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56 applies to the applicant’s reply to a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105, and requires that the applicant reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 with information reasonably and readily available.
37 CFR 1.56 requires parties identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c) to disclose to the Office information material to the patentability of the claimed subject matter. This threshold is substantially higher than that for requiring information under 37 CFR 1.105, which is reasonable necessity to the examination of the application. See, e.g., Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 280 F.Supp.2d 512, 515-16 (E.D. Va 2003)(“Beyond that which a patent applicant is duty-bound to disclose pursuant to 37 CFR 1.56, an examiner may require the production of ‘such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter.’”)
In contrast with the applicant’s duty to disclose on his or her own initiative information material to patentability under 37 CFR 1.56, the Office has the authority to require information reasonably necessary to the examination or treatment of a matter in an application. Such information may not be considered material to patentability by applicant, hence applicant would not be required to provide the information under 37 CFR 1.56. The information is instead reasonably necessary to determine the state of the art, the context in which the invention is practiced, the directions in which the relevant art are advancing, the similarity between the claimed subject matter and other art worked on by the applicants and their assignees or to otherwise proceed in the examination and treatment of matters in an application.
700-14Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 704.12
Similar to 37 CFR 1.56, applicant is required by 37 CFR 1.105 to submit information already known, but there is no requirement to search for information that is unknown. Unlike 37 CFR 1.56, applicant is required by 37 CFR 1.105 to submit information that may not be material to patentability in itself, but that is necessary to obtain a complete record from which a determination of patentability may be determined.
704.12(b) What Constitutes a Complete Reply [R-08.2012]
A complete reply to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement is a reply to each enumerated requirement for information giving either the information required or a statement that the information required to be submitted is unknown and/or is not readily available to the party or parties from which it was requested. There is no requirement for the applicant to show that the required information was not, in fact, readily attainable, but applicant is required to make a good faith attempt to obtain the information and to make a reasonable inquiry once the information is requested.
There is no need for applicants to distinguish between whether the required information is unknown or is not readily available. Thus, if information remains unknown after a reasonable inquiry is made, applicant may simply reply that the requested information is either unknown or is not readily available rather than be required to make a categorical position either that the information is unknown to the applicant, or that the information is not readily available to the applicant.
A reply stating that the information required to be submitted is unknown and/or is not readily available to the party or parties from which it was requested will generally be sufficient unless, for example, it is clear the applicant did not understand the requirement, or the reply was ambiguous and a more specific answer is possible.
Depending on the facts surrounding the requirement and the reply, a follow up requirement may be made where both reasonable and warranted.
704.12(c) Treatment of an Incomplete Reply [R-07.2015]
An incomplete reply to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement in a pending application or reexamination proceeding is handled in the same manner as an amendment not fully responsive to a non-final Office action. See 37 CFR 1.135(c) and MPEP § 714.03. Where the reply is a bona fide reply, form paragraph 7.95 may be used. Note that a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement, even absent an action on the merits, is an Office action.
¶ 7.95 Bona Fide, Non-Responsive Amendments
The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): [2]. See 37 CFR 1.111. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Examiner Note:
This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete reply, or where the application is subject to a final Office action. Under such cases, the examiner has no authority to grant an extension if the period for reply has expired. See form paragraph 7.91.
704.13 Time Periods for Reply [R-08.2012]
A reply, or a failure to reply, to a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 will be governed by 37 CFR 1.135 and 1.136. See MPEP § 710 et seq.
Requirements for information under 37 CFR 1.105 made without an action on the merits should set a shortened statutory period of two months for reply. Applicant may extend the time period for reply up to six months in accordance with 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Requirements sent with an Office action on the merits, and not as a separate Office action, will be given the same period for reply as the action on the merits.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-15
§ 704.13EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
A requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 is an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 for patent term adjustment purposes. See MPEP § 2730 for information pertaining to patent term adjustment.
704.14 Making a Requirement for Information [R-08.2012]
A requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 should be narrowly specified and limited in scope. It is a significant burden on both the applicant and the Office since the applicant must collect and submit the required information and the examiner must consider all the information that is submitted. A requirement for information is only warranted where the benefit from the information exceeds the burden in obtaining information.
704.14(a) Format of the Requirement [R-07.2015]
The requirement must clearly indicate that a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 is being made, the basis for the requirement, and what information is being required. Requirements should specify the particular art area involved, and the particular claimed subject matter within such art area, in which the information is required in order to avoid overly burdening the applicant and to avoid inviting large volumes of information that are not relevant to the need for the information. The requirement should also clearly indicate the form the required information is expected to take. That is, whether the requirement is for citations and copies of individual art references, for the identification of whole collections of art, for answers to questions, or for another specified form.
A requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 is generally prepared as a separate document that may be attached to an Office action on the merits or mailed as a stand alone action. The rule permits a requirement to be included within an Office action, but creating a separate document is preferable because the existence of the requirement is immediately brought to the attention of the recipient and it is more readily routed by the applicant to the parties best able to respond.
The requirement should state why the requirement has been made and how the information is necessary to the examination.
Interrogatories may be used to ask specific questions seeking applicant’s factual knowledge. Such a requirement for information may include an inquiry as to the existence of a particular document or other piece of information and a requirement that such information be supplied if it is known to exist and is readily available. A stipulation may be used as to facts with which applicant may agree or disagree in order to clarify the record about uncontroverted matters.
FORM PARAGRAPHS
The following form paragraphs should be used when preparing a requirement for information:
¶ 7.104.02 Requirement for Information, Rescission of Statement Under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78
Applicant submitted a rescission of the prior-filed 1.55/1.78 statement which indicated that the application contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. In order for the examiner to properly consider patentability of the claimed invention, additional information regarding this issue is required as follows: [1]
Applicant is reminded that failure to fully reply to this requirement for information will result in a holding of abandonment.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the applicant rescinded a statement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 and clarification on the reasoning why pre-AIA law applies is needed.
3. Information sought should be restricted to that which is reasonably necessary for the examiner to render a decision on patentability.
4. In bracket 1, insert the information that is sought from the applicant.
5. A two month time period should be set by the examiner for reply to the requirement unless it is part of an Office action having a shortened statutory period (SSP), in which case the period for reply will apply also to the requirement.
700-16Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 704.14
¶ 7.105 Requirement for Information, Heading
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should appear at the beginning of any requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105, and should be followed by an explanation of why the required information is necessary for examination. Form paragraph 7.104.aia, 7.104.fti, 7.104.02 or 7.106 – 7.121 may be used as appropriate.
2. The requirement for information should conclude with form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
The following form paragraphs should be used as appropriate where the information required pertains to stipulations of facts or interrogatories of facts known to the applicant:
¶ 7.105.01 Stipulations of Facts Known to Applicant
In response to this requirement, please agree or disagree to the stipulation of each of the following assertions of facts:
[1].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 –7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 1, specify each factual assertion, in the form of a separate, numbered sentence, that the applicant is to either agree or disagree to so stipulate. It is suggested that at the end of each assertion, the parenthetical phrase “(agree/disagree)” be appended to facilitate a reply by way of applicant marking up a copy of the requested stipulations.
¶ 7.105.02 Interrogatories of Facts Known to Applicant
In response to this requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:
[1].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 –7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 1, specify each interrogatory question, in the form of a separate, numbered sentence, that the applicant is to answer. The scope of each query must be clearly set forth and the content of the expected reply is to be characterized as factual information.
The following form paragraphs should be used as appropriate where the information required pertains to a search for prior art, or to citations and/or copies of publications:
¶ 7.106 Domain of Search
The information is required to extend the domain of search for prior art. Limited amounts of art related to the claimed subject matter are available within the Office, and are generally found in class [1] and subclasses [2], which describe [3]. A broader range of art to search is necessary to establish the level of knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the claimed subject matter art of [4].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 4, insert a description of the art claimed but not found in the classification system.
¶ 7.107 Level of Skill and Knowledge in the Art
The information is required to document the level of skill and knowledge in the art of [1].
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
¶ 7.108 Background Description
The information is required to complete the background description in the disclosure by documenting [1].
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
¶ 7.109 Products and Services Embodying Invention
The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of [1] and identify the properties of similar products and services found in the prior art.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-17
§ 704.14(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
¶ 7.110 Art Suggested as Relevant
The information is required to enter in the record the art suggested by the applicant as relevant to this examination in [1].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 1, describe where in the application file applicant suggests that the art is relevant, e.g., the specification and the relevant page thereof, or a paper received in the Office on a specified date and the relevant page thereof.
¶ 7.111 List of Keywords
In response to this requirement, please provide a list of keywords that are particularly helpful in locating publications related to the disclosed art of [1].
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
¶ 7.112 Citations for Electronically Searchable Databases or Other Indexed Collections
In response to this requirement, please provide a list of citations to electronically searchable databases or other indexed collections containing publications that document the knowledge within the disclosed art of [1].
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
¶ 7.113 Copy of Art Referred to in the Disclosure, But Not Submitted
In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of each of the following items of art referred to in the [1].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 1, describe where in the application file applicant refers to art that has not been previously submitted, e.g., the specification and the relevant page thereof, or a paper received in the Office on a specified date and the relevant page thereof.
¶ 7.114 Copies of Publications Authored by Inventor(s)
In response to this requirement, please provide copies of each publication which any of the applicants authored or co-authored and which describe the disclosed subject matter of [1].
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
¶ 7.115 Art Relied Upon for Description of Prior Art
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that is a source used for the description of the prior art in the disclosure. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of that publication’s contribution to the description of the prior art.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. This requirement is limited in that only those documents actually relied on, rather than documents believed to be relevant, are required.
¶ 7.116 Art Relied Upon for Development of Invention
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to developing [1]. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. This requirement is limited in that only those documents actually relied on, rather than documents believed to be relevant, are required.
3. In bracket 1, insert a description of the most important inventive elements.
¶ 7.117 Art Relied Upon for Drafting Claimed Subject Matter
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that was relied upon to draft the claimed subject matter. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in distinguishing the claimed subject matter from the prior art.
700-18Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 704.14(a)
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. This requirement is limited in that only those documents actually relied on, rather than documents believed to be relevant, are required.
¶ 7.118 Results of Applicant’s Prior Art Search
In response to this requirement, please state whether any search of prior art was performed. If a search was performed, please state the citation for each prior art collection searched. If any art retrieved from the search was considered material to demonstrating the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to the disclosed [1], please provide the citation for each piece of art considered and a copy of the art.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 1, describe the subject matter for which art is required.
¶ 7.119 Names of Products or Services Incorporating Claimed Invention
In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the claimed subject matter.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
¶ 7.120 Names of Products or Services Incorporating Disclosed Prior Art
In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the disclosed prior art [1].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 1, specify the attributes of the prior art that most closely approximate the claimed subject matter to narrow the focus of the reply.
¶ 7.121 Details of Improvement Over the Prior Art
In response to this requirement, please state the specific improvements of the subject matter in claims [1] over the disclosed prior art and indicate the specific elements in the claimed subject matter that provide those improvements. For
those claims expressed as means or steps plus function, please provide the specific page and line numbers within the disclosure which describe the claimed structure and acts.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
The following form paragraphs should appear at the end of the requirement for information, as appropriate:
¶ 7.122 Submission of Only Pertinent Pages Where Document is Large
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. Use this form paragraph where the scope of the requirement for information specifically includes copies of publications.
¶ 7.123 Waiver of Fee and Statement Requirements for Certain Information Disclosures
The fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of the requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraph 7.124 and either form paragraph 7.125 or 7.126 as appropriate.
2. Use this form paragraph where the scope of the requirement for information specifically includes citations to and/or copies of publications.
¶ 7.124 Contents of Good Faith Reply
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-19
§ 704.14(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraph 7.125 or 7.126 as appropriate.
2. This form paragraph should appear in the conclusion of any requirement for information.
¶ 7.125 Conclusion of Requirement That Accompanies Office Action
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should appear at the conclusion of any requirement for information that accompanies an Office action. If the requirement for information is mailed without any other Office action, use form paragraph 7.126 instead.
2. Form paragraph 7.127 should appear at the end of any Office action that includes an attached requirement for information.
¶ 7.126 Conclusion Of Requirement Mailed Without Any Other Office Action
This requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and has a shortened statutory period of [1] months. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should appear at the conclusion of any requirement for information mailed without any other Office action. If the requirement for information is mailed with an Office action, use form paragraph 7.125 instead.
2. The period for reply is ordinarily set for 2 months.
¶ 7.127 Conclusion of Office Action That Includes Requirement
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should appear at the end of any Office action that includes an attached requirement for information.
704.14(b) Examiner’s Obligation Following Applicant’s Reply [R-11.2013]
The examiner must consider the information submitted with the applicant’s reply and apply the information as the examiner deems appropriate. This obligation arises from the examiner’s assertion that the information is necessary to the examination in making the requirement.
Information constituting identification of areas of search must be considered and the examiner must indicate which areas were used and which areas were not used in performing a search.
The examiner must record in the appropriate sections of the OACS “Search Notes” page the areas in which the search for prior art was made. See MPEP § 719.05. Information constituting answers to queries posed by the examiner or another Office employee must be considered, and the record must indicate that the answers were considered. This indication may be made minimally by indicating “Considered” with the Stamper tool in Adobe Acrobat and including the receipt date on the reply.
Art that is submitted in response to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement must be considered, at least to the extent that art submitted with an Information Disclosure Statement under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 is considered. See MPEP § 609. If the applicant provides a written list of citations for the art submitted with a reply to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement, an examiner must indicate on that list which art has been considered and which art has not been considered, in the same manner as with an Information Disclosure Statement under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. The examiner may annotate the list by using Adobe Acrobat to stamp the document with “All References Considered” while also providing the receipt date, application number and art unit. If the applicant provides no such list, there is no requirement for the examiner to prepare such a list or otherwise make the submitted art of record unless the examiner relies on such art in a rejection.
700-20Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 704.14(b)
It is never appropriate to deny considering information that is submitted in reply to, and is within the scope of, a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105. However, information that is beyond the scope of a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement, submitted along with information responding to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105, need not be considered unless the submission of such art conforms to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98, and MPEP § 609. The criteria for measuring the scope of a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement is the plain meaning of the text of the requirement. For this reason, it is essential that the scope of information required be carefully specified. If art which is beyond the scope of a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98, and MPEP § 609, such art must be considered according to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98.
704.14(c) Petitions to Requirements Under 37 CFR 1.105 [R-08.2012]
Applicants who seek to have a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 withdrawn or modified, or who seek to have information submitted under 37 CFR 1.105 considered, may submit a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 to the Director of the Technology Center in which the requirement was issued. However, a petition is not a reply to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement. The time period for the applicant to reply to the 37 CFR 1.105 requirement continues to run, even where a petition has been submitted.
704.14(d) Relationship to Information Disclosure Statements [R-08.2012]
The initial reply, if responsive to the requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 and submitted within the original time period for reply including any extensions of time, does not have to satisfy the fee and/or certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Applicant should list the references on a copy of Form PTO/SB/08 to have the citations entered in the record. Any replies made subsequent to the initial reply must meet the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 as appropriate.
Any submission of art beyond the scope of a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 is
a submission of art under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and must meet the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 for the art to be considered.
Where information is submitted in a reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105, the examiner may NOT make the next Office action relying on that art final unless all instances of the application of such art are necessitated by amendment. This section explicitly distinguishes the practice following a reply under 37 CFR 1.105 from the practice in MPEP § 609.04(b) and MPEP § 706.07(a) following a submission of an Information Disclosure Statement under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
705 Patentability Reports [R-08.2012]
Where an application, properly assigned to one Technology Center (TC), is found to contain one or more claims, per se, classifiable in one or more other TCs, which claims are not divisible inter se or from the claims which govern classification of the application in the first TC, the application may be referred to the other TC(s) concerned for a report as to the patentability of certain designated claims. This report is known as a Patentability Report (P.R.) and is signed by the primary examiner in the reporting TC.
Note that the Patentability Report practice is only to be used in extraordinary circumstances. See MPEP § 705.01(e).
705.01 Instructions re Patentability Reports [R-07.2015]
When an application comes up for any action and the primary examiners involved (i.e., from both the requesting and the requested Technology Center (TC)) agree that a Patentability Report from the requested TC is necessary for some of the claims, and if the TC Director of the requesting TC approves, the application is forwarded to the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-21
§ 705.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
requested TC with a request for the Patentability Report.
705.01(a) Nature of P.R., Its Use and Disposal [R-07.2015]
The primary examiner in the Technology Center (TC) from which the Patentability Report is requested, if he or she approves the request, will direct the preparation of the Patentability Report. This Patentability Report is in memorandum form and will include the citation of all pertinent references and a complete action on all claims involved. The field of search covered must be recorded in the appropriate section of the OACS "Search Notes" page. When an examiner to whom an application has been forwarded for a Patentability Report is of the opinion that final action is in order as to the referred claims, he or she should so state. The Patentability Report when signed by the primary examiner in the reporting TC will be returned to the TC to which the application is regularly assigned and placed in the file wrapper.
The examiner preparing the Patentability Report will be entitled to receive an explanation of the disclosure from the examiner to whom the case is assigned to avoid duplication of work.
If the primary examiner in a reporting TC is of the opinion that a Patentability Report is not in order, he or she should so advise the primary examiner in the forwarding TC.
I. DISAGREEMENT AS TO CLASSIFICATION
Conflict of opinion as to classification may be referred to a classification dispute TC representative panel for decision.
If the primary examiner in the TC having jurisdiction of the application agrees with the Patentability Report, he or she should incorporate the substance thereof in his or her action, which action will be complete as to all claims.
II. DISAGREEMENT ON PATENTABILITY REPORT
If the primary examiner does not agree with the Patentability Report or any portion thereof, he or she may consult with the primary examiner responsible for the report. If agreement as to the resulting action cannot be reached, the primary examiner having jurisdiction of the application need not rely on the Patentability Report but may make his or her own action on the referred claims, in which case the Patentability Report should be removed from the file.
III. APPEAL TAKEN
When an appeal is taken from the rejection of claims, all of which are examinable in the TC preparing a Patentability Report, the application should be transferred to said TC for the purpose of appeal. The receiving TC will take jurisdiction of the application and prepare the examiner’s answer. If allowed, the application may be sent to issue by said TC with its classification determined by the controlling claims remaining in the application.
705.01(b) Sequence of Examination [R-08.2012]
In the event that the supervisory patent examiners concerned in a P.R. case cannot agree as to the order of examination by their Technology Centers (TCs), the supervisory patent examiner having jurisdiction of the application will direct that a complete search be made of the art relevant to his or her claims prior to referring the application to another TC for report. The TC to which the application is referred will be advised of the results of this search.
If the supervisory patent examiners are of the opinion that a different sequence of search is expedient, the order of search should be correspondingly modified.
705.01(c) Counting and Recording P.R.s [R-08.2012]
The forwarding of the application for a Patentability Report is not to be treated as a transfer by the forwarding Technology Center (TC). When the P.R.
700-22Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 705.01(a)
is completed and the application is ready for return to the forwarding TC, it is not counted either as a receipt or action by transfer. Credit, however, is given for the time spent.
The date status of the application in the reporting TC will be determined on the basis of the dates in the TC of original jurisdiction. To ensure orderly progress in the reported dates, a timely reminder should be furnished to the TC making the P.R.
705.01(d) [Reserved]
705.01(e) Limitation as to Use [R-07.2015]
The above outlined Patentability Report practice is not obligatory and should be resorted to only where it will save total examiner time or result in improved quality of action due to specialized knowledge. A saving of total examiner time that is required to give a complete examination of an application is of primary importance. Patentability Report practice is based on the proposition that when plural, indivisible inventions are claimed, in some instances either less time is required for examination, or the results are of better quality, when specialists on each character of the claimed invention treat the claims directed to their specialty. However, in many instances a single examiner can give a complete examination of as good quality on all claims, and in less total examiner time than would be consumed by the use of the Patentability Report practice.
Where claims are directed to the same character of invention but differ in scope only, prosecution by Patentability Report is never proper.
Exemplary situation where Patentability Reports are ordinarily not proper are as follows:
(A) Where the claims are related as a manufacturing process and a product defined by the process of manufacture. The examiner having jurisdiction of the process can usually give a complete, adequate examination in less total examiner time than would be consumed by the use of a Patentability Report.
(B) Where the claims are related as product and a process which involves merely the fact that a
product having certain characteristics is made. The examiner having jurisdiction of the product can usually make a complete and adequate examination.
(C) Where the claims are related as a combination distinguished solely by the characteristics of a subcombination and such subcombination, per se. The examiner having jurisdiction of the subcombination can usually make a complete and adequate examination.
Where it can be shown that a Patentability Report will save total examiner time, one is permitted with the approval of the Director of the Technology Center to which the application is assigned. The “Approved” stamp should be impressed on the memorandum requesting the Patentability Report.
705.01(f) Interviews With Applicants [R-08.2012]
In situations where an interview is held on an application in which a Patentability Report has been adopted, the reporting Technology Center may be called on for assistance at the interview when it concerns claims treated by them. See MPEP § 713 to § 713.10 regarding interviews in general.
706 Rejection of Claims [R-07.2015]
After the application has been read and the claimed invention understood, a prior art search for the claimed invention is made. With the results of the prior art search, including any references provided by the applicant, the patent application should be reviewed and analyzed in conjunction with the state of the prior art to determine whether the claims define a useful, novel, nonobvious, and enabled invention that has been clearly described in the specification. The goal of examination is to clearly articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process so that the applicant has the opportunity to provide evidence of patentability and otherwise reply completely at the earliest opportunity. The examiner then reviews all the evidence, including arguments and evidence responsive to any rejection, before issuing the next Office action. Where the examiner determines that information reasonably necessary for the examination should be required from the applicant under 37 CFR 1.105, such a requirement should generally be made either prior to or with the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-23
§ 706EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
first Office action on the merits and should follow the procedures in MPEP § 704.10 et seq.
Although this part of the Manual explains the procedure in rejecting claims, the examiner should never overlook the importance of his or her role in allowing claims which properly define the invention.
37 CFR 1.104 Nature of examination. *****
(c) Rejection of claims.
(1) If the invention is not considered patentable, or not considered patentable as claimed, the claims, or those considered unpatentable will be rejected.
(2) In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.
(3) In rejecting claims the examiner may rely upon admissions by the applicant, or the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, as to any matter affecting patentability and, insofar as rejections in applications are concerned, may also rely upon facts within his or her knowledge pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(4)
(i) Subject matter which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and a claimed invention will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) if the applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(ii) Subject matter which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and a claimed invention will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) on the basis of a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) if:
(A) The applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h) and § 1.9(e), that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(B) The application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(5)
(i) Subject matter which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, and a claimed invention in an application filed on or after November 29, 1999, or any patent issuing thereon, in an application filed before November 29, 1999, but pending on December 10, 2004, or any patent issuing thereon, or in any patent granted on or after December 10, 2004, will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, if the applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, at the time the claimed invention was made, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(ii) Subject matter which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, and a claimed invention in an application pending on or after December 10, 2004, or in any patent granted on or after December 10, 2004, will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, on the basis of a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, if:
(A) The applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention were made by or on behalf of the parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h) and § 1.9(e), which was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(B) The application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(6) Patents issued prior to December 10, 2004, from applications filed prior to November 29, 1999, are subject to 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect on November 28, 1999.
*****
I. UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE PATENTABILITY STANDARD
The standards of patentability applied in the examination of claims must be the same throughout the Office. In every art, whether it be considered “complex,” “newly developed,” “crowded,” or “competitive,” all of the requirements for patentability (e.g., patent eligible, useful, novel, nonobvious, enabled, and clearly described as provided in 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112) must be met before a claim is allowed. The mere fact that a claim recites in detail all of the features of an invention (i.e., is a “picture” claim) is never, in itself, justification for the allowance of such a claim.
700-24Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706
An application should not be allowed, unless and until issues pertinent to patentability have been raised and resolved in the course of examination and prosecution, since otherwise the resultant patent would not justify the statutory presumption of validity (35 U.S.C. 282), nor would it “strictly adhere” to the requirements laid down by Congress in the 1952 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The standard to be applied in all cases is the “preponderance of the evidence” test. In other words, an examiner should reject a claim if, in view of the prior art and evidence of record, it is more likely than not that the claim is unpatentable.
II. DEFECTS IN FORM OR OMISSION OF A LIMITATION; CLAIMS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE
When an application discloses patentable subject matter and it is apparent from the claims and the applicant’s arguments that the claims are intended to be directed to such patentable subject matter, but the claims in their present form cannot be allowed because of defects in form or omission of a limitation, the examiner should not stop with a bare objection or rejection of the claims. The examiner’s action should be constructive in nature and when possible should offer a definite suggestion for correction.
III. PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER DISCLOSED BUT NOT CLAIMED
If the examiner is satisfied after the search has been completed that patentable subject matter has been disclosed and the record indicates that the applicant intends to claim such subject matter, he or she may note in the Office action that certain aspects or features of the patentable invention have not been claimed and that if properly claimed such claims may be given favorable consideration.
IV. RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AFTER REPLY BY APPLICANT
37 CFR 1.112 Reconsideration before final action.
After reply by applicant or patent owner (§ 1.111 or § 1.945) to a non-final action and any comments by an inter partes reexamination requester (§ 1.947), the application or the patent under reexamination will be reconsidered and again examined. The applicant, or in the case of a reexamination proceeding the
patent owner and any third party requester, will be notified if claims are rejected, objections or requirements made, or decisions favorable to patentability are made, in the same manner as after the first examination (§ 1.104). Applicant or patent owner may reply to such Office action in the same manner provided in § 1.111 or § 1.945, with or without amendment, unless such Office action indicates that it is made final (§ 1.113) or an appeal (§ 41.31 of this title) has been taken (§ 1.116), or in an inter partes reexamination, that it is an action closing prosecution (§ 1.949) or a right of appeal notice (§ 1.953).
37 CFR 1.112 provides for the reconsideration and continued examination of an application after reply by the applicant, and for the reconsideration and continued examination of a reexamination proceeding after a response by the patent owner. If claims are rejected, or objections or requirements are made, the applicant or patent owner will be notified in the same manner as notification was provided after the first examination. Applicant or patent owner may reply to such Office action (with or without amendment) in the same manner provided in 37 CFR 1.111, or 37 CFR 1.945 for an inter partes reexamination, unless such Office action indicates that it is made final (37 CFR 1.113), or an appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 has been taken (37 CFR 1.116), or such Office action indicates in an inter partes reexamination that it is an action closing prosecution (37 CFR 1.949) or a right of appeal notice (37 CFR 1.953). Once an appeal has been taken in an application or in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, any amendment (filed prior to an appeal brief) is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.116(b) and (c), even if the appeal is in reply to a non-final Office action. See 37 CFR 41.33(b) for amendments filed with or after the filing of an appeal brief.
V. REJECTIONS IN STATUTORY INVENTION REGISTRATIONS
See MPEP Chapter 1100 for rejection of claims in an application for a Statutory Invention Registration.
706.01 Contrasted With Objections [R-11.2013]
The refusal to grant claims because the subject matter as claimed is considered unpatentable is called a “rejection.” The term “rejected” must be applied to such claims in the examiner’s action. If the form of the claim (as distinguished from its substance) is
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-25
§ 706.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
improper, an “objection” is made. An example of a matter of form as to which objection is made is dependency of a claim on a rejected claim, if the dependent claim is otherwise allowable. See MPEP § 608.01(n). The practical difference between a rejection and an objection is that a rejection, involving the merits of the claim, is subject to review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while an objection, if persisted, may be reviewed only by way of petition to the Director of the USPTO.
Similarly, the Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board. These formal matters should not be combined in appeals to the Board.
706.02 Rejection on Prior Art [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 for the law applicable to applications and patents not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(c) COMMON OWNERSHIP UNDER JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENTS.—Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if—
(1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
(2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(3) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(d) PATENTS AND PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS EFFECTIVE AS PRIOR ART.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—
(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or
(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.
35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA) Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
[Editor Note: With the exception of subsection (g) in limited circumstances, not applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). For an application or patent subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see 35 U.S.C. 102.]
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
700-26Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02
(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 thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
(c) he has abandoned the invention, or
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
(e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 for the law applicable to applications and patents not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.]
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
35 U.S.C. 103 (pre-AIA) Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
[Editor Note: Not applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). For an application or patent subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see 35 U.S.C. 103.]
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), and upon timely election by the applicant for patent to proceed under this subsection, a biotechnological process using or resulting in a composition of matter that is novel under section 102 and nonobvious under subsection (a) of this section shall be considered nonobvious if-
(A) claims to the process and the composition of matter are contained in either the same application for patent or in separate applications having the same effective filing date; and
(B) the composition of matter, and the process at the time it was invented, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(2) A patent issued on a process under paragraph (1)-
(A) shall also contain the claims to the composition of matter used in or made by that process, or
(B) shall, if such composition of matter is claimed in another patent, be set to expire on the same date as such other patent, notwithstanding section 154.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “biotechnological process” means-
(A) a process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single- or multi-celled organism to-
(i) express an exogenous nucleotide sequence,
(ii) inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence, or
(iii) express a specific physiological characteristic not naturally associated with said organism;
(B) cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein, such as a monoclonal antibody; and
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-27
§ 706.02EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(C) a method of using a product produced by a process defined by subparagraph (A) or (B), or a combination of subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(c)
(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if —
(A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(B) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term “joint research agreement” means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.
By far the most frequent ground of rejection is on the ground of unpatentability in view of the prior art, that is, that the claimed subject matter is either not novel under 35 U.S.C. 102, or else it is obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The language to be used in rejecting claims should be unequivocal. See MPEP § 707.07(d).
I. CHOICE OF PRIOR ART; BEST AVAILABLE
Prior art rejections should ordinarily be confined strictly to the best available art. Exceptions may properly be made, for example, where:
(A) the propriety of a 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 rejection depends on a particular interpretation of a claim;
(B) a claim is met by a reference which does not disclose the inventive concept involved; or
(C) the most pertinent reference seems likely avoided by invoking an exception in a 37 CFR 1.130 declaration or to be antedated by a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit or declaration depending on the applicable version of 35 U.S.C. 102.
Such rejections should be backed up by the best other art rejections available. Merely cumulative rejections, i.e., those which would clearly fall if the primary rejection were not sustained, should be avoided.
See also MPEP § 707.05.
II. RELIANCE UPONABSTRACTSAND FOREIGN LANGUAGE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF A REJECTION
Prior art uncovered in searching the claimed subject matter of a patent application often includes English language abstracts of underlying documents, such as technical literature or foreign patent documents which may not be in the English language. When an abstract is used to support a rejection, the evidence relied upon is the facts contained in the abstract, not additional facts that may be contained in the underlying full text document. Citation of and reliance upon an abstract without citation of and reliance upon the underlying scientific document is generally inappropriate where both the abstract and the underlying document are prior art. See Ex parte Jones, 62 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2001) (unpublished). To determine whether both the abstract and the underlying document are prior art, a copy of the underlying document must be obtained and analyzed. If the document is in a language other than English and the examiner seeks to rely on that document, a translation must be obtained so that the record is clear as to the precise facts the examiner is relying upon in support of the rejection. The record must also be clear as to whether the examiner is relying upon the abstract or the full text document to support a rejection. The rationale for this is several-fold. It is not uncommon for a full text document to reveal that the document fully anticipates an invention that the abstract renders obvious at best. The converse may also be true, that the full text document will include teachings away from the invention that will preclude an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, when the abstract alone appears to support the rejection. An abstract
700-28Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02
can have a different effective publication date than the full text document. Because all patentability determinations are fact dependent, obtaining and considering full text documents at the earliest practicable time in the examination process will yield the fullest available set of facts upon which to determine patentability, thereby improving quality and reducing pendency. When both the abstract and the underlying document qualify as prior art, the underlying document should normally be used to support a rejection. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the examiner to make a rejection in a non-final Office action based in whole or in part on the abstract only without relying on the full text document. In such circumstances, the full text document and a translation (if not in English) may be supplied in the next Office action.
Examiners may rely on a machine translation of a foreign language document unless the machine translation is not of sufficient quality to be adequate evidence of the contents of the document. See In re Orbital Technologies Corporation, 603 Fed. App’x 924, 932 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A request by the applicant for the examiner to obtain a human language translation should be granted if the applicant provides evidence (e.g., a translation inconsistent with the machine translation) showing the machine translation does not accurately represent the document’s contents.
An Office action supplying a full text document and/or translation may be made final if the conditions described in MPEP § 706.07(a) or for a first Office action or RCE, in MPEP § 706.07(b), have been met.
Some translation resources available to examiners are discussed in MPEP § 901.05(d).
III. RELIANCE ON ADMITTED PRIOR ART IN SUPPORT OF REJECTION
A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as “prior art” is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood
Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP §§ 2129 and 2152.03 for discussion on admissions as prior art. Where the admitted prior art anticipates the claim but does not qualify as prior art under any of the paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, the claim may be rejected as being anticipated by the admitted prior art without citing to 35 U.S.C. 102.
IV. REEXAMINATION
For scope of rejections in ex parte reexamination proceedings, see MPEP § 2258 and in inter partes reexamination, see MPEP § 2658.
V. DISTINCTION BETWEEN 35 U.S.C. 102 AND 103
The distinction between rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and those based on 35 U.S.C. 103 should be kept in mind. Under the former, the claim is anticipated by the reference. No question of obviousness is present. In other words, for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102, the reference must teach every aspect of the claimed invention either explicitly or impliedly. Any feature not directly taught must be inherently present. Whereas, in a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference teachings must somehow be modified in order to meet the claims. The modification must be one which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See MPEP §§ 2131 - 2146 and 2150 - 2159.04 for guidance on patentability determinations under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
VI. DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF A CLAIMED INVENTION
The effective filing date of an invention claimed in a U.S. application may be determined as follows:
(A) If the application is a continuation or divisional of one or more earlier U.S. applications or international applications and if the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120, 365(c), or 386(c) have been satisfied, the effective filing date is the same as the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-29
§ 706.02EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
earliest filing date in the line of continuation or divisional applications.
(B) If the application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application or international application, any claims in the new application not supported by the specification and claims of the parent application have an effective filing date equal to the filing date of the new application. Any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112 by the earlier parent application have the effective filing date of that earlier parent application.
(C) If the application properly claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a provisional application, the effective filing date is the filing date of the provisional application for any claims which are fully supported under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 by the provisional application.
(D) If the application claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) or 365(a) or (b), the definition of the effective filing date of a claimed inventions depends on whether any claim in the application is subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159 et seq. for guidance on this determination.
In examining applications subject to current (first inventor to file) 35 U.S.C. 102, for each claim the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority document if the claim is adequately supported in the foreign priority document. See MPEP § 2152.01.
In examining applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, the effective filing date is the filing date of the U.S. application, unless situation (A) or (B) as set forth above applies. The effective filing date is not the filing date of the foreign priority document, although the filing date of the foreign priority document may be used to overcome certain references. See MPEP §§ 706.02(b) and 2136.05.
See MPEP § 1893.03(b) for determining the effective filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 371. See MPEP § 211.01(c) and 1895 for additional information on determining the effective filing date of a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of a PCT application designating the U.S. See also MPEP §§ 1895.01 and 1896 which discuss differences between applications filed under 35
U.S.C. 111(a) and international applications that enter national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
VII. REJECTION OF CLAIMS CORRESPONDING TO PATENT CLAIMS
When claims corresponding to claims of a patent are presented in an application, the examiner must determine whether the presented claims are unpatentable on any ground(s), e.g., under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112, double patenting, etc. If any of the claims presented in the application are rejectable on any grounds, they should be so rejected. The ground of rejection of the claims presented in the application may or may not be one which would also be applicable to the corresponding claims in the patent. If the ground of rejection is also applicable to the corresponding claims in the patent, any office action including the rejection must have the approval of the Technology Center Director. See MPEP § 1003. For interferences and derivation proceedings, see MPEP Chapter 2300 and 37 CFR Parts 41 and 42.
706.02(a) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) and Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e); Printed Publication or Patent [R-07.2015]
Once the examiner conducts a search and finds a printed publication or patent which discloses the claimed invention, the examiner should determine whether the rejection should be made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) or if the application is subject to the former prior art regime, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e). See MPEP § 2159 for guidance. Form paragraph 7.03.aia or 7.03.fti should be used in an Office action to indicate whether the application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA or the pre-AIA prior art provisions, respectively.
¶ 7.03.aia Application Examined Under AIA First Inventor to File Provisions
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
700-30Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(a)
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should be used in any application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
¶ 7.03.fti Application Examined Under First to Invent provisions
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should be used in any application filed on or after March 16, 2013 that is subject to the pre-AIA prior art provisions.
In order to determine which paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 applies, the effective filing date of the application and each claimed invention must be determined and compared with the date of the reference. See MPEP §§ 706.02 and 2152.01 regarding determination of effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The examiner must also determine the issue or publication date of the reference so that a proper comparison between the application and reference dates can be made. See MPEP §§ 2124, 2126, 2128 - 2128.02, and 2152.02 - 2154.02(c) for case law relevant to reference date determination.
See MPEP § 706.02(a)(1) for determining whether to apply 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2). See MPEP § 706.02(a)(2) for determining whether to apply pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e).
706.02(a)(1) Determining Whether To Apply 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(a)(2) for examination of applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]
I. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
First, the examiner should consider whether the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Next the examiner must determine if any exceptions in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) apply.
Patents claiming or describing the claimed inventions, descriptions of the claimed invention in a printed publication, public use of the claimed invention, placing the claimed invention on sale, and otherwise making the claimed invention available to the public qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if the reference predates the effective filing date of the claim. The sale or use of the invention need not occur in the United States to qualify. See MPEP § 2152.
Potential references may be disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) when the inventor’s own work has been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is not prior art if the disclosure was made: (1) One year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) by the inventor or a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. See MPEP §§ 2153.01(a) and 2153.01(b).
Potential references may also be disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) if the reference discloses subject matter that was publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (patent, printed publication, public use, sale, or other means of public availability) may be disqualified as prior art if: (1) The disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) the subject matter disclosed had been previously publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-31
§ 706.02(a)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
from the inventor or joint inventor. See MPEP §§ 2153.02 and 717.01(b)(2).
II. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
First, the examiner should consider whether the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Next the examiner must determine if any exceptions in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) apply.
U.S. patents, U.S. patent applications published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), and international patent applications published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty to another are prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the filing or effective filing date of the disclosure of the reference is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Even if the issue or publication date of the reference is not before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the reference may still be applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if it was “effectively filed” before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with respect to the subject matter relied upon to reject the claim. MPEP § 2152.01 discusses the “effective filing date” of a claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 102(d) sets forth the criteria to determine when subject matter described in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application was “effectively filed” for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). See MPEP § 2154.
Potential references may be disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) by the three exception provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2). 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) disqualifies subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) disqualifies subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and
the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, “were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) resembles pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in that both concern common ownership, and both offer an avenue by which an applicant may avoid certain prior art. However, there are significant differences between 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 2154.02(b).
706.02(a)(2) Determining Whether To Apply Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(a)(1) for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.]
I. PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
First, the examiner should consider whether the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 102(b) because this section results in a statutory bar to obtaining a patent. If the publication or issue date of the reference is more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the application (MPEP § 706.02), the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 102(b).
Where the last day of the year dated from the date of publication falls on a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday, the publication is not a statutory bar under pre-AIA 102(b) if the application was filed on the next succeeding business day. Ex parte Olah, 131 USPQ 41 (Bd. App. 1960) (The Board in Olah held that 35 U.S.C. 21(b) is applicable to the filing of an original application for patent and that applicant’s own activity will not bar a patent if the 1-year grace period expires on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and the application’s U.S. filing date is the next succeeding business day.). Despite changes to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(2) and 1.10 which permit the USPTO to accord a filing date to an application as of the date
of deposit as Priority Mail Express® with the U.S.
700-32Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(a)(2)
Postal Service in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10 (e.g., a Saturday filing date), the rule changes do not affect applicant’s concurrent right to defer the filing of an application until the next business day when the last day for “taking any action” falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday (e.g., the last day of the 1-year grace period falls on a Saturday).
II. PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
If the publication or issue date of the reference is too recent for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) to apply, then the examiner should consider pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) allows the use of certain international application publications and U.S. patent application publications, and certain U.S. patents as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of their respective U.S. filing dates, including certain international filing dates. The prior art date of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be the international filing date if the international filing date was on or after November 29, 2000, the international application designated the United States, and the international application was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 21(2) in the English language. See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1) for examination guidelines on the application of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). References based on international applications that were filed prior to November 29, 2000 are subject to the "pre-AIPA" version of 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in force on November 28, 2000. See subsection III, below and MPEP § 2136.03 for additional information.
In order to apply a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the inventive entity of the application must be different than that of the reference. Note that, where there are joint inventors, only one inventor needs to be different for the inventive entities to be different and a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is applicable even if there are some inventors in common between the application and the reference.
35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA) Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
*****
(e) the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or
*****
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) has two separate clauses, namely, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) for publications of patent applications and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) for U.S. patents. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1), in combination with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 374, created a new category of prior art by providing prior art effect for certain publications of patent applications, including certain international applications, as of their effective United States filing dates (which include certain international filing dates). Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), an international filing date which is on or after November 29, 2000 is the United States filing date if the international application designated the United States and was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Article 21(2) in the English language. Therefore, the prior art date of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be the international filing date (if all three conditions noted above are met) or an earlier U.S. filing date for which priority or benefit is properly claimed.
Publication under PCT Article 21(2) may result from a request for early publication by an applicant of an international application or after the expiration of 18-months after the earliest claimed filing date in an international application. An applicant in an international application that has designated only the U.S. continues to be required to request publication from WIPO as the reservation under PCT Article 64(3) continues to be in effect for such applicants. International applications, which: (1) were filed prior to November 29, 2000, or (2) did not designate the U.S., or (3) were not published in English under PCT Article 21(2) by WIPO, may not be used to reach back (bridge) to an earlier filing date through a priority or benefit claim for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). An
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-33
§ 706.02(a)(2)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
international filing date which is on or after November 29, 2000 is a United States filing date for purposes of determining the earliest effective prior art date of a patent if the international application designated the United States and was published in the English language under Article 21(2) by WIPO. No international filing dates prior to November 29, 2000 may be relied upon as a prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
III. "PRE-AIPA" 35 U.S.C. 102(e) AS IN FORCE ON NOVEMBER 28, 2000
"Pre-AIPA" 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent (as in force on November 28, 2000).
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
*****
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
*****
Patents issued directly, or indirectly, from international applications filed before November 29, 2000 may only be used as prior art based on the provisions of pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as in force on November 28, 2000. Thus, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of such a prior art patent is the earliest of the date of compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4), or the filing date of the later-filed U.S. continuing application that claimed the benefit of the international application. Publications of international applications filed before November 29, 2000 (which would include WIPO publications and U.S. publications of the national stage (35 U.S.C. 371)) do not have a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date at all (however, such publications are available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of the publication date).
IV. PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)
Even if the reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the examiner should still consider pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) for two reasons. First, if
the reference is a U.S. patent or patent application publication of, or claims benefit of, an international application, the publication of the international application under PCT Article 21(2) may be the earliest prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) for the disclosure. Second, references that are only prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) and applied in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are subject to being disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) if the reference and the application were commonly owned, or subject to an obligation of common assignment, at the time the invention was made. For pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) to apply, the reference must have a publication date earlier in time than the effective filing date of the application, and must not be applicant’s own work.
706.02(b) Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent [R-11.2013]
In all applications, an applicant may overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection by persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art, or by amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Additional ways available to overcome a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art depend on whether or not any claim in the application being examined is subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
See MPEP § 706.02(b)(1) for overcoming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2). See MPEP § 706.02(b)(2) for overcoming a prior art rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.
706.02(b)(1) Overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(b)(2) for examination of applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.]
700-34Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(b)
In addition to persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable over the prior art or amending the claims to overcome the prior art rejection, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) can be overcome by:
(A) Submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120 within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78 by providing the required reference to a prior application in a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 and by establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78. See MPEP §§ 211 et seq. and 706.02; or
(B) Submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78 by providing the required reference to a prior provisional application in a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 and by establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78. See MPEP §§ 211 et seq. and 706.02; or
(C) Submitting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55 by identifying a prior foreign application in a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 and by establishing that the prior foreign application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or filing a grantable petition to accept a delayed priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 213 - 216. The foreign priority filing date must antedate the reference and be perfected. The filing date of the priority document is not perfected unless applicant has filed a certified priority document in the application (and an English language translation, if the document is not in English) (see 37 CFR 1.55(g)); or
(D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 to establish that an applied reference or disclosure that was not made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) due to an exception listed in 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Under 37 CFR 1.130(a), an affidavit or declaration of attribution may be submitted to disqualify a
disclosure as prior art because it was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. Under 37 CFR 1.130(b), an affidavit or declaration of prior public disclosure may be submitted to disqualify an intervening disclosure as prior art if the subject matter disclosed had been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor (1) before the date the intervening disclosure was made on which the rejection is based, or (2) before the date the subject matter in the U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application on which the rejection is based was effectively filed. See MPEP §§ 717 and 2155; or
(E) Establishing common ownership or establishing evidence of a Joint Research Agreement to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection or a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) by establishing entitlement to the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception. See MPEP §§ 717.02 and 2154.02(c).
706.02(b)(2) Overcoming a Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e) Rejection Based on a Printed Publication or Patent [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(b)(1) for examination of applications subject to 35 U.S.C. 102.]
A rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) can be overcome by:
(A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art;
(B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art;
(C) Submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.78:
(1)
(a) for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-35
§ 706.02(b)(2)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78, or
(b) for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application or by filing a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78, and
(2) by establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 37 CFR 1.78. See MPEP §§ 211 et seq. and 706.02; or
(D) Submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) by complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.78 or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 37 CFR 1.78 (see item (C) above). Because a provisional application could not have been filed more than one year prior to the filing of a nonprovisional application that claims benefit to the provisional application, once the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)) is perfected, the rejection must be reconsidered to determine whether the prior art still qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or whether the prior art qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Note, however, effective December 18, 2013, title II of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) provides for restoration of the right to claim benefit of a provisional application filed after the expiration of the twelve-month period in 35 U.S.C. 119(e). See MPEP § 213.03, subsection III. If the prior art qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), see below as to how to overcome the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection.
A rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) can be overcome by:
(A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art;
(B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art;
(C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by “another.” See MPEP §§ 715.01(a), 715.01(c), and 716.10;
(D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication claiming interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a) (subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa). See MPEP § 715 for more information on 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavits. When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not an acceptable method of overcoming the rejection. Under these circumstances, the examiner must determine whether a double patenting rejection or interference is appropriate. If there is a common assignee or inventor between the application and patent, a double patenting rejection must be made. See MPEP § 804. If there is no common assignee or inventor and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is the only possible rejection, the examiner must determine whether an interference should be declared. See MPEP Chapter 2300 for more information regarding interferences;
(E) Submitting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) within the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55:
(1)
(a) for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which identifies a prior foreign application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55, or
(b) for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, by filing a corrected application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which identifies a prior foreign application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 or by identifying the prior foreign application in the oath or declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63, and
700-36Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(b)(2)
(2) by establishing that the prior foreign application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012); or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 213 - 216. The foreign priority filing date must antedate the reference and be perfected. The filing date of the priority document is not perfected unless applicant has filed a certified priority document in the application (and an English language translation, if the document is not in English) (see 37 CFR 1.55).
(F) Submitting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, within the time periods set in 37 CFR 1.78:
(1)
(a) for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78, or
(b) for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application or by filing an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76 which contains a specific reference to a prior application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78, and
(2) establishing that the prior application satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012), or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) or filing a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under 37 CFR 1.78.
A rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) can be overcome by:
(A) Persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art;
(B) Amending the claims to patentably distinguish over the prior art;
(C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing prior invention, if the reference is not a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication claiming interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a) (subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa). See MPEP § 715 for information on the requirements of 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavits. When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate to overcome the rejection.
(D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the reference invention is not by “another.” See MPEP §§ 715.01(a), 715.01(c), and 716.10;
(E) Submitting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) as explained in reference to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) above;
(F) Submitting a benefit claim under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 as explained in reference to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
706.02(c) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b); Knowledge by Others or Public Use or Sale [R-07.2015]
An applicant may make an admission, or submit evidence of sale of the invention or knowledge of the invention by others, or the examiner may have personal knowledge that the invention was sold by applicant or known by others.
Note that as an aid to resolving public use or on sale issues, as well as to other related matters of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) activity, an applicant may be required to answer specific questions posed by the examiner and to explain or supplement any evidence of record. See 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.104(a)(2). Information sought should be restricted to that which is reasonably necessary for the examiner to render a decision on patentability. The examiner may consider making a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 where the evidence
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-37
§ 706.02(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
of record indicates reasonable necessity. See MPEP § 704.10 et seq.
A 2-month time period should be set by the examiner for any reply to the requirement, unless the requirement is part of an Office action having a shortened statutory period, in which case the period for reply to the Office action will also apply to the requirement. If applicant fails to reply in a timely fashion to a requirement for information, the application will be regarded as abandoned. 35 U.S.C. 133. See MPEP § 2133.03.
If there is not enough information on which to base a public use or on sale rejection, the examiner should make a requirement for more information. Form paragraph 7.104.aia. or 7.104.fti can be used.
¶ 7.104.aia Requirement for Information, Public Use or Sale or Other Public Availability
An issue of public use, on sale activity, or other public availability has been raised in this application. In order for the examiner to properly consider patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), additional information regarding this issue is required as follows: [1]
Applicant is reminded that failure to fully reply to this requirement for information will result in a holding of abandonment.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
3. Information sought should be restricted to that which is reasonably necessary for the examiner to render a decision on patentability. See MPEP § 2133.03.
4. A two month time period should be set by the examiner for reply to the requirement unless it is part of an Office action having a shortened statutory period (SSP), in which case the period for reply will apply also to the requirement.
5. If sufficient evidence already exists to establish a prima facie case of public use, sale, or other public availability use form paragraph 7.16.aia to make a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). See MPEP § 2133.03.
¶ 7.104.fti Requirement for Information, Public Use or Sale
An issue of public use or on sale activity has been raised in this application. In order for the examiner to properly consider patentability of the claimed invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), additional information regarding this issue is required as follows: [1]
Applicant is reminded that failure to fully reply to this requirement for information will result in a holding of abandonment.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 –7.126 as appropriate.
2. Information sought should be restricted to that which is reasonably necessary for the examiner to render a decision on patentability. See MPEP § 2133.03.
3. A two month time period should be set by the examiner for reply to the requirement unless it is part of an Office action having an SSP, in which case the SSP will apply also to the requirement.
4. If sufficient evidence already exists to establish a prima facie case of public use or on sale, use form paragraph 7.16.fti to make a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See MPEP § 2133.03.
706.02(c)(1) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1); Public Use or Public Sale [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(c)(2) for the examination of applications not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving public use or public sale.]
Public use and on sale rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) may be based on uses and sales from anywhere in the world. The uses and on sale activities must be “public.” Secret commercial sales should not be applied as “on sale” prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). See MPEP § 2152.02(d). While there is no requirement that the use or sale activity be by another, it should be noted that certain uses or sales are subject to the exceptions in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), e.g., uses or sales by the inventor or a joint inventor (or have originated with the inventor),
700-38Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(c)(1)
that precede the effective filing date by less than one year. See MPEP § 2154.02.
706.02(c)(2) Rejections under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b); Public Use or On Sale [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(c)(1) for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving public use or public sale.]
The language “in this country” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) means in the United States only and does not include other WTO or NAFTA member countries. In these cases the examiner must determine if pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 102(b) applies. See MPEP § 2133.03 for a discussion of case law treating the “public use” and “on sale” statutory bars.
If the activity is by an entity other than the inventors or assignee, such as sale by another, manufacture by another or disclosure of the invention by applicant to another then both pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) may be applicable. If the evidence only points to knowledge within the year prior to the effective filing date then pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) applies. However, no rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) should be made if there is evidence that applicant made the invention and only disclosed it to others within the year prior to the effective filing date.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is applicable if the activity occurred more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of the application. See MPEP § 2133.03 for a discussion of “on sale” and “public use” bars under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
706.02(d) Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159.]
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c), abandonment of the “invention” (as distinguished from abandonment of an application) results in loss of right to a patent. See MPEP § 2134 for case law which sets forth the criteria for abandonment under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c).
706.02(e) Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159.]
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) establishes four conditions which, if all are present, establish a statutory bar against the granting of a patent in this country:
(A) The foreign application must be filed more than 12 months before the effective filing date of the United States application. See MPEP § 706.02 regarding determination of the effective filing date of the application.
(B) The foreign and United States applications must be filed by the same applicant, his or her legal representatives or assigns.
(C) The foreign application must have actually issued as a patent or inventor’s certificate (e.g., granted by sealing of the papers in Great Britain) before the filing in the United States. It need not be published but the patent rights granted must be enforceable.
(D) The same invention must be involved.
If such a foreign patent or inventor’s certificate is discovered by the examiner, the rejection is made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) on the ground of statutory bar.
See MPEP § 2135.01 for case law which further clarifies each of the four requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-39
§ 706.02(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
SEARCHING FOR PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) PRIOR ART
The examiner should only undertake a search for an issued foreign patent for use as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) prior art if there is a reasonable possibility that a foreign patent covering the same subject matter as the U.S. application has been granted to the same inventive entity before the U.S. effective filing date, i.e., the time period between foreign and U.S. filings is greater than the usual time it takes for a patent to issue in the foreign country. Normally, the probability of the inventor’s foreign patent issuing before the U.S. filing date is so slight as to make such a search unproductive. However, it should be kept in mind that the average pendency varies greatly between foreign countries. In Belgium, for instance, a patent may be granted in just a month after its filing, while in Japan the patent may not issue for several years.
The search for a granted patent can be accomplished on an electronic database either by the examiner or by the staff of the Scientific and Technical Information Center. See MPEP § 901.06(a), subsection IV.B., for more information on online searching. The document must be a patent or inventor’s certificate and not merely a published or laid open application.
706.02(f) Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2154 et seq. for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, rejections based on U.S. patent documents.]
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), in part, allows for certain prior art (i.e., U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications and WIPO publications of international applications) to be applied against the claims as of its effective U.S. filing date. This provision of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 is mostly utilized when the publication or issue date is too recent for the reference to be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In order to apply a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the inventive entity of the application must be different than that of the reference. Note that, where there are joint inventors, only one inventor needs to be different for the inventive entities to be different and a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is applicable even if there are some inventors in common between the application and the reference.
706.02(f)(1) Examination Guidelines for Applying References Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2154 et seq. for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, rejections based on U.S. patent documents.]
I. DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) DATE FOR EACH POTENTIAL REFERENCE BY FOLLOWINGTHE GUIDELINES, EXAMPLES, AND FLOW CHARTS SET FORTH BELOW:
(A) The potential reference must be a U.S. patent, a U.S. application publication (35 U.S.C. 122(b)) or a WIPO publication of an international application under PCT Article 21(2) in order to apply the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
(B) Determine if the potential reference resulted from, or claimed the benefit of, an international application. If the reference does, go to step (C) below. The 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of a reference that did not result from, nor claimed the benefit of, an international application is its earliest effective U.S. filing date, taking into consideration any proper benefit claims to prior U.S. applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 if the prior application(s) properly supports the subject matter used to make the rejection in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 2136.02.
(C) If the potential reference resulted from, or claimed the benefit of, an international application, the following must be determined:
700-40Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(f)
(1) If the international application meets the following three conditions:
(a) an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;
(b) designated the United States; and
(c) published under PCT Article 21(2) in English,
then the international filing date is a U.S. filing date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If such an international application properly claims benefit to an earlier-filed U.S. or international application, or to an earlier-filed U.S. provisional application, apply the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the earlier filing date, assuming all the conditions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), 119(e), 120, 365(c), or 386(c) are met. The subject matter used in the rejection must be disclosed in the earlier-filed application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in order for that subject matter to be entitled to the earlier filing date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Note, where the earlier application is an international application, the earlier international application must satisfy the same three conditions (i.e., filed on or after November 29, 2000, designated the U.S., and had been published in English under PCT Article 21(2)) for the earlier international filing date to be a U.S. filing date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
(2) If the international application was filed on or after November 29, 2000, but did not designate the United States or was not published in English under PCT Article 21(2), do not treat the international filing date as a U.S. filing date for prior art purposes. In this situation, do not apply the reference as of its international filing date, its date of completion of the 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) requirements, or any earlier filing date to which such an international application claims benefit or priority. The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as of its publication date, or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of any later U.S. filing date of an application that properly claimed the benefit of the international application (if applicable).
(3) If the international application has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, apply the reference under the provisions of pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 102 and 374, prior to the AIPA amendments:
(a) For U.S. patents, apply the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the earlier of the date of completion of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) or the filing date of the later-filed U.S. application that claimed the benefit of the international application;
(b) For U.S. application publications and WIPO publications directly resulting from international applications under PCT Article 21(2), never apply these references under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). These references may be applied as of their publication dates under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b);
(c) For U.S. application publications of applications that claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 365(c) of an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000, apply the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the actual filing date of the later-filed U.S. application that claimed the benefit of the international application.
(4) Examiners should be aware that although a publication of, or a U.S. Patent issued from, an international application may not have a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date at all, or may have a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date that is after the effective filing date of the application being examined (so it is not “prior art”), the corresponding WIPO publication of an international application may have an earlier pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)) date.
(D) Foreign applications’ filing dates that are claimed (via 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), (f), or 365(a) or (b)) in applications, which have been published as U.S. or WIPO application publications or patented in the U.S., may not be used as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates for prior art purposes. This includes international filing dates claimed as foreign priority dates under 35 U.S.C. 365(a) or (b).
II. EXAMPLES
In order to illustrate the prior art dates of U.S. and WIPO publications of patent applications and U.S. patents under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), nine examples are presented below. The examples only cover the most common factual situations that might be encountered when determining the pre-AIA
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-41
§ 706.02(f)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of a reference. Examples 1 and 2 involve only U.S. application publications and U.S. patents. Example 3 involves a priority claim to a foreign patent application. Examples 4-9 involve international applications. The time lines in the examples below show the history of the prior art references that could be applied against the claims of the application under examination, or the patent under reexamination.
The examples only show the information necessary to determine a prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Also, the dates in the examples below are arbitrarily used and are presented for illustrative purposes only. Therefore, correlation of patent grant dates with Tuesdays or application publication dates with Thursdays may not be portrayed in the examples. All references to 35 U.S.C. 102 in the examples and flowcharts below are to the version of 35 U.S.C. 102 in effect on March 15, 2013 (the pre-AIA version).
Example 1: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with no Priority/Benefit Claims. For reference publications and patents of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) with no claim for the benefit of, or priority to, a prior application, the prior art dates under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) accorded to these references are the earliest effective U.S. filing dates. Thus, a publication and patent of a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application, which does not claim any benefit under either 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 365(c) or 386(c), would be accorded the application’s actual filing date as its prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication is 08 Dec. 2000. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 08 Dec.
2000.
Example 2: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with a Benefit Claim to a Prior U.S. Provisional or Nonprovisional Application. For reference publications and patents of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior art dates under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) accorded to these references are the earliest effective U.S. filing dates. Thus, a publication and patent of a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application, which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a prior U.S. provisional application or claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a prior nonprovisional application, would be accorded the earlier filing date as its prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), assuming the earlier-filed application has proper support for the subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120.
700-42Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(f)(1)
The 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication is: 01 Jan. 2000. The 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 01 Jan. 2000.
Example 3: Reference Publication and Patent of 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application with 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) Priority Claim to a Prior Foreign Application. For reference publications and patents of patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior art dates under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) accorded to these references are the earliest effective U.S. filing dates. No benefit of the filing date of the foreign application is given under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for prior art purposes ( In re Hilmer, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966)). Thus, a publication and patent of a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to a prior foreign-filed application (or under 35 U.S.C. 365(a) to an international application), would be accorded its U.S. filing date as its prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). In the example below, it is assumed that the earlier-filed U.S. application has proper support for the subject matter of the later-filed U.S. application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication is: 21 June 1999. The 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 21 June 1999.
Example 4: References based on the national stage (35 U.S.C. 371) of an International Application filed on or after November 29, 2000 and which was published in English under PCT Article 21(2).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-43
§ 706.02(f)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
All references, whether the WIPO publication, the U.S. patent application publication or the U.S. patent, of an international application (IA) that was filed on or after November 29, 2000, designated the U.S., and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2) by WIPO have the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art date of the international filing date or earlier effective U.S. filing date. No benefit of the international filing date (or of any U.S. filing dates prior to the IA), however, is given for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art purposes if the IA was published under PCT Article 21(2) in a language other than English.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication by WIPO is: 01 Jan. 2001. The 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by USPTO is: 01 Jan. 2001. The 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 01 Jan.
2001.
Additional Benefit Claims: If a later-filed U.S. nonprovisional (35 U.S.C. 111(a)) application claimed the benefit of the IA in the example above, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the patent or publication of the later-filed U.S. application would be the international filing date, assuming the earlier-filed IA has proper support for the subject matter relied upon as required by 35 U.S.C. 120. If the IA properly claimed the benefit of an earlier-filed U.S. provisional (35 U.S.C. 111(b)) application or the benefit of an earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional (35 U.S.C. 111(a)) application, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date for all the references would be the filing date of the earlier-filed U.S. application, assuming the earlier-filed application has proper support for the subject matter relied upon as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120.
Example 5: References based on the national stage (35 U.S.C. 371) of an International Application filed on or after November 29, 2000 and which was not published in English under PCT Article 21(2). All references, whether the WIPO publication, the U.S. patent application publication or the U.S. patent, of an international application (IA) that was filed on or after November 29, 2000, but was not published in English under PCT Article 21(2) have no 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art date at all. According to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), no benefit of the international filing date (or of any U.S. filing dates prior to the IA) is given for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art purposes if the IA was published under PCT Article 21(2) in a language other than English, regardless of whether the international application entered the national stage. Such references may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of their publication dates, but never under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
700-44Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(f)(1)
The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication by WIPO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by USPTO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent
is: None.
The IA publication by WIPO can be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date (01 July 2002). Additional Benefit Claims: If the IA properly claimed the benefit of any earlier-filed U.S. application (whether provisional or nonprovisional), there would still be no pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date for all the references. If a later-filed U.S. nonprovisional (35 U.S.C. 111(a)) application claimed the benefit of the IA in the example above, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the patent or publication of the later-filed U.S. application would be the actual filing date of the later-filed U.S. application.
Example 6: References based on the national stage ( 35 U.S.C. 371 ) of an International Application filed prior to November 29, 2000 (language of the publication under PCT Article 21(2) is not relevant). The reference U.S. patent issued from an international application (IA) that was filed prior to November 29, 2000, has a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art date of the date of fulfillment of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4). This is the former pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The application publications, both the WIPO publication and the U.S. publication, published from an international application that was filed prior to November 29, 2000, do not have any pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art date. According to the effective date provisions as amended by Public Law 107-273, the amendments to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and 374 are not applicable to international applications having international filing dates prior to November 29, 2000. The application publications can be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of their publication dates.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-45
§ 706.02(f)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication by WIPO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by USPTO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date for the Patent is:
01 July 2002.
The IA publication by WIPO can be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date (01 July 2001). Additional Benefit Claims: If the IA properly claimed the benefit of any earlier-filed U.S. application (whether provisional or nonprovisional), there would still be no pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the U.S. and WIPO application publications, and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date for the patent will still be 01 July 2002 (the date of fulfillment of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4)). If a later-filed U.S. nonprovisional (35 U.S.C. 111(a)) application claimed the benefit of the IA in the example above, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date of the application publication of the later-filed U.S. application would be the actual filing date of the later-filed U.S. application, and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the patent of the later-filed U.S. application would be 01 July 2002 (the date that the earlier-filed IA fulfilled the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4)). If the patent was based on a later-filed U.S. application that claimed the benefit of the international application and the later filed U.S. application’s filing date is before the date the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled (if fulfilled at all), the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the patent would be the filing date of the later-filed U.S. application that claimed the benefit of the international application.
Example 7: References based on a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application which is a Continuation of an International Application, which was filed on or after November 29, 2000, designated the U.S. and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2). All references, whether the WIPO publication, the U.S. patent application publication or the U.S. patent, of or claiming the benefit of, an international application (IA) that was filed on or after November 29, 2000, designated the U.S., and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2) have the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art date of the international filing date or earlier effective U.S. filing date. No benefit of the international filing date (or of any U.S. filing dates prior to the IA), however, is given for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) purposes if the IA was published under PCT Article 21(2) by WIPO in a language other than English. In the example below, it is assumed that the earlier-filed IA has proper support for the subject matter of the later-filed U.S. application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c).
700-46Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(f)(1)
The pre-AIA35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication by WIPO is: 01 Mar. 2001. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the
Publication by USPTO is: 01 Mar. 2001. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for the Patent is: 01 Mar. 2001.
Additional Benefit Claims: If the IA properly claimed the benefit of an earlier-filed U.S. provisional (35 U.S.C. 111(b)) application or the benefit of an earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional (35 U.S.C. 111(a)) application, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date for all the references would be the filing date of the earlier-filed U.S. application, assuming the earlier-filed application has proper support for the subject matter relied upon as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120. If a second, later-filed U.S. nonprovisional (35 U.S.C. 111(a)) application claimed the benefit of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application in the example above, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the patent or publication of the second, later-filed U.S. application would still be the international filing date of the IA, assuming the earlier-filed IA has proper support for the subject matter relied upon as required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c).
Example 8: References based on a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application which is a Continuation of an International Application, which was filed on or after November 29, 2000 and was not published in English under PCT Article 21(2). Both the U.S. publication and the U.S. patent of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) continuation of an international application (IA) that was filed on or after November 29, 2000 but not published in English under PCT Article 21(2) have the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art date of the actual U.S. filing date of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application. No benefit of the international filing date (or of any U.S. filing dates prior to the IA) is given for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) purposes since the IA was published under PCT Article 21(2) in a language other than English. The IA publication under PCT Article 21(2) does not have a prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) because the IA was not published in English under PCT Article 21(2). The IA publication under PCT Article 21(2) can be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-47
§ 706.02(f)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication by WIPO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by USPTO is: 01 May 2003. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for
the Patent is: 01 May 2003
The IA publication by WIPO can be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date (01 Sept 2002). Additional Benefit Claims: If the IA properly claimed the benefit of any earlier-filed U.S. application (whether provisional or nonprovisional), there would still be no pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA publication by WIPO, and the U.S. patent application publication and patent would still have a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the actual filing date of the later-filed 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application in the example above (01 May 2003). If a second, later-filed U.S. nonprovisional (35 U.S.C. 111(a)) application claimed the benefit of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application in the example above, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the patent or publication of the second, later-filed U.S. application would still be the actual filing date of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application in the example above (01 May 2003).
Example 9: References based on a 35 U.S.C. 111(a) Application which is a Continuation (filed prior to any entry of the national stage) of an International Application, which was filed prior to November 29, 2000 (language of the publication under PCT Article 21(2) is not relevant). Both the U.S. publication and the U.S. patent of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) continuation (filed prior to any entry of the national stage) of an international application (IA) that was filed prior to November 29, 2000, have the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art date of their actual U.S. filing date under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). No benefit of the international filing date (or of any U.S. filing dates prior to the IA) is given for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art purposes since the IA was filed prior to November 29, 2000. The IA publication under PCT Article 21(2) does not have a prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) because the IA was filed prior to November 29, 2000. The IA publication under PCT Article 21(2) can be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date.
700-48Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(f)(1)
The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA Publication by WIPO is: None. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the Publication by USPTO is: 01 Dec. 2000. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(2) date for
the Patent is: 01 Dec. 2000.
The IA publication by WIPO can be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date (01 Sept 2000). Additional Benefit Claims: If the IA properly claimed the benefit of any earlier-filed U.S. application (whether provisional or nonprovisional), there would still be no pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)(1) date for the IA publication by WIPO, and the U.S. application publication and patent would still have a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the actual filing date of the later-filed 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application in the example above (01 Dec 2000). If a second, later-filed U.S. nonprovisional (35 U.S.C. 111(a)) application claimed the benefit of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application in the example above, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the patent or publication of the second, later-filed U.S. application would still be the actual filing date of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application in the example above (01 Dec 2000).
III. FLOWCHARTS
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-49
§ 706.02(f)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-50Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(f)(1)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-51
§ 706.02(f)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
706.02(f)(2) Provisional Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e); Reference Is a Copending U.S. Patent Application [R-07.2015]
If an earlier filed, copending, and unpublished U.S. patent application discloses subject matter which would anticipate the claims in a later filed pending U.S. application which has a different inventive entity, the examiner should determine whether a provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) of the later filed application can be made. In addition, a provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be made, in the circumstances described below, if the earlier filed, pending application has been published as redacted (37 CFR 1.217) and the subject matter relied upon in the rejection is not supported in the redacted publication of the patent application.
I. COPENDING U.S. APPLICATIONS HAVING AT LEAST ONE COMMON INVENTOR OR ARE COMMONLY ASSIGNED
If (1) at least one common inventor exists between the applications or the applications are commonly assigned and (2) the effective filing dates are different, then a provisional rejection of the later filed application should be made. The provisional rejection is appropriate in circumstances where if the earlier filed application is published or becomes a patent it would constitute actual prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102. Since the earlier-filed application is not published at the time of the rejection, the rejection must be provisionally made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
A provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) can be overcome in the same manner that a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection can be overcome. See MPEP § 706.02(b). The provisional rejection can also be overcome by abandoning the applications and filing a new application containing the subject matter of both.
Form paragraph 7.15.01.aia should be used when making a provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Form paragraph 7.15.01.fti should be used
when making a provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
¶ 7.15.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim(s) [1] is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effective filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented under 35 U.S.C. 151. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].
This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier effective filing date that discloses the claimed invention and has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee, common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118) or at least one common joint inventor.
3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference names another inventor (i.e., a different inventive entity) and is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effectively filed date earlier than the application;
b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the application; or
700-52Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(f)(2)
c. a WIPO publication of an international application (PCT) or international design application that designates the United States where the WIPO publication has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the application. If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) issued or was published before the effective filing date of the application under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
4. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.aia.
5. In bracket 1, insert claim number(s) under rejection.
6. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
7. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
8. In bracket 4, provide an appropriate explanation of the examiner’s position on anticipation.
9. If the claims of the copending application are directed to the same invention as the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32.
10. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.15.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim(s) [1] is/are provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].
This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention which has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a
common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor.
2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12.fti) to determine the copending application’s prior art date, unless the copending application is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01.fti). See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
3. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti.
4. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
5. In bracket 4, an appropriate explanation may be provided in support of the examiner’s position on anticipation, if necessary.
6. If the claims of the copending application are directed to the same invention as the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32.
7. If evidence is additionally of record to show that either invention is prior art to the other under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), a rejection using form paragraphs 7.13.fti and/or 7.14.fti should also be made.
8. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
II. COPENDING APPLICATIONS HAVING NO COMMON INVENTOR OR ASSIGNEE
If there is no common assignee or common inventor and the application was not published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b), the confidential status of applications under 35 U.S.C. 122(a) must be maintained and no rejection can be made relying on the earlier filed, unpublished application, or subject matter not supported in a redacted application publication, as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g), if the filing dates of the applications are within 6 months of each
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-53
§ 706.02(f)(2)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
other (3 months for simple subject matter) then interference may be proper. See MPEP Chapter 2300. If the application with the earliest effective U.S. filing date will not be published pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b), it must be allowed to issue once all the statutory requirements are met. After the patent is published, it may be used as a reference in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in the still pending application as appropriate. See MPEP §§ 706.02(a), 2136 et seq. and 2154.
706.02(g) Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.03(a), subsection IV, for rejections based on improper naming of the inventor in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.]
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) bars the issuance of a patent where an applicant did not invent the subject matter being claimed and sought to be patented. See also 35 U.S.C. 101, which requires that whoever invents or discovers is the party who may obtain a patent for the particular invention or discovery. The examiner must presume the applicants are the proper inventors unless there is proof that another made the invention and that applicant derived the invention from the true inventor.
See MPEP §§ 2137 - 2137.02 for more information on the substantive requirements of rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
706.02(h) Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) [R-08.2012]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA except in limited circumstances as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159.]
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) bars the issuance of a patent where another made the invention in the United States before applicant and had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. This section of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 forms a basis for interference practice. See MPEP Chapter 2300 for more information on interference procedure. See MPEP §§ 2138 - 2138.06 for more information on the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g).
706.02(i) Form Paragraphs for Use in Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-07.2015]
The following form paragraphs should be used in making the appropriate rejections.
Note that the particular part of the reference relied upon to support the rejection should be identified.
¶ 7.06 Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be used in all Office Actions when a prior art rejection is made in an application with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claims priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013.
2. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in an Office action.
¶ 7.07.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
Examiner Note:
1. The statute is no longer being re-cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use form paragraph 7.103.
2. Form paragraphs 7.07.aia, 7.08.aia, 7.12.aia and 7.14.aia are to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.
700-54Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(g)
3. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.07.fti Statement of Statutory Basis, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
Examiner Note:
1. The statute is no longer being re-cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use form paragraph 7.103.
2. Form paragraphs 7.07.fti to 7.14.fti are to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.
3. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.08.aia 102(a)(1), Activity Before the Effective Filing Date of Claimed Invention
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.03.aia and 7.07.aia.
¶ 7.08.fti Pre-AIA 102(a), Activity by Another Before Invention by Applicant
(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 thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti.
¶ 7.09.fti Pre-AIA 102(b), Activity More Than One Year Prior to Filing
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on
sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by form paragraph 7.08.fti.
¶ 7.10.fti Pre-AIA 102(c), Invention Abandoned
(c) he has abandoned the invention.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.
¶ 7.11.fti Pre-AIA 102(d), Foreign Patenting
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.10.fti.
¶ 7.12.aia 102(a)(2), U.S. Patent, U.S. Patent Application Publication or WIPO Published Application That Names Another Inventor and Has an Earlier Effectively Filed Date
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.03.aia and 7.07.aia and may be preceded by 7.08.aia.
3. This form paragraph should only be used if the reference is one of the following:
(a) a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 having an effectively filed date earlier than the application;
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-55
§ 706.02(i)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(b) a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) having an effectively filed date earlier than the application; or
(c) a WIPO publication of an international application (PCT) or international design application that designates the United States where the WIPO publication has an effectively filed date earlier than the application.
If any of these three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) was published before the effective filing date of the claims under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
¶ 7.12.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 102(e), Patent Application Publication or Patent to Another with Earlier Filing Date, in view of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used if the reference is one of the following:
(a) a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);
(b) a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (i.e., a PCT application) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;
(c) a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.
2. In determining the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and to earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional applications and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application’s disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
3. In order to rely on an international filing date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the international application (PCT) must have been filed on or after November 29, 2000, it must have designated the U.S., and the international publication under PCT Article 21(2) by WIPO must have been
in English. If any one of the conditions is not met, the international filing date is not a U.S. filing date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
4. If an international application (PCT) was published by WIPO in a language other than English, or did not designate the U.S., the international application’s publication by WIPO, the U.S. publication of the national stage application (35 U.S.C. 371) of the international application and a U.S. patent issued from the national stage of the international application may not be applied as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.
5. If an international application (PCT) was published by WIPO in a language other than English, the U.S. publication of, or a U.S. patent issued from, a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to such an international application, has a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date as of the earliest U.S. filing date after the international filing date.
6. If the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application (PCT) that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use form paragraph 7.12.01.fti. In that situation, pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is applicable in the determination of the prior art date of the patent issued from such an international application.
7. If the reference is a publication of an international application (PCT), including the U.S. publication of a national stage (35 U.S.C. 371), that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, do not use this form paragraph. Such a reference may not be applied as a prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.
8. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.11.fti.
¶ 7.12.01.fti Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Patent to Another with Earlier Filing Date, Reference is a U.S. Patent Issued Directly or Indirectly From a National Stage of, or a ContinuingApplication Claiming Benefit to, an International Application Having an International Filing Date Prior to November 29, 2000
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting directly or indirectly from an international application filed
700-56Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(i)
before November 29, 2000. Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the amendment by the AIPA (pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000.
2. If the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly from a national stage of such an international application, the reference’s pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date is the date that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. The language of WIPO publication (PCT) is not relevant in this situation. Caution: the international publication of the international application (PCT) by WIPO may have an earlier prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 102(b).
3. If the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly from a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to such an international application (which had not entered the national stage prior to the continuing application’s filing date, otherwise see note 4), the prior art reference’s pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date is the actual U.S. filing date of the continuing application. Caution: the international publication of the international application (PCT) by WIPO may have an earlier prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 102(b).
4. In determining the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and to earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional applications and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) only if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application’s disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). A benefit claim to a U.S. patent of an earlier-filed international application may only result in an effective U.S. filing date as of the date the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. Do NOT consider any benefit claims to U.S. applications which are filed before an international application. Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
5. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.11.fti.
¶ 7.13.fti Pre-AIA 102(f), Applicant Not the Inventor
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.12.fti.
¶ 7.14.aia Pre-AIA 102(g), Priority of Invention
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.aia.
¶ 7.14.fti Pre-AIA 102(g), Priority of Invention
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.13.fti.
¶ 7.15.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 [2] as being [3] by [4].
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-57
§ 706.02(i)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
3. In bracket 2, insert either “(a)(1)” or “(a)(2)” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
5. In bracket 4, insert the prior art relied upon.
6. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07.aia and form paragraphs 7.08.aia, and 7.12.aia as appropriate, or by form paragraph 7.103.
7. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.15.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b) Patent or Publication, and (g)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 [2] as being [3] by [4].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter or letters of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 in parentheses. If paragraph (e) of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.fti, 7.15.02.fti or 7.15.03.fti.
2. In bracket 3, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
3. In bracket 4, insert the prior art relied upon.
4. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07.fti and form paragraphs 7.08.fti, 7.09.fti, and 7.14.fti as appropriate, or by form paragraph 7.103.
5. If pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is also being applied, this form paragraph must be followed by either form paragraph 7.15.01.fti, 7.15.02.fti or 7.15.03.fti.
6. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.15.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim(s) [1] is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effective filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented under 35 U.S.C. 151. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].
This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier effective filing date that discloses the claimed invention and has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee, common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118) or at least one common joint inventor.
3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference names another inventor (i.e., a different inventive entity) and is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effectively filed date earlier than the application;
b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the application; or
c. a WIPO publication of an international application (PCT) or international design application that designates the United States where the WIPO publication has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the application. If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) issued or was published before the effective filing date of the application under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
700-58Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(i)
4. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.aia.
5. In bracket 1, insert claim number(s) under rejection.
6. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
7. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
8. In bracket 4, provide an appropriate explanation of the examiner’s position on anticipation.
9. If the claims of the copending application are directed to the same invention as the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32.
10. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.15.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim(s) [1] is/are provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].
This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention which has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor.
2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12.fti) to determine the copending application’s prior art date, unless the copending application is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the
copending application is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01.fti). See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
3. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti.
4. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
5. In bracket 4, an appropriate explanation may be provided in support of the examiner’s position on anticipation, if necessary.
6. If the claims of the copending application are directed to the same invention as the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32.
7. If evidence is additionally of record to show that either invention is prior art to the other under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), a rejection using form paragraphs 7.13.fti and/or 7.14.fti should also be made.
8. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.15.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Common Assignee, Applicant, or Joint Inventor(s)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being [2] by [3].
The applied reference has a common [4] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-59
§ 706.02(i)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph is used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication with an earlier effectively filed date. These references must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor.
3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference names another inventor (i.e., a different inventive entity) and is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
c. a WIPO publication of an international application (PCT) or international design application that designates the United States where the WIPO publication has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) was published before the effective filing date of the claimed invention under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
6. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.
7. In bracket 4, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
8. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.12.aia.
9. If the claims of the copending application are directed to the same invention as the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32, and applicant should be required to amend or cancel patentably indistinct claims using form paragraph 8.27.aia.
10. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.15.02.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Common Assignee, Applicant, or Joint Inventor
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might
be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or if the same invention is not being claimed, by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is used to reject over a patent or patent application publication with an earlier effective filing date. The patent or patent application publication must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or a common joint inventor.
2. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12.fti) must be applied if the reference is by another and is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);
b. a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (PCT) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;
c. a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.
See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01.fti) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
4. In determining the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and to earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional applications and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application’s disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). A benefit claim to a U.S. patent of an earlier-filed international application, which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, may only result in an effective U.S. filing date as of the date the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. Do NOT consider any benefit claims to U.S. applications which are filed before an international application that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
5. If the reference is a publication of an international application (PCT), including voluntary U.S. publication under 35 U.S.C. 122 of the national stage or a WIPO PCT publication, that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000,
700-60Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(i)
did not designate the United States or was not published in English by WIPO, do not use this form paragraph. Such a reference is not a prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. This form paragraph must be preceded by either of form paragraphs 7.12.fti or 7.12.01.fti.
8. Patent application publications may only be used if this form paragraph was preceded by form paragraph 7.12.fti.
9. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
10. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, two patents are not permitted to issue on identical subject matter. Any claims in the instant application directed to the same invention claimed in the reference should be rejected (or provisionally rejected if the reference has not yet issued as a patent) using form paragraphs 8.30 - 8.32. Additionally, the applicant should be required to resolve any issue of priority under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and possibly pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) using form paragraph 8.27.fti. See MPEP § 804, subsection II.A.
¶ 7.15.03.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), No Common Assignee or Inventor(s)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being [2] by [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph is used to reject a claim over a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication or WIPO patent application publication with an earlier effective filing date. The reference is not required to have a common assignee or inventor.
3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effective filing date earlier than the application;
b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effective filing date earlier than the application; or
c. a WIPO publication of an international application where the WIPO publication has an effective filing date earlier than the application.
If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) was published before the effective filing date of the
application under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
6. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.
7. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.12.aia.
¶ 7.15.03.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), No Common Assignee or Inventor(s)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being [2] by [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is used to reject over a patent or patent application publication with an earlier filing date. The patent or patent application publication is not required to have a common assignee or a common inventor.
2. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12.fti) must be applied if the reference is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);
b. a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (PCT) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;
c. a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.
See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01.fti) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
4. In determining the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and to earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional applications and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application’s disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). A benefit claim to a U.S. patent of an earlier-filed international application, which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, may only result in an effective U.S. filing date as of the date the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. Do NOT consider any
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-61
§ 706.02(i)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
benefit claims to U.S. applications which are filed before an international application that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d), 365(a) or (b), or 35 U.S.C. 386(a) or (b).
5. If the reference is a publication of an international application (PCT), including voluntary U.S. publication under 35 U.S.C. 122 of the national stage or a WIPO (PCT) publication, that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, did not designate the United States or was not published in English by WIPO, do not use this form paragraph. Such a reference is not a prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.
6. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
7. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.
8. This form paragraph must be preceded by either of form paragraphs 7.12.fti or 7.12.01.fti.
9. Patent application publications may only be used if this form paragraph was preceded by form paragraph 7.12.fti.
¶ 7.16.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Public Use, On Sale, or Otherwise Publicly Available
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded either by form paragraphs 7.07.aia and 7.08.aia or by form paragraph 7.103.
3. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
4. A full explanation of the evidence establishing a public use or sale or other public availability must be provided in bracket 2.
¶ 7.16.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), Public Use or on Sale
Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) based upon a public use or sale of the invention. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded either by form paragraphs 7.07.fti and 7.09.fti or by form paragraph 7.103.
2. A full explanation of the evidence establishing a public use or sale must be provided in bracket 2.
¶ 7.17.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c), Abandonment of Invention
Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) because the invention has been abandoned. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07.fti and 7.10.fti or by form paragraph 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, insert a full explanation of the evidence establishing abandonment of the invention. See MPEP § 2134.
¶ 7.18.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d), Foreign Patenting
Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) as being barred by applicants [2]. [3]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded either by form paragraphs 7.07.fti and 7.11.fti or by form paragraph 7.103.
2. In bracket 3, insert an explanation of this rejection which must include appropriate dates and how they make the foreign patent available under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d).
3. Refer to MPEP § 2135 for applicable pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) prior art.
¶ 7.19.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f), Applicant Not the Inventor
Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) because the applicant did not invent the claimed subject matter. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph must be preceded either by paragraphs 7.07.fti and 7.13.fti or by paragraph 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, insert an explanation of the supporting evidence establishing that applicant was not the inventor. See MPEP § 2137.
¶ 7.17.aia 102(a)(1) Rejection Using Prior Art Excepted under 102(b)(2)(C)
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference [2] has been disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
700-62Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(i)
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20.aia or 7.15.aia where the anticipation rejection is based on a reference that has been disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) but still qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
3. In bracket 1, identify the common assignee.
4. In bracket 2, identify the reference which has been disqualified.
¶ 7.18.aia Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)
Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (g) as being [2] by [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used for an application or a patent that is being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia) and MUST contain or have contained a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained such a claim.
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
3. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
4. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.
5. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.14.aia, or by form paragraph 7.103.
706.02(j) Contents of a 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection [R-11.2013]
35 U.S.C. 103 authorizes a rejection where, to meet the claim, it is necessary to modify a single reference or to combine it with one or more other references. After indicating that the rejection is under 35 U.S.C.
103, the examiner should set forth in the Office action:
(A) the relevant teachings of the prior art relied upon, preferably with reference to the relevant column or page number(s) and line number(s) where appropriate,
(B) the difference or differences in the claim over the applied reference(s),
(C) the proposed modification of the applied reference(s) necessary to arrive at the claimed subject matter, and
(D) an explanation as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
“To support the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references.” Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, that reference should be positively included in the statement of the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 166 USPQ 406, 407 n. 3 (CCPA 1970).
It is important for an examiner to properly communicate the basis for a rejection so that the issues can be identified early and the applicant can be given fair opportunity to reply. Furthermore, if an initially rejected application issues as a patent, the rationale behind an earlier rejection may be important in interpreting the scope of the patent claims. Since issued patents are presumed valid (35 U.S.C. 282) and constitute a property right (35 U.S.C. 261), the written record must be clear as to the basis for the grant. Since patent examiners cannot normally be compelled to testify in legal proceedings regarding their mental processes (see MPEP § 1701.01), it is important that the written record clearly explain the rationale for decisions made during prosecution of the application.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-63
§ 706.02(j)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
See MPEP §§ 2141 - 2144.09 generally for guidance on patentability determinations under 35 U.S.C. 103, including a discussion of the requirements of Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). See MPEP § 2145 for consideration of applicant’s rebuttal arguments. See MPEP §§ 2154 and 2154.02 for a discussion of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See MPEP § 2156 for a discussion of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and references of joint researchers. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l) - 706.02(l)(3) for a discussion of prior art disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
706.02(k) Provisional Rejection (Obviousness) Under 35 U.S.C. 103 Using Provisional Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2154 et seq. for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, rejections based on U.S. patent documents.]
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Effective November 29, 1999, subject matter which was prior art under former 35 U.S.C. 103 via pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was disqualified as prior art against the claimed invention if that subject matter and the claimed invention “were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” This amendment to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) was made pursuant to section 4807 of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA); see Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-591 (1999). The changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002)) did not affect the exclusion under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended on November 29, 1999. Subsequently, the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act) (Public Law 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)) further amended pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) to provide that subject matter
developed by another person shall be treated as owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person for purposes of determining obviousness if three conditions are met:
(A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(B) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement (hereinafter “joint research agreement disqualification”).
These changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) apply to all patents (including reissue patents) granted on or after December 10, 2004 and issuing from applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). The amendment to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) made by the AIPA to change “subsection (f) or (g)” to “one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g)” applies to applications filed on or after November 29, 1999 that are not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note).
For a reexamination proceeding of a patent granted prior to December 10, 2004, on an application filed on or after November 29, 1999, it is the 1999 changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) that are applicable to the disqualifying commonly assigned/owned prior art provisions of pre-AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) for additional information regarding disqualified prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). For a reexamination proceeding of a patent granted prior to December 10, 2004, on an application filed prior to November 29, 1999, neither the 1999 nor the 2004 changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) are applicable. Therefore, only prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) used in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) may be disqualified under the commonly assigned/owned prior art provision of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
700-64Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(k)
II. PROVISIONAL OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Where two applications of different inventive entities are copending, not published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), and the filing dates differ, a provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) should be made in the later filed application unless the application has been excluded under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3) for examination procedure with respect to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See also MPEP § 706.02(f) for examination procedure in determining when provisional rejections are appropriate. Otherwise the confidential status of unpublished application, or any part thereof, under 35 U.S.C. 122 must be maintained. Such a rejection alerts the applicant that he or she can expect an actual rejection on the same ground if one of the applications issues and also lets applicant know that action must be taken to avoid the rejection.
This gives applicant the opportunity to analyze the propriety of the rejection and possibly avoid the loss of rights to desired subject matter. Provisional rejections of the obviousness type under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) are rejections applied to copending applications having different effective filing dates wherein each application has a common assignee or a common inventor. The earlier filed application, if patented or published, would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The rejection can be overcome by:
(A) Arguing patentability over the earlier filed application;
(B) Combining the subject matter of the copending applications into a single application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of the prior applications and abandoning the copending applications (Note that a claim in a subsequently filed application that relies on a combination of prior applications may not be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 if the earlier filed application does not contain a disclosure which complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 for the claim in the subsequently filed application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle m.b.H. v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997).);
(C) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that any unclaimed invention disclosed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of the other application and is thus not invention “by another” (see MPEP §§ 715.01(a), 715.01(c), and 716.10);
(D) Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing a date of invention prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application. See MPEP § 715; or
(E) For an application that is pending on or after December 10, 2004, a showing that (1) the prior art and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, or (2) the subject matter is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) (i.e., joint research agreement disqualification).
Where the applications are claiming interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a), a terminal disclaimer and an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in a common ownership situation if the earlier filed application has been published or matured into a patent. See MPEP § 718.
If a provisional rejection is made and the copending applications are combined into a single application and the resulting single application is subject to a restriction requirement, the divisional application would not be subject to a provisional or actual rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 since the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 preclude the use of a patent issuing therefrom as a reference against the other application. Additionally, the resulting continuation-in-part is entitled to 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit of each of the prior applications. This is illustrated in Example 2, below.
The following examples are illustrative of the application of 35 U.S.C. 103 in applications filed prior to November 29, 1999 for which a patent was granted prior to December 10, 2004:
Example 1. Assumption: Employees A and B work for C, each with knowledge of the other’s work, and with obligation to assign inventions to C while employed.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-65
§ 706.02(k)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
RESULTSSITUATIONS This is permissible.1. A invents X and later files application. No 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 102(g); provisional 35
2. B modifies X to XY. B files application before A’s filing.
U.S.C. 103 rejection made in A’s later-filed application based on B’s application as provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Provisional double patenting rejection made. A’s claims rejected over B’s patent under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and double patenting.
3. B’s patent issues.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C.103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may be overcome and double
4. A files 37 CFR 1.131(c) affidavit to disqualify B’s patent as prior art where interfering subject matter as
patenting rejection may be overcome if inventions X anddefined in 37 CFR 41.203(a) is being claimed. Terminal disclaimer filed under 37 CFR 1.321(c). XY are commonly owned and all requirements of 37
CFR 1.131(c) and 1.321 are met.
In situation (2.) above, the result is a provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the later-filed application based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The rejection is
provisional since the subject matter and the prior art are pending applications.
Example 2. Assumption: Employees A and B work for C, each with knowledge of the other’s work, and with obligation to assign inventions to C while employed.
RESULTSSITUATIONS This is permissible.1. A invents X and files application. Provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made in B’s later-filed application based on A’s application as
2. B modifies X to XY after A’s application is filed. B files application establishing that A and B were both
provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)under obligation to assign inventions to C at the time the inventions were made. made; provisional double patenting rejection made; no
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 102(g) made. Assume it is proper that restriction be required between X and XY.
3. A and B jointly file continuing application claiming priority to both their earlier applications and abandon the earlier applications.
No rejection of divisional application under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in view of 35 U.S.C. 121.
4. X is elected, a patent issues on X, and a divisional application is timely filed on XY.
The following examples are illustrative of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in applications that are pending on or after December 10, 2004:
Example 3. Assumption: Employees A and B work for C, each with knowledge of the other’s work, and with obligation to assign inventions to C while employed. Employee A’s application, which is pending on or after December 10, 2004, is being examined.
RESULTSSITUATIONS This is permissible.1. A invents X and later files application. Provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of A’s later-filed application based on B’s application as provisional prior
2. B modifies X to XY. B files application before A’s filing. A files an application on invention X.
700-66Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(k)
RESULTSSITUATIONS art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and a provisional double patenting rejection are made. A’s claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on B’s patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and double patenting.
3. B’s patent issues.
Rejection of A’s claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) will be
4. A files evidence of common ownership of inventions X and XY at the time invention XY was made to
withdrawn and double patenting rejection will bedisqualify B’s patent as prior art. In addition, A files a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c). obviated if inventions X and XY are commonly owned
at the time invention XY was made and all requirements of 37 CFR 1.321 are met.
In situation (2.) above, the result is a provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the later-filed application based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (the earlier-filed application). The rejection is provisional since the subject matter and the prior art are pending applications.
Example 4. Assumption: Employees A and B work for C, each with knowledge of the other’s work, and with obligation to assign inventions to C while employed. Employee B’s application, which is pending on or after December 10, 2004, is being examined.
RESULTSSITUATIONS This is permissible.1. A invents X and files application. Provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of B’s claims based on A’s application as provisional prior art under pre-AIA
2. B modifies X to XY after A’s application is filed. B files evidence in B’s application establishing that A and
35 U.S.C. 102(e) cannot be made; provisional doubleB were both under obligation to assign inventions to C at the time the invention XY was made. patenting rejection is made; no 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection
based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 102(g) is made. The provisional double patenting rejection made in B’s application would be obviated if all requirements of 37 CFR 1.321 are met.
3. B files a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c).
Example 5. Assumption: Employee A works for assignee I and Employee B works for assignee J. There is a joint research agreement, pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), between assignees I and J. Employees A and B each filed an application as set forth below. Employee B’s invention claimed in his application was made after the joint research agreement was
entered into, and it was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint agreement. Employee B’s application discloses assignees I and J as the parties to the joint research agreement. Employee B’s application, which is pending on or after December 10, 2004, is being examined.
RESULTSSITUATIONS This is permissible.1. A invents X and files application. Provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of B’s claims based on A’s application as provisional prior art under pre-AIA
2. B modifies X to XY after A’s application is filed. B files evidence in B’s application establishing a joint
35 U.S.C. 102(e) cannot be made; provisional doubleresearch agreement in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). patenting rejection is made; no 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection
based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 35 U.S.C. 102(g) made.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-67
§ 706.02(k)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
RESULTSSITUATIONS The provisional double patenting rejection made in B’s application would be obviated if all requirements of 37 CFR 1.321 are met.
3. B files a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321.
III. EXAMINATION OF CONTINUING APPLICATION COMMONLY OWNED WITH ABANDONED PARENT APPLICATION TO WHICH BENEFIT IS CLAIMED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 120
An application claiming the benefit of a prior filed copending national or international application under 35 U.S.C. 120 must name as an inventor at least one inventor named in the prior filed application. The prior filed application must also disclose the named inventor’s invention claimed in at least one claim of the later filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012. This practice contrasts with the practice in effect prior to November 8, 1984 (the date of enactment of Public Law 98-622) where the inventorship entity in each of the applications was required to be the same for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120.
So long as the applications have at least one inventor in common and the other requirements are met, the Office will permit a claim for 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit without any additional submissions or notifications from applicants regarding inventorship differences.
In addition to the normal examination conducted by the examiner, he or she must examine the earlier filed application to determine if the earlier and later applications have at least one inventor in common and that the other 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 requirements are met. The claim for 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit will be permitted without examination of the earlier application for disclosure and support of at least one claim of the later filed application under 35 U.S.C. 112 unless it becomes necessary to do so, for example, because of an intervening reference.
706.02(l) Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Using Prior Art Under Only
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (e), (f), or (g) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 717.02 et seq., 2154.02(c) and 2156 for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
35 U.S.C. 103 (pre-AIA) Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
*****
(c)(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if —
(A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(B) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term “joint research agreement” means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.
It is important to recognize that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) applies only to consideration of prior art for purposes of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. It does not apply to or affect subject matter which is
700-68Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(l)
applied in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or a double patenting rejection. In addition, if the subject matter qualifies as prior art under any other subsection of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (e.g., pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b)) it will not be disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
A patent applicant or patentee urging that subject matter is disqualified has the burden of establishing that the prior art is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). Absent proper evidence of disqualification, the appropriate rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) with applying prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) should be made. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(2) for information pertaining to establishing prior art exclusions due to common ownership or joint research agreements.
The term “subject matter” will be construed broadly, in the same manner the term is construed in the remainder of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103. The term “another” as used in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 means any inventive entity other than the inventor and would include the inventor and any other persons. The term “developed” is to be read broadly and is not limited by the manner in which the development occurred. The term “commonly owned” means wholly owned by the same person(s) or organization(s) at the time the invention was made. The term “joint research agreement” means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(2).
For a discussion of the three conditions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) that must be satisfied for a claimed invention and subject matter disclosed which might otherwise qualify as prior art to be treated as having been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the joint research agreement provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), see MPEP § 2156. See also MPEP § 717.02 et seq.
FOR APPLICATIONS FILED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 29, 1999, AND GRANTED AS PATENTS PRIOR TO DECEMBER 10, 2004
Prior to November 29, 1999, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) provided that subject matter developed by another which qualifies as “prior art” only under subsections pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) is not to be considered when determining whether an invention sought to be patented is obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, provided the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned at the time the invention was made. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) for information regarding when prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
For applications filed prior to November 29, 1999, and granted as patents prior to December 10, 2004, the subject matter that is disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) is strictly limited to subject matter that A) qualifies as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g), and B) was commonly owned with the claimed invention at the time the invention was made. If the subject matter that qualifies as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) was not commonly owned at the time of the invention, the subject matter is not disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect on December 9, 2004. See OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1403-04, 43 USPQ2d 1641, 1646 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“We therefore hold that subject matter derived from another not only is itself unpatentable to the party who derived it under § 102(f), but, when combined with other prior art, may make a resulting obvious invention unpatentable to that party under a combination of §§ 102(f) and 103.”) Therefore, in these applications, information learned from or transmitted to persons outside the organization is not disqualified as prior art.
Inventors of subject matter not commonly owned at the time of the invention, but currently commonly owned, may file as joint inventors in a single application. However, the claims in such an application are not protected from a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-69
§ 706.02(l)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
102(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). Applicants in such cases have an obligation pursuant to 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim and the lack of common ownership at the time the later invention was made to enable the examiner to consider the applicability of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). The examiner will assume, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that applicants are complying with their duty of disclosure.
Foreign applicants will sometimes combine the subject matter of two or more related applications with different inventors into a single U.S. application naming joint inventors. The examiner will make the assumption, absent contrary evidence, that the applicants are complying with their duty of disclosure if no information is provided relative to invention dates and common ownership at the time the later invention was made. Such a claim for 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) priority based upon the foreign filed applications is appropriate and 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) priority can be accorded based upon each of the foreign filed applications.
For rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) in applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, see MPEP § 706.02(l)(1).
706.02(l)(1) Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Using PriorArt Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g); Prior Art Disqualification Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 103 (pre-AIA) Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 717.02 et seq., 2154.02(c) and 2156 for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
*****
(c)(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102, shall not preclude
patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if —
(A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(B) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term “joint research agreement” means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.
I. COMMON OWNERSHIP OR ASSIGNEE PRIOR ART EXCLUSION UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)
Enacted on November 29, 1999, the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) added subject matter which was prior art under former 35 U.S.C. 103 via pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as disqualified prior art against the claimed invention if that subject matter and the claimed invention “were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” The 1999 change to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) only applied to all utility, design and plant patent applications filed on or after November 29, 1999. The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act), in part, redesignated the former 35 U.S.C. 103(c) to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) and made this provision effective to all applications in which the patent is granted on or after December 10, 2004, but the AIA provides that certain applications are subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, see MPEP § 2159. Therefore, the provision of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.103(c)(1) is effective for all applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, including applications filed prior to November 29, 1999, except those applications subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. In addition, this provision applies to
700-70Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(l)(1)
all patent applications, including utility, design, plant and reissue applications, except those applications subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The amendment to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) does not affect any application filed before November 29, 1999 and issued as a patent prior to December 10, 2004. The AIA provides that applications subject to the AIA prior art provisions are not subject to either the 1999 or 2004 changes, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 102(c). See MPEP § 2159.
In a reexamination proceeding, however, one must look at whether or not the patent being reexamined was granted on or after December 10, 2004, and whether the patent is subject the current 35 U.S.C. 102 to determine whether pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), as amended by the CREATE Act, applies. For a reexamination proceeding of a patent granted prior to December 10, 2004, on an application filed on or after November 29, 1999, it is the 1999 changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) that are applicable to the disqualifying commonly assigned/owned prior art provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). For a reexamination proceeding of a patent granted prior to December 10, 2004, on an application filed prior to November 29, 1999, neither the 1999 nor the 2004 changes to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) are applicable. Therefore, only prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) used in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) may be disqualified under the commonly assigned/owned prior art provisions of 35 U.S.C. 103(c). Similarly patents issued from applications subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 are not subject to either the 1999 or 2004 changes, but are subject to 35 U.S.C. 102(c). See MPEP § 2159.
For reissue applications, the doctrine of recapture may prevent the presentation of claims in the reissue applications that were amended or cancelled from the application which matured into the patent for which reissue is being sought, if the claims were amended or cancelled to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) which was not able to be excluded under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in the application that issued as a patent. If an examiner determines that this situation applies in the reissue application under examination, a consultation with the Office of Patent Legal Administration should be initiated
via the Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) applies only to prior art usable in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Subject matter that qualifies as anticipatory prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 is not affected, and may still be used to reject claims as being anticipated. In addition, double patenting rejections, based on subject matter now disqualified as prior art in amended pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), should still be made as appropriate. See 37 CFR 1.78(c) and MPEP § 804. By contrast current 35 U.S.C. 102(c) operates to disqualify similar prior art from being applied in either an obviousness rejection or an anticipation rejection. See MPEP § 2156.
The burden of establishing that subject matter is disqualified as prior art is placed on applicant once the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness based on the subject matter. For example, the fact that the reference and the application have the same assignee is not, by itself, sufficient evidence to disqualify the prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). There must be a statement that the common ownership was “at the time the invention was made.”
See MPEP § 706.02(l)(2) for information regarding establishing common ownership. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3) for examination procedure with respect to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
II. JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT DISQUALIFICATION UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) BY THE CREATE ACT
The CREATE Act (Public Law 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)) was enacted on December 10, 2004, and is effective for applications for which the patent is granted on or after December 10, 2004, except those patents subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. Specifically, the CREATE Act amended pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) to provide that:
- subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 shall not preclude patentability under 35 U.S.C. 103 where the subject matter
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-71
§ 706.02(l)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person;
- for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103, subject matter developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if
- the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made,
- the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement, and
- the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement;
- the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made, - the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement, and - the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement;
- for purposes of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), the term “joint research agreement” means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, development, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.
The effective date provision of the CREATE Act provided that its amendments shall apply to any patent (including any reissue patent) granted on or after December 10, 2004, except those patents subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The CREATE Act also provided that its amendment shall not affect any final decision of a court or the Office rendered before December 10, 2004, and shall not affect the right of any party in any action pending before the Office or a court on December 10, 2004, to have that party’s rights determined on the basis of the provisions of title 35, United States Code, in effect on December 9, 2004. Since the CREATE Act also includes the amendment to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) made by section 4807 of the AIPA (see Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-591 (1999)), the change of “subsection (f) or (g)” to “one or more of subsections (e), (f), or (g)” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) is now also applicable to applications filed prior to November 29, 1999, that were pending on December 10, 2004.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), as amended by the CREATE Act, continues to apply only to subject matter which qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g), and which is being relied upon in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. If the rejection is anticipation under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g), pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) cannot be relied upon to disqualify the subject matter in order to overcome or prevent the anticipation rejection. Likewise, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) cannot be relied upon to overcome or prevent a double patenting rejection. See 37 CFR 1.78(c) and MPEP § 804.
Because the CREATE Act applies only to patents granted on or after December 10, 2004, the recapture doctrine may prevent the presentation of claims in the reissue applications that had been amended or cancelled (e.g., to avoid a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on subject matter that may now be disqualified under the CREATE Act) during
700-72Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(l)(1)
the prosecution of the application which resulted in the patent being reissued.
706.02(l)(2) Establishing Common Ownership or Joint Research Agreement Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 717.02 et seq., 2154.02(c) and 2156 for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
In order to be disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), the subject matter which would otherwise be prior art to the claimed invention and the claimed invention must be commonly owned, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, at the time the claimed invention was made or be subject to a joint research agreement at the time the invention was made. See MPEP § 706.02(l) for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or 102(g) and prior art disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in applications granted as patents prior to December 10, 2004. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g), and prior art disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
I. DEFINITION OF COMMON OWNERSHIP
The term “commonly owned” is intended to mean that the subject matter which would otherwise be prior art to the claimed invention and the claimed invention are entirely or wholly owned by, or under an obligation to assign to, the same person(s) or organization(s)/business entity(ies). For purposes of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), common ownership must be at the time the claimed invention was made. If the person(s) or organization(s) owned less than 100 percent of the subject matter which would otherwise be prior art to the claimed invention, or less than 100 percent of the claimed invention, then common ownership would not exist. Common ownership requires that the person(s) or organization(s)/business
entity(ies) own 100 percent of the subject matter and 100 percent of the claimed invention.
Specifically, if an invention claimed in an application is owned by more than one entity and those entities seek to exclude the use of a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), then the reference must be owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entities that owned the application, at the time the later invention was made. For example, assume Company A owns twenty percent of patent Application X and Company B owns eighty percent of patent Application X at the time the invention of Application X was made. In addition, assume that Companies A and B seek to exclude the use of Reference Z under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). Reference Z must have been co-owned, or have been under an obligation of assignment to both companies, on the date the invention was made in order for the exclusion to be properly requested. A statement such as “Application X and Patent Z were, at the time the invention of Application X was made, jointly owned by Companies A and B” would be sufficient evidence of common ownership.
For applications owned by a joint venture of two or more entities, both the application and the reference must have been owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the joint venture at the time the invention was made. For example, if Company A and Company B formed a joint venture, Company C, both Application X and Reference Z must have been owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, Company C at the time the invention was made in order for Reference Z to be properly excluded as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). If Company A by itself owned Reference Z at the time the invention of Application X was made and Application X was owned by Company C on the date the invention was made, then a request for the exclusion of Reference Z as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) would not be proper.
As long as principal ownership rights to either the subject matter or the claimed invention under examination reside in different persons or organizations common ownership does not exist. A license of the claimed invention under examination to another by the owner where basic ownership rights are retained would not defeat ownership.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-73
§ 706.02(l)(2)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
The requirement for common ownership at the time the claimed invention was made is intended to preclude obtaining ownership of subject matter after the claimed invention was made in order to disqualify that subject matter as prior art against the claimed invention.
The question of whether common ownership exists at the time the claimed invention was made is to be determined on the facts of the particular case in question. Actual ownership of the subject matter and the claimed invention by the same individual(s) or organization(s) or a legal obligation to assign both the subject matter and the claimed invention to the same individual(s) or organization(s)/business entity(ies) must be in existence at the time the claimed invention was made in order for the subject matter to be disqualified as prior art. A moral or unenforceable obligation would not evidence common ownership.
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), an applicant’s admission that subject matter was developed prior to applicant’s invention would not make the subject matter prior art to applicant if the subject matter qualifies as prior art only under sections pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g), and if the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned at the time the invention was made. See In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), for a decision involving an applicant’s admission which was used as prior art against their application. If the subject matter and invention were not commonly owned, an admission that the subject matter is prior art would be usable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The burden of establishing that subject matter is disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) is intended to be placed and reside upon the person or persons urging that the subject matter is disqualified. For example, a patent applicant urging that subject matter is disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), would have the burden of establishing that it was commonly owned at the time the claimed invention was made. The patentee in litigation would likewise properly bear the same burden placed upon the applicant before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. To place the burden upon the patent examiner or the defendant in litigation would not be appropriate since evidence
as to common ownership at the time the claimed invention was made might not be available to the patent examiner or the defendant in litigation, but such evidence, if it exists, should be readily available to the patent applicant or the patentee.
In view of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), the Director has reinstituted in appropriate circumstances the practice of rejecting claims in commonly owned applications of different inventive entities on the grounds of double patenting. Such rejections can be overcome in appropriate circumstances by the filing of terminal disclaimers. This practice has been judicially authorized. See In re Bowers, 359 F.2d 886, 149 USPQ 57 (CCPA 1966). The use of double patenting rejections which then could be overcome by terminal disclaimers preclude patent protection from being improperly extended while still permitting inventors and their assignees to obtain the legitimate benefits from their contributions. See also MPEP § 804.
The following examples are provided for illustration only:
Example 1
Parent Company owns 100% of Subsidiaries A and B
- inventions of A and B are commonly owned by the Parent Company.
Example 2
Parent Company owns 100% of Subsidiary A and 90% of Subsidiary B
- inventions of A and B are not commonly owned by the Parent Company.
Example 3
If same person owns subject matter and invention at time invention was made, license to another may be made without the subject matter becoming prior art.
Example 4
Different Government inventors retaining certain rights (e.g. foreign filing rights) in separate inventions owned by Government precludes common ownership of inventions.
Example 5
Company A and Company B form joint venture Company C. Employees of A, while working for C with an obligation to assign inventions to C, invent invention #1; employees of B
700-74Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(l)(2)
while working for C with an obligation to assign inventions to C, invent invention #2, with knowledge of #1.
Question: Are #1 and #2 commonly owned at the time the later invention was made so as to preclude a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) in view of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103?
Answer: Yes- If the required evidence of common ownership is made of record in the patent application file. If invention #1 was invented by employees of Company A not working for Company C and Company A maintained sole ownership of invention #1 at the time invention #2 was made, inventions #1 and #2 would not be commonly owned as required by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
Example 6
Company A owns 40% of invention #1 and 60% of invention #2, and Company B owns 60% of invention #1 and 40% of invention #2 at the time invention #2 was made.
-inventions #1 and #2 are commonly owned.
Example 7
Company B has a joint research project with UniversityA. Under the terms of the joint research project, University A has agreed that all of its patents will be jointly owned by Company B and University A. Professor X, who works for University A, has an employee agreement with University A assigning all his patents only to University A. After the joint research project agreement is executed, University A files patent application #1 for the invention of Professor X, before Company B files patent application #2 on a similar invention.
- inventions #1 and #2 are commonly owned because Professor X’s obligation to assign patents to University A who has an obligation to assign patents to the A-B joint venture legally establishes Professor X’s obligation to assign patents to the A-B joint venture.
Example 8
Inventor X working at Company A invents and files patent application #1 on technology T, owned by Company A. After application #1 is filed, Company A spins off a 100% owned Subsidiary B for technology T including the transfer of the ownership of patent application #1 to Subsidiary B. After Subsidiary B is formed, inventor Y (formerly a Company A employee, but now an employee of Subsidiary B obligated to assign to Subsidiary B) jointly files application #2 with inventor X (now also an employee of Subsidiary B with an obligation to assign to Subsidiary B), which is directed to a possibly unobvious improvement to technology T.
- the inventions of applications #1 and #2 are commonly owned since Subsidiary B is a wholly owned subsidiary of Company A.
The examiner must examine the application as to all grounds except pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) and (g) as they apply through pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) only if the application file(s) establishes common ownership at the time the later invention was made. Thus, it is necessary to look to the time at which common ownership exists. If common ownership does not exist at the time the later invention was made, the earlier invention is not disqualified as potential prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) and (g) as they apply through pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). An invention is “made” when conception is complete as defined in Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App. D.C. 264, 81 OG 1417, 1897 C.D. 724 (D.C. Cir. 1897); In re Tansel, 253 F.2d 241, 117 USPQ 188 (CCPA 1958). See Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., 525 U.S. 55, 119 S. Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998) (“the invention must be ready for patenting . . . . by proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawing or other descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.”) Common ownership at the time the invention was made for purposes of obviating a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) may be established irrespective of whether the invention was made in the United States or abroad. The provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104, however, will continue to apply to other proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, e.g. in an interference proceeding, with regard to establishing a date of invention by knowledge or use thereof, or other activity with respect thereto, in a foreign country, except the provisions do not apply to applications subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 was repealed effective March 16, 2013 The foreign filing date will continue to be used for interference purposes under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) and 35 U.S.C. 365.
II. EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH COMMON OWNERSHIP
It is important to recognize just what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish common ownership at the time the invention was made. The common ownership must be shown to exist at the time the later invention was made. A statement of present
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-75
§ 706.02(l)(2)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
common ownership is not sufficient. In re Onda, 229 USPQ 235 (Comm’r Pat. 1985).
Applications and references (whether patents, patent applications, patent application publications, etc.) will be considered by the examiner to be owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, at the time the invention was made, if the applicant(s) or patent owner(s) make(s) a statement to the effect that the application and the reference were, at the time the invention was made, owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person. The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). See “Guidelines Setting Forth a Modified Policy Concerning the Evidence of Common Ownership, or an Obligation of Assignment to the Same Person, as Required by 35 U.S.C. 103(c),” 1241 OG 96 (December 26, 2000). The applicant(s) or the representative(s) of record have the best knowledge of the ownership of their application(s) and reference(s), and their statement of such is sufficient evidence because of their paramount obligation of candor and good faith to the USPTO.
The statement concerning common ownership should be clear and conspicuous (e.g., on a separate piece of paper) to ensure the examiner notices the statement. Applicants or patent owners may, but are not required to, submit further evidence, such as assignment records, affidavits or declarations by the common owner, or court decisions, in addition to the above-mentioned statement concerning common ownership.
For example, an attorney or agent of record receives an Office action for Application X in which all the claims are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using Patent A in view of Patent B wherein Patent A is only available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), and/or (g). In her response to the Office action, the attorney or agent of record for Application X states, in a clear and conspicuous manner, that:
“Application X and Patent A were, at the time the invention of Application X was made, owned by Company Z.”
This statement alone is sufficient evidence to disqualify Patent A from being used in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) against the claims of Application X.
In rare instances, the examiner may have independent evidence that raises a material doubt as to the accuracy of applicant’s representation of either (1) the common ownership of, or (2) the existence of an obligation to commonly assign, the application being examined and the applied U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication reference. In such cases, the examiner may explain why the accuracy of the representation is doubted. The examiner may also require objective evidence of common ownership of, or the existence of an obligation to assign, the application being examined and the applied reference as of the date of invention of the application being examined. Examiners should note that the execution dates in assignment documents may not reflect the date a party was under an obligation to assign the claimed invention.
As mentioned above, applicant(s) or patent owner(s) may submit, in addition to the above-mentioned statement regarding common ownership, the following objective evidence:
(A) Reference to assignments, which are recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in accordance with 37 CFR Part 3, and which convey the entire rights in the applications to the same person(s) or organization(s);
(B) Copies of unrecorded assignments which convey the entire rights in the applications to the same person(s) or organization(s), and which are filed in each of the applications;
(C) An affidavit or declaration by the common owner, which is filed in the application or patent, and which states that there is common ownership, states facts which explain why the affiant or declarant believes there is common ownership, and is properly signed (i.e., the affidavit or declaration may be signed by an official of the corporation or organization empowered to act on behalf of the corporation or organization when the common owner is a corporation or other organization); and
(D) Other evidence, which is submitted in the application or patent, and which establishes common ownership.
700-76Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(l)(2)
III. EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT
Once an examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the burden of overcoming the rejection by invoking the joint research agreement provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended by the CREATE Act is on the applicant or the patentee. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(3) defines a “joint research agreement” as a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention, that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention (under examination or reexamination) was made.
Like the common ownership or assignment provision, the joint research agreement must be shown to be in effect on or before the time the later invention was made. The joint research agreement may be in effect prior to the effective date (December 10, 2004) of the CREATE Act. In addition, the joint research agreement is NOT required to be in effect on or before the prior art date of the reference that is sought to be disqualified.
To overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon subject matter (whether a patent document, publication, or other evidence) which qualifies as prior art under only one or more of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) via the CREATE Act, the applicant must comply with the statute and the rules of practice in effect.
37 CFR 1.71 Detailed description and specification of the invention.
*****
(g)(1) The specification may disclose or be amended to disclose the names of the parties to a joint research agreement as defined in § 1.9(e).
(2) An amendment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth § 1.17(i) if not filed within one of the following time periods:
(i) Within three months of the filing date of a national application;
(ii) Within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application;
(iii) Before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits; or
(iv) Before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under § 1.114.
(3) If an amendment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent as issued may not necessarily include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. If the patent as issued does not include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, the patent must be corrected to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323 for the amendment to be effective.
37 CFR 1.104 Nature of examination. *****
(c) Rejection of claims.
*****
(5)
(i) Subject matter which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, and a claimed invention in an application filed on or after November 29, 1999, or any patent issuing thereon, in an application filed before November 29, 1999, but pending on December 10, 2004, or any patent issuing thereon, or in any patent granted on or after December 10, 2004, will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, if the applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, at the time the claimed invention was made, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(ii) Subject matter which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, and a claimed invention in an application pending on or after December 10, 2004, or in any patent granted on or after December 10, 2004, will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, on the basis of a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, if:
(A) The applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention were made by or on behalf of the parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h) and § 1.9(e), which was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(B) The application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(6) Patents issued prior to December 10, 2004, from applications filed prior to November 29, 1999, are subject to 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect on November 28, 1999.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-77
§ 706.02(l)(2)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
*****
37 CFR 1.71(g) provides for the situation in which an application discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to a joint research agreement. 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) specifically provides that the specification may disclose or be amended to disclose the name of each party to the joint research agreement because this information is required by 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2)(C).
37 CFR1.71(g)(2) provides that an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) if it is not filed within one of the following time periods: (1) within three months of the filing date of a national application; (2) within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 in an international application; (3) before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits; or (4) before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114.
37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) provides that if an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent as issued may not necessarily include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. 37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) also provides that if the patent as issued does not include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, the patent must be corrected to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 for the amendment to be effective. The requirements of 37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) (correction of the patent by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323) also apply in the situation in which such an amendment is not filed until after the date the patent was granted (in a patent granted on or after December 10, 2004). It is unnecessary to file a reissue application or request for reexamination of the patent to submit the amendment and other information necessary to take advantage of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended by the CREATE Act. See H.R. Rep. No. 108-425, at 9 (“[t]he omission of the names of parties to the agreement is not an error that would justify commencement of a reissue or reexamination proceeding”).
The submission of such an amendment remains subject to the rules of practice: e.g., 37 CFR 1.116, 1.121, and 1.312. For example, if an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) is submitted in an application under final rejection to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon a U.S. patent which qualifies as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the examiner may refuse to enter the amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) if it is not accompanied by an appropriate terminal disclaimer (37 CFR 1.321(d)). This is because such an amendment may necessitate the reopening of prosecution (e.g., for entry of a double patenting rejection).
If an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) is submitted to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication which qualifies as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), and the examiner withdraws the rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner may need to issue an Office action containing a new double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified patent or patent application publication. In these situations, such Office action can be made final, provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). The Office action is properly made final because the new double patenting rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant. This is the case regardless of whether the claims themselves have been amended.
In addition to amending the specification to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, applicant must submit the required statement to invoke the prior art disqualification under the CREATE Act. 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4) sets forth the requirement for the statement, which includes a statement to the effect that the prior art and the claimed invention were made by or on the behalf of parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(3), which was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within
700-78Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(l)(2)
the scope of the joint research agreement. The statement should either be on or begin on a separate sheet and must not be directed to other matters (37 CFR 1.4(c)). The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). As is the case with establishing common ownership, the applicant or patent owner may, but is not required to, present evidence supporting the existence of the joint research agreement.
If the applicant disqualifies the subject matter relied upon by the examiner in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended by the CREATE Act and the procedures set forth in the rules, the examiner will treat the application under examination and the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) prior art as if they are commonly owned for purposes of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The following examples are provided for illustration only:
Example 1
Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA) in place prior to the date Company A’s invention X' was made. Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. On November 12, 2004, University B filed a patent application on invention X. On December 13, 2004, Company A filed a patent application disclosing and claiming invention X', which is an obvious variant of invention X. Invention X' was made as a result of the activities undertaken within the scope of the JRA. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X', without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could invoke the joint research agreement provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) to disqualify University B’s application as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Example 2
Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. On November 12, 2004, University B filed a patent application on invention X. On December 13, 2004, Company A filed a patent application disclosing and claiming invention X', which is an obvious variant of invention X. Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA), which goes into effect on December 20, 2004. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X', without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could not invoke the joint research agreement provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) to disqualify University B’s application as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because the JRA was not in effect until after the later invention was made.
Example 3
Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA) in place prior to the date invention X' was made but the JRA is limited to activities for invention Y, which is distinct from invention X. Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. On November 12, 2004, University B filed a patent application on invention X. On December 13, 2004, Company A filed a patent application disclosing and claiming invention X', which is an obvious variant of invention X. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X', without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could not invoke the joint research agreement provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) to disqualify University B’s application as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because the claimed invention was not made as a result of the activities undertaken within the scope of the JRA.
706.02(l)(3) Examination Procedure With Respect to Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 717.02 et seq., 2154.02(c) and 2156 for the examination of applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
Examiners are reminded that a reference used in an anticipatory rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) is not disqualified as prior art if evidence is provided to show that the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). Generally, such a reference is only disqualified when
(A) proper evidence is filed,
(B) the reference only qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) (e.g., not pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b)), and
(C) the reference was used in an obviousness rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Applications and patents will be considered to be owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person, at the time the invention was made, if the applicant(s) or patent owner(s) make(s) a statement to the effect that the application and the reference were, at the time the invention was made,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-79
§ 706.02(l)(3)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person(s) or organization(s). In order to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon a reference which qualifies as prior art under only one or more of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g), via the CREATE Act, the applicant must comply with the statute and the rules of practice in effect.
See MPEP § 706.02(l)(2) for additional information pertaining to establishing common ownership.
I. EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT INVENTIVE ENTITIES WHERE COMMON OWNERSHIP ORA JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED
If the application file being examined has not established that the reference is disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), the examiner will:
(A) assume the reference is not disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c);
(B) examine the application on all grounds other than any conflict between the reference patent(s) or application(s) arising from a possible 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) and/or (g);
(C) consider the applicability of any references under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) and/or (g), including provisional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e); and
(D) apply the best references against the claimed invention by rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, including any rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) and/or (g), until such time that the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). When applying any references that qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 against the claims, the examiner should anticipate that the reference may be disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 706.02, subsection I. If a statement of common ownership or assignment is filed in reply to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and the claims are
not amended, the examiner may not make the next Office action final if a new rejection is made. See MPEP § 706.07(a). If the reference is disqualified under the joint research agreement provision of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and a new subsequent double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified reference is applied, the next Office action, which contains the new double patenting rejection, may be made final even if applicant did not amend the claims (provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)). The Office action is properly made final because the new double patenting rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant.
II. EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT INVENTIVE ENTITIES WHERE COMMON OWNERSHIP ORA JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
If the application being examined has established that the reference is disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) the examiner will:
(A) examine the applications as to all grounds, except pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) and (g) including provisional rejections based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), as they apply through 35 U.S.C. 103;
(B) examine the applications for double patenting, including statutory and nonstatutory double patenting, and make a provisional rejection, if appropriate; and
(C) invite the applicant to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome any provisional or actual nonstatutory double patenting rejection, if appropriate (see 37 CFR 1.321).
III. DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS
Commonly owned applications of different inventive entities may be rejected on the ground of double patenting, even if the later filed application claims 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit to the earlier application, subject to the conditions discussed in MPEP § 804 et seq. In addition, double patenting rejection may arise as a result of the amendment to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
700-80Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(l)(3)
103(c) by the CREATE Act (Public Law 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)). Congress recognized that this amendment to 35 U.S.C. 103(c) would result in situations in which there would be double patenting rejections between applications not owned by the same party (see H.R. Rep. No. 108-425, at 5-6 (2003). For purposes of double patenting analysis, the application or patent and the subject matter disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended by the CREATE Act will be treated as if commonly owned.
A rejection based on a pending application would be a provisional rejection. The practice of rejecting claims on the ground of double patenting in commonly owned applications of different inventive entities is in accordance with existing case law and prevents an organization from obtaining two or more patents with different expiration dates covering nearly identical subject matter. See MPEP § 804 for guidance on double patenting issues. In accordance with established patent law doctrines, double patenting rejections can be overcome in certain circumstances by disclaiming, pursuant to the existing provisions of 37 CFR 1.321, the terminal portion of the term of the later patent and including in the disclaimer a provision that the patent shall be enforceable only for and during the period the patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the rejection, thereby eliminating the problem of extending patent life. For a double patenting rejection based on a non-commonly owned patent (treated as if commonly owned pursuant to the CREATE Act), the double patenting rejection may be obviated by filing a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(d). See MPEP §§ 804 and 804.02.
706.02(m) Form Paragraphs for Use in Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-07.2015]
The following form paragraphs should be used in making the appropriate rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
¶ 7.06 Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be used in all Office Actions when a prior art rejection is made in an application with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claims priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013.
2. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in an Office action.
¶ 7.20.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. The statute is not to be cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits employing 35 U.S.C. 103 and final rejections. Where the statute is being applied, but is not cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.
3. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in a given Office action.
4. This form paragraph must precede any of form paragraphs 7.20.01.aia, 7.20.02.aia, 7.20.04.aia, 7.20.05.aia, 7.21.aia, 7.21.01.aia, 7.21.02.aia, and 7.22.aia when this form paragraph is used to cite the statute in first actions and final rejections.
¶ 7.20.fti Statement of Statutory Basis, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-81
§ 706.02(m)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Examiner Note:
1. The statute is not to be cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits employing pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and final rejections. Where the statute is being applied, but is not cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.
2. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in a given Office action.
3. This form paragraph must precede form paragraphs 7.20.01.fti - 7.22.fti when this form paragraph is used to cite the statute in first actions and final rejections.
¶ 7.20.01.aia 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Excepted Under 102(b)(2)(C) Because Reference is Prior Art Under 102(a)(1)
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference [2] has been disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20.aia or 7.15.aia where the 103 rejection is based on a reference that has since been disqualified under 102(b)(2)(C), but still qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
3. In bracket 1, identify the common assignee.
4. In bracket 2, identify the reference which has been disqualified.
¶ 7.20.01.fti Pre-AIA 103(a) Rejection Using Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 102(e), (f), or (g) That Is Not Disqualified Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) Because Reference Is Prior Art Under Another Subsection of Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] at the time this invention was made, or was subject to a joint research agreement at the time this invention was made. However, reference [2] qualifies as prior art under another subsection of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, and therefore is not disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
Applicant may overcome the applied art either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the invention disclosed therein was derived from the inventor of this application, and is therefore, not the invention “by another,” or by antedating the applied art under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20.fti in all actions containing rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using art that is disqualified under pre-AIA 103(c) using pre-AIA 102(e), (f), or (g), but which qualifies under another section of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.
2. In bracket 1, identify the common assignee.
3. In bracket 2, identify the reference which has been disqualified.
¶ 7.20.02.aia Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This paragraph must be used in all applications with joint inventors (unless the claims are clearly restricted to only one claimed invention, e.g., only a single claim is presented in the application).
¶ 7.20.02.fti Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the
700-82Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(m)
examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Examiner Note:
This paragraph must be used in all applications with joint inventors (unless the claims are clearly restricted to only one claimed invention, e.g., only a single claim is presented in the application).
¶ 7.20.04.aia 102 or 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Under 102(a)(2) That Is Attempted To Be Disqualified Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) Using the Common Ownership or Assignment Provision
Applicant has attempted to disqualify reference [1] under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [2] at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed. However, applicant has failed to provide a statement that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a conspicuous manner, and therefore, the reference is not disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Applicant must file the required evidence in order to properly disqualify the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See generally MPEP § 706.02(l).
In addition, applicant may rely upon the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A)to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph should be included in all actions containing rejections using 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art, whether anticipation or obviousness rejections, where an attempt has been made to disqualify the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), but where the applicant has not provided a proper statement indicating common ownership or assignment not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. In bracket 1, identify the commonly owned applied art (e.g., patent or co-pending application).
4. In bracket 2, identify the common assignee.
¶ 7.20.04.fti Pre-AIA 103(a) Rejection Using Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 102(e), (f), or (g) That Is Attempted To Be Disqualified Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) Using the Common Ownership or Assignment Provision
Applicant has attempted to disqualify reference [1] under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) by showing that the invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [2] at the time this invention was made. However, applicant has failed to provide a statement that the application and the reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person at the time the invention was made in a conspicuous manner, and therefore, is not disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Applicant must file the required evidence in order to properly disqualify the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 706.02(l).
In addition, applicant may overcome the applied art either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the invention disclosed therein was derived from the inventor of this application, and is therefore not the invention “by another,” or by antedating the applied art under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be included in all actions containing rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) where an attempt has been made to disqualify the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), but where the applicant has not provided a proper statement indicating common ownership or assignment at the time the invention was made.
2. In brackets 1 and 2, identify the commonly owned applied art (e.g., patent or co-pending application).
¶ 7.20.05.aia 102 or 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Under 102(a)(2) That Is Attempted To Be Disqualified Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) Using the Joint Research Agreement Provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c)
Applicant has attempted to disqualify reference [1] under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was subject to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, applicant has failed to [2]. Applicant must file the missing requirements in order to properly disqualify the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) and1.104(c)(4)(ii).
In addition, applicant may overcome the rejection either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained, either directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-83
§ 706.02(m)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be included in all actions containing obviousness or anticipation rejections where an attempt has been made to disqualify the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) using the joint research agreement provisions but the disqualification attempt is ineffective.
3. In bracket 1, identify the reference which is sought to be disqualified via 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
4. In bracket 2, identify the reason(s) why the disqualification attempt is ineffective. The reason(s) could be noncompliance with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or rule requirements relating to the CREATE Act, such as failure to submit the required statement or failure to amend the specification to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. See 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) and 1.104(c)(4)(ii).
¶ 7.20.05.fti Pre-AIA 103(a) Rejection Using Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 102(e), (f), or (g) That Is Attempted To Be Disqualified Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) Using the Joint Research Agreement Provisions
Applicant has attempted to disqualify reference [1] under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) by showing that the invention was subject to a joint research agreement at the time this invention was made. However, applicant has failed to [2]. Applicant must file the missing requirements in order to properly disqualify the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See 37 CFR 1.71(g) and 1.104(c) and MPEP § 706.02(l).
In addition, applicant may overcome the applied art either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the invention disclosed therein was derived from the inventor of this application, and is therefore, not the invention “by another,” or by antedating the applied art under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be included in all actions containing rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) where an attempt has been made to disqualify the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) using the joint research agreement provisions but the disqualification attempt is ineffective.
2. In bracket 1, identify the reference which is sought to be disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
3. In bracket 2, identify the reason(s) why the disqualification attempt is ineffective. The reason(s) could be noncompliance with the statutory requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) or rule requirements relating to the CREATE Act, such as failure to submit the required statement or failure to amend the specification to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(5)(ii).
¶ 7.21.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103
Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [2].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.20.aia or form paragraph 7.103.
3. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.
4. If this rejection is a provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based upon a copending application that would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if patented or published, use form paragraph 7.21.01.aia instead of this paragraph.
5. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
6. In bracket 2, insert the prior art relied upon.
7. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.21.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2].
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.20.fti or form paragraph 7.103.
2. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.
3. If the rejection relies upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
4. If the applicability of this rejection (e.g., the availability of the prior art as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)) prevents the reference from being
700-84Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(m)
disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), form paragraph 7.20.01.fti must follow this form paragraph.
5. If this rejection is a provisional pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection based upon a copending application that would comprise prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if patented or published, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti instead of this paragraph.
6. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
7. In bracket 2, insert the prior art relied upon.
¶ 7.21.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention either were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier effectively filed date and also having either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor.
3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
8. If the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the copending application, a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.
¶ 7.21.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application under 37 CFR 1.131(a). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the copending application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2).
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier U.S. filing date and also having either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used when the copending application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the copending application's prior art date, unless the copending application is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) to determine the copending application’s prior art date. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s pre-AIA and pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates, respectively.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-85
§ 706.02(m)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use paragraph 7.15.01.fti.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
8. If the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the copending application, a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.
9. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the copending application is also prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and
b. the copending application has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
¶ 7.21.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Common Assignee, CommonApplicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). [4]
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This paragraph is used to reject over a reference (patent or published application) with an earlier effectively filed date that
discloses the claimed invention, and that ONLY qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). If the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), then this form paragraph should not be used (form paragraph 7.21.aia should be used instead). The reference must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications when the reference is not prior art in view of the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception.
3. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
4. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
¶ 7.21.02.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not an invention “by another”; (2) a showing of a date of invention for the claimed subject matter of the application which corresponds to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the reference, prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a); or (3) an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) stating that the application and reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) named in the application is the prior inventor under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013, together with a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) and 706.02(l)(2). [4]
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph is used to reject over a reference (patent or published application) with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention, and that only qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b), then this form paragraph should not be used (form paragraph 7.21.fti should be used instead). The reference must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications when the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) must be applied if the reference is by another and is one of the following:
700-86Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(m)
a. a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);
b. a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (PCT) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;
c. a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.
See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
¶ 7.22.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Further in View Of
Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [2] as applied to claim [3] above, and further in view of [4].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.21.aia.
3. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.
¶ 7.22.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Further in View Of
Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2] as applied to claim [3] above, and further in view of [4].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.21.fti.
2. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.
3. If the rejection relies upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
¶ 7.23.aia Graham v. Deere, Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph may be used, if appropriate, in response to an argument regarding the applicability of the Graham v. Deere factors.
¶ 7.23.fti Graham v. Deere, Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-87
§ 706.02(m)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph may be used, if appropriate, in response to an argument regarding the applicability of the Graham v. Deere factors.
¶ 7.27.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102([2]) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph is NOT intended to be commonly used as a substitute for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In other words, a single rejection under either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made whenever possible. Examples of circumstances where this paragraph may be used are as follows:
a. When the interpretation of the claim(s) is or may be in dispute, i.e., given one interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is appropriate and given another interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2111 - 2116.01 for guidelines on claim interpretation.
b. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
c. When the reference teaches a small genus which places a claimed species in the possession of the public as in In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 197 USPQ 5 (CCPA 1978), and the species would have been obvious even if the genus were not sufficiently small to justify a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP §§ 2131.02 and 2144.08 for more information on anticipation and obviousness of species by a disclosure of a genus.
d. When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
e. When the reference teaches all claim limitations except a means plus function limitation and the examiner is not certain whether the element disclosed in the reference is an equivalent of the claimed element and therefore anticipatory, or whether the prior art element is an obvious variant of the claimed element. See MPEP §§ 2183 - 2184.
f. When the ranges disclosed in the reference and claimed by applicant overlap in scope but the reference does not contain a specific example within the claimed range. See the concurring opinion in Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). See MPEP § 2131.03.
3. If the interpretation of the claim(s) renders the claim(s) indefinite, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be appropriate.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter(s) in parenthesis.
6. In bracket 3, insert the prior art reference relied upon for the rejection.
7. A full explanation must follow this form paragraph, i.e., the examiner must provide an explanation of how the claims at issue could be considered to be anticipated, as well as how they could be considered to be obvious.
8. This form paragraph must be preceded by 7.07.aia and 7.08.aia and/or 7.12.aia or by form paragraph 7.103.
9. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.27.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or pre-AIA 103(a)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102([2]) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is NOT intended to be commonly used as a substitute for a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. In other words, a single rejection under either pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) should be made whenever possible using appropriate form paragraphs 7.15.fti to 7.19.fti, 7.21.fti and 7.22.fti. Examples of circumstances where this paragraph may be used are as follows:
a. When the interpretation of the claim(s) is or may be in dispute, i.e., given one interpretation, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 is appropriate and given another interpretation, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2111 - 2116.01 for guidelines on claim interpretation.
b. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.
c. When the reference teaches a small genus which places a claimed species in the possession of the public as in In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 197 USPQ 5 (CCPA 1978), and the
700-88Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(m)
species would have been obvious even if the genus were not sufficiently small to justify a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP §§ 2131.02 and 2144.08 for more information on anticipation and obviousness of species by a disclosure of a genus.
d. When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
e. When the reference teaches all claim limitations except a means plus function limitation and the examiner is not certain whether the element disclosed in the reference is an equivalent of the claimed element and therefore anticipatory, or whether the prior art element is an obvious variant of the claimed element. See MPEP §§ 2183 - 2184.
f. When the ranges disclosed in the reference and claimed by applicant overlap in scope but the reference does not contain a specific example within the claimed range. See the concurring opinion in Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). See MPEP § 2131.03.
2. If the interpretation of the claim(s) renders the claim(s) indefinite, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, may be appropriate.
3. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
4. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter(s) in parenthesis.
5. In bracket 3, insert the prior art reference relied upon for the rejection.
6. A full explanation should follow this form paragraph.
7. If the rejection relies upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121 or 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s pre-AIA and pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates, respectively.
8. This form paragraph must be preceded by 7.07.fti, one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.14.fti as appropriate, and form paragraph 7.20.fti or by form paragraph 7.103.
9. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application
filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.06.01 Claim Limitation Relating to a Tax Strategy Deemed To Be Within the Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103
Claim limitation “[1]” has been interpreted as a strategy for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability (“tax strategy”) pursuant to Section 14 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Accordingly, this claim limitation is being treated as being within the prior art and is insufficient to differentiate the invention of claim [2] from the prior art.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, recite the claim limitation that relates to a tax strategy. For more information see MPEP § 2124.01.
2. In bracket 2, insert claim number(s), pluralize “claim” as appropriate.
706.02(n) Biotechnology Process Applications; Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159.]
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
*****
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), and upon timely election by the applicant for patent to proceed under this subsection, a biotechnological process using or resulting in a composition of matter that is novel under section 102 and nonobvious under subsection (a) of this section shall be considered nonobvious if-
(A) claims to the process and the composition of matter are contained in either the same application for patent or in separate applications having the same effective filing date; and
(B) the composition of matter, and the process at the time it was invented, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(2) A patent issued on a process under paragraph (1)-
(A) shall also contain the claims to the composition of matter used in or made by that process, or
(B) shall, if such composition of matter is claimed in another patent, be set to expire on the same date as such other patent, notwithstanding section 154.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-89
§ 706.02(n)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “biotechnological process” means-
(A) a process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single- or multi-celled organism to-
(i) express an exogenous nucleotide sequence,
(ii) inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence, or
(iii) express a specific physiological characteristic not naturally associated with said organism;
(B) cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein, such as a monoclonal antibody; and
(C) a method of using a product produced by a process defined by subparagraph (A) or (B), or a combination of subparagraphs (A) and (B).
*****
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) is applicable to biotechnological processes only. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) precludes a rejection of process claims which involve the use or making of certain nonobvious biotechnological compositions of matter under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Only applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 are subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b). See MPEP § 2159.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) requires that:
(A) the biotechnological process and composition of matter be contained in either the same application or in separate applications having the same effective filing date;
(B) both the biotechnological process and composition of matter be owned or subject to an assignment to the same person at the time the process was invented;
(C) a patent issued on the process also contain the claims to the composition of matter used in or made by the process, or, if the process and composition of matter are in different patents, the patents expire on the same date;
(D) the biotechnological process falls within the definition set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b); and
(E) a timely election be made to proceed under the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b).
An election to proceed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) shall be made by way of petition under 37 CFR 1.182. The petition must establish that all the requirements set forth in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) have been satisfied.
An election will normally be considered timely if it is made no later than the earlier of either the payment of the issue fee or the filing of an appeal brief in an application which contains a composition of matter claim which has not been rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
In an application where at least one composition of matter claim has not been rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) election may be made by submitting the petition and an amendment requesting entry of process claims which correspond to the composition of matter claim.
For applications pending on or after November 1, 1995, in which the issue fee has been paid prior to March 26, 1996, the timeliness requirement for an election under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) will be considered satisfied if the conditions of 37 CFR 1.312(b) are met. However, if a patent is granted on an application entitled to the benefit of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) without an election having been made as a result of error, patentees may file a reissue application to permit consideration of process claims which qualify for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) treatment. See MPEP § 1412.02, subsection II
.
See MPEP § 2116.01 for a discussion of the Federal Circuit’s decisions in In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and In re Brouwer, 77 F.3d 422, 37 USPQ2d 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1996) which address the general issue of whether an otherwise conventional process could be patented if it were limited to making or using a nonobvious product. In view of the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Ochiai and Brouwer, an applicant’s need to rely upon pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) should be rare. See also 1184 OG 86 (Comm’r Pat. 1996). See 35 U.S.C. 282 for the effect of a determination of
700-90Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.02(n)
nonobviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b)(1) on the presumption of validity.
706.03 Rejections Not Based on Prior Art [R-11.2013]
Under the principles of compact prosecution, each claim should be reviewed for compliance with every statutory requirement for patentability in the initial review of the application, even if one or more claims are found to be deficient with respect to some statutory requirement. Deficiencies should be explained clearly, particularly when they serve as a basis for a rejection. Whenever practicable, USPTO personnel should indicate how rejections may be overcome and how problems may be resolved. Where a rejection not based on prior art is proper (lack of adequate written description, enablement, or utility, etc.) such rejection should be stated with a full development of the reasons rather than by a mere conclusion.
Rejections based on nonstatutory subject matter are explained in MPEP §§ 706.03(a), 2105, 2106, and 2107 - 2107.02. Rejections based on subject matter barred by the Atomic Energy Act are explained in MPEP § 706.03(b). Rejections based on subject matter that is directed to tax strategies are explained in MPEP § 2124.01, and subject matter that is directed to a human organism is explained in MPEP § 2105. Rejections based on duplicate claims are addressed in MPEP § 706.03(k), and double patenting rejections are addressed in MPEP § 804. See MPEP §§ 706.03(o) and 2163.06 for rejections based on new matter. Foreign filing without a license is discussed in MPEP § 706.03(s). Disclaimer, after interference or public use proceeding, res judicata, and reissue are explained in MPEP §§ 706.03(u) to 706.03(x). Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 112 are discussed in MPEP §§ 2161 - 2174. IF THE LANGUAGE IN THE FORM PARAGRAPHS IS INCORPORATED IN THE OFFICE ACTION TO STATE THE REJECTION, THERE WILL BE LESS
CHANCE OF A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE GROUNDS OF REJECTION.
706.03(a) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101 [R-07.2015]
Patents are not granted for all new and useful inventions and discoveries. The subject matter of the invention or discovery must come within the boundaries set forth by 35 U.S.C. 101, which permits a patent to be granted only for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”
I. DOUBLE PATENTING
35 U.S.C. 101 prevents two patents issuing on the same invention to the same applicant. The “same invention” means that identical subject matter is being claimed. If more than one patent is sought, a patent applicant will receive a statutory double patenting rejection for claims included in more than one application that are directed to the same invention.
See MPEP Chapter 800, specifically MPEP § 804 for criteria relevant to the doctrine of “double patenting.”
II. SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
A claimed invention must fall within one of the four categories of invention recited in 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, as these categories have been interpreted by the courts. The subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention is limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (i.e., the judicial exceptions). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013)). See also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010) (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-91
§ 706.03(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
In addition to the terms "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," and "abstract ideas," judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes" and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas," for example. The exceptions reflect the courts’view that the basic tools of scientific and technological work are not patentable. “A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.” Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 175 (1852). Instead, such “manifestations of laws of nature” are “part of the storehouse of knowledge,” “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 76 USPQ 280, 281 (1948).
See MPEP § 2103, subsection III for a discussion of the breadth of 35 U.S.C. 101, MPEP § 2105 for patent eligibility of living subject matter, and MPEP § 2106 for guidelines pertaining to the analysis of subject matter eligibility in general. See also the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 FR 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014) and related materials available at www.uspto.gov/ patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/ 2014-interim-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-0.
Eligible subject matter is further limited by the Atomic Energy Act explained in MPEP § 706.03(b), which prohibits patents granted on any invention or discovery that is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
III. UTILITY
A rejection on the ground of lack of utility is appropriate when (1) it is not apparent why the invention is “useful” because applicant has failed to identify any specific and substantial utility and there is no well established utility, or (2) an assertion of specific and substantial utility for the invention is not credible. Such a rejection can include the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, such as inventions involving perpetual motion. A rejection
under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy. See Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc., 185 F.3d 1364, 1367-68, 51 USPQ2d 1700, 1702-03 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[Y]ears ago courts invalidated patents on gambling devices on the ground that they were immoral…, but that is no longer the law…Congress never intended that the patent laws should displace the police powers of the States, meaning by that term those powers by which the health, good order, peace and general welfare of the community are promoted…we find no basis in section 101 to hold that inventions can be ruled unpatentable for lack of utility simply because they have the capacity to fool some members of the public.”). The statutory basis for this rejection is 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2107 for guidelines governing rejections for lack of utility. See MPEP §§ 2107.01 - 2107.03 for legal precedent governing the utility requirement.
Use Form Paragraphs 8.30, 8.31 and 8.32 for statutory double patenting rejections. Use Form Paragraphs 7.04.01 through 7.05.03 to reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failure to claim eligible subject matter and for failure to satisfy the utility requirement.
IV. IMPROPER NAMING OF INVENTOR
Although the AIA eliminated pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f), the patent laws still require the naming of the actual inventor or joint inventors of the claimed subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. 115(a). The Office presumes that the named inventor or joint inventors in the application are the actual inventor or joint inventors of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2137.01. Where an application has an incorrect inventorship, the applicant should submit a request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48. In the rare situation it is clear the application does not name the correct inventorship and the applicant has not filed a request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115 (and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102). Use Form Paragraph 7.04.02.aia to reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115 for failing to set forth the correct inventorship.
700-92Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(a)
¶ 7.04.101.aia Statement of Statutory Bases, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115— Improper Inventorship
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 115(a) reads as follows (in part):
An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application.
The present application sets forth the incorrect inventorship because [1].
Examiner Note:
1. If form paragraph 7.04.01 is already being used for a rejection that is not based on improper inventorship, then in lieu of this form paragraph, use form paragraph 7.04.102.aia with form paragraph 7.04.01 for a rejection based on improper inventorship.
2. In bracket 1, insert the basis for concluding that the inventorship is incorrect.
3. This form paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 7.04.02.aia.
¶ 7.04.102.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 115— Improper Inventorship
35 U.S.C. 115(a) reads as follows (in part):
An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application.
The present application sets forth the incorrect inventorship because [1].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used ONLY when a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on another basis has been made and the statutory text thereof is already present.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.04.01 for a rejection based on improper inventorship.
3. In bracket 1, insert an explanation of the supporting evidence establishing that an improper inventor is named.
¶ 7.04.01 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must precede the first use of 35 U.S.C. 101 in all first actions on the merits and final rejections.
¶ 7.04.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101/115
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115 for failing to set forth the correct inventorship for the reasons stated above.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, pluralize “Claim” if necessary, insert “is” or “are” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection.
2. This rejection must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.04.101.aia or 7.04.102.aia.
¶ 7.04.03 Human Organism
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.04.01 which quotes 35 U.S.C. 101.
2. In bracket 1, pluralize “Claim” if necessary, insert claim number(s), and insert “is” or “are” as appropriate.
3. In bracket 2, explain why the claim is interpreted to read on a human organism.
¶ 7.05 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, -Heading Only- (Utility, Nonstatutory, Inoperative)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.04.01 in first actions and final rejections.
2. This form paragraph must be followed by a detailed explanation of the grounds of rejection using one or more of form paragraphs 7.05.01, 7.05.015, 7.05.02, 7.05.03, or another appropriate reason.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-93
§ 706.03(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
3. See MPEP §§ 706.03(a) and 2105 - 2107.03 for additional guidance.
¶ 7.05.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Not One of the Four Statutory Categories)
the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because [1]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be preceded by form paragraph 7.05.
2. In bracket 1, explain why the claimed invention is not patent eligible subject matter by identifying what the claim(s) is/are directed to and explain why it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), e.g., the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se, mere information in the form of data, a contract between two parties, or a human being (see MPEP § 2106, subsection I).
3. For a claim that is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and is nonstatutory, use form paragraph 7.05.015.
¶ 7.05.015 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without Significantly More)
the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) [1] is/are directed to [2]. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be preceded by form paragraph 7.05.
2. This form paragraph is for use with all claims, including product (machine, manufacture, and composition of matter) and process claims, and for any type of judicial exception.
3. In bracket 1, identify the claim or claims that recite the judicial exception.
4. In bracket 2, identify the exception by referring to how it is recited (set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. For example, “the Arrhenius equation, which is a law of nature in the form of a mathematical algorithm” or “the series of steps instructing how to hedge risk, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus an abstract idea.” For products of nature, explain how the characteristics are not markedly different from the product’s naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. For example, “the naturally occurring DNA segment, which is not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart because it conveys the same genetic information.” Provide additional explanation regarding the exception and how it has been identified when appropriate.
5. In bracket 3, identify the additional elements and explain why, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements explain that the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation, or if the claim is directed to a method of using a naturally occurring correlation explain that steps for routine data gathering in order to test for the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the correlation.
¶ 7.05.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Utility Lacking
the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. [1]
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, provide explanation of lack of utility. See MPEP §§ 706.03(a) and 2105 - 2107.03.
¶ 7.05.03 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Inoperative
the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. [1]
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, explain why invention is inoperative.
¶ 7.05.04 Utility Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), First Paragraph
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a [2] asserted utility or a well established utility.
[3]
Claim [4] also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a [5] asserted utility or a well established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Examiner Note:
1. Where the specification would not enable one skilled in the art to make the claimed invention, or where alternative reasons support the enablement rejection, a separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, enablement should be made using the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and an undue experimentation analysis. See MPEP §§ 2164 - 2164.08(c).
2. Use Format A, B, or C below as appropriate.
700-94Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(a)
Format A:
(a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
(b) Insert --specific and substantial-- in inserts 2 and 5.
(c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well established utility.
(d) Format A is to be used when there is no asserted utility and when there is an asserted utility but that utility is not specific and substantial.
Format B:
(a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
(b) Insert --credible-- in inserts 2 and 5.
(c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well established utility.
Format C:
For claims that have multiple utilities, some of which are not specific and substantial, some of which are not credible, but none of which are specific, substantial and credible:
(a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
(b) Insert --specific and substantial asserted utility, a credible-- in inserts 2 and 5.
(c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility, a credible asserted utility or a well established utility. Each utility should be addressed.
706.03(b) Barred by Atomic Energy Act [R-08.2012]
A limitation on what can be patented is imposed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section 151(a) (42 U.S.C. 2181(a)) thereof reads in part as follows:
No patent shall hereafter be granted for any invention or discovery which is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
The terms “atomic energy” and “special nuclear material” are defined in Section 11 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2014).
Sections 151(c) and 151(d) (42 U.S.C. 2181(c) and (d)) set up categories of pending applications relating to atomic energy that must be brought to the attention of the Department of Energy. Under 37 CFR 1.14(d), applications for patents which disclose or which appear to disclose, or which purport to disclose, inventions or discoveries relating to atomic energy are reported to the Department of Energy and the Department will be given access to such applications, but such reporting does not constitute a determination that the subject matter of each application so reported is in fact useful or an invention or discovery or that such application in fact discloses subject matter in categories specified by the Atomic Energy Act.
All applications received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are screened by Technology Center (TC) work group 3640 personnel, under 37 CFR 1.14(d), in order for the Director to fulfill his or her responsibilities under section 151(d) (42 U.S.C. 2181(d)) of the Atomic Energy Act. Papers subsequently added must be inspected promptly by the examiner when received to determine whether the application has been amended to relate to atomic energy and those so related must be promptly forwarded to Licensing and Review in TC work group 3640.
All rejections based upon sections 151(a)(42 U.S.C. 2181(a)), 152 (42 U.S.C. 2182), and 155 (42 U.S.C. 2185) of the Atomic Energy Act must be made only by TC work group 3640 personnel.
706.03(c) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph [R-07.2015]
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 are discussed in MPEP §§ 2161 - 2165.04. For a discussion of the utility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, see MPEP §§ 2107 - 2107.03. The appropriate form paragraphs 7.30.01 and 7.31.01 through 7.33.01 should be used in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-95
§ 706.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
¶ 7.30.01 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Examiner Note:
1. The statute is no longer being re-cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.
2. Form paragraphs 7.30.01 and 7.30.02 are to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.
¶ 7.31.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph, Description Requirement, Including New Matter Situations
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, identify (by suitable reference to page and line numbers and/or drawing figures) the subject matter not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The explanation should include any questions the examiner asked which were not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Form paragraph 7.31.02 should be used when it is the examiner’s position that nothing within the scope of the claims is enabled. In such a rejection, the examiner should explain all the reasons why nothing within the scope of the claim is enabled. To make sure all relevant issues are raised, this should include any issues regarding the breadth of the claims relative to the guidance in the disclosure.
¶ 7.31.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph, Enablement
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.
2. If the problem is one of scope, form paragraph 7.31.03 should be used.
3. In bracket 2, identify the claimed subject matter for which the specification is not enabling. Also explain why the specification is not enabling, applying the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998) as appropriate. See also MPEP §§ 2164.01(a) and 2164.04. The explanation should include any questions the examiner may have asked which were not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to enablement.
4. Where an essential component or step of the invention is not recited in the claims, use form paragraph 7.33.01.
Form paragraph 7.31.03 should be used when it is the examiner’s position that something within the scope of the claims is enabled but the claims are not limited to that scope.
¶ 7.31.03 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph: Scope of Enablement
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for [2], does not reasonably provide enablement for [3]. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to [4] the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. [5]
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.
700-96Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(c)
2. This form paragraph is to be used when the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the scope of the enabling disclosure.
3. In bracket 2, identify the claimed subject matter for which the specification is enabling. This may be by reference to specific portions of the specification.
4. In bracket 3, identify aspect(s) of the claim(s) for which the specification is not enabling.
5. In bracket 4, fill in only the appropriate portion of the statute, i.e., one of the following: --make--, --use--, or --make and use--.
6. In bracket 5, identify the claimed subject matter for which the specification is not enabling. Also explain why the specification is not enabling, applying the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998) as appropriate. See also MPEP §§ 2164.01(a) and 2164.04. The explanation should include any questions posed by the examiner which were not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to enablement.
¶ 7.31.04 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph: Best Mode Requirement
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s) has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon [2].
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, insert the basis for holding that the best mode has been concealed, e.g., the quality of applicant’s disclosure is so poor as to effectively result in concealment.
3. Use of this form paragraph should be rare. See MPEP §§ 2165- 2165.04.
Form paragraph 7.33.01 should be used when it is the examiner’s position that a feature considered critical or essential by applicant to the practice of the claimed invention is missing from the claim.
¶ 7.33.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph, Essential Subject Matter Missing From Claims (Enablement)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without [2], which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). [3]
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, recite the subject matter omitted from the claims.
3. In bracket 3, give the rationale for considering the omitted subject matter critical or essential.
4. The examiner shall cite the statement, argument, date, drawing, or other evidence which demonstrates that a particular feature was considered essential by the applicant, is not reflected in the claims which are rejected.
706.03(d) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph [R-07.2015]
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, are discussed in MPEP §§ 2171 - 2174 and 2181, subsection II. Form paragraphs 7.30.02, 7.34 through 7.34.19, 7.35 and 7.35.01 should be used to make rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
¶ 7.30.02 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Examiner Note:
1. The statute is no longer being re-cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.
2. Paragraphs 7.30.01 and 7.30.02 are to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-97
§ 706.03(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
¶ 7.34 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Failure To Claim Inventor’s Invention
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention. Evidence that claim [2] fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as the invention can be found in the reply filed [3]. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant has stated [4], and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because [5].
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.
2. This paragraph is to be used only where inventor or applicant has stated, somewhere other than in the application, as filed, that the invention is something different from what is defined in the claim(s).
3. In bracket 3, identify the submission by inventor or applicant (which is not the application, as filed, but may be in the remarks by applicant, in the brief, in an affidavit, etc.) by the date the paper was filed in the USPTO.
4. In bracket 4, set forth what inventor or applicant has stated in the submission to indicate a different invention.
5. In bracket 5, explain how the statement indicates an invention other than what is being claimed.
¶ 7.34.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Failure To Particularly Point out and Distinctly Claim (Indefinite)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.
2. This form paragraph should be followed by one or more of the following form paragraphs 7.34.02 - 7.34.11, as applicable. If none of these form paragraphs are appropriate, a full explanation of the deficiency of the claims should be supplied. Whenever possible, identify the particular term(s) or limitation(s) which render the claim(s) indefinite and state why such term or limitation renders the claim indefinite. If the scope of the claimed subject matter can be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art, a rejection using this form paragraph would not be appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2171 - 2174 for guidance. See also form paragraph 7.34.15 for pro se applicants.
¶ 7.34.02 Terminology Used Inconsistent with Accepted Meaning
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “[1]” in claim [2] is used by the claim to mean “[3],” while the accepted meaning is “[4].” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 3, point out the meaning that is assigned to the term by applicant’s claims, taking into account the entire disclosure.
2. In bracket 4, point out the accepted meaning of the term. Support for the examiner’s stated accepted meaning should be provided through the citation of an appropriate reference source, e.g., textbook or dictionary. See MPEP § 2173.05(a).
3. This paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
4. This paragraph should only be used where the specification does not clearly redefine the claim term at issue.
¶ 7.34.03 Relative Term - Term of Degree Rendering Claim Indefinite
The term “[1]” in claim [2] is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “[1]” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. [3]
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 3, explain which parameter, quantity, or other limitation in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term appearing in bracket 1.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.04 Broader Range/Limitation And Narrow Range/Limitation in Same Claim
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by “such as” and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a
700-98Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(d)
required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim [1] recites the broad recitation [2], and the claim also recites [3] which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the broader range/limitation and where it appears in the claim; in bracket 3, insert the narrow range/limitation and where it appears. This form paragraph may be modified to fit other instances of indefiniteness in the claims.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.05 Lack of Antecedent Basis in the Claims
Claim [1] recites the limitation [2] in [3]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the limitation which lacks antecedent basis, for example --said lever-- or --the lever--.
2. In bracket 3, identify where in the claim(s) the limitation
appears, for example, --line 3--, --the 3rd paragraph of the claim--, --the last 2 lines of the claim--, etc.
3. This form paragraph should ONLY be used in aggravated situations where the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate. It must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.06 Use Claims
Claim [1] provides for the use of [2], but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim [3] is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert what is being used. For example, insert --the monoclonal antibodies of claim 4--, where the claim recites “a method for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to purify interferon.”
2. See MPEP § 2173.05(q).
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.07 Claims Are a Literal Translation
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.08 Indefinite Claim Language: “For Example”
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.09 Indefinite Claim Language: “Or The Like”
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “or the like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.10 Indefinite Claim Language: “Such As”
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.11 Modifier of “Means” Lacks Function
Claim [1] uses the word “means” or a generic placeholder as a substitute for “means” and is preceded by the word(s) “[2].” It is unclear whether these words convey function or structure. A limitation construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph must not recite the structure for performing the function. Since no clear function is specified by the word(s) preceding “means,” it is impossible to determine the equivalents of the element, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694 (Bd. App. 1967).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-99
§ 706.03(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph should be used when words precede the term “means” or a substitute for “means” and it cannot be determined from the specification whether those words connote function or structure. Therefore, it is unclear whether the presumption is rebutted that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is being invoked. If the claim element recites structure for performing the function, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph will not be invoked. It is necessary for the words which precede “means” to convey a function to be performed and not recite structure to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.12 Essential Steps Omitted
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, recite the steps omitted from the claims.
3. Give the rationale for considering the omitted steps critical or essential.
¶ 7.34.13 Essential Elements Omitted
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, recite the elements omitted from the claims.
3. Give the rationale for considering the omitted elements critical or essential.
¶ 7.34.14 Essential Cooperative Relationships Omitted
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, recite the structural cooperative relationships of elements omitted from the claims.
3. Give the rationale for considering the omitted structural cooperative relationships of elements being critical or essential.
¶ 7.34.15 Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112, Pro Se
Claim [1] rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
¶ 7.34.16 Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph, Unclear Whether the Recited Structure, Material, or Acts in the Claim Preclude Application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph
The claim limitation “[1]” uses the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure, material, or acts recited in the claim. It is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts are sufficient for performing the claimed function because [2].
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that the phrase “means for” or “step for” or the generic placeholder is clearly not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, or may present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, recite the claim limitation that causes the claim to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
2. In bracket 2, explain why it is unclear whether the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., why it is unclear whether the limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to preclude the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.)
700-100Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(d)
3. This form paragraph may be used when the phrase “means for” or “step for” is used in the claim limitation and it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether the recited structure, material, or acts in the claim are sufficient for performing the claimed function.
4. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.30.02 and 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.17 Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Applicant Asserts that Claim Limitation Is Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 US.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, but the Phrase “Means for” or “Step for” Is Not Used
Applicant asserts that the claim element “[1]” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, it is unclear whether the claim element invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because [2]. If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for”. The phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language, and the phrase or term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph may be used in response to an applicant’s reply in which applicant asserted that a claim limitation is invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, even though the phrase “means for” or “step for” is not used in the claim limitation. See MPEP § 707.07(a) for guidance on when the second action may be made final.
2. In bracket 1, recite the claim limitation that causes the claim to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
3. In bracket 2, explain why it is unclear whether the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For example, it is unclear whether the claim limitation is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function or it is unclear whether the corresponding structure is sufficiently disclosed in the written description of the specification.
4. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.30.02 and 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.18 Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, No Disclosure or Insufficient Disclosure of the Structure, Material, or Acts for Performing
the Function Recited in a Claim Limitation Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph
Claim element “[1]” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. [2]
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
2. In bracket 2, explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.30.02 and 7.34.01.
¶ 7.34.19 Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Fails To Clearly Link or Associate the Disclosed Structure, Material, or Acts to the Function Recited in a Claim Limitation Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph
Claim element “[1]” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. [2]
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-101
§ 706.03(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.175(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181 .
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
2. In bracket 2, explain why the written description of the specification fails to clearly link or associate the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.30.02 and 7.34.01.
¶ 7.35 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Failure To Particularly Point out and Distinctly Claim - Omnibus Claim
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Examiner Note:
1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.
2. Use this paragraph to reject an “omnibus” type claim. No further explanation is necessary.
3. See MPEP § 1302.04(b) for cancellation of such a claim by examiner’s amendment upon allowance.
4. An example of an omnibus claim is: “A device substantially as shown and described.”
¶ 7.35.01 Trademark or Trade Name as a Limitation in the Claim
Claim [1] contains the trademark/trade name [2]. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods,
and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe [3] and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the trademark/trade name and where it is used in the claim.
2. In bracket 3, specify the material or product which is identified or described in the claim by the trademark/trade name.
706.03(e) Form Paragraphs for Use Relating to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph [R-07.2015]
Form paragraphs 7.30.03.h, 7.30.03, 7.30.04, and 7.34.20 - 7.34.22 should be used when a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See MPEP § 2181. For rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph relating to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, use form paragraphs 7.34.16 to 7.34.19, reproduced in MPEP § 706.03(d).
¶ 7.30.03.h Header for Claim Interpretation
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph may precede form paragraph 7.30.03.
¶ 7.30.03 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
700-102Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(e)
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Examiner Note:
1. The statute is no longer being re-cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.
2. Use this paragraph ONLY ONCE in a given Office action when claim elements use “means” (or “step for”) or otherwise invoke treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
3. This form paragraph must be followed with form paragraph 7.30.04.
¶ 7.30.04 Use of “Means” (or “Step for”) in Claim Drafting and Rebuttable Presumptions Raised
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this paragraph ONLY ONCE in a given Office action when claim elements use “means” (or “step for”) or otherwise invoke treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) by using a substitute term for “means” that serves as a generic placeholder.
2. This paragraph must be preceded with form paragraph 7.30.03 unless already cited in a previous Office action.
3. An explanation should be provided when the presumptions raised are rebutted by the claim language, for example by using “means” in a claim element along with definite structure that performs the function or by not using “means” and failing to recite structure that performs the function.
4. This paragraph may be followed by form paragraphs 7.34.11, 7.34.16, 7.34.18, 7.34.19, 7.34.20, 7.34.21, as appropriate.
¶ 7.34.20 The Specification Is Objected To; the Written Description Only Implicitly or Inherently Discloses the Structure, Material, or Acts for Performing the Function Recited in a Claim Limitation Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph
Claim element “[1]” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
¶ 7.34.21 Claim Limitation Interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph
Claim limitation(s) “[1]” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “[2]” coupled with functional language “[3]” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. [4].
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) [5] has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [6].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-103
§ 706.03(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining
Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph ONLY when additional explanation regarding treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is necessary. For example, use this paragraph if clarification is needed when a claim element does not use the word “means” but no structure for performing the function is recited in the claim itself or when the associated structure in the specification for performing the function is needs explanation. If the claim element clearly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and the corresponding structure is easily identified in the specification for performing the claimed function, it is not necessary to use this form paragraph.
2. This paragraph may be used to explain more than one claim when multiple claims recite similar language or raise similar issues.
3. In bracket 1, recite the claim limitation that has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
4. In bracket 2, recite the generic placeholder that is merely a substitute for the term “means.”
5. In bracket 3, recite the functional language.
6. In bracket 4, provide an explanation, if appropriate, why the generic placeholder is not recognized as the name of a structure but is merely a substitute for the term “means.”
7. In bracket 5, recite the claim number(s) of the claim(s) that contains/contain the claim limitation.
8. In bracket 6, recite the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters.
¶ 7.34.22 Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, Applicant Asserts that Claim Limitation Does Not Invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph, but No Structure is Recited to Perform the Claimed Function
Applicant asserts that the claim element “[1]” is a limitation that does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. However, it is unclear whether the claim element invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph because [2]. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to add structure, material or acts that are sufficient to perform the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph may be used in response to an applicant’s reply in which applicant asserted that a claim limitation does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), even though no structure is provided in the claim limitation for performing the function. See MPEP § 706.07(a) for guidance on when the second action may be made final.
2. In bracket 1, recite the claim limitation that causes the claim to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
3. In bracket 2, explain why it is unclear whether the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For example, it is unclear whether the claim limitation is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
4. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.30.02 and 7.34.01.
706.03(f) -706.03(j) [Reserved]
706.03(k) Duplicate Claims [R-08.2012]
Inasmuch as a patent is supposed to be limited to only one invention or, at most, several closely related indivisible inventions, limiting an application to a single claim, or a single claim to each of the related inventions might appear to be logical as well as convenient. However, court decisions have confirmed applicant’s right to restate (i.e., by plural claiming) the invention in a reasonable number of ways. Indeed, a mere difference in scope between claims has been held to be enough.
700-104Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(f) -706.03(j)
Nevertheless, when two claims in an application are duplicates, or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other claim under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim.
Form paragraphs 7.05.05 and 7.05.06 may be used where duplicate claims are present in an application.
¶ 7.05.05 Duplicate Claims, Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim [1] be found allowable, claim [2] will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph whenever two claims are found to be substantial duplicates, but they are not allowable. This will give the applicant an opportunity to correct the problem and avoid a later objection.
2. If the claims are allowable, use form paragraph 7.05.06.
¶ 7.05.06 Duplicate Claims, Objection
Claim [1] objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim [2]. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Examiner Note:
If the duplicate claims are not allowable, use form paragraph 7.05.05.
See MPEP § 804 for double patenting rejections of inventions not patentable over each other.
706.03(l) [Reserved]
706.03(m) Nonelected Inventions [R-08.2012]
See MPEP § 821 to § 821.03 for treatment of claims held to be drawn to nonelected inventions.
706.03(n) [Reserved]
706.03(o) New Matter [R-08.2012]
35 U.S.C. 132 Notice of rejection; reexamination.
(a) Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent is rejected, or any objection or requirement made, the Director shall notify the applicant thereof, stating the reasons for such rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of his application; and if after receiving such notice, the applicant persists in his claim for a patent, with or without amendment, the application shall be reexamined. No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
*****
In amended cases, subject matter not disclosed in the original application is sometimes added and a claim directed thereto. Such a claim is rejected on the ground that it recites elements without support in the original disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 559, 31 USPQ2d 1855, 1857 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2163.06 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the relationship of new matter to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. New matter includes not only the addition of wholly unsupported subject matter, but may also include adding specific percentages or compounds after a broader original disclosure, or even the omission of a step from a method. See MPEP § 608.04 to § 608.04(c). See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP § 2163.05 for guidance in determining whether the addition of specific percentages or compounds after a broader original disclosure constitutes new matter.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-105
§ 706.03(o)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
In the examination of an application following amendment thereof, the examiner must be on the alert to detect new matter. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) should be employed as a basis for objection to amendments to the abstract, specification, or drawings attempting to add new disclosure to that originally disclosed on filing.
If subject matter capable of illustration is originally claimed and it is not shown in the drawing, the claim is not rejected but applicant is required to add it to the drawing. See MPEP § 608.01(l).
If new matter is added to the specification, it should be objected to by using Form Paragraph 7.28.
¶ 7.28 Objection to New Matter Added to Specification
The amendment filed [1] is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: [2].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is not to be used in reissue applications; use form paragraph 14.22.01 instead.
2. In bracket 2, identify the new matter by page and the line numbers and/or drawing figures and provide an appropriate explanation of your position. This explanation should address any statement by applicant to support the position that the subject matter is described in the specification as filed. It should further include any unresolved questions which raise a doubt as to the possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
3. If new matter is added to the claims, or affects the claims, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, using form paragraph 7.31.01 should also be made. If new matter is added only to a claim, an objection using this paragraph should not be made, but the claim should be rejected using form paragraph 7.31.01. As to any other appropriate prior art or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, the new matter must be considered as part of the claimed subject matter and cannot be ignored.
706.03(p)
-706.03(r) [Reserved]
706.03(s) Foreign Filing Without License [R-11.2013]
35 U.S.C. 182 Abandonment of invention for unauthorized disclosure.
The invention disclosed in an application for patent subject to an order made pursuant to section 181 may be held abandoned upon its being established by the Commissioner of Patents that in violation of said order the invention has been published or disclosed or that an application for a patent therefor has been filed in a foreign country by the inventor, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, or anyone in privity with him or them, without the consent of the Commissioner of Patents. The abandonment shall be held to have occurred as of the time of violation. The consent of the Commissioner of Patents shall not be given without the concurrence of the heads of the departments and the chief officers of the agencies who caused the order to be issued. A holding of abandonment shall constitute forfeiture by the applicant, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, or anyone in privity with him or them, of all claims against the United States based upon such invention.
35 U.S.C. 184 Filing of application in foreign country.
(a) FILING IN FOREIGN COUNTRY.—Except when authorized by a license obtained from the Commissioner of Patents a person shall not file or cause or authorize to be filed in any foreign country prior to six months after filing in the United States an application for patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of an invention made in this country. A license shall not be granted with respect to an invention subject to an order issued by the Commissioner of Patents pursuant to section 181 without the concurrence of the head of the departments and the chief officers of the agencies who caused the order to be issued. The license may be granted retroactively where an application has been filed abroad through error and the application does not disclose an invention within the scope of section 181.
(b) APPLICATION.—The term “application” when used in this chapter includes applications and any modifications, amendments, or supplements thereto, or divisions thereof.
(c) SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS,AMENDMENTS, AND SUPPLEMENTS.—The scope of a license shall permit subsequent modifications, amendments, and supplements containing additional subject matter if the application upon which the request for the license is based is not, or was not, required to be made available for inspection under section 181 and if such modifications, amendments, and supplements do not change the general nature of the invention in a manner which would require such application to be made available for inspection under such section 181. In any case in which a license is not, or was not, required in order to file an application in any foreign country, such subsequent modifications, amendments, and supplements may be made, without a license, to the application filed in the foreign country if the United States
700-106Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(p) -706.03(r)
application was not required to be made available for inspection under section 181 and if such modifications, amendments, and supplements do not, or did not, change the general nature of the invention in a manner which would require the United States application to have been made available for inspection under such section 181.
35 U.S.C. 185 Patent barred for filing without license.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law any person, and his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, shall not receive a United States patent for an invention if that person, or his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall, without procuring the license prescribed in section 184, have made, or consented to or assisted another’s making, application in a foreign country for a patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of the invention. A United States patent issued to such person, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall be invalid, unless the failure to procure such license was through error, and the patent does not disclose subject matter within the scope of section 181.
If, upon examining an application, the examiner learns of the existence of a corresponding foreign application which appears to have been filed before the United States application had been on file for 6 months, and if the invention apparently was made in this country, he or she shall refer the application to Licensing and Review Section of Technology Center (TC) working group 3640, calling attention to the foreign application. Pending investigation of the possible violation, the application may be returned to the TC for prosecution on the merits. When it is otherwise in condition for allowance, the application will be again submitted to Licensing and Review Section of TC work group 3640 unless the latter has already reported that the foreign filing involves no bar to the United States application.
If it should be necessary to take action under 35 U.S.C. 185, Licensing and Review Section of TC work group 3640 will request transfer of the application to it.
706.03(t) [Reserved]
706.03(u) Disclaimer [R-07.2015]
Claims may be rejected on the ground that applicant has disclaimed the subject matter involved. Such disclaimer may arise, for example, from the applicant’s failure to:
(A) make claims suggested for interference with another application under 37 CFR 41.202(c) (See MPEP Chapter 2300 ),
(B) copy a claim from a patent when suggested by the examiner (MPEP Chapter 2300 ), or
(C) respond or appeal, within the time limit fixed, to the examiner’s rejection of claims copied from a patent (see MPEP Chapter 2300).
The rejection on disclaimer applies to all claims not patentably distinct from the disclaimed subject matter as well as to the claims directly involved.
Rejections based on disclaimer should be made by using one of Form Paragraphs 7.48.aia, 7.48.fti and 7.49.
¶ 7.48.aia Failure To Present Claims for Interference
Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. [2] based upon claim [3] of Patent No. [4].
Failure to present claims and/or take necessary steps for interference purposes after notification that interfering subject matter is claimed constitutes a disclaimer of the subject matter. This amounts to a concession that, as a matter of law, the patentee is the first inventor in this country. See In re Oguie, 517 F.2d 1382, 186 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1975).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and the application also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013, or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
2. This form paragraph should be used only after applicant has been notified that interference proceedings must be instituted before the claims can be allowed and applicant has refused to copy the claims.
3. In bracket 2, insert --102(g)-- or --102(g)/103(a)--.
4. In bracket 4, insert the patent number, and --in view of _____-- if another reference is also relied upon. When the rejection is under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)/103(a), the examiner’s basis for a finding of obviousness should be included. Note that interferences may include obvious variants, see MPEP Chapter 2300.
5. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.14.aia, or by form paragraph 7.103.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-107
§ 706.03(u)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
¶ 7.48.fti Failure To Present Claims for Interference
Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. [2] based upon claim [3] of Patent No. [4].
Failure to present claims and/or take necessary steps for interference purposes after notification that interfering subject matter is claimed constitutes a disclaimer of the subject matter. This amounts to a concession that, as a matter of law, the patentee is the first inventor in this country. See In re Oguie, 517 F.2d 1382, 186 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1975).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used only after applicant has been notified that interference proceedings must be instituted before the claims can be allowed and applicant has refused to copy the claims.
2. In bracket 2, insert --102(g)-- or --102(g)/103(a)--.
3. In bracket 4, insert the patent number, and --in view of _____-- if another reference is also relied upon. When the rejection is under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner’s basis for a finding of obviousness should be included. Note that interferences may include obvious variants, see MPEP Chapter 2300.
¶ 7.49 Rejection, Disclaimer, Failure To Appeal
An adverse judgment against claim [1] has been entered by the Board. Claim [2] stand(s) finally disposed of for failure to reply to or appeal from the examiner’s rejection of such claim(s) presented for interference within the time for appeal or civil action specified in 37 CFR 90.3. Adverse judgment against a claim is a final action of the Office requiring no further action by the Office to dispose of the claim permanently. See 37 CFR 41.127(a)(2).
706.03(v) After Interference or Former Public Use Proceeding [R-11.2013]
For rejections following an interference, see MPEP Chapter 2300.
The outcome of public use proceedings may also be the basis of a rejection. See 37 CFR 1.292 in effect on September 15, 2012, and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Public use proceedings, effective September 16, 2012, are no longer authorized. For certain patents, prior public use may be raised in a post-grant review proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. 321-329. Information on prior public use may continue to be submitted by third parties via a protest in a pending application when the requirements of 37 CFR 1.291 have been met, and utilization of 37 CFR 1.291 will promote Office
efficiency with respect to treatment of these issues. See MPEP § 1901.02.
706.03(w) Res Judicata [R-11.2013]
Res judicata may constitute a proper ground for rejection. However, res judicata rejections should be applied only when the earlier decision was a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (or its predecessor Board) or any one of the reviewing courts and when there is no opportunity for further court review of the earlier decision.
The timely filing of a second application copending with an earlier application does not preclude the use of res judicata as a ground of rejection for the second application claims. A patent owner or applicant is precluded from seeking a claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was finally refused or canceled during an administrative trial. Similarly, a patent owner is precluded from seeking an amendment of a specification or drawing that was denied entry during a trial if the application or patent for which the amendment is sought has the same written description as the patent or application that was the subject of the administrative trial. See 37 CFR 42.73(d)(3).
When making a rejection on res judicata, action should ordinarily be made also on the basis of prior art, especially in continuing applications. In most situations the same prior art which was relied upon in the earlier decision would again be applicable.
In the following cases a rejection of a claim on the ground of res judicata was sustained where it was based on a prior adjudication, against the inventor on the same claim, a patentably nondistinct claim, or a claim involving the same issue.
In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ 2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Edgerton v. Kingland, 168 F. 2d 121, 75 USPQ 307 (D.C. Cir. 1947).
In re Szwarc, 319 F.2d 277, 138 USPQ 208 (CCPA 1963).
700-108Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.03(v)
In re Katz, 467 F.2d 939, 167 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1970) (prior decision by District Court).
In the following cases for various reasons, res judicata rejections were reversed.
In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930, 136 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1963) (differences in claims).
In re Szwarc, 319 F.2d 277, 138 USPQ 208 (CCPA 1963) (differences in claim).
In re Hellbaum, 371 F.2d 1022, 152 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1967) (differences in claims).
In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967) (same claims, new evidence, prior decision by CCPA).
In re Kaghan, 387 F.2d 398, 156 USPQ 130 (CCPA 1967) (prior decision by Board of Appeals, final rejection on prior art withdrawn by examiner “to simplify the issue,” differences in claims; holding of waiver based on language in MPEP at the time).
In re Craig, 411 F.2d 1333, 162 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1969) (Board of Appeals held second set of claims patentable over prior art).
In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970) (difference in claims).
In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971) (new evidence, rejection on prior art reversed by court).
In re Ackermann, 444 F.2d 1172, 170 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1971) (prior decision by Board of Appeals, new evidence, rejection on prior art reversed by court).
Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk, 484 F.2d 837, 179 USPQ 262 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (follows In re Kaghan).
706.03(x) Reissue [R-11.2013]
The examination of reissue applications is covered in MPEP Chapter 1400.
35 U.S.C. 251 forbids the granting of a reissue “enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent” unless the reissue is applied for within 2 years from the grant of the original patent (or the reissue application properly claims the benefit of a broadening reissue application filed within 2 years of the patent grant). This is an absolute bar and cannot be excused. This prohibition has been interpreted to apply to any claim which is broader in any respect than the claims of the original patent. Such claims may be rejected as being barred by 35 U.S.C. 251.
For a reissue application filed prior to September 16, 2012, 35 U.S.C. 251 permits the filing of a reissue application by the assignee of the entire interest only in cases where it does not “enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent.” For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the assignee of the entire interest may file the reissue application if (1) the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent, or (2) the application for the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest. Such claims which do enlarge the scope may also be rejected as barred by the statute. In In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 226 USPQ 413 (Fed. Cir. 1985), however, the court permitted the erroneous filing by the assignee in such a case to be corrected.
A defective reissue oath affords a ground for rejecting all the claims in the reissue application. See MPEP § 1444.
Note that a reissue application is “special” and remains so even if applicant does not make a prompt reply. See MPEP § 1442.
706.04 Rejection of Previously Allowed Claims [R-11.2013]
A claim noted as allowable may be rejected only after a primary examiner has considered all the facts. An Office action rejecting a previously allowed claim must be signed by a primary examiner. See MPEP § 1004.
Great care should be exercised in making such a rejection.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-109
§ 706.04EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
PREVIOUS ACTION BY DIFFERENT EXAMINER
Full faith and credit should be given to the search and action of a previous examiner unless there is a clear error in the previous action or knowledge of other prior art. In general, an examiner should not take an entirely new approach or attempt to reorient the point of view of a previous examiner, or make a new search in the mere hope of finding something. Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126
F. Supp. 2d 69, 139, 57 USPQ2d 1449, 1499-50 (D. Mass. 2001).
Because it is unusual to reject a previously allowed claim, the examiner should point out in his or her office action that the claim now being rejected was previously allowed by using Form Paragraph 7.50.
¶ 7.50 Claims Previously Allowed, Now Rejected, New Art
The indicated allowability of claim [1] is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to [2]. Rejection(s) based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the name(s) of the newly discovered reference.
2. Any action including this form paragraph requires the signature of a Primary Examiner. MPEP § 1004.
706.05 Rejection After Allowance of Application [R-08.2012]
See MPEP § 1308.01 for a rejection based on a reference after allowance.
706.06 Rejection of Claims Copied From Patent [R-08.2012]
See MPEP Chapter 2300 .
706.07 Final Rejection [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.113 Final rejection or action.
(a) On the second or any subsequent examination or consideration by the examiner the rejection or other action may be made final, whereupon applicant’s, or for ex parte reexaminations filed under § 1.510, patent owner’s reply is limited to appeal in the case of rejection of any claim (§ 41.31 of this title), or to amendment as specified in § 1.114 or § 1.116. Petition may be taken to the Director in the case of objections or requirements not involved in the rejection of any claim (§ 1.181). Reply to a final rejection or action must comply with §
1.114 or paragraph (c) of this section. For final actions in an inter partes reexamination filed under § 1.913, see § 1.953.
(b) In making such final rejection, the examiner shall repeat or state all grounds of rejection then considered applicable to the claims in the application, clearly stating the reasons in support thereof.
(c) Reply to a final rejection or action must include cancellation of, or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. If any claim stands allowed, the reply to a final rejection or action must comply with any requirements or objections as to form.
Before final rejection is in order a clear issue should be developed between the examiner and applicant. To bring the prosecution to as speedy conclusion as possible and at the same time to deal justly by both the applicant and the public, the invention as disclosed and claimed should be thoroughly searched in the first action and the references fully applied; and in reply to this action the applicant should amend with a view to avoiding all the grounds of rejection and objection. Switching from one subject matter to another in the claims presented by applicant in successive amendments, or from one set of references to another by the examiner in rejecting in successive actions claims of substantially the same subject matter, will alike tend to defeat attaining the goal of reaching a clearly defined issue for an early termination, i.e., either an allowance of the application or a final rejection.
While applicant does not have the right to amend as often as the examiner presents new references or reasons for rejection, examiners should not make hasty and ill-considered final rejections. The applicant who is seeking to define his or her invention in claims that will give him or her the patent protection to which he or she is justly entitled should receive the cooperation of the examiner to that end, and not be prematurely cut off in the prosecution of his or her application.
The examiner should never lose sight of the fact that in every case the applicant is entitled to a full and fair hearing, and that a clear issue between applicant and examiner should be developed, if possible, before appeal. However, it is to the interest of the applicants as a class as well as to that of the public that prosecution of an application be confined to as few actions as is consistent with a thorough consideration of its merits.
700-110Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.05
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS
In making the final rejection, all outstanding grounds of rejection of record should be carefully reviewed, and any such grounds relied on in the final rejection should be reiterated. They must also be clearly developed to such an extent that applicant may readily judge the advisability of an appeal unless a single previous Office action contains a complete statement supporting the rejection.
However, where a single previous Office action contains a complete statement of a ground of rejection, the final rejection may refer to such a statement and also should include a rebuttal of any arguments raised in the applicant’s reply. If appeal is taken in such a case, the examiner’s answer should contain a complete statement of the examiner’s position. The final rejection letter should conclude with Form Paragraph 7.39.
¶ 7.39 Action Is Final
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should not be used in reissue litigation cases (SSP- 1 month) or in reexamination proceedings (SSP- 1 or 2 months).
2. 37 CFR 1.136(a) should not be available in a reissue litigation case and is not available in reexamination proceedings.
Form paragraph 7.39.01 may be used to notify applicant of options available after final rejection.
¶ 7.39.01 Final Rejection, Options for Applicant, Pro Se
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee of $[1].
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing a good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
Examiner Note:
The form paragraph must be preceded by any one of form paragraphs 7.39, 7.40, 7.40.01, 7.41, 7.42.03.fti, or 7.42.09.
The OfficeAction Summary Form PTOL-326 should be used in all Office actions up to and including final rejections.
For amendments filed after final rejection, see MPEP § 714.12 and § 714.13.
For final rejection practice in reexamination proceedings see MPEP § 2271.
706.07(a) Final Rejection, When Proper on Second Action [R-07.2015]
Second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). Where information is submitted in an information disclosure statement during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with a fee, the examiner may use the information submitted, e.g., a printed publication or evidence of public use, and make the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-111
§ 706.07(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
next Office action final whether or not the claims have been amended, provided that no other new ground of rejection which was not necessitated by amendment to the claims is introduced by the examiner. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Furthermore, a second or any subsequent action on the merits in any application will not be made final if it includes a rejection, on newly cited art, other than information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p), of any claim not amended by applicant or patent owner in spite of the fact that other claims may have been amended to require newly cited art. Where information is submitted in a reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105, the examiner may NOT make the next Office action relying on that art final unless all instances of the application of such art are necessitated by amendment.
For guidance in determining what constitutes a new ground of rejection, see MPEP § 1207.03(a).
A second or any subsequent action on the merits in any application or patent involved in reexamination proceedings should not be made final if it includes a rejection, on prior art not of record, of any claim amended to include limitations which should reasonably have been expected to be claimed. See MPEP § 904 et seq. However, note that an examiner cannot be expected to foresee whether or how an applicant will amend a claim to overcome a rejection except in very limited circumstances (e.g., where the examiner suggests how applicant can overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
A second or any subsequent action on the merits in any application or patent involved in reexamination proceedings may not be made final if it contains a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002)), unless the new ground of rejection was necessitated by an amendment to the claims or as a result of information submitted in an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).
When applying any 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 references against the claims of an application the examiner should anticipate that a statement averring common ownership may qualify the applicant for the exemption under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or a statement of common ownership at the time the invention was made may disqualify any patent or application applied in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If such a statement is filed in reply to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 rejection and the claims are not amended, the examiner may not make the next Office action final if a new rejection is made. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(3) and 2154.02(c). If a reference is disqualified under the joint research agreement provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and a new subsequent double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified reference is applied, the next Office action, which contains the new double patenting rejection, may be made final even if applicant did not amend the claims (provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)). The Office action is properly made final because the new double patenting rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant.
Where the only changes in a rejection are based on treating the application to be subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102 rather than the version of 35 U.S.C. 102 in effect on March 15, 2013, (the pre-AIA version) or the reverse, and any prior art relied upon in the subsequent action was prior art under both versions of 35 U.S.C. 102, then the action may be made final. For example, if a first action relied upon a reference as being available under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and the subsequent action relied only on the same reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), then the subsequent action may be made final assuming no new requirements or non-prior art rejections were made. See MPEP § 809.02(a) for actions which indicate generic claims as not allowable.
In the consideration of claims in an amended case where no attempt is made to point out the patentable novelty, the examiner should be on guard not to
700-112Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(a)
allow such claims. See MPEP § 714.04. The claims may be finally rejected if, in the opinion of the examiner, they are clearly open to rejection on grounds of record.
Form paragraph 7.40 should be used where an action is made final including new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
¶ 7.40 Action Is Final, Necessitated by Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should not be used in reissue litigation cases (SSP- 1 month) or in reexamination proceedings (SSP- 1 or 2 months).
2. 37 CFR 1.136(a) should not be available in a reissue litigation case and is not available in reexamination proceedings.
¶ 7.40.01 Action Is Final, Necessitated by IDS With Fee
Applicant’s submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on [1] prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.Accordingly, THISACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should not be used and a final rejection is improper where there is another new ground of rejection introduced by the examiner which was not necessitated by amendment to the claims.
2. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the information disclosure statement containing the identification of the item of information used in the new ground of rejection.
¶ 7.40.02.aia Action Is Final, Necessitated by Invoking the Joint Research Agreement Prior Art Exclusion Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)
Applicant’s submission of the requirements for the joint research agreement prior art exclusion under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) on [1] prompted the new double patenting rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 2156. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph should not be used, and a final rejection is improper, where there is another new ground of rejection introduced by the examiner which was not necessitated by amendment to the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).
3. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the submission of the requirements for the joint research agreement prior art exclusion as defined under 35 U.S.C. 102(c).
¶ 7.40.02.fti Action Is Final, Necessitated by Invoking the Joint Research Agreement Prior Art Exclusion Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)
Applicant’s submission of the requirements for the joint research agreement prior art exclusion under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) on [1] prompted the new double patenting rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-113
§ 706.07(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should not be used and a final rejection is improper where there is another new ground of rejection introduced by the examiner which was not necessitated by amendment to the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17.
2. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the submission of the requirements for the joint research agreement prior art exclusion under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
706.07(b) Final Rejection, When Proper on First Action [R-11.2013]
The claims of a new application may be finally rejected in the first Office action in those situations where (A) the new application is a continuing application of, or a substitute for, an earlier application, and (B) all claims of the new application (1) are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application, and (2) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application.
The claims of an application for which a request for continued examination (RCE) has been filed may be finally rejected in the action immediately subsequent to the filing of the RCE (with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114) where all the claims in the application after the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (A) are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114, and (B) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE under 37 CFR 1.114.
It would not be proper to make final a first Office action in a continuing or substitute application or an RCE where that application contains material which was presented in the earlier application after final rejection or closing of prosecution but was denied entry because (A) new issues were raised that required further consideration and/or search, or (B) the issue of new matter was raised.
Further, it would not be proper to make final a first Office action in a continuation-in-part application where any claim includes subject matter not present in the earlier application.
A request for an interview prior to first action on a continuing or substitute application should ordinarily be granted.
A first action final rejection should be made by using Form Paragraphs 7.41 or 7.41.03, as appropriate.
¶ 7.41 Action Is Final, First Action
This is a [1] of applicant’s earlier Application No. [2]. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert either --continuation-- or --substitute--, as appropriate.
2. If an amendment was refused entry in the parent case on the grounds that it raised new issues or new matter, this form paragraph cannot be used. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
3. This form paragraph should not be used in reissue litigation cases (SSP- 1 month) or in reexamination proceedings (SSP-1 or 2 months).
4. 37 CFR 1.136(a) should not be available in a reissue litigation case and is not available in reexamination proceedings.
700-114Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(b)
¶ 7.41.03 Action Is Final, First Action Following Submission Under 37 CFR 1.53(d), Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in a Design Application
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the parent application prior to the filing of this Continued Prosecution Application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing under 37 CFR 1.53(d). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is for a first action final rejection in a Continued Prosecution Application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (design applications only).
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by one of form paragraphs 2.30 or 2.35, as appropriate.
¶ 7.42.09 Action Is Final, First Action Following Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is for a first action final rejection following a Request for Continued Examination filed under 37 CFR 1.114.
706.07(c) Final Rejection, Premature [R-11.2013]
Any question as to prematureness of a final rejection should be raised, if at all, while the application is still pending before the primary examiner. This is purely a question of practice, wholly distinct from the tenability of the rejection. It may therefore not be advanced as a ground for appeal, or made the basis of complaint before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. It is reviewable by petition under 37 CFR 1.181. See MPEP § 1002.02(c).
706.07(d) Final Rejection, Withdrawal of, Premature [R-08.2012]
If, on request by applicant for reconsideration, the primary examiner finds the final rejection to have been premature, he or she should withdraw the finality of the rejection. The finality of the Office action must be withdrawn while the application is still pending. The examiner cannot withdraw the final rejection once the application is abandoned.
Once the finality of the Office action has been withdrawn, the next Office action may be made final if the conditions set forth in MPEP § 706.07(a) are met.
Form paragraph 7.42 should be used when withdrawing the finality of the rejection of the last Office action.
¶ 7.42 Withdrawal of Finality of Last Office Action
Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
706.07(e) Withdrawal of Final Rejection, General [R-08.2012]
See MPEP § 714.12 and § 714.13 for amendments after final rejection.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-115
§ 706.07(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Once a final rejection that is not premature has been entered in an application/reexamination proceeding, it should not be withdrawn at the applicant’s or patent owner’s request except on a showing under 37 CFR 1.116(b). Further amendment or argument will be considered in certain instances. An amendment that will place the application either in condition for allowance or in better form for appeal may be admitted. Also, amendments complying with objections or requirements as to form are to be permitted after final action in accordance with 37 CFR 1.116(a).
The examiner may withdraw the rejection of finally rejected claims. If new facts or reasons are presented such as to convince the examiner that the previously rejected claims are in fact allowable or patentable in the case of reexamination, then the final rejection should be withdrawn. Occasionally, the finality of a rejection may be withdrawn in order to apply a new ground of rejection.
Although it is permissible to withdraw a final rejection for the purpose of entering a new ground of rejection, this practice is to be limited to situations where a new reference either fully meets at least one claim or meets it except for differences which are shown to be completely obvious. Normally, the previous rejection should be withdrawn with respect to the claim or claims involved. See MPEP § 1207.03 for a discussion of what may constitute a new ground of rejection.
The practice should not be used for application of subsidiary references, or of cumulative references, or of references which are merely considered to be better than those of record.
When a final rejection is withdrawn, all amendments filed after the final rejection are ordinarily entered.
New grounds of rejection made in an Office action reopening prosecution after the filing of an appeal
brief require the approval of the supervisory patent examiner. See MPEP § 1002.02(d).
706.07(f) Time for Reply to Final Rejection [R-07.2015]
The time for reply to a final rejection is as follows:
(A) All final rejections setting a 3-month shortened statutory period (SSP) for reply should contain one of form paragraphs 7.39, 7.40, 7.40.01, 7.40.02.fti, 7.40.02.aia, 7.41, 7.41.03, 7.42.03.fti, 7.42.031.fti, or 7.42.09 advising applicant that if the first reply is filed within 2 months of the date of the final Office action, the shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the date the advisory action is mailed, whichever is later. Thus, a variable reply period will be established. If the last day of “2 months of the date of the final Office action” falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday within the District of Columbia, and a reply is filed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.7(a), the reply is deemed to have been filed within the 2 months period and the shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the mailing date of the advisory action, whichever is later (see MPEP § 710.05). In no event can the statutory period for reply expire later than 6 months from the mailing date of the final rejection.
(B) This procedure of setting a variable reply period in the final rejection dependent on when applicant files a first reply to a final Office action does not apply to situations where a SSP less than 3 months is set, e.g., reissue litigation applications (1-month SSP) or any reexamination proceeding.
I. ADVISORY ACTIONS
(C) Where the final Office action sets a variable reply period as set forth in paragraph (A) above AND applicant files a complete first reply to the final Office action within 2 months of the date of the final Office action, the examiner must determine if the reply:
(1) places the application in condition for allowance — then the application should be processed as an allowance and no extension fees are due;
700-116Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(f)
(2) places the application in condition for allowance except for matters of form which the examiner can change without authorization from applicant, MPEP § 1302.04 — then the application should be amended as required and processed as an allowance and no extension fees are due; or
(3) does not place the application in condition for allowance — then the advisory action should inform applicant that the SSP for reply expires 3 months from the date of the final rejection or as of the mailing date of the advisory action, whichever is later, by checking box 1.b) at the top portion of the Advisory Action form, PTOL-303.
(D) Where the final Office action sets a variable reply period as set forth in paragraph (A) above, and applicant does NOT file a complete first reply to the final Office action within 2 months, examiners should check box 1.a) at the top portion of the Advisory Action form, PTOL-303.
(E) When box 1.b) at the top portion of the Advisory Action form, PTOL-303 is checked, the time for applicant to take further action (including
the calculation of extension fees under 37 CFR 1.136(a)) begins to run 3 months from the date of the final rejection, or from the date of the advisory action, whichever is later. Extension fees cannot be prorated for portions of a month. In no event can the statutory period for reply expire later than 6 months from the date of the final rejection. For example, if applicant initially replies within 2 months from the date of mailing of a final rejection and the examiner mails an advisory action before the end of 3 months from the date of mailing of the final rejection, the shortened statutory period will expire at the end of 3 months from the date of mailing of the final rejection. In such case, if a petition for extension of time is granted, the due date for a reply is computed from the date stamped or printed on the Office action with the final rejection. See MPEP § 710.01(a). If the examiner, however, does not mail an advisory action until after the end of the 3-month period, the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the examiner mails the advisory action and any extension of time fee would be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-117
§ 706.07(f)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-118Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(f)
II. EXAMINER’S AMENDMENTS
(F) Where a complete first reply to a final Office action has been filed within 2 months of the final Office action, an examiner’s amendment to place the application in condition for allowance may be made without the payment of extension fees even if the examiner’s amendment is made more than 3 months from the date of the final Office action. Note that an examiner’s amendment may not be made more than 6 months from the date of the final Office action, as the application would be abandoned at that point by operation of law.
(G) Where a complete first reply to a final Office action has not been filed within 2 months of the final Office action, applicant’s authorization to make an amendment to place the application in condition for allowance must be made either within the 3 month shortened statutory period or within an extended period for reply that has been petitioned and paid for by applicant pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, an examiner’s amendment correcting only formal matters which are identified for the first time after a reply is made to a final Office action would not require any extension fee, since the reply to the final Office action put the application in condition for allowance except for the correction of formal matters, the correction of which had not yet been required by the examiner.
(H) An extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) requires a petition for an extension and the appropriate fee provided for in 37 CFR 1.17. Where an extension of time is necessary to place an application in condition for allowance (e.g., when an examiner’s amendment is necessary after the shortened statutory period for reply has expired), applicant may file the required petition and fee or give authorization to the examiner to make the petition of record and charge a specified fee to a deposit account. Office employees may not accept oral (telephonic) instructions to complete the Credit Card Payment Form or otherwise charge a patent process fee (as opposed to information product or service fees) to a credit card. When authorization to make a petition for an extension of time of record is given to the examiner, the authorization must be given before the extended period expires. The authorization must be made of record in an examiner’s amendment by indicating the name of the person making the authorization, when the
authorization was given, the deposit account number to be charged, the length of the extension requested and the amount of the fee to be charged to the deposit account. Form Paragraph 13.02.02 should be used. ¶ 13.02.02 Extension of Time and Examiner’s Amendment Authorized
An extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) is required in order to make an examiner’s amendment which places this application in condition for allowance. During a conversation conducted on [1], [2] requested an extension of time for [3] MONTH(S) and authorized the Director to charge Deposit Account No. [4] the required fee of $ [5] for this extension and authorized the following examiner’s amendment. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Examiner Note:
See MPEP § 706.07(f) which explains when an extension of time is needed in order to make amendments to place the application in condition for allowance.
III. PRACTICE AFTER FINAL
(I) Replies after final should be processed and considered promptly by all Office personnel.
(J) Replies after final should not be considered by the examiner unless they are filed within the SSP or are accompanied by a petition for an extension of time and the appropriate fee (37 CFR 1.17 and 37 CFR 1.136(a)). See also MPEP § 710.02(e). This requirement also applies to supplemental replies filed after the first reply.
(K) Interviews may be conducted after the expiration of the shortened statutory period for reply to a final Office action but within the 6-month statutory period for reply without the payment of an extension fee.
(L) Formal matters which are identified for the first time after a reply is made to a final Office action and which require action by applicant to correct may be required in an Ex parte Quayle action if the application is otherwise in condition for allowance. No extension fees would be required since the reply puts the application in condition for allowance except for the correction of formal matters — the correction of which had not yet been required by the examiner.
(M) If prosecution is to be reopened after a final Office action has been replied to, the finality of the previous Office action should be withdrawn to avoid
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-119
§ 706.07(f)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
the issue of abandonment and the payment of extension fees. For example, if a new reference comes to the attention of the examiner which renders unpatentable a claim indicated to be allowable, the Office action should begin with a statement to the effect: “The finality of the Office action mailed is hereby withdrawn in view of the new ground of rejection set forth below.” Form paragraph 7.42 could be used in addition to this statement. See MPEP § 706.07(d).
706.07(g) Transitional After-Final Practice [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.129 Transitional procedures for limited examination after final rejection and restriction practice.
(a) An applicant in an application, other than for reissue or a design patent, that has been pending for at least two years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference made in such application to any earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 and 365(c), is entitled to have a first submission entered and considered on the merits after final rejection under the following circumstances: The Office will consider such a submission, if the first submission and the fee set forth in § 1.17(r) are filed prior to the filing of an appeal brief and prior to abandonment of the application. The finality of the final rejection is automatically withdrawn upon the timely filing of the submission and payment of the fee set forth in § 1.17(r). If a subsequent final rejection is made in the application, applicant is entitled to have a second submission entered and considered on the merits after the subsequent final rejection under the following circumstances: The Office will consider such a submission, if the second submission and a second fee set forth in § 1.17(r) are filed prior to the filing of an appeal brief and prior to abandonment of the application. The finality of the subsequent final rejection is automatically withdrawn upon the timely filing of the submission and payment of the second fee set forth in § 1.17(r). Any submission filed after a final rejection made in an application subsequent to the fee set forth in § 1.17(r) having been twice paid will be treated as set forth in § 1.116. A submission as used in this paragraph includes, but is not limited to, an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the
written description, claims or drawings and a new substantive argument or new evidence in support of patentability.
*****
(c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any application filed after June 8, 1995.
In order to facilitate the completion of prosecution of applications pending in the USPTO as of June 8, 1995 and to ease the transition between a 17-year patent term and a 20-year patent term, Public Law 103-465 provided for the further limited reexamination of an application pending for 2 years or longer as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference made in the application to any earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c). The further limited reexamination permits applicants to present for consideration, as a matter of right upon payment of a fee, a submission after a final rejection has been issued on an application. An applicant will be able to take advantage of this provision on two separate occasions provided the submission and fee are presented prior to the filing of the Appeal Brief and prior to abandonment of the application. This will have the effect of enabling an applicant to essentially remove the finality of the prior Office action in the pending application on two separate occasions by paying a fee for each occasion, and avoid the impact of refiling the application to obtain consideration of additional claims and/or information relative to the claimed subject matter. The transitional after-final practice is only available to applications filed on or before June 8, 1995 and it is not available for reissue or design applications or reexamination proceedings.
The following flowchart illustrates the transitional after-final procedures set forth in 37 CFR 1.129(a).
700-120Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(g)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-121
§ 706.07(g)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Effective June 8, 1995, in any pending application having an actual or effective filing date of June 8, 1993 or earlier, applicant is entitled, under 37 CFR 1.129(a), to have a first submission after final rejection entered and considered on the merits, if the submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) are filed prior to the filing of an Appeal Brief under 37 CFR 41.37 and prior to abandonment. For an application entering national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 or an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a PCT application designating the U.S., the PCT international filing date will be used to determine whether the application has been pending for at least 2 years as of June 8, 1995.
Form paragraph 7.41.01.fti may be used to notify applicant that the application qualifies under 37 CFR 1.129(a).
¶ 7.41.01.fti Transitional After Final Practice, First Submission (37 CFR 1.129(a))
This application is subject to the provisions of Public Law 103-465, effective June 8, 1995. Accordingly, since this application has been pending for at least two years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference to an earlier-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c), applicant, under 37 CFR 1.129(a), is entitled to have a first submission entered and considered on the merits if, prior to abandonment, the submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) are filed prior to the filing of an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. Upon the timely filing of a first submission and the appropriate fee of $[1] for a [2] entity under 37 CFR 1.17(r), the finality of the previous Office action will be withdrawn. If a notice of appeal and the appeal fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b) were filed prior to or with the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) by applicant will be construed as a request to dismiss the appeal and to continue prosecution under 37 CFR 1.129(a). In view of 35 U.S.C. 132, no amendment considered as a result of payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) may introduce new matter into the disclosure of the application.
If applicant has filed multiple proposed amendments which, when entered, would conflict with one another, specific instructions for entry or non-entry of each such amendment should be provided upon payment of any fee under 37 CFR 1.17(r).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph may follow any of form paragraphs 7.39 - 7.41 in any application filed prior to June 9, 1995, which has been pending for at least two years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to a previously filed application and no previous fee has been paid under 37 CFR 1.17(r).
2. This form paragraph should NOT be used in a design or reissue application, or in a reexamination proceeding.
3. In bracket 1, insert the current fee for a large or small entity, as appropriate.
4. In bracket 2, insert --small-- or --large--, depending on the current status of the application.
The submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) may comprise, but is not limited to, an information disclosure statement (IDS), an amendment to the written description, claims or drawings, a new substantive argument and/or new evidence. No amendment considered as a result of payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) may introduce new matter into the disclosure of the application 35 U.S.C. 132. In view of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), any (IDS) previously refused consideration in the application because of applicant’s failure to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) or (d) will be treated as though it has been filed within one of the time periods set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(b) and will be considered without the petition and petition fee required in 37 CFR 1.97(d), if it complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98. Any IDS submitted under 37 CFR 1.129(a) on or after June 8, 2005 without a statement specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e) will be treated as though it had been filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). The examiner may introduce a new ground of rejection based on the information submitted in the IDS and make the next Office action final provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection, which has not been necessitated by amendment to the claims. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
If the application qualifies under 37 CFR 1.129(a), that is, it was filed on or before June 8, 1995 and the application has an effective U.S. filing date of June 8, 1993 or earlier, the examiner must check to see if the submission and 37 CFR 1.17(r) fee were filed prior to the filing of the Appeal Brief and prior to abandonment of the application. If an amendment was timely filed in reply to the final rejection but the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) did not accompany the amendment, examiners will continue to consider these amendments in an expedited manner as set forth in MPEP § 714.13 and issue an advisory action notifying applicant whether the amendment has been entered. If the examiner
700-122Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(g)
indicated in an advisory action that the amendment has not been entered, applicant may then pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) and any necessary fee to avoid abandonment of the application and obtain entry and consideration of the amendment as a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a). If the submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) were timely filed in reply to the final rejection and no advisory action has been issued prior to the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), no advisory action will be necessary. The examiner will notify applicant that the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.129(a). It is noted that if the submission is accompanied by a “conditional” payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), i.e., an authorization to charge the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) to a deposit account or to a credit card in the event that the submission would not otherwise be entered, the Office will treat the conditional payment as an unconditional payment of the 37 CFR 1.17(r) fee.
The finality of the final rejection is automatically withdrawn upon the timely filing of the submission and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r). Upon the timely payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), all previously unentered submissions, and submissions filed with the 37 CFR 1.17(r) fee will be entered in the order in which they were filed absent specific instructions for entry. Any conflicting amendments should be clarified for entry by the applicant upon payment of the 37 CFR 1.17(r) fee. Form paragraph 7.42.01.fti should be used to notify applicant that the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn.
¶ 7.42.01.fti Withdrawal of Finality of Last Office Action - Transitional Application Under 37 CFR 1.129(a)
Since this application is eligible for the transitional procedure of 37 CFR 1.129(a), and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.129(a). Applicant’s [1] submission after final filed on [2] has been entered.
Examiner Note:
Insert --first-- or --second-- in bracket 1.
If a Notice of Appeal and the appeal fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b) were filed prior to or with the payment of the fee set forth 37 CFR 1.17(r), the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) by
applicant is construed as a request to dismiss the appeal and to continue prosecution under 37 CFR 1.129(a).
Upon the timely payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), if the examiner determines that the submission is not fully responsive to the previous Office action, e.g., if the submission only includes an information disclosure statement, applicant will be given a new shortened statutory period of 2 months to submit a complete reply. Form paragraph 7.42.02.fti should be used.
¶ 7.42.02.fti Nonresponsive Submission Filed Under 37 CFR 1.129(a)
The timely submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because [2]. Since the submission appears to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the prior Office action, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter to submit a complete reply. This shortened statutory period supersedes the time period set in the prior Office action. This time period may be extended pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a). If a notice of appeal and the appeal fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b) were filed prior to or with the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) by applicant is construed as a request to dismiss the appeal and to continue prosecution under 37 CFR 1.129(a). The appeal stands dismissed.
Examiner Note:
The reasons why the examiner considers the submission not to be fully responsive must be set forth in bracket 2.
I. SUBMISSIONS UNDER 37 CFR 1.129(a) FILED PRIOR TO JUNE 8, 2005
After submission and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), the next Office action on the merits may be made final only under the conditions for making a first action in a continuing application final set forth in MPEP § 706.07(b).
Form paragraph 7.42.03.fti may be used if it is appropriate to make the first action final following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) filed prior to June 8, 2005.
¶ 7.42.03.fti Action Is Final, First Action Following Submission Under 37 CFR 1.129(a) Filed Prior to June 8, 2005
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-123
§ 706.07(g)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
1.129(a) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.129(a). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a). See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
Also use form paragraph 7.41.02.fti if this is a final rejection following a first submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a).
If a subsequent final rejection is made in the application, applicant would be entitled to have a second submission entered and considered on the merits under the same conditions set forth for consideration of the first submission. Form paragraph 7.41.02.fti should be used.
¶ 7.41.02.fti Transitional After Final Practice, Second Submission (37 CFR 1.129(a))
Since the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) for a first submission subsequent to a final rejection has been previously paid, applicant, under 37 CFR 1.129(a), is entitled to have a second submission entered and considered on the merits if, prior to abandonment, the second submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) are filed prior to the filing of an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. Upon the timely filing of a second submission and the appropriate fee of $[1] for a [2] entity under 37 CFR 1.17(r), the finality of the previous Office action will be withdrawn. If a notice of appeal and the appeal fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b) were filed prior to or with the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) by applicant will be construed as a request to dismiss the appeal and to continue prosecution under 37 CFR 1.129(a). In view of 35 U.S.C. 132, no amendment considered as a result of payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) may introduce new matter into the disclosure of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to follow any of form paragraphs 7.39 - 7.41 in any application filed prior to June 9, 1995, which has been pending for at least two years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c)
to a previously filed application and a first submission fee has been previously paid under 37 CFR 1.17(r).
2. This form paragraph should NOT be used in a design or reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding.
3. In bracket 1, insert the current fee for a large or small entity, as appropriate.
4. In bracket 2, insert --small-- or --large--, depending on the current status of the application.
5. If the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) has been twice paid, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.129(a) are no longer available.
Any submission filed after a final rejection made in the application subsequent to the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) having been twice paid will be treated in accordance with the current after-final practice set forth in 37 CFR 1.116.
II. SUBMISSIONS UNDER 37 CFR 1.129(a) FILED ON OR AFTER JUNE 8, 2005
For timely submission and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) on or after June 8, 2005, the next Office action on the merits will be equivalent to the next Office action following a reply to a non-final Office action. Under existing second Office action final practice, such an Office action on the merits will be made final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an IDS filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Form paragraph 7.42.031.fti may be used to make the next Office action final following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) filed on or after June 8, 2005.
¶ 7.42.031.fti Action Is Final, Action Following Submission Under 37 CFR 1.129(a) Filed On or After June 8, 2005
Under the final action practice for Office actions following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) filed on or after June 8, 2005, the next Office action following timely filing of a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) will be equivalent to the next Office action following a reply to a non-final Office action. Under existing Office second action final practice, such an Office action on the merits will be made final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). See MPEP § 706.07(a).
700-124Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(g)
In this Office action, there is no new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims or based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
Also use form paragraph 7.41.02.fti if this is a final rejection following a first submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a)
An applicant whose application is eligible for the transitional further limited examination procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.129(a) is entitled to consideration of two after final submissions. Thus, if such an applicant has filed one submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) and the application is again under a final rejection, the applicant is entitled to only one additional submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a). If such an applicant has filed two submissions under 37 CFR 1.129(a) and the application is again under a final rejection, applicant is not entitled to have any additional submissions considered under 37 CFR 1.129(a). Applicant may be entitled to consideration of an additional submission if the submission meets the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.116.
706.07(h) Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Practice [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 132 Notice of rejection; reexamination.
*****
(b) The Director shall prescribe regulations to provide for the continued examination of applications for patent at the request of the applicant. The Director may establish appropriate fees for such continued examination and shall provide a 50 percent reduction in such fees for small entities that qualify for reduced fees under section 41(h)(1).
37 CFR 1.114 Request for continued examination.
(a) If prosecution in an application is closed, an applicant may request continued examination of the application by filing a submission and the fee set forth in § 1.17(e) prior to the earliest of:
(1) Payment of the issue fee, unless a petition under § 1.313 is granted;
(2) Abandonment of the application; or
(3) The filing of a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. 141, or the commencement of a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 145 or 146, unless the appeal or civil action is terminated.
(b) Prosecution in an application is closed as used in this section means that the application is under appeal, or that the last Office action is a final action (§ 1.113), a notice of allowance (§ 1.311), or an action that otherwise closes prosecution in the application.
(c) A submission as used in this section includes, but is not limited to, an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the written description, claims, or drawings, new arguments, or new evidence in support of patentability. If reply to an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 is outstanding, the submission must meet the reply requirements of § 1.111.
(d) If an applicant timely files a submission and fee set forth in § 1.17(e), the Office will withdraw the finality of any Office action and the submission will be entered and considered. If an applicant files a request for continued examination under this section after appeal, but prior to a decision on the appeal, it will be treated as a request to withdraw the appeal and to reopen prosecution of the application before the examiner. An appeal brief (§ 41.37 of this title) or a reply brief (§ 41.41 of this title), or related papers, will not be considered a submission under this section.
(e) The provisions of this section do not apply to:
(1) A provisional application;
(2) An application for a utility or plant patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before June 8, 1995;
(3) An international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before June 8, 1995, or an international application that does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 371;
(4) An application for a design patent;
(5) An international design application; or
(6) A patent under reexamination.
35 U.S.C. 132(b) provides for continued examination of an application at the request of the applicant (request for continued examination or RCE) upon payment of a fee, without requiring the applicant to file a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b). To implement the RCE practice, 37 CFR 1.114 provides a procedure under which an applicant may obtain continued examination of an application in which prosecution is closed (e.g., the application is
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-125
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
under final rejection or a notice of allowance) by filing a submission and paying a specified fee. Applicants cannot file an RCE to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined as a matter of right (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions). See 37 CFR 1.145. Any newly submitted claims that are directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from the invention previously claimed will be withdrawn from consideration and not entered. See subsection VI. below. An RCE is not the filing of a new application. Thus, the Office will not convert an RCE to a new application such as an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
I. CONDITIONS FOR FILING AN RCE
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 apply to utility or plant applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or international applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995. The RCE provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 do not apply to:
(A) a provisional application;
(B) an application for a utility or plant patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before June 8, 1995;
(C) an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 before June 8, 1995, or an international application that does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 371;
(D) an application for a design patent;
(E) an international design application; or
(F) a patent under reexamination.
See 37 CFR 1.114(e).
An applicant may obtain continued examination of an application by filing a request for continued examination (see form PTO/SB/30), a submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) prior to the earliest of:
(A) payment of the issue fee (unless a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 is granted);
(B) abandonment of the application; or
(C) the filing of a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action (unless the appeal or civil action is terminated).
See 37 CFR 1.114(a). An applicant cannot request continued examination of an application until after prosecution in the application is closed. See 37 CFR 1.114(a). Prosecution in an application is closed if the application is under appeal, or the last Office action is a final action (37 CFR 1.113), a notice of allowance (37 CFR 1.311), or an action that otherwise closes prosecution in the application (e.g., an Office action under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935)).
II. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT
A “submission” as used in 37 CFR 1.114 includes, but is not limited to, an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the written description, claims, or drawings, new arguments, or new evidence in support of patentability. See 37 CFR 1.114(c). If a reply to an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 is outstanding, the submission must meet the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111. See 37 CFR 1.114(c). Thus, an applicant may file a submission under 37 CFR 1.114 containing only an information disclosure statement (37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98) in an application subject to a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151, but not in an application where the last Office action is a final rejection or an Office action under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935), or in an application that is under appeal. A request for a suspension of action, an appeal brief or a reply brief (or related papers) will not be considered a submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See 37 CFR 1.103 and 1.114(d). The submission, however, may consist of the arguments in a previously filed appeal brief or reply brief, or may simply consist of a statement that incorporates by reference the arguments in a previously filed appeal brief or reply brief. In addition, a previously filed amendment after final (whether or not entered) may satisfy this submission requirement.
Arguments submitted after final rejection, which were entered by the examiner but not found persuasive, may satisfy the submission requirement if such arguments are responsive within the meaning
700-126Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(h)
of 37 CFR 1.111 to the Office action. Consideration of whether any submission is responsive within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.111 to the last outstanding Office action is done without factoring in the “final” status of such outstanding Office action. Thus, a
reply which might not be acceptable as a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 when the application is under a final rejection may be acceptable as a reply under 37 CFR 1.111.
For More InformationThe Submission:Status of the Application See subsections V. and VI.Must include a reply under 37 CFR
1.111 to the final rejection (e.g., an After Final
amendment filed with the RCE or a previously-filed after final amendment).
See subsection IX.Must include a reply to the Ex Parte Quayle action.
After Ex Parte Quayle action
See subsection IX.Includes, but not limited to, an IDS, amendment, new arguments, or new evidence.
After allowance
See subsections X., XI., and XII.Must include a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 to the final rejection (e.g., a
After appeal
statement that incorporates by reference the arguments in a previously filed appeal brief or reply brief).
III. INITIAL PROCESSING
An RCE will be initially processed by the Technology Center (TC) assigned the application. Technical support personnel in the TC will verify that:
(A) the RCE was filed on or after May 29, 2000;
(B) the application was filed on or after June 8, 1995;
(C) the application is a utility or plant application (e.g., not a design application);
(D) the application was pending (i.e., not patented or abandoned) when the RCE was filed;
(E) prosecution in the application is closed (e.g., the last Office action is a final rejection, notice of allowance, or an Office action under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935), or the application is under appeal);
(F) the RCE was filed before the payment of the issue fee or, if not, a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 to withdraw the application from issue was filed and granted;
(G) the RCE was accompanied by the proper fee(s) including the RCE fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e); and
(H) the RCE included a submission as required by 37 CFR 1.114.
A. Treatment of Improper RCE
If one or more conditions for filing an RCE have not been satisfied, applicant will be so notified. Generally, a “Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE),” Form PTO-2051, will be mailed to applicant. An improper RCE will not operate to toll the running of any time period set in the previous Office action for reply to avoid abandonment of the application.
If an examiner discovers that an improper RCE has been forwarded to the examiner in error, the application should be immediately returned to a head supervisory legal instruments examiner (HSLIE) within the TC.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-127
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
1. Prosecution Is Not Closed
If prosecution in the application is not closed, applicant will be notified of the improper RCE and any amendment/reply will be entered. Thereafter, the application will be forwarded to the examiner for consideration of the amendment/reply under 37 CFR 1.111.
2. Application Is Under Appeal
If the application is under appeal and the RCE was not accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or a submission as required by 37 CFR 1.114, the application will be forwarded to the examiner for appropriate treatment and applicant will be notified of the improper RCE (See subsection X below).
B. Ambiguous Transmittal Paper
If an applicant files a transmittal paper that is ambiguous as to whether it is a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) or a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 (e.g., contains references to both an RCE and a CPA), and the application is a plant or utility application filed on or after June 8, 1995, the Office will treat the transmittal paper as an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 since effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice has been eliminated as to plant and utility applications. If an applicant files a transmittal paper that is ambiguous as to whether it is a CPA or an RCE, and the application is a design application, the Office will treat the transmittal paper as a request for a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) since RCE practice does not apply to design applications. Other papers filed with the transmittal paper (e.g., a preliminary amendment or information disclosure statement) will not be taken into account in determining whether a transmittal paper is a CPA, or an RCE, or ambiguous as to whether it is a CPA or an RCE. If, however, applicant files an unambiguous transmittal paper that is an RCE in a design application, it will be treated as an improper RCE and a “Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE),” Form PTO-2051, will be mailed to the applicant. An RCE is not a type of new application filing. Therefore, the Office cannot convert an RCE
(whether proper or improper) to a new application such as a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
C. Treatment of Conditional RCE
If a submission is accompanied by a “conditional” RCE and payment of the RCE fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e) (i.e., an authorization to charge the 37 CFR 1.17(e) fee to a deposit account in the event that the submission would not otherwise be entered), the Office will treat the “conditional” RCE and payment as if an RCE and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) had been filed.
D. Treatment of Proper RCE
If the conditions for filing an RCE have been satisfied, the technical support personnel will process the proper RCE. Any previously filed unentered amendments, and amendments filed with the RCE will normally be entered. Such amendments will be entered in the order in which they were filed in the absence of any specific instructions for entry. For example, if applicant files an amendment after final rejection which is denied entry by the examiner and applicant subsequently files an RCE with an amendment but the RCE is silent as to whether or not the previously filed after-final amendment should be entered, then the Office will enter both amendments in the order in which they were filed. If, however, applicant files an amendment after final rejection which is denied entry by the examiner and applicant subsequently files an RCE with an amendment including specific instructions that the previously filed after-final amendment is not to be entered, then the Office will enter the amendment filed with the RCE but will not enter the after-final amendment. If conflicting amendments have been previously filed, applicant should clarify which amendments should be entered upon filing the RCE (and fee). Applicants are encouraged to file all amendments no later than the filing of the RCE to avoid disapproval of entry under 37 CFR 1.111(b). See MPEP § 714.03(a). If additional time is needed to prepare and file a supplement (e.g., affidavit or declaration containing test data) to the previously filed submission, applicant should consider filing a suspension of action by the Office under 37 CFR 1.103(c) with the RCE. For more details on suspension of action, see MPEP § 709.
700-128Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(h)
After entry of any amendments and processing of the fee(s), the application will be forwarded to the examiner. Applicant does not need to pay a fee for excess claims previously paid for prior to the filing of the RCE. Of course, new claims in excess of the number previously paid for, which are filed with the RCE or thereafter, will require payment of the appropriate fees(s) under 37 CFR 1.16.
IV. IMPROPER CPA TREATED AS RCE
37 CFR 1.53(d)(1) has been amended to provide that CPA practice under 37 CFR 1.53(d) does not apply to utility and plant applications. Effective July 14, 2003, a CPA may only be filed if the prior nonprovisional application is a design application. For more details on filing a CPA, see MPEP § 201.06(d).
In the event that an applicant files a request for a CPA (on or after July 14, 2003) of a utility or plant application that was filed on or after June 8, 1995, the Office will automatically treat the improper CPA as an RCE of the prior application (identified in the request for CPA) under 37 CFR 1.114. If the CPA does not satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114 to be a proper RCE (e.g., lacks a submission under 37 CFR 1.114(b), or is not accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)), the improper CPA will be treated as an improper RCE, and the time period set in the last Office action (or notice of allowance) will continue to run. If the time period (considering any available extension under 37 CFR 1.136(a)) has expired, the applicant will need to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 (with the lacking submission under 37 CFR 1.114(b) or fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)) to revive the abandoned application.
Effective July 14, 2003, the Office will not convert an improper CPA into an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) simply because it is requested by the applicant. The Office will convert an improper CPA into an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) only if the applicant shows that there are extenuating circumstances that warrant the burdensome process of converting a CPA into an application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (e.g., restoring the application to pending status and correcting the improper RCE is not possible because the application has issued as a patent).
Form paragraph 7.42.15 should be used by the examiner to inform applicant that a CPA is being treated as a RCE.
¶ 7.42.15 Continued Prosecution Application Treated as Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
The request for a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) filed on [1] is acknowledged. A CPA may only be filed in a design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. See 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1). Since a CPA of this application is not permitted under 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1), the improper request for a CPA is being treated as a request for continued examination of this application under 37 CFR 1.114.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to advise the applicant that a CPA is being treated as an RCE.
2. Also use form paragraph 7.42.04, 7.42.05, 7.42.06, or 7.42.07 as applicable, to acknowledge entry of applicant’s submission if the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid.
3. If the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or a submission as required by 37 CFR 1.114 is/are missing and the application is not under appeal, a Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination should be mailed. If the application is under appeal and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or submission is/are missing, this form paragraph should be followed with one of form paragraphs 7.42.10 - 7.42.14, as applicable.
V. AFTER FINAL REJECTION
If an applicant timely files an RCE with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission that meets the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111, the Office will withdraw the finality of any Office action to which a reply is outstanding and the submission will be entered and considered. See 37 CFR 1.114(d). The submission meeting the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111 must be timely received to continue prosecution of an application. In other words, the mere request for, and payment of the fee for, continued examination will not operate to toll the running of any time period set in the previous Office action for reply to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any submission that is an amendment must comply with the manner of making amendments as set forth in 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 714.03. The amendment must include markings showing the changes relative to the last entered amendment. Even though previously filed unentered amendments after final may satisfy the submission requirement under
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-129
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
37 CFR 1.114(c), applicants are encouraged to file an amendment at the time of filing the RCE that incorporates all of the desired changes, including changes presented in any previously filed unentered after final amendments, accompanied by instructions not to enter the unentered after final amendments. See subsection VI for treatment of not fully responsive submissions including noncompliant amendments.
If the RCE is proper, form paragraph 7.42.04 should be used to notify applicant that the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn.
¶ 7.42.04 Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 after Final Rejection
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on [1] has been entered.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph if a request for continued examination (RCE), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, was filed after a final rejection.
2. In bracket 1, insert the date(s) of receipt of the submission. The submission may be a previously filed amendment(s) after final rejection and/or an amendment accompanying the RCE. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.114, a submission may include an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the written description, claims, or drawings, new arguments, or new evidence in support of patentability. If a reply to the Office action is outstanding the submission must meet the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111. Use instead form paragraph 7.42.08 if the submission does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111. Arguments which were previously submitted in a reply after final rejection, which were entered but not found persuasive, may be considered a submission under 37 CFR 1.114 if the arguments are responsive within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.111 to the outstanding Office action. If the last sentence of this form paragraph does not apply (e.g., the submission consists of previously entered arguments), it may be deleted or modified as necessary.
3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
VI. NOT FULLY RESPONSIVE SUBMISSION
If reply to a final Office action is outstanding and the submission is not fully responsive to the final Office action, then it must be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the final Office action in order for the RCE to toll the period for reply.
If the submission is not a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply, the RCE should be treated as an improper RCE. Thus, a “Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE),” Form PTO-2051, should be prepared by the technical support personnel and mailed to the applicant indicating that the request was not accompanied by a submission complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.111 (see 37 CFR 1.114(c)). The RCE will not toll the period for reply and the application will be abandoned after the expiration of the statutory period for reply if no submission complying with 37 CFR 1.111 is filed. For example, if a reply to a final Office action is outstanding and the submission only includes an information disclosure statement (IDS), the submission will not be considered a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the final Office action and the period for reply will not be tolled. Similarly, an amendment that would cancel all of the claims in an application and does not present any new or substitute claims is not a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. The Office will not enter such an amendment. See Exxon Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 265 F.3d 1249, 60 USPQ2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
If the submission is a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply, applicant should be informed that the submission is not fully responsive to the final Office action, along with the reasons why, and given a new shortened statutory period of two months to complete the reply. See 37 CFR 1.135(c). Form paragraph 7.42.08 set forth below should be used.
Situations where a submission is not a fully responsive submission, but is a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply are:
(A) Non-compliant amendment - An RCE filed with a submission which is an amendment that is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121, but which is a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the last Office action, should be treated as a proper
700-130Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(h)
RCE and a Notice of Noncompliant Amendment should be mailed to the applicant. Applicant is given a time period of two months from the mailing date of the notice, to provide an amendment complying with 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 714.03 for information on the amendment practice under 37 CFR 1.121.
(B) Presentation of claims for different invention - Applicants cannot file an RCE to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined as a matter of right (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions). See 37 CFR 1.145. If an RCE is filed with an amendment canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to a nonelected invention, the RCE should be treated as a proper RCE but the amendment should not be entered. The amendment is not fully responsive and applicant should be given a time period of two months to submit a complete reply. See MPEP § 821.03. Form paragraphs 8.04 or 8.26 should be used as appropriate. ¶ 7.42.08 Request For Continued Examination With Submission Filed Under 37 CFR 1.114 Which is Not Fully Responsive
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on [1]. The submission, however, is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because [2]. Since the submission appears to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the prior Office action, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter to submit a complete reply. This shortened statutory period for reply supersedes the time period set in the prior Office action. This time period may be extended pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to acknowledge an RCE filed with the fee and a submission where the submission is not fully responsive to the prior Office action. This form paragraph may be used for any RCE filed with a submission which is not fully responsive, i.e., an RCE filed after final rejection, after allowance, after an Office action under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935), or after appeal.
2. In bracket 2, identify the reasons why the examiner considers the submission not to be fully responsive.
3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after
June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
VII. NEW MATTER
35 U.S.C. 132(a) provides that “[n]o amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.” Any amendment entered pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 that is determined to contain new matter should be treated in the same manner that a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 determined to contain new matter is currently treated. See MPEP § 706.03(o). In those instances in which an applicant seeks to add new matter to the disclosure of an application, the procedure in 37 CFR 1.114 is not available, and the applicant must file a continuation-in-part application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) containing such new matter.
VIII. FIRST ACTION FINAL AFTER FILING AN RCE
The action immediately subsequent to the filing of an RCE with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114 may be made final only if the conditions set forth in MPEP § 706.07(b) are met.
It would not be proper to make final a first Office action immediately after the filing of an RCE if the first Office action includes a new ground of rejection. See MPEP § 1207.03 for a discussion of what may constitute a new ground of rejection.
Form paragraph 7.42.09 should be used if it is appropriate to make the first action after the filing of the RCE final.
¶ 7.42.09 Action Is Final, First Action Following Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-131
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is for a first action final rejection following a Request for Continued Examination filed under 37 CFR 1.114.
IX. AFTER ALLOWANCE OR QUAYLE ACTION
The phrase “withdraw the finality of any Office action” in 37 CFR 1.114(d) includes the withdrawal of the finality of a final rejection, as well as the closing of prosecution by an Office action under Ex parte Quayle , 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935), or notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 (or notice of allowability). Therefore, if an applicant files an RCE with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission in an application which has been allowed, prosecution will be reopened. If the issue fee has been paid, however, payment of the fee for an RCE and a submission without a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 to withdraw the application from issue will not avoid issuance of the application as a patent. If an RCE (with the fee and a submission) is filed in an allowed application prior to payment of the issue fee, a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 to withdraw the application from issue is not required.
If an RCE complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114 is filed in an allowed application after the issue fee has been paid and a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 is also filed and granted, prosecution will be reopened. Applicant may not obtain a refund of the issue fee. If, however, the application is subsequently allowed, the Notice of Allowance will reflect an issue fee amount that is due that is the difference between the current issue fee amount and the issue fee that was previously paid.
Form paragraph 7.42.05 should be used to notify applicant that prosecution has been reopened.
¶ 7.42.05 Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 After Allowance or Quayle Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle , 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on [1] has been entered.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph if a request for continued examination (RCE), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, was filed after a notice of allowance (or notice of allowability) or Office action under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935).
2. In bracket 1 insert the date(s) of receipt of the submission. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.114, a submission may include an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the written description, claims, or drawings, new arguments, or new evidence in support of patentability.
3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
4. If the RCE was filed after the issue fee was paid, a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 to withdraw the application from issue must have been filed and granted.
X. AFTER APPEAL BUT BEFORE DECISION BY THE BOARD
If an applicant files an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 after the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), but prior to a decision on the appeal, it will be treated as a request to withdraw the appeal and to reopen prosecution of the application before the examiner, regardless of whether the RCE is proper or improper. See 37 CFR 1.114(d). The Office will withdraw the appeal upon the filing of an RCE. Applicants should advise the Board when an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 is filed in an application containing an appeal awaiting decision. Otherwise, the Board may refuse to vacate a decision rendered after the filing (but before the recognition by the Office) of an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114.
700-132Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(h)
A. Proper RCE
If the RCE is accompanied by a fee (37 CFR 1.17(e)) and a submission that includes a reply which is responsive within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.111 to the last outstanding Office action, the Office will withdraw the finality of the last Office action and the submission will be entered and considered. If the submission is not fully responsive to the last outstanding Office action but is considered to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply, applicant will be notified that the submission is not fully responsive, along with the reasons why, and will be given a new time period to complete the reply (using form paragraph 7.42.08). See 37 CFR 1.135(c) and subsection VI.
If the RCE is proper, form paragraph 7.42.06 should be used to notify applicant that the appeal has been withdrawn and prosecution has been reopened.
¶ 7.42.06 Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 After Appeal But Before A Board Decision
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on [1] has been entered.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph if a request for continued examination (RCE), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or an appeal brief, but there has not been a decision on the appeal. Note that it is not necessary for an appeal brief to have been filed.
2. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.114, a submission may include an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the written description, claims, or drawings, new arguments, or new evidence in support of patentability. The submission may consist of arguments in a previously filed appeal brief or reply brief, or an incorporation of such arguments in the transmittal letter or other paper accompanying the RCE.
3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
B. Improper RCE
The appeal will be withdrawn even if the RCE is improper. If an RCE is filed in an application after appeal to the Board but the request does not include the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e) or the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114, or both, the examiner should treat the request as an improper RCE and withdraw the appeal pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114(d). If the submission is not considered to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the last outstanding Office action (e.g., an IDS only), the submission will be treated as an improper submission or no submission at all under 37 CFR 1.114(c) (thus the request is an improper RCE). See subsection VI.
Upon withdrawal of the appeal, the application will be treated in accordance with MPEP § 1215.01 based on whether there are any allowed claims or not. The proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated. Therefore, if no claim is allowed, the application is abandoned. Claims which are allowable except for their dependency from rejected claims will be treated as if they were rejected. See MPEP § 1215.01. If there is at least one allowed claim, the application should be passed to issue on the allowed claim(s). If there is at least one allowed claim but formal matters are outstanding, applicant should be given a shortened statutory period of two months in which to correct the formal matters. Form paragraphs 7.42.10 - 7.42.14 should be used as appropriate.
¶ 7.42.10 Application On Appeal, Request For Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Submission/Fee; No Claims Allowed
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application on [1] after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Therefore, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The request, however, lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114. Since the proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated, and no claim is allowed, the application is abandoned. See MPEP § 1215.01.
Examiner Note:
1. If a request for continued examination was filed after a Notice of Appeal or after an appeal brief, but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) or a submission or both, use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal and hold the application abandoned if there are no allowed claims.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-133
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
2. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
¶ 7.42.11 Application On Appeal, Request For Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Submission; Claim Allowed
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on [1] after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Therefore, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The request, however, lacks the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114. Since the proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated, the application will be passed to issue on allowed claim[2] . Claim[3] been canceled. See MPEP § 1215.01.
Examiner Note:
1. If a request for continued examination, including the fee, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or after an appeal brief but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the required submission, use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal and pass the application to issue on the allowed claims.
2. In bracket 3, insert the claim number(s) of the claim(s) which has/have been canceled followed by either --has-- or --have--. Claims which have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter but are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim are to be considered as if they were rejected and therefore are to be canceled along with the rejected claims. See MPEP § 1215.01.
3. This form paragraph should be used with the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
4. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
¶ 7.42.12 Application on Appeal, Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Submission; Claim Allowed with Formal Matters Outstanding
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) , was filed in this application on [1] after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Therefore, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The request, however, lacks the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114. The proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated, and the application will be passed to issue on allowed claim [2] provided the following formal matters are promptly corrected: [3]. Prosecution is otherwise closed. See MPEP § 1215.01. Applicant is required to make the necessary corrections addressing the outstanding formal matters within a shortened statutory period set to expire
TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of time may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136.
Examiner Note:
1. If a request for continued examination, including the fee, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or an appeal brief but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the required submission, use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal if there are allowed claims but outstanding formal matters need to be corrected.
2. In bracket 3, explain the formal matters which must be corrected.
3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
¶ 7.42.13 Application on Appeal, Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Fee; Claim Allowed
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including a submission, was filed in this application on [1] after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Therefore, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The request, however, lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e). Therefore, the submission has not been entered. See 37 CFR 1.116(c). Since the proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated, the application will be passed to issue on allowed claim[2]. Claim[3] been canceled. See MPEP § 1215.01.
Examiner Note:
1. If a request for continued examination, including the submission, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or an appeal brief but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the required fee, use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal and pass the application to issue on the allowed claims.
2. In bracket 3, insert the claim number(s) of the claim(s) which has/have been canceled followed by either --has-- or --have--. Claims which have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter but are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim are to be considered as if they were rejected and therefore are to be canceled along with the rejected claims. See MPEP § 1215.01.
3. This form paragraph should be used with the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
4. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
700-134Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(h)
¶ 7.42.14 Application on Appeal, Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Fee; Claim Allowed With Formal Matters Outstanding
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including a submission, was filed in this application on [1] after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Therefore, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The request, however, lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e). Therefore, the submission has not been entered. See 37 CFR 1.116(c). The proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated, and the application will be passed to issue on allowed claim[2] provided the following formal matters are promptly corrected: [3]. Prosecution is otherwise closed. See MPEP § 1215.01. Applicant is required to make the necessary corrections addressing the outstanding formal matters within a shortened statutory period set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of time may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136.
Examiner Note:
1. If a request for continued examination, including a submission, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or an appeal brief but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e), use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal if there are allowed claims but outstanding formal matters need to be corrected.
2. In bracket 3, explain the formal matters that must be corrected.
3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
XI. AFTER DECISION BY THE BOARD
A. Proper RCE After Board Decision
The filing of an RCE (accompanied by the fee and a submission) after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) or the commencement of a civil action in federal district court, will also result in the finality of the rejection or action being withdrawn and the submission being considered. Generally, the time period for filing a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit or for commencing a civil action is within two months of the Board’s decision. See 37 CFR 1.304 and MPEP § 1216. Thus, an RCE filed within this two month time period and before the filing of a notice of appeal
to the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action would be timely filed. In addition to the res judicata effect of a Board decision in an application (see MPEP § 706.03(w)), a Board decision in an application is the “law of the case,” and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application. See MPEP § 1214.01 (where a new ground of rejection is entered by the Board pursuant to 37 CFR 41.50(b), argument without either amendment of the claims so rejected or the submission of a showing of facts can only result in a final rejection of the claims, since the examiner is without authority to allow the claims unless amended or unless the rejection is overcome by a showing of facts not before the Board). As such, a submission containing arguments without either amendment of the rejected claims or the submission of a showing of facts will not be effective to remove such rejection.
Form paragraph 7.42.07 should be used to notify applicant that the appeal has been withdrawn and prosecution has been reopened.
¶ 7.42.07 Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 after Board Decision but Before Further Appeal or Civil Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on [1] has been entered.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph if a request for continued examination (RCE), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, was timely filed after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board but before further appeal or civil action. Generally, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit or for commencing a civil action is sixty-three (63) days after the date of the final Board decision. See MPEP § 1216 and 37 CFR 90.3.
2. A Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an application has res judicata effect and is the “law of the case” and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application. Therefore, a submission containing arguments without either an amendment of the rejected claims or the submission of a showing of facts will not be effective to remove such rejection. See MPEP §§ 706.03(w) and 1214.01.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-135
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
B. Improper RCE After Board Decision
If an RCE is filed after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action in federal district court, and the RCE was not accompanied by the fee and/or the submission, the examiner should notify the applicant that the RCE is improper by using form paragraph 7.42.16 set forth below. If the time for seeking court review has passed without such review being sought, the examiner should include the form paragraph with the mailing of a Notice of Allowability or a Notice of Abandonment depending on the status of the claims. See MPEP § 1214.06. If the time for seeking court review remains, the examiner should include the form paragraph on a PTOL-90. No time period should be set. If a submission is filed with the RCE, but the fee is missing, the examiner should also include a statement as to whether or not the submission has been entered. In general, such a submission should not be entered. If, however, the submission is an amendment that obviously places the application in condition for allowance, it should be entered with the approval of the supervisory patent examiner. See MPEP § 1214.07. Form paragraph 7.42.16 should not be used if the application is not a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995. In that situation, a “Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE),” Form PTO-2051, should be prepared and mailed by the technical support personnel to notify applicant that continued examination does not apply to the application. When the time for seeking court review has passed without such review being sought, the examiner must take up the application for consideration. See MPEP § 1214.06 for guidance on the action to be taken.
¶ 7.42.16 After Board Decision But Before Further Appeal Or Civil Action, Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Submission and/or Fee
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application on [1] after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. The request, however, lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, the RCE is improper and any time period running was not tolled by the filing of the improper request.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used with the mailing of a Notice of Allowability or a Notice of Abandonment, as appropriate, if the time for seeking court review has passed without such review being sought, or it should be used on a PTOL-90 if time still remains.
2. This form paragraph should not be used if the application is not a utility application or a plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. In that situation, a “Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE),” Form PTO-2051, should be prepared and mailed by the technical support personnel to notify applicant that continued examination does not apply to the application.
3. In general, if a submission was filed with the improper RCE in this situation, it should not be entered. An exception exists for an amendment which obviously places the application in condition for allowance. See MPEP § 1214.07. The examiner should also include a statement as to whether or not any such submission has been entered (e.g., “The submission filed with the improper RCE has not been entered.”).
XII. AFTERAPPEAL TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT OR CIVIL ACTION
The procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.114 is not available in an application after the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action in federal district court, unless the appeal or civil action is terminated and the application is still pending. If an RCE is filed in an application that has undergone court review, the examiner should bring the application to the attention of the supervisory patent examiner or a quality assurance specialist in the TC to determine whether the RCE is proper. Unless an application contains allowed claims (or the court’s mandate clearly indicates that further action is to be taken by the Office), the termination of an unsuccessful appeal or civil action results in abandonment of the application. See MPEP § 1216.01.
700-136Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(h)
XIII. FORMS
Form PTO/SB/30, “Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Transmittal,” may be used by applicant for filing a RCE under 37 CFR 1.114. The
form used by the Technology Centers to notify applicant of an improper RCE, “Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE),” form PTO-2051, is shown below following form PTO/SB/30.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-137
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-138Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(h)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-139
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-140Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 706.07(h)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-141
§ 706.07(h)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
707 Examiner’s Letter or Action [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.104 Nature of examination.
(a) Examiner’s action.
(1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.
(2) The applicant, or in the case of a reexamination proceeding, both the patent owner and the requester, will be notified of the examiner’s action. The reasons for any adverse action or any objection or requirement will be stated in an Office action and such information or references will be given as may be useful in aiding the applicant, or in the case of a reexamination proceeding the patent owner, to judge the propriety of continuing the prosecution.
(3) An international-type search will be made in all national applications filed on and after June 1, 1978.
(4) Any national application may also have an international-type search report prepared thereon at the time of the national examination on the merits, upon specific written request therefor and payment of the international-type search report fee set forth in § 1.21(e). The Patent and Trademark Office does not require that a formal report of an international-type search be prepared in order to obtain a search fee refund in a later filed international application.
(b) Completeness of examiner’s action. The examiner’s action will be complete as to all matters, except that in appropriate circumstances, such as misjoinder of invention, fundamental defects in the application, and the like, the action of the examiner may be limited to such matters before further action is made. However, matters of form need not be raised by the examiner until a claim is found allowable.
(c) Rejection of claims.
(1) If the invention is not considered patentable, or not considered patentable as claimed, the claims, or those considered unpatentable will be rejected.
(2) In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.
(3) In rejecting claims the examiner may rely upon admissions by the applicant, or the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, as to any matter affecting patentability and, insofar as rejections in applications are concerned, may also rely upon facts within his or her knowledge pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(4)
(i) Subject matter which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and a claimed invention will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) if the applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(ii) Subject matter which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and a claimed invention will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) on the basis of a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) if:
(A) The applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h) and § 1.9(e), that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(B) The application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(5)
(i) Subject matter which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), or (g) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, and a claimed invention in an application filed on or after November 29, 1999, or any patent issuing thereon, in an application filed before November 29, 1999, but pending on December 10, 2004, or any patent issuing thereon, or in any patent granted on or after December 10, 2004, will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, if the applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, at the time the claimed invention was made, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(ii) Subject matter which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) , or (g) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, and a claimed invention in an application pending on or after December 10, 2004, or in any patent granted on or after December 10, 2004, will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, on the basis of a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) in effect prior to March 16, 2013, if:
(A) The applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention were made by or on behalf of the parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h) and § 1.9(e), which was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
700-142Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707
(B) The application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(6) Patents issued prior to December 10, 2004, from applications filed prior to November 29, 1999, are subject to 35 U.S.C. 103(c) in effect on November 28, 1999.
(d) Citation of references.
(1) If domestic patents are cited by the examiner, their numbers and dates, and the names of the patentees will be stated. If domestic patent application publications are cited by the examiner, their publication number, publication date, and the names of the applicants will be stated. If foreign published applications or patents are cited, their nationality or country, numbers and dates, and the names of the patentees will be stated, and such other data will be furnished as may be necessary to enable the applicant, or in the case of a reexamination proceeding, the patent owner, to identify the published applications or patents cited. In citing foreign published applications or patents, in case only a part of the document is involved, the particular pages and sheets containing the parts relied upon will be identified. If printed publications are cited, the author (if any), title, date, pages or plates, and place of publication, or place where a copy can be found, will be given.
(2) When a rejection in an application is based on facts within the personal knowledge of an employee of the Office, the data shall be as specific as possible, and the reference must be supported, when called for by the applicant, by the affidavit of such employee, and such affidavit shall be subject to contradiction or explanation by the affidavits of the applicant and other persons.
(e) Reasons for allowance. If the examiner believes that the record of the prosecution as a whole does not make clear his or her reasons for allowing a claim or claims, the examiner may set forth such reasoning. The reasons shall be incorporated into an Office action rejecting other claims of the application or patent under reexamination or be the subject of a separate communication to the applicant or patent owner. The applicant or patent owner may file a statement commenting on the reasons for allowance within such time as may be specified by the examiner. Failure by the examiner to respond to any statement commenting on reasons for allowance does not give rise to any implication.
For Office actions in ex parte reexamination proceedings, see MPEP §§ 2260, 2262, 2271 and their indents. For Office actions in inter partes reexamination proceedings, see MPEP §§ 2660, 2671, 2673, and their indents.
Under the current first action procedure, the examiner signifies on the Office Action Summary Form PTOL-326 certain information including the period set for reply, any attachments, and a
“Summary of Action,” which is the position taken on all the claims.
The examiner, in the exercise of his or her professional judgment, is permitted to indicate that an interview with applicant’s representative may result in agreements whereby the application may be placed in condition for allowance. Any amendment agreed upon during an interview may be made either by the applicant’s attorney or agent or by the examiner in an examiner’s amendment. It should be recognized that when extensive amendments are necessary it would be preferable if they were filed by the attorney or agent of record, thereby reducing the professional and clerical workload on the Office and also providing the file wrapper with a better record, including applicant’s arguments for allowability as required by 37 CFR 1.111. See MPEP § 713 et seq. for interview practice.
The list of references cited appears on a separate form, Notice of References Cited, PTO-892 (copy in MPEP § 707.05) attached to applicant’s copy of the Office action. Where applicable, a Notice of Informal Patent Application is attached to the first Office action.
The attachments have the same paper number and are to be considered as part of the Office action.
Replies to Office actions should include the application number as well as the 4-digit art unit number and the examiner’s name to expedite handling within the Office. Further, applicants are encouraged to include the 4-digit confirmation number on every paper filed in the Office. See MPEP § 503 for an explanation of the confirmation number.
In accordance with the patent statute, “Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent is rejected, or any objection . . . made,” notification of the reasons for rejection and/or objection together with such information and references as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing the prosecution (35 U.S.C. 132) should be given.
Information useful in judging the propriety of continuing the prosecution may include, for example, the identification and a brief discussion of the particular figure(s) of the drawing(s), and/or page(s)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-143
§ 707EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
or paragraph(s) of the best reference(s) cited by the examiner, the applicant, or a foreign office.
In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). For rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the way in which a reference is modified or plural references are combined should be set out.
The Office action may include objections to the disclosure, an explanation of references cited but not applied, an indication of allowable subject matter, other requirements (including requirements for restriction if applicable), and other pertinent comments. OfficeAction Summary form PTOL-326, which serves as the first page of the Office action (although a Form PTOL-90 may be used as a coversheet for the correspondence address and the mail date of the Office action), is to be used with all first Office actions and will identify any allowed claims.
One of form paragraphs 7.100, 7.101, or 7.102 should conclude all actions.
¶ 7.100 Name And Number of Examiner To Be Contacted
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to [1] at telephone number [2].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph, form paragraph 7.101, or form paragraph 7.102 should be used at the conclusion of all actions.
2. In bracket 1, insert the name of the examiner designated to be contacted first regarding inquiries about the Office action. This could be either the non-signatory examiner preparing the action or the signatory examiner.
3. In bracket 2, insert the individual area code and phone number of the examiner to be contacted.
¶ 7.101 Telephone Inquiry Contacts- Non 5/4/9 Schedule
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [1] whose telephone number is [2]. The examiner can normally be reached on [3] from [4] to [5].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, [6], can be reached on [7]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert your name.
2. In bracket 2, insert your individual area code and phone number.
3. In bracket 3, insert the days that you work every week, e.g. “Monday-Thursday” for an examiner off every Friday.
4. In brackets 4 and 5, insert your normal duty hours, e.g. “6:30 AM - 5:00 PM.”
5. In bracket 6, insert your SPE’s name.
6. In bracket 7, insert your SPE’s area code and phone number.
¶ 7.102 Telephone Inquiry Contacts- 5/4/9 Schedule
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [1] whose telephone number is [2]. The examiner can normally be reached on [3] from [4] to [5]. The examiner can also be reached on alternate [6].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, [7], can be reached on [8]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert your name.
2. In bracket 2, insert your individual area code and phone number.
3. In bracket 3, insert the days that you work every week, e.g. “Monday-Thursday” for an examiner off on alternate Fridays.
4. In brackets 4 and 5, insert your normal duty hours, e.g. “6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.”
700-144Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707
5. In bracket 6, insert the day in each pay-period that is your compressed day off, e.g. “Fridays” for an examiner on a 5/4/9 work schedule with the first Friday off.
6. In bracket 7, insert your SPE’s name.
7. In bracket 8, insert your SPE’s area code and phone number.
Where the text of sections of Title 35, U.S. Code was previously reproduced in an Office action, form paragraph 7.103 may be used.
¶ 7.103 Statute Cited in Prior Office Action
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-145
§ 707EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-146Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707
707.01 Primary Examiner Indicates Action for New Assistant [R-07.2015]
After the search has been completed, action is taken in the light of the references found. Where the assistant examiner has been in the Office but a short time, it is the duty of the primary examiner to review the application thoroughly. The usual procedure is for the assistant examiner to explain the invention and discuss the references which he or she regards as most pertinent. The primary examiner may indicate the action to be taken, whether restriction or election of species is to be required, or whether the claims are to be considered on their merits. If action on the merits is to be given and claims rejected, the primary examiner may indicate how the references are to be applied in any prior art rejection and explain the basis for any non-prior art grounds of rejection. The primary examiner may authorize allowance if all statutory requirements are met and no further field of search is known.
707.02 Applications Up for Third Action and 5-Year Applications [R-07.2015]
The supervisory patent examiners should impress upon their assistants that the shortest path to the final disposition of an application is by finding the best references on the first search and carefully applying them.
The supervisory patent examiners are expected to personally check on the pendency of every application which is up for the third or subsequent Office action with a view to finally concluding its prosecution.
Any application that has been pending five years or more should be carefully studied by the supervisory patent examiner and every effort should be made to terminate its prosecution. In order to accomplish this result, the application is to be considered “special” by the examiner.
707.03-707.04 [Reserved]
707.05 Citation of References [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.104 Nature of examination.
*****
(d) Citation of references.
(1) If domestic patents are cited by the examiner, their numbers and dates, and the names of the patentees will be stated. If domestic patent application publications are cited by the examiner, their publication number, publication date, and the names of the applicants will be stated. If foreign published applications or patents are cited, their nationality or country, numbers and dates, and the names of the patentees will be stated, and such other data will be furnished as may be necessary to enable the applicant, or in the case of a reexamination proceeding, the patent owner, to identify the published applications or patents cited. In citing foreign published applications or patents, in case only a part of the document is involved, the particular pages and sheets containing the parts relied upon will be identified. If printed publications are cited, the author (if any), title, date, pages or plates, and place of publication, or place where a copy can be found, will be given.
(2) When a rejection in an application is based on facts within the personal knowledge of an employee of the Office, the data shall be as specific as possible, and the reference must be supported, when called for by the applicant, by the affidavit of such employee, and such affidavit shall be subject to contradiction or explanation by the affidavits of the applicant and other persons.
*****
During the examination of an application or reexamination of a patent, the examiner should cite appropriate prior art which is nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims. When such prior art is cited, its pertinence should be explained.
The examiner must consider all the prior art references (alone and in combination) cited in the application or reexamination, including those cited by the applicant in a properly submitted Information Disclosure Statement. See MPEP § 609.
Form paragraph 7.96 may be used as an introductory sentence.
¶ 7.96 Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. [1]
Examiner Note:
When such prior art is cited, its relevance should be explained in bracket 1 in accordance with MPEP § 707.05.
Effective June 8, 1995, Public Law 103-465 amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to change the term of a patent to 20 years measured from the filing date of
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-147
§ 707.05EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
the earliest U.S. application for which benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) is claimed. The 20-year patent term applies to all utility and plant patents issued on applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. Effective March 16, 2013, Public Law 112-196 amended Title 35 of the U.S. Code to change U.S. practice from a first to invent system to a first inventor to file system. In certain circumstances, applicants may cancel their benefit/priority claim by amending the specification to delete any references to prior applications. Therefore, examiners should search all applications based on the actual U.S. filing date of the application rather than on the filing date of any parent U.S. application for which benefit is claimed or foreign application to which priority is claimed. Examiners should cite of interest all material prior art having an effective filing date after the filing date of the U.S. parent application or the foreign priority application but before the actual filing date of the application being examined.
Allowed applications should generally contain a citation of pertinent prior art for printing in the patent, even if no claim presented during the prosecution was considered unpatentable over such prior art. Only in those instances where a proper search has not revealed any prior art relevant to the claimed invention is it appropriate to send an application to issue with no art cited. In the case where no prior art is cited, the examiner must indicate “None” on a form PTO-892 and include it in the application file wrapper. Where references have been cited during the prosecution of parent applications and a continuing application, having no newly cited references, is ready for allowance, the cited references of the parent applications should be listed on a form PTO-892. The form should then be placed in the file of the continuing application. See MPEP § 1302.12. In a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), it is not necessary to prepare a new form PTO-892 because the form from the parent application is in the same file wrapper and will be used by the printer.
In all continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the parent applications should be reviewed for pertinent prior art.
Applicants and/or applicants’ attorneys in PCT related national applications may wish to cite the
material citations from the PCT International Search Report by an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 in order to ensure consideration by the examiner.
In those instances where no information disclosure statement has been filed by the applicant and where documents are cited in the International Search Report but neither a copy of the documents nor an English translation (or English family member) is provided, the examiner may exercise discretion in deciding whether to take necessary steps to obtain the copy and/or translation.
Copies of documents cited will be provided as set forth in MPEP § 707.05(a). That is, copies of documents cited by the examiner will be provided to applicant except where the documents:
(A) are cited by applicant in accordance with MPEP § 609, § 707.05(b), and § 708.02;
(B) have been referred to in applicant’s disclosure statement;
(C) are cited and have been provided in a parent application; or
(D) are U.S. Patents or U.S. application publications.
See MPEP § 707.05(e) regarding data used in citing references.
707.05(a) Copies of Cited References [R-07.2015]
Copies of cited foreign patent documents and non-patent literature references (except as noted below) are automatically furnished without charge to applicant together with the Office action in which they are cited. Copies of the cited references are also placed in the application file for use by the examiner during the prosecution. Copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications are not provided in paper to applicants and are not placed in the application file.
Copies of references cited by applicant in accordance with MPEP §§ 609, 707.05(b) and 708.02 are not furnished to applicant with the Office action. Additionally, copies of references cited in
700-148Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.05(a)
continuation applications if they had been previously cited in the parent application are not furnished. The examiner should check the left hand column of form PTO-892 if a copy of the reference is not to be furnished to the applicant.
Copies of foreign patent documents and nonpatent literature (NPL) which are cited by the examiner at the time of allowance will be furnished to applicant with the Office action and be retained in the image file wrapper. This will apply to all allowance actions, including first action allowances and Ex Parte Quayle actions.
In the rare instance where no art is cited in a continuing application, all the references cited during the prosecution of the parent application will be listed at allowance for printing in the patent.
To assist in providing copies of , or access to, references, the examiner should:
(A) Type the citation of the references on form PTO-892, “Notice of References Cited” using OACS;
(B) Include in the eRed Folder all of the references cited by the examiner which are to be furnished to the applicant.
(C) After any necessary review has taken place, forward the action to the TC mailbox for counting. Any application which is handed in without all of the required references will be returned to the examiner. The missing reference(s) should be obtained and the file returned to the technical support staff as quickly as possible.
In the case of design applications, procedures are the same as set forth in MPEP §§ 707.05(a) - 707.05(g).
¶ 7.82.03 How To Obtain Copies of U.S. Patents and U.S. Patent Application Publications
In June 2004, the USPTO ceased mailing paper copies of cited U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications with all Office actions. See “USPTO to Provide Electronic Access to Cited U.S. Patent References with Office Actions and Cease Supplying Paper Copies,” 1282 OG 109 (May 18, 2004). Foreign patent documents and non-patent literature will continue to be provided to the applicant on paper.
All U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications are available free of charge from the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html), for a fee from the Office of Public Records (http://ebiz1.uspto.gov/oems25p/index.html), and from commercial sources. Copies are also available at the Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRCs). A list of the PTRCs may be found on the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov/products/library/ptdl/locations/index.jsp). Additionally, a simple new feature in the Office’s Private Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR), E-Patent Reference, is available for downloading and printing of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications cited in U.S. Office Actions.
STEPS TO USE THE E-PATENT REFERENCE FEATURE
Access to Private PAIR is required to utilize E-Patent Reference. If you do not already have access to Private PAIR, the Office urges practitioners and applicants not represented by a practitioner to: (1) obtain a no-cost USPTO Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) digital certificate; (2) obtain a USPTO customer number; (3) associate all of their pending and new application filings with their customer number; (4) install free software (supplied by the Office) required to access Private PAIR and the E-Patent Reference; and (5) make appropriate arrangements for Internet access.
Instructions for performing the 5 steps:
Step 1: Full instructions for obtaining a PKI digital certificate are available at the Office’s Electronic Business Center (EBC) web page (www.uspto.gov/ebc/downloads.html). Note that a notarized signature will be required to obtain a digital certificate.
Step 2: To get a Customer Number, download and complete the Customer Number Request form, PTO/SB/125, from the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0125.pdf). The completed form can be transmitted by facsimile to the Patent Electronic Business Center at (571) 273-0177, or mailed to the address on the form. If you are a registered attorney or agent, your registration number must be associated with your customer number. This association is accomplished by adding your registration number to the Customer Number Request form.
Step 3: A description of associating a customer number with the correspondence address of an application is described at the EBC Web page (www.uspto.gov/ebc/registration_pair.html).
Step 4: The software for electronic filing is available for downloading at www.uspto.gov/ebc. Users can also contact the EFS Help Desk at (571) 272-4100 and request a copy of the software on compact disc. Users will also need Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available through a link from the USPTO website.
Step 5: Internet access will be required which applicants may obtain through a supplier of their own choice. As images of large documents must be downloaded, high-speed Internet access is recommended.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-149
§ 707.05(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
The E-Patent Reference feature is accessed using a button on the Private PAIR screen. Ordinarily all of the cited U.S. patent and U.S. patent application publication references will be available over the Internet using the Office’s new E-Patent Reference feature. The size of the references to be downloaded will be displayed by E-Patent Reference so the download time can be estimated. Applicants and registered practitioners can select to download all of the references or any combination of cited references. Selected references will be downloaded as complete documents in Portable Document Format (PDF). The downloaded documents can be viewed and printed using
commercially available software, such asADOBE® READER®. ADOBE® READER® is available free of charge from Adobe S y s t e m s I n c o r p o r a t e d (www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is recommended for use in Office actions citing U.S. patents or U.S. patent application publications when the applicant is not represented by a registered patent attorney or a registered patent agent.
700-150Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.05(a)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-151
§ 707.05(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
707.05(b) Citation of Related Art and Information by Applicants [R-08.2012]
I. CITATION OF RELATEDART BYAPPLICANTS
MPEP § 609 sets forth guidelines for applicants, their attorneys and agents who desire to submit prior art for consideration by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Submitted citations will not in any way diminish the obligation of examiners to conduct independent prior art searches, or relieve examiners of citing other pertinent prior art of which they may be aware.
Prior art submitted by applicant in the manner provided in MPEP § 609 will not be supplied with an Office action.
II. CITATION OF RELATED INFORMATION BY APPLICANTS
37 CFR 1.105 and MPEP § 704.10 et seq. set forth procedures for examiners to require applicants, their attorneys and agents to submit information reasonably necessary for the Office to examine an application or treat a matter being addressed in an application.
Any such requirement, and any information submitted in reply thereto, will not in any way diminish the obligation of examiners to conduct independent prior art searches, or relieve examiners of citing other pertinent prior art of which they may be aware.
Information submitted by applicant in the manner provided in MPEP § 704.10 et seq. will not be supplied with an Office action.
707.05(c) Order of Listing [R-08.2012]
In citing references for the first time, the identifying data of the citation should be placed on form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited,” a copy of which will be attached to the Office action. No distinction is to be made between references on which a claim is rejected and those formerly referred to as “pertinent.” With the exception of applicant
submitted citations, MPEP § 609 and § 708.02, it is recommended that the pertinent features of references which are not used as a basis for rejection be pointed out briefly.
See MPEP § 1302.12.
707.05(d) Reference Cited in Subsequent Actions [R-08.2012]
Where an applicant in an amendatory paper refers to a reference that is subsequently relied upon by the examiner, such reference shall be cited by the examiner in the usual manner using a form PTO-892, “Notice of References Cited,” unless applicant has listed the reference on a form PTO/SB/08 that has been initialed by the examiner.
707.05(e) Data Used in Citing References [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.104(d) (see also MPEP §§ 707.05 and 901.05(a)) requires the examiner to provide certain data when citing references. The examiner should provide the citations on the “Notice of References Cited” form PTO-892 (copy at MPEP § 707.05).
I. U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
If a U.S. patent application publication is cited by the examiner, the publication number, publication date, name of the applicant, class, and subclass should be cited under the section “U.S. Patent Documents” on the form PTO-892. For U.S. patents, the patent number, patent date, name of the patentee, and the relevant classification should also be cited under the same section. In addition, examiners are encouraged to cite the kind codes printed on U.S. patent application publications and patents. See MPEP § 901.04(a) for an explanation of the kind codes. See MPEP § 901.04 for details concerning the various series of U.S. patents and how to cite them. Note that patents of the X-Series (dated prior to July 4, 1836) are not to be cited by number. Some U.S. patents issued in 1861 have two numbers thereon. The larger number should be cited.
Defensive Publications and Statutory Invention Registrations (SIRs) should be cited under the
700-152Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.05(b)
section “U.S. Patent Documents” on the form PTO-892 (see MPEP §§ 711.06(a) and 901.06(a)).
II. FOREIGN PATENTS AND FOREIGN PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS
In citing foreign patents, the patent number, kind code, citation date, name of the country, name of the patentee, and the relevant classification, if appropriate, must be given. Foreign patents searched in those Technology Centers (TCs) using the International Patent Classification (IPC) will be cited using the appropriate IPC subclass/group/subgroup. On the application’s “Search Notes” FWF form and PTO-892, the IPC subclass/group/subgroup shall be cited in the spaces provided for “Classification.”
Where less than the entire disclosure of the reference is relied upon, the sheet and page numbers specifically relied upon and the total number of sheets of drawing and pages of specification must be included (except applicant submitted citations). If the entire disclosure is relied on, the total number of sheets and pages are not required to be included on the PTO-892.
Publications such as German allowed applications and Belgian and Netherlands printed specifications should be similarly handled.
See MPEP § 901.05(a) for a chart in which foreign language terms indicative of foreign patent and publication dates to be cited are listed.
III. PUBLICATIONS
Abstracts, abbreviatures, Alien Property Custodian publications, withdrawn U.S. patents, withdrawn U.S. patent application publications, and other non-patent documents should be cited under the section “Non-Patent Documents” on the form PTO-892). See MPEP § 711.06(a) for citation of abstracts, and abbreviatures. See MPEP § 901.06(c) for citation of Alien Property Custodian publications. In citing a publication, sufficient information should be given to determine the identity and facilitate the location of the publication. For books, the data required by 37 CFR 1.104(d) (MPEP § 707.05) with the specific pages relied on identified together with the Scientific and Technical Information Center
(STIC) call number will suffice. The call number appears on the “spine” of the book if the book is thick enough and, in any event, on the back of the title page. Books on interlibrary loan will be marked with the call numbers of the other library, of course. THIS NUMBER SHOULD NOT BE CITED. The same convention should be followed in citing articles from periodicals. The call number should be cited for periodicals owned by the STIC, but not for periodicals borrowed from other libraries. In citing periodicals, information sufficient to identify the article includes the author(s) and title of the article and the title, volume number issue number, date, and pages of the periodical. If the copy relied on is located only in the Technology Center making the action (there may be no call number), the additional information, “Copy in Technology Center — —” should be given.
The following are examples of nonpatent bibliographical citations:
(A) For books:
Winslow. C. E. A. Fresh Air and Ventilation. N.Y., E. P. Dutton, 1926. p. 97-112. TI17653.W5.
(B) For parts of books:
Smith, J. F. “Patent Searching.” in: Singer, T.E.R., Information and Communication Practice in Industry (NewYork, Reinhold, 1958), pp. 157-165. T 175.S5.
(C) For encyclopedia articles:
Calvert, R. “Patents (Patent Law).” in: Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (1952 ed.), vol. 9, pp. 868-890. Ref. TP9.E68.
(D) For sections of handbooks:
Machinery’s Handbook, 16th ed. NewYork, International Press, 1959. pp. 1526-1527. TJ151.M3 1959.
(E) For periodical articles:
Noyes, W. A. A Climate for Basic Chemical Research
Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 38, no. 42 (Oct. 17, 1960), pp. 91-95. TP1.I418.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-153
§ 707.05(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
The following are examples of how withdrawn U.S. patents and withdrawn U.S. patent application publications should be cited:
(A) Withdrawn U.S. patents:
US 6,999,999, 10/2002, Brown et al., 403/155 (withdrawn).
(B) Withdrawn U.S. patents application publications:
US 2002/0009999A1, 7/2002, Jones et al., 403/155 (withdrawn).
Titles of books and periodicals SHOULD NOT be abbreviated because an abbreviation such as P.S.E.B.M. will not be sufficient to identify the publication. References are to be cited so that anyone reading a patent may identify and retrieve the publications cited. Bibliographic information provided must be at least enough to identify the publication. author, title and date. For books, minimal information includes the author, title, and date. For periodicals, at least the title of the periodical, the volume number, date, and pages should be given. These minimal citations may be made ONLY IF the complete bibliographic details are unknown or unavailable.
Where a nonpatent literature reference with a document identification number is cited, the identification number and the class and subclass should be included on form PTO-892. For example, the citation should be as follows: (S00840001) Winslow, C.E.A. Fresh Air and Ventilation N.Y., E.P. Dutton, 1926, p. 97-112, TH 7653, W5, 315/22.
If the original publication is located outside the Office, the examiner should immediately make or order a photocopy of at least the portion relied upon and indicate the class and subclass in which it will be filed, if any.
IV. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
An electronic document is one that can be retrieved from an online source (e.g., the Internet, online database, etc.) or sources found on electronic storage media (e.g., CD-ROM, magnetic disk or tape, etc.). Many references in paper format may also be retrieved as electronic documents. Other references are retrievable only from electronic sources.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office follows the format recommended by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.14, “Recommendation for the Inclusion of References Cited in Patent Documents.” The format for the citation of an electronic document is as similar as possible to the format used for paper documents of the same type, but with the addition of the following information in the locations indicated, where appropriate:
(A) the type of electronic medium provided in square brackets [ ] after the title of the publication or the designation of the host document, e.g., [online], [CD-ROM], [disk], [magnetic tape]. If desired, the type of publication (e.g., monograph, serial, database, electronic mail, computer program, bulletin board) may also be specified in the type of medium designator;
(B) the date when the document was retrieved from the electronic media in square brackets following after the date of publication, e.g., [retrieved on March 4, 1998], [retrieved on 1998-03-04]. The four-digit year must always be given.
(C) identification of the source of the document using the words “Retrieved from” and its address where applicable. This item will precede the citation of the relevant passages.
(D) reference to the unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, or other unique identification number, if known.
(E) if considered necessary, the standard identifier and number assigned to the item, e.g., ISBN 2-7654-0537-9, ISSN 1045-1064. It should be noted that these numbers may differ for the same title in the printed and electronic versions.
(F) where multiple renderings of the same document are published (e.g., PDF and HTML), an indication of the format (e.g., paper, PDF) and the location of the cited document.
(G) use paragraph numbers, sentence numbers and line numbers (if available) to describe the specific location of the cited material within an electronic document.
(H) claim numbers, figure numbers, chemical formula numbers, mathematical formula numbers,
700-154Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.05(e)
table heading numbers, gene sequence numbers, and computer program listing numbers if available.
(I) specific headings within the document structure such as Best Mode of Performing the Invention or Industrial Applicability can be indicated if page, paragraph, and line numbers are not available in a cited patent document in electronic format.
(J) specific passages of the text can be indicated if the format of the document includes pagination or an equivalent internal referencing system, or by the first and last words of the passage cited.
Office copies of an electronic document must be retained if the same document may not be available for retrieval in the future. This is especially important for sources such as the Internet and online databases.
If an electronic document is also available in paper form it does not need to be identified as an electronic document, unless it is considered desirable or useful to do so.
Examples 1-4: Documents retrieved from online databases outside the Internet
Example 1:
SU 1511467 A (BRYAN MECH) 1989-09-30 (abstract) World Patents Index [database online]. Derwent Publications, Ltd. [retrieved on 1998-02-24]. Retrieved from: Questel. DW9016, Accession No. 90-121923.
Example 2:
DONG, XR. ‘Analysis of patients of multiple injuries with AIS-ISS and its clinical significance in the evaluation of the emergency managements’, Chung Hua Wai Ko Tsa Chih, May 1993, Vol. 31, No. 5, pages 301-302. (abstract) Medline [online]: United States National Library of Medicine [retrieved on 24 February 1998]. Retrieved from: Dialog . Medline Accession no. 94155687, Dialog Accession No. 07736604.
Example 3:
JENSEN, BP. ‘Multilayer printed circuits: production and application II’. Electronik, June-July 1976, No. 6-7, pages 8, 10,12,14,16. (abstract) INSPEC [online]. London, U.K.: Institute of Electrical Engineers [retrieved on 1998-02-24]. Retrieved from: STN International, USA. Accession No. 76:956632.
Example 4:
JP 3002404 (Tamura Toru) 1991-03-13 (abstract). [online] [retrieved on 1998-09-02]. Retrieved from: EPOQUE PAJ Database.
Examples 5-15: Documents retrieved from the Internet
Example 5:
(Electronic patent document – not page based)
WO 2004/091307 A2 (ADVANCED BIONUTRITON CORP) 2004-10-28, paragraphs [0068], [0069]; examples 2, 6.
GB 2,432,062 A (GE INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY LP) 2007.05.09, Detailed Description, third paragraph beginning ‘Referring to Figure 2’.
Example 6:
(Electronically registered Intellectual Property – other than patent documents)
HU D9900111 Industrial Design Application, (HADJDUTEJ TEJIPARI RT, DEBRECEN) 2007-07-19, [database online], [retrieved on 1999-10-26] Retrieved from the Industrial Design Database of the Hungarian Patent Office using Internet <URL: http://elajstrom.hpo.hu/?lang=EN>
Example 7:
(Entire Work – Book or Report)
WALLACE, S, and BAGHERZADEH, N. Multiple Branch and Block Prediction. Third International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture [online], February 1997 [retrieved on 2007-07-18]. Retrieved from the Internet:< URL: http: / / ieeexplore . ieee.org/xpl/ freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber= 569645&isnumber=12370> <DOI:10.1109/HPCA.1977.569645>. >.
Example 8:
(Part of Work – chapter or equivalent designation)
National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Committee on Animal Nutrition, Subcommittee on Beef Cattle Nutrition. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle [online]. 7th revised edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996 [retrieved on 2007-07-19]. Retrieved from the Internet:< URL: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php ?record_id=9791&page=24> Chapter 3, page 24, table 3-1, ISBN-10: 0-309-06934-3.
Example 9:
(Electronic Serial – articles or other contributions)
AJTAI, Miklos,. Generating Hard Instances of Lattice Problems. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-155
§ 707.05(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
TR96-007 [serialonline], [retrieved on 1996-01-30]. Retrieved from the In terne t <URL: ht tp : / /eccc . hpi-web.de/pub/eccc/reports/1996/TR96-007/index.html>
Example 10:
OWEN, RW et al. Olive-oil consumption and health: the possible role of antioxidants. Lancet Oncology, Vol 1, No. 2, 1 October 2000, pp. 107-112 [online], [retrieved on 2007-07-18]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: http://www.ingentaconnect. com /content/els /14702045/2000/00000001/00000002/art0001> <DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(00)00015-2>
Example 11:
(Electronic bulletin boards, message systems, and discussion lists – Entire System)
BIOMET-L (A forum for the Bureau of Biometrics of New York) [online]. Albany (NY): Bureau of Biometrics, New York State Health Department, July, 1990 [retrieved 1998-02-24]. Retrieved from the Internet: <listserv@health.state.ny.us>, message: subscribe BIOMET-L your real name.
Example 12:
(Electronic bulletin boards, message systems, and discussion lists – Contributions)
PARKER, Elliott. ‘Re: citing electronic journals’. In PACS-L (Public Access Computer Systems Forum) [online]. Houston (TX): University of Houston Libraries, November 24, 1989; 13:29:35 CST [retrieved on 1998-02-24]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:telnet://bruser@a.cni.org>.
Example 13:
(Electronic mail)
‘Plumb design of a visual thesaurus’. The Scout Report [online]. 1998, vol. 5 no. 3 [retrieved on 1998-05-18]. Retrieved from Internet electronic mail: <listserv@cs.wisc.edu>, subscribe message: info scout-report. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/ScoutReport/1998/scout-980515.html#13> ISSN: 1092-3861\cf15.
Example 14:
(Product Manual/Catalogue or other information obtained from a website)
Corebuilder 3500 Layer 3 High-function Switch. Datasheet [online]. 3Com Corporation, 1997 [retrieved on 1998-02-24]. R e t r i eve d f r o m t h e I n t e r n e t : < U R L : www.3com.com/products/dsheets/400347.html>.
Examples 15 and 16: Documents retrieved from CD-ROM products
Example 15:
JP 0800085 A (TORAY IND INC), (abstract), 1996-05-31. In: Patent Abstracts of Japan [CD-ROM].
Example 16:
HAYASHIDA, O et al.: Specific molecular recognition by chiral cage-type cyclophanes having leucine, valine, and alanine residues. : Tetrahedron 1955, Vol. 51 (31), p. 8423-36. In: Chemical Abstracts [CD-ROM]. CAS Abstract
707.05(f) [Reserved]
707.05(g) Incorrect Citation of References [R-11.2013]
Where an error in citation of a reference is brought to the attention of the Office by applicant, a letter correcting the error, together with a correct copy of the reference, is sent to applicant. See MPEP § 710.06. Where the error is discovered by the examiner, applicant is also notified and the period for reply restarted. See MPEP § 710.06.
One or more of form paragraphs 7.81, 7.82, 7.82.01, and 7.83 may be used to correct citations or copies of references cited.
¶ 7.81 Correction Letter Re Last Office Action
In response to applicant’s [1] regarding the last Office action, the following corrective action is taken.
The period for reply of [2] MONTHS set in said Office action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert --telephone inquiry of _____-- or --communication dated ______--.
2. In bracket 2, insert new period for reply.
3. This form paragraph must be followed by one or more of form paragraphs 7.82, 7.82.01 or 7.83.
4. Before restarting the period, the SPE should be consulted.
¶ 7.82 Correction of Reference Citation
The reference [1] was not correctly cited in the last Office action. The correct citation is shown on the attached PTO-892.
Examiner Note:
1. Every correction MUST be reflected on a corrected or new PTO-892.
700-156Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.05(f)
2. This form paragraph must follow form paragraph 7.81.
3. If a copy of the PTO-892 is being provided without correction, use form paragraph 7.83 instead of this form paragraph.
4. Also use form paragraph 7.82.01 if reference copies are being supplied.
¶ 7.82.01 Copy of Reference(s) Furnished
Copies of the following references not previously supplied are enclosed:
Examiner Note:
1. The USPTO ceased mailing paper copies of U.S. patents and U.S. application publications cited in Office Actions in nonprovisional applications beginning in June 2004. See the phase-in schedule of the E-Patent Reference program provided in “USPTO to Provide Electronic Access to Cited U.S. Patent References with Office Actions and Cease Supplying Paper Copies,” 1282 OG 109 (May 18, 2004). Therefore, this form paragraph should only be used for foreign patent documents, non-patent literature, pending applications that are not stored in the image file wrapper (IFW) system, and other information not previously supplied.
2. The reference copies being supplied must be listed following this form paragraph.
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.81 and may also be used with form paragraphs 7.82 or 7.83.
¶ 7.83 Copy of Office Action Supplied
[1] of the last Office action is enclosed.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, explain what is enclosed. For example:
a. “A corrected copy”
b. “A complete copy”
c. A specific page or pages, e.g., “Pages 3-5”
d. “A Notice of References Cited, Form PTO-892”
2. This form paragraph should follow form paragraph 7.81 and may follow form paragraphs 7.82 and 7.82.01.
In any application otherwise ready for issue, in which the erroneous citation has not been formally corrected in an official paper, the examiner is directed to correct the citation by examiner’s amendment accompanying the Notice of Allowability form PTOL-37.
If a FOREIGN patent is incorrectly cited: for example, the wrong country is indicated or the country omitted from the citation, the General
Reference Branch of the Scientific and Technical Library may be helpful. The date and number of the patent are often sufficient to determine the correct country which granted the patent.
707.06 Citation of Decisions, Orders Memorandums, and Notices [R-11.2013]
In citing court decisions, when it is convenient to do so, the U.S. or Federal Reporter citation should be provided; in the alternative, the USPQ citation should be given.
The citation of decisions which are not available to the public should be avoided.
It is important to recognize that a federal district court decision that has been reversed on appeal cannot be cited as authority.
In citing a decision which is available to the public but which has not been published, the tribunal rendering the decision and complete data identifying the paper should be given. Thus, a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board which has not been published but which is available to the public in the patented file should be cited, as “ Ex parte — — , decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patent No. — — — , paper No. — — , — — — pages.”
Decisions found only in patented files should be cited only when there is no published decision on the same point.
When a Director’s order, notice or memorandum not yet incorporated into this manual is cited in any official action, the title and date of the order, notice or memorandum should be given. When appropriate other data, such as a specific issue of the Official Gazette may also be given.
707.07 Completeness and Clarity of Examiner’s Action [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.104 Nature of examination. *****
(b) Completeness of examiner’s action. The examiner’s action will be complete as to all matters, except that in appropriate circumstances, such as misjoinder of invention, fundamental defects in the application, and the like, the action
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-157
§ 707.07EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
of the examiner may be limited to such matters before further action is made. However, matters of form need not be raised by the examiner until a claim is found allowable.
*****
707.07(a) Complete Action on Formal Matters [R-08.1012]
Any form that lists informalities and any additional formal requirements which the examiner desires to make should be included in the first action.
When any formal requirement is made in an examiner’s action, that action should, in all cases where it indicates allowable subject matter, call attention to 37 CFR 1.111(b) and state that a complete reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with.
¶ 7.43.03 Allowable Subject Matter, Formal Requirements Outstanding
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph would be appropriate when changes (for example, drawing corrections or corrections to the specification) must be made prior to allowance.
707.07(b) -707.07(c) [Reserved]
707.07(d) Language To Be Used in Rejecting Claims [R-07.2015]
Where a claim is refused for any reason relating to the merits thereof it should be “rejected” and the ground of rejection fully and clearly stated, and the word “reject” must be used. The examiner should designate the statutory basis for any ground of rejection by express reference to a section of 35 U.S.C. in the opening sentence of each ground of rejection. Claims should not be grouped together in a common rejection unless that rejection is equally applicable to all claims in the group.
The burden is on the Office to establish any prima facie case of unpatentability (see, e.g., MPEP § 2103), thus the reasoning behind any rejection must be clearly articulated. For example, if the claim is rejected as broader than the enabling disclosure, the reason for so holding should be explained; if rejected as indefinite the examiner should point out wherein the indefiniteness resides; or if rejected as incomplete, the element or elements lacking should be specified, or the applicant be otherwise advised as to what the claim requires to render it complete.
See MPEP §§ 706.02(i), 706.02(j), and 706.02(m) for language to be used.
Everything of a personal nature must be avoided. Whatever may be the examiner’s view as to the utter lack of patentable merit in the disclosure of the application examined, he or she should not express in the record the opinion that the application is, or appears to be, devoid of patentable subject matter. Nor should he or she express doubts as to the allowability of allowed claims or state that every doubt has been resolved in favor of the applicant in granting him or her the claims allowed.
The examiner should, as a part of the first Office action on the merits, identify any claims which he or she judges, as presently recited, to be allowable and/or should suggest any way in which he or she considers that rejected claims may be amended to make them allowable.
707.07(e) Note All Outstanding Requirements [R-08.2012]
In taking up an amended application for action the examiner should note in every letter all the requirements outstanding against the application. Every point in the prior action of an examiner which is still applicable must be repeated or referred to, to prevent the implied waiver of the requirement . Such requirements include requirements for information under 37 CFR 1.105 and MPEP § 704.10; however the examiner should determine whether any such requirement has been satisfied by a negative reply under 37 CFR 1.105(a)(3).
700-158Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.07(a)
As soon as allowable subject matter is found, correction of all informalities then present should be required.
707.07(f) Answer All Material Traversed [R-11.2013]
In order to provide a complete application file history and to enhance the clarity of the prosecution history record, an examiner must provide clear explanations of all actions taken by the examiner during prosecution of an application.
Where the requirements are traversed, or suspension thereof requested, the examiner should make proper reference thereto in his or her action on the amendment.
Where the applicant traverses any rejection, the examiner should, if he or she repeats the rejection, take note of the applicant’s argument and answer the substance of it.
If applicant’s arguments are persuasive and upon reconsideration of the rejection, the examiner determines that the previous rejection should be withdrawn, the examiner must provide in the next Office communication the reasons why the previous rejection is withdrawn by referring specifically to the page(s) and line(s) of applicant’s remarks which form the basis for withdrawing the rejection. It is not acceptable for the examiner to merely indicate that all of applicant’s remarks form the basis for withdrawing the previous rejection. Form paragraph 7.38.01 may be used. If the withdrawal of the previous rejection results in the allowance of the claims, the reasons, which form the basis for the withdrawal of the previous rejection, may be included in a reasons for allowance. See MPEP § 1302.14. If applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the examiner determines that the previous rejection should be withdrawn but that, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection should be made, form paragraph 7.38.02 may be used. See MPEP § 706.07(a) to determine whether the Office action may be made final.
If a rejection of record is to be applied to a new or amended claim, specific identification of that ground of rejection, as by citation of the paragraph in the
former Office letter in which the rejection was originally stated, should be given.
ANSWERING ASSERTED ADVANTAGES
After an Office action, the reply (in addition to making amendments, etc.) may frequently include arguments and affidavits to the effect that the prior art cited by the examiner does not teach how to obtain or does not inherently yield one or more advantages (new or improved results, functions or effects), which advantages are urged to warrant issue of a patent on the allegedly novel subject matter claimed.
If it is the examiner’s considered opinion that the asserted advantages are not sufficient to overcome the rejection(s) of record, he or she should state the reasons for his or her position in the record, preferably in the action following the assertion or argument relative to such advantages. By so doing the applicant will know that the asserted advantages have actually been considered by the examiner and, if appeal is taken, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will also be advised. See MPEP § 716 et seq. for the treatment of affidavits and declarations under 37 CFR 1.132.
The importance of answering applicant’s arguments is illustrated by In re Herrmann, 261 F.2d 598, 120 USPQ 182 (CCPA 1958) where the applicant urged that the subject matter claimed produced new and useful results. The court noted that since applicant’s statement of advantages was not questioned by the examiner or the Board, it was constrained to accept the statement at face value and therefore found certain claims to be allowable. See also In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Office failed to rebut applicant’s argument).
Form paragraphs 7.37 through 7.37.13 may be used where applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Form paragraphs 7.38 through 7.38.02 may be used where applicant’s arguments are moot or persuasive.
¶ 7.37 Arguments Are Not Persuasive
Applicant’s arguments filed [1] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. [2]
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-159
§ 707.07(f)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Examiner Note:
1. The examiner must address all arguments which have not already been responded to in the statement of the rejection.
2. In bracket 2, provide explanation as to non-persuasiveness.
¶ 7.38 Arguments Are Moot Because of New Ground(s) of Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim [1] have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Examiner Note:
The examiner must, however, address any arguments presented by the applicant which are still relevant to any references being applied.
¶ 7.38.01 Arguments Persuasive, Previous Rejection/Objection Withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments, see [1], filed [2], with respect to [3] have been fully considered and are persuasive. The [4] of [5] has been withdrawn.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the page(s) and line number(s) from applicant’s remarks which form the basis for withdrawing the previous rejection/objection.
2. In bracket 3, insert claim number, figure number, the specification, the abstract, etc.
3. In bracket 4, insert rejection or objection.
4. In bracket 5, insert claim number, figure number, the specification, the abstract, etc.
¶ 7.38.02 Arguments Persuasive, New Ground(s) of Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see [1], filed [2], with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) [3] under [4] have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of [5].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the page(s) and line number(s) from applicant’s remarks which form the basis for withdrawing the previous rejection.
2. In bracket 3, insert the claim number(s).
3. In bracket 4, insert the statutory basis for the previous rejection.
4. In bracket 5, insert the new ground(s) of rejection, e.g., different interpretation of the previously applied reference, newly found prior art reference(s), and provide an explanation of the rejection.
¶ 7.37.01 Unpersuasive Argument: Age of Reference(s)
In response to applicant’s argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.02 Unpersuasive Argument: Bodily Incorporation
In response to applicant’s argument that [1], the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of bodily incorporation.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.03 Unpersuasive Argument: Hindsight Reasoning
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.04 UnpersuasiveArgument: No Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation To Combine
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, [1].
700-160Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.07(f)
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, explain where the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the rejection is found, either in the references, or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.05 Unpersuasive Argument: Nonanalogous Art
In response to applicant’s argument that [1] is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, [2].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, enter the name of the reference which applicant alleges is nonanalogous.
2. In bracket 2, explain why the reference is analogous art.
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.06 Unpersuasive Argument: Number of References
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.07 UnpersuasiveArgument:Applicant Obtains Result Not Contemplated by Prior Art
In response to applicant’s argument that [1], the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of results not contemplated by the prior art.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.08 Unpersuasive Argument: Arguing Limitations Which Are Not Claimed
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that
the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [1]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, recite the features upon which applicant relies, but which are not recited in the claim(s).
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.09 Unpersuasive Argument: Intended Use
In response to applicant’s argument that [1], a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of intended use.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.10 Unpersuasive Argument: Limitation(s) in Preamble
In response to applicant’s arguments, the recitation [1] has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, briefly restate the recitation about which applicant is arguing.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.11 Unpersuasive Argument: General Allegation of Patentability
Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-161
§ 707.07(f)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
¶ 7.37.12 Unpersuasive Argument: Novelty Not Clearly Pointed Out
Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
¶ 7.37.13 Unpersuasive Argument: Arguing Against References Individually
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
707.07(g) Piecemeal Examination [R-07.2015]
Piecemeal examination should be avoided as much as possible. The examiner ordinarily should reject each claim on all valid grounds available, avoiding, however, undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP § 904.03.) Rejections on grounds such as lack of proper disclosure, lack of enablement, indefiniteness and res judicata should be applied where appropriate even though there may be a seemingly sufficient rejection on the basis of prior art. Where a non-prior art ground of rejection is proper, it should be stated with a full development of reasons rather than by a mere conclusion coupled with a boiler plate expression.
Certain technical rejections (e.g., negative limitations, indefiniteness) should not be made where the examiner, recognizing the limitations of the English language, is not aware of an improved manner of reciting the claimed invention.
Some situations exist where examination of an application appears best accomplished by limiting action on the claim thereof to a particular issue. These situations include the following:
(A) Where an application is too informal for a complete action on the merits. See MPEP § 702.01;
(B) Where there is an undue multiplicity of claims, and there has been no successful telephone request for election of a limited number of claims for full examination. See MPEP § 2173.05(n);
(C) Where there is a misjoinder of inventions and there has been no successful telephone request for election. See MPEP §§ 803, 810, and 812.01;
(D) Where disclosure is directed to perpetual motion. See Ex parte Payne, 1904 C.D. 42, 108 OG 1049 (Comm’r Pat. 1903). However, in such cases, the best prior art readily available should be cited and its pertinence pointed out without specifically applying it to the claims.
On the other hand, a rejection on the grounds of res judicata, no prima facie showing for reissue, new matter, or inoperativeness (not involving perpetual motion) should be accompanied by rejection on all other available grounds.
707.07(h) Notify of Inaccuracies in Amendment [R-08.2012]
See MPEP § 714, subsection II. G.
707.07(i) Each Claim To Be Mentioned in Each Office Action [R-11.2013]
In every Office action, each pending claim should be mentioned by number, and its treatment or status given. Since a claim retains its original numeral throughout the prosecution of the application, its history through successive actions is thus easily traceable. Each action should include a summary of the status of all claims presented for examination. Form PTO-326 “Office Action Summary” should be used.
Claims retained after a restriction requirement (37 CFR 1.142) or election of species requirement (37 CFR 1.146) should be treated as set out in MPEP §§ 821 to 821.04(b).
See MPEP Chapter 2300 for treatment of claims in the application of losing party in interference.
700-162Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.07(g)
The Index of Claims should be kept up to date as set forth in MPEP § 719.04.
707.07(j) State When Claims Are Allowable [R-11.2013]
I. INVENTOR FILED APPLICATIONS
When, during the examination of a pro se application it becomes apparent to the examiner that there is patentable subject matter disclosed in the application, the examiner should draft one or more claims for the applicant and indicate in his or her action that such claims would be allowed if incorporated in the application by amendment.
This practice will expedite prosecution and offer a service to individual inventors not represented by a registered patent attorney or agent. Although this practice may be desirable and is permissible in any case deemed appropriate by the examiner, it is especially useful in all cases where it is apparent that the applicant is unfamiliar with the proper preparation and prosecution of patent applications.
II. ALLOWABLE EXCEPT AS TO FORM
When an application discloses patentable subject matter and it is apparent from the claims and applicant’s arguments that the claims are intended to be directed to such patentable subject matter, but the claims in their present form cannot be allowed because of defects in form or omission of a limitation, the examiner should not stop with a bare objection or rejection of the claims. The examiner’s action should be constructive in nature and, when possible, should offer a definite suggestion for correction. Further, an examiner’s suggestion of allowable subject matter may justify indicating the possible desirability of an interview to accelerate early agreement on allowable claims.
If the examiner is satisfied after the search has been completed that patentable subject matter has been disclosed and the record indicates that the applicant intends to claim such subject matter, the examiner may note in the Office action that certain aspects or features of the patentable invention have not been claimed and that if properly claimed such claims may be given favorable consideration.
If a claim is otherwise allowable but is dependent on a canceled claim or on a rejected claim, the Office action should state that the claim would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
III. EARLY ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS
Where the examiner is satisfied that the prior art has been fully developed and some of the claims are clearly allowable, the allowance of such claims should not be delayed.
Form paragraphs 7.43, 7.43.01, and 7.43.02 may be used to indicate allowable subject matter.
¶ 7.43 Objection to Claims, Allowable Subject Matter
Claim [1] objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
¶ 7.43.01Allowable Subject Matter, Claims Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph, Independent Claim/Dependent Claim
Claim [1] would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is to be used when (1) the noted independent claim(s) or (2) the noted dependent claim(s), which depend from an allowable claim, have been rejected solely on the basis of35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection.
¶ 7.43.02Allowable Subject Matter, Claims Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph, Dependent Claim
Claim [1] would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is to be used only when the noted dependent claim(s), which depend from a claim that is rejected based on prior art, have been rejected solely on the basis of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and would be allowable if amended as indicated.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-163
§ 707.07(j)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
¶ 7.43.04 Suggestion of Allowable Drafted Claim(s), Pro Se
The following claim [1] drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, [2] presented to applicant for consideration:
[3].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert --is-- or --are--.
2. In bracket 3, insert complete text of suggested claim(s).
Form paragraph 7.97 may be used to indicate allowance of claims.
¶ 7.97 Claims Allowed
Claim [1] allowed.
707.07(k) Numbering Paragraphs [R-08.2012]
It is good practice to number the paragraphs of the Office action consecutively. This facilitates their identification in the future prosecution of the application.
707.07(l) Comment on Examples [R-07.2015]
The results of the tests and examples should not normally be questioned by the examiner unless there is reasonable basis for questioning the results. If the examiner questions the results, the appropriate claims should be rejected as being based on an insufficient disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970). See MPEP §§ 2161 - 2164.08(c) for a discussion of the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C 112. The applicant must reply to the rejection, for example, by providing the results of an actual test or example which has been conducted, or by providing relevant arguments that there is strong reason to believe that the result would be as predicted. Care should be taken that new matter is not entered into the application.
If questions are present as to operability or utility, consideration should be given to the applicability of
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP §§ 706.03(a) and 2107 et seq.
707.08 Reviewing and Initialing by Assistant Examiner [R-11.2013]
The full surname of the examiner who prepares the Office action will, in all cases, be typed at the end of the action. The name and telephone number of the examiner who should be called if the application is to be discussed or an interview arranged will also be provided in the Office action. Form paragraph 7.100, 7.101 or 7.102 should be used.
¶ 7.100 Name And Number of Examiner To Be Contacted
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to [1] at telephone number [2].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph, form paragraph 7.101, or form paragraph 7.102 should be used at the conclusion of all actions.
2. In bracket 1, insert the name of the examiner designated to be contacted first regarding inquiries about the Office action. This could be either the non-signatory examiner preparing the action or the signatory examiner.
3. In bracket 2, insert the individual area code and phone number of the examiner to be contacted.
¶ 7.101 Telephone Inquiry Contacts- Non 5/4/9 Schedule
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [1] whose telephone number is [2]. The examiner can normally be reached on [3] from [4] to [5].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, [6], can be reached on [7]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert your name.
2. In bracket 2, insert your individual area code and phone number.
700-164Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 707.07(k)
3. In bracket 3, insert the days that you work every week, e.g. “Monday-Thursday” for an examiner off every Friday.
4. In brackets 4 and 5, insert your normal duty hours, e.g. “6:30 AM - 5:00 PM.”
5. In bracket 6, insert your SPE’s name.
6. In bracket 7, insert your SPE’s area code and phone number.
¶ 7.102 Telephone Inquiry Contacts- 5/4/9 Schedule
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [1] whose telephone number is [2]. The examiner can normally be reached on [3] from [4] to [5]. The examiner can also be reached on alternate [6].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, [7], can be reached on [8]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert your name.
2. In bracket 2, insert your individual area code and phone number.
3. In bracket 3, insert the days that you work every week, e.g. “Monday-Thursday” for an examiner off on alternate Fridays.
4. In brackets 4 and 5, insert your normal duty hours, e.g. “6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.”
5. In bracket 6, insert the day in each pay-period that is your compressed day off, e.g. “Fridays” for an examiner on a 5/4/9 work schedule with the first Friday off.
6. In bracket 7, insert your SPE’s name.
7. In bracket 8, insert your SPE’s area code and phone number.
The surname or initials of the examiner who prepared the action and the date on which the action was prepared should appear at the end of the action. If this examiner does not have the authority to sign the action, he or she should initial as appropriate,
and forward the action to the authorized signatory examiner for signing.
707.09 Signing by Primary or Other Authorized Examiner [R-11.2013]
The electronic signature of the Supervisory Patent Examiner, Primary or other authorized examiner is inserted to sign Office actions. All Office actions and other correspondence should be signed promptly.
707.10 Entry [R-11.2013]
The action, signed by the authorized examiner, is soft scanned into the IFW and a copy is given electronically or mailed to applicant.
707.11 Date [R-08.2012]
The mailing date should not be typed when the Office action is written, but should be stamped or printed on all copies of the action after it has been signed by the authorized signatory examiner and the copies are about to be mailed.
707.12 Mailing [R-11.2013]
Access to the examiner’s action is given electronically or copies are mailed after the original, initialed by the assistant examiner, if any, and signed by the authorized signatory examiner, has been soft scanned into the image file wrapper.
707.13 Returned Office Action [R-11.2013]
Office actions are sometimes returned to the Office because the United States Postal Service has not been able to deliver them. Upon receipt of the returned Office action, the Technology Center (TC) technical support staff will check the application file record to ensure that the Office action was mailed to the correct correspondence address. If the Office action was not mailed to the correct correspondence address, it should be stamped “remailed” with the remailing date and mailed to the correct correspondence address. The period running against the application begins with the date of remailing. If the Office action was mailed to the correct correspondence address and it was addressed to an
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-165
§ 707.13EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
attorney or agent, a letter along with a copy of the Office action may be sent to the applicant, or the first named inventor if more than one inventor is the applicant, informing the applicant of the returned action. The time period for reply to the Office action will be restarted to run from the mailing date of the letter informing applicant of the returned action .
A copy of the letter and a copy of the envelope should be added to the IFW. If the period dating from the remailing elapses with no communication from applicant, the application is abandoned.
708 Order of Examination [R-11.2013]
Nonprovisional applications filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and accepted as complete applications are assigned for examination to the respective examining Technology Centers (TCs) having the classes of inventions to which the applications relate. Nonprovisional applications are ordinarily taken up for examination by the examiner to whom they have been assigned in the order in which they have been filed except for those applications in which examination has been advanced pursuant to 37 CFR 1.102. See 37 CFR 1.496 and MPEP § 1893.03 for the order of examination of international applications in the national stage, including taking up out of order certain national stage applications which have been indicated as satisfying the criteria of PCT Article 33(1)-(4) as to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability.
Applications which have been acted upon by the examiner, and which have been placed by the applicant in condition for further action by the examiner (amended applications) shall be taken up for action in such order as shall be determined by the Director of the USPTO.
Each examiner will give priority to that application in his or her docket, whether amended or new, which has the oldest effective U.S. filing date. This basic policy applies to all applications; rare circumstances may justify TC Directors granting individual exceptions.
The actual filing date of a continuation-in-part application is used for docketing purposes. However,
the examiner may act on a continuation-in-part application by using the effective filing date, if desired.
If at any time an examiner determines that the “effective filing date” status of any application differs from what the records show, the technical support staff should be informed, who should promptly amend the records to show the correct status, with the date of correction.
The order of examination for each examiner is to give priority to reissue applications and to reexamination proceedings, with top priority to reissue applications in which litigation has been stayed (MPEP § 1442.03), to ex parte reexamination proceedings involved in litigation (MPEP § 2261), and to inter partes reexamination proceedings involved in litigation (MPEP § 2661), then to those special cases having a fixed 30-day due date, such as examiner’s answers and decisions on motions. Most other cases in the “special” category (for example, interference cases, cases made special by petition, cases ready for final conclusion, etc.) will continue in this category, with the earliest effective U.S. filing date among them normally controlling priority.
All amendments before final rejection should be responded to within two months of receipt.
708.01 List of Special Cases [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.102 Advancement of examination.
(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Director to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) or (e) of this section or upon filing a petition or request under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section with a showing which, in the opinion of the Director, will justify so advancing it.
(b) Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.
(c) A petition to make an application special may be filed without a fee if the basis for the petition is:
(1) The applicant’s age or health; or
(2) That the invention will materially:
700-166Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708
(i) Enhance the quality of the environment;
(ii) Contribute to the development or conservation of energy resources; or
(iii) Contribute to countering terrorism.
(d) A petition to make an application special on grounds other than those referred to in paragraph (c) of this section must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(h).
(e) A request for prioritized examination under this paragraph must comply with the requirements of this paragraph and be accompanied by the prioritized examination fee set forth in § 1.17(c), the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), and if not already paid, the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d). An application for which prioritized examination has been requested may not contain or be amended to contain more than four independent claims, more than thirty total claims, or any multiple dependent claim. Prioritized examination under this paragraph will not be accorded to international applications that have not entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, design applications, reissue applications, provisional applications, or reexamination proceedings.A request for prioritized examination must also comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) or paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(1) A request for prioritized examination may be filed with an original utility or plant nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The application must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 including at least one claim, a drawing when necessary, and the inventor’s oath or declaration on filing, except that the filing of an inventor’s oath or declaration may be postponed in accordance with § 1.53(f)(3) if an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i) is present upon filing. If the application is a utility application, it must be filed via the Office’s electronic filing system and include the filing fee under § 1.16(a), search fee under § 1.16(k), and examination fee under § 1.16(o) upon filing. If the application is a plant application, it must include the filing fee under § 1.16(c), search fee under § 1.16(m), and examination fee under § 1.16(q) upon filing. The request for prioritized examination in compliance with this paragraph must be present upon filing of the application, except that the applicant may file an amendment to cancel any independent claims in excess of four, any total claims in excess of thirty, and any multiple dependent claim not later than one month from a first decision on the request for prioritized examination. This one-month time period is not extendable.
(2) A request for prioritized examination may be filed with or after a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114. If the application is a utility application, the request must be filed via the Office’s electronic filing system. The request must be filed before the mailing of the first Office action after the filing of the request for continued examination under § 1.114. Only a single such request for prioritized examination under this paragraph may be granted in an application.
Certain procedures by the examiners take precedence over actions even on special cases.
For example, all papers typed and ready for signature should be completed and mailed.
All allowed cases returned to the examiner marked as a “Printer Rush” must be processed and returned within the period indicated.
Reissue applications, particularly those involved in stayed litigation, should be given priority.
Applications in which practice requires that the examiner act within a set period, such as 2 months after appellants brief to furnish the examiner’s answers (MPEP § 1208), necessarily take priority over special cases without specific time limits.
If an examiner has an application in which he or she is satisfied that it is in condition for allowance, or in which he or she is satisfied will have to be finally rejected, he or she should give such action forthwith instead of making the application await its turn.
Subject alone to diligent prosecution by the applicant, an application for patent that has once been made special and advanced out of turn for examination by reason of a ruling made in that particular case (by the Director of the USPTO or a Commissioner) will continue to be special throughout its entire course of prosecution in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including appeal, if any, to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The following is a list of special cases (those which are advanced out of turn for examination):
(A) Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and when for that reason the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action and the Director of the USPTO so orders (37 CFR 1.102).
(B) Applications made special as a result of a petition to make special, a request for prioritized examination, or a request for participation in a PPH program. (See MPEP § 708.02 et seq.)
(C) Applications for reissues, particularly those involved in stayed litigation (37 CFR 1.176).
(D) Applications remanded by an appellate tribunal for further action.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-167
§ 708.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(E) An application, once taken up for action by an examiner according to its effective filing date, should be treated as special by an examiner, art unit or Technology Center to which it may subsequently be transferred; exemplary situations include new cases transferred as the result of a telephone election and cases transferred as the result of a timely reply to any official action.
(F) Applications which appear to interfere with other applications previously considered and found to be allowable, or which will be placed in interference with an unexpired patent or patents.
(G) Applications ready for allowance, or ready for allowance except as to formal matters.
(H) Applications which are in condition for final rejection.
(I) Applications pending more than 5 years, including those which, by relation to a prior United States application, have an effective pendency of more than 5 years. See MPEP § 707.02.
(J) Reexamination proceedings, MPEP §§ 2261 and 2661.
See also MPEP §§ 714.13, 1207, and 1309.
708.02 Petition To Make Special [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.102 Advancement of examination.
(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Director to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) or (e) of this section or upon filing a petition or request under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section with a showing which, in the opinion of the Director, will justify so advancing it.
(b) Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.
(c) A petition to make an application special may be filed without a fee if the basis for the petition is:
(1) The applicant’s age or health; or
(2) That the invention will materially:
(i) Enhance the quality of the environment;
(ii) Contribute to the development or conservation of energy resources; or
(iii) Contribute to countering terrorism.
(d) A petition to make an application special on grounds other than those referred to in paragraph (c) of this section must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(h).
(e) A request for prioritized examination under this paragraph must comply with the requirements of this paragraph and be accompanied by the prioritized examination fee set forth in § 1.17(c), the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), and if not already paid, the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d). An application for which prioritized examination has been requested may not contain or be amended to contain more than four independent claims, more than thirty total claims, or any multiple dependent claim. Prioritized examination under this paragraph will not be accorded to international applications that have not entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, design applications, reissue applications, provisional applications, or reexamination proceedings.A request for prioritized examination must also comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) or paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(1) A request for prioritized examination may be filed with an original utility or plant nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The application must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 including at least one claim, a drawing when necessary, and the inventor’s oath or declaration on filing, except that the filing of an inventor’s oath or declaration may be postponed in accordance with § 1.53(f)(3) if an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i) is present upon filing. If the application is a utility application, it must be filed via the Office’s electronic filing system and include the filing fee under § 1.16(a), search fee under § 1.16(k), and examination fee under § 1.16(o) upon filing. If the application is a plant application, it must include the filing fee under § 1.16(c), search fee under § 1.16(m), and examination fee under § 1.16(q) upon filing. The request for prioritized examination in compliance with this paragraph must be present upon filing of the application, except that the applicant may file an amendment to cancel any independent claims in excess of four, any total claims in excess of thirty, and any multiple dependent claim not later than one month from a first decision on the request for prioritized examination. This one-month time period is not extendable.
(2) A request for prioritized examination may be filed with or after a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114. If the application is a utility application, the request must be filed via the Office’s electronic filing system. The request must be filed before the mailing of the first Office action after the filing of the request for continued examination under § 1.114. Only a single such request for prioritized examination under this paragraph may be granted in an application.
New applications ordinarily are taken up for examination in the order of their effective United States filing dates. Certain exceptions are made by way of petitions to make special, which may be granted under the conditions set forth below. Any statement in support of a petition to make special must be based on a good faith belief that the invention in fact qualifies for special status. See 37 CFR 1.56 and 11.18. Advancement of examination
700-168Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02
under 37 CFR 1.102 may be sought via a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(c) - (d), or via a request for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e).
Any petition to make special, other than those based on applicant’s health or age or participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program, filed on or after August 25, 2006 must meet the requirements for the revised accelerated examination program set forth in MPEP § 708.02(a). For prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e), see MPEP § 708.02(b). See subsections I and II below for the requirements for filing a petition to make special based on applicant’s health or age.
See the version of MPEP § 708.02 in force in August 2010 (Eighth Edition, Revision 9) for guidelines and the requirements for a petition to make special filed in an application before August 25, 2006. A petition to make special filed on or after August 25, 2006 will only be granted if it is based upon applicant’s health or age, is under the PPH pilot program (see MPEP § 708.02(c)), or complies with the requirements set forth in MPEP § 708.02(a). For a request for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e) filed on or after September 26, 2011, see MPEP § 708.02(b).
I. APPLICANT’S HEALTH
An application may be made special upon a petition by applicant accompanied by any evidence showing that the state of health of the applicant is such that he or she might not be available to assist in the prosecution of the application if it were to run its normal course, such as a doctor’s certificate or other medical certificate. No fee is required for such a petition. See 37 CFR 1.102(c).
Personal/medical information submitted as evidence to support the petition will be available to the public if the application file and contents are available to the public pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or 1.14. If applicant does not wish to have this information become part of the application file record, the information must be submitted pursuant to MPEP § 724.02.
II. APPLICANT’S AGE
An application may be made special upon filing a petition including any evidence showing that the applicant is 65 years of age, or more, such as applicant’s statement or a statement from a registered practitioner that he or she has evidence that the applicant is 65 years of age or older. No fee is required with such a petition. See 37 CFR 1.102(c).
Personal/medical information submitted as evidence to support the petition will be available to the public if the application file and contents are available to the public pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or 1.14. If applicant does not wish to have this information become part of the application file record, the information must be submitted pursuant to MPEP § 724.02.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will accord “special” status to all patent applications for inventions which materially enhance the quality of the environment of mankind by contributing to the restoration or maintenance of the basic life-sustaining natural elements, i.e., air, water, and soil. Any petition to make special filed under this subsection must comply with the requirements set forth in MPEP § 708.02(a).
All applicants desiring to participate in this program should petition that their applications be accorded “special” status. The petition under 37 CFR 1.102 must state that special status is sought because the invention materially enhances the quality of the environment of mankind by contributing to the restoration or maintenance of the basic life-sustaining natural elements. No fee is required for such a petition. See 37 CFR 1.102(c). If the application disclosure is not clear on its face that the claimed invention materially enhances the quality of the environment by contributing to the restoration or maintenance of one of the basic life-sustaining natural elements, the petition must be accompanied by a statement under 37 CFR 1.102 by the applicant, assignee, or an attorney/agent registered to practice before the Office explaining how the materiality standard is met. The materiality standard does not permit an applicant to speculate as to how a
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-169
§ 708.02EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
hypothetical end-user might specially apply the invention in a manner that could materially enhance the quality of the environment. Nor does such standard permit an applicant to enjoy the benefit of advanced examination merely because some minor aspect of the claimed invention may enhance the quality of the environment.
IV. ENERGY
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will, on petition, accord “special” status to all patent applications for inventions which materially contribute to (A) the discovery or development of energy resources, or (B) the more efficient utilization and conservation of energy resources. Examples of inventions in category (A) would be developments in fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, and petroleum), hydrogen fuel technologies, nuclear energy, solar energy, etc. Category (B) would include inventions relating to the reduction of energy consumption in combustion systems, industrial equipment, household appliances, etc. Any petition to make special filed under this subsection must comply with the requirements set forth in MPEP § 708.02(a).
All applicants desiring to participate in this program should petition that their applications be accorded “special” status. The petition under 37 CFR 1.102 must state that special status is sought because the invention materially contributes to category (A) or (B) set forth above. No fee is required for such a petition, 37 CFR 1.102(c). If the application disclosure is not clear on its face that the claimed invention materially contributes to category (A) or (B), the petition must be accompanied by a statement under 37 CFR 1.102 by the applicant, assignee, or an attorney/agent registered to practice before the Office explaining how the materiality standard is met. The materiality standard does not permit an applicant to speculate as to how a hypothetical end-user might specially apply the invention in a manner that could materially contribute to category (A) or (B). Nor does such standard permit an applicant to enjoy the benefit of advanced examination merely because some minor aspect of the claimed invention may be directed to category (A) or (B).
V. INVENTIONS FOR COUNTERING TERRORISM
In view of the importance of developing technologies for countering terrorism and the desirability of prompt disclosure of advances made in these fields, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will accord “special” status to patent applications for inventions which materially contribute to countering terrorism. Any petition to make special filed under this subsection must comply with the requirements set forth in MPEP § 708.02(a).
International terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331 includes “activities that - (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping...” The types of technology for countering terrorism could include, but are not limited to, systems for detecting/identifying explosives, aircraft sensors/security systems, and vehicular barricades/disabling systems.
All applicants desiring to participate in this program should petition that their applications be accorded special status. The petition under 37 CFR 1.102 must state that special status is sought because the invention materially contributes to countering terrorism. No fee is required for such a petition. See 37 CFR 1.102(c). If the application disclosure is not clear on its face that the claimed invention is materially directed to countering terrorism, the petition must be accompanied by a statement under 37 CFR 1.102 by the applicant, assignee, or an attorney/agent registered to practice before the Office explaining how the invention materiality contributes to countering terrorism. The materiality standard does not permit an applicant to speculate as to how a hypothetical end-user might specially apply the invention in a manner that could counter terrorism. Nor does such standard permit an applicant to enjoy the benefit of advanced examination merely because
700-170Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02
some minor aspect of the claimed invention may be directed to countering terrorism.
VI. HANDLING OF PETITIONS TO MAKE SPECIAL OR REQUESTS FOR ADVANCEMENT OF EXAMINATION
Applications which have been made special will be advanced out of turn for examination and will continue to be treated as special throughout the entire prosecution in the Office with the exception of applications having been granted prioritized examination which remain special until prioritized examination is terminated or until a final disposition of the application (see MPEP § 708.02(b), subsection II).
Each petition to make special or request to advance examination, regardless of the ground upon which the petition or request is based and the nature of the decision, is made of record in the application file, together with the decision thereon. The part of the Office that rules on a petition is responsible for properly entering that petition and the resulting decision in the file record. The petition, with any attached papers and supporting affidavits, will be provided as a single document in the application’s image file wrapper. The decision will be provided as a separate document similarly entered. To ensure entries in the “Contents” in proper order, the technical support staff in the TC will make certain that all papers prior to a petition have been entered and/or listed in the application file before forwarding it for consideration of the petition. Note MPEP § 1002.02(s). Currently petitions to make special based on applicant’s health or age, participation in a PPH program, or under a pilot program, and requests for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e) are decided by the Office of Petitions. All other petitions to make special are decided by the QualityAssurance Specialist of the TC to which the application is assigned.
708.02(a) Accelerated Examination [R-07.2015]
All petitions to make special, except those based on applicant’s health or age or participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program must meet the requirements set forth in subsection I below.
See MPEP § 708.02 subsection I or II (where appropriate) for the requirements for filing a petition to make special based on applicant’s health or age. For prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e), see MPEP § 708.02(b). For participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway program, see MPEP § 708.02(c).
I. REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITIONS TO MAKE SPECIAL UNDER ACCELERATED EXAMINATION
A new application may be granted accelerated examination status under the following conditions:
(A) The application must be filed with a petition to make special under the accelerated examination program accompanied by either the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) or a statement that the claimed subject matter is directed to environmental quality, the development or conservation of energy resources, or countering terrorism. See 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2). Applicant should use form PTO/SB/28 for filing the petition.
(B) The application must be a non-reissue utility or design application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
(C) The application, petition, and required fees must be filed electronically using the USPTO’s electronic filing system (EFS), or EFS-Web. If the USPTO’s EFS and EFS-Web are not available to the public during the normal business hours for these systems at the time of filing the application, applicant may file the application, other papers and fees by mail accompanied by a statement that EFS and EFS-Web were not available during the normal business hours, but the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application. See subsection VIII.F. below for more information.
(D) At the time of filing, the application must be complete under 37 CFR 1.51 and in condition for examination. For example, the application must be filed together with the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, and application size fee (if applicable), and an executed inventor’s oath or declaration (under 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64) for each inventor. See subsection VIII.C. below for more information.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-171
§ 708.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(E) The application must contain three or fewer independent claims and twenty or fewer total claims. The application must also not contain any multiple dependent claims. By filing a petition to make special under the accelerated examination program the applicant is agreeing not to separately argue the patentability of any dependent claim during any appeal in the application. Specifically, the applicant is agreeing that the dependent claims will be grouped together with and not argued separately from the independent claim from which they depend in any appeal brief filed in the application (37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(vii)). The petition must include a statement that applicant will agree not to separately argue the patentability of any dependent claim during any appeal in the application. See form PTO/SB/28.
(F) The claims must be directed to a single invention. If the USPTO determines that all the claims presented are not directed to a single invention, applicant must make an election without traverse in a telephonic interview. The petition must include a statement that applicant will agree to make an election without traverse in a telephonic interview. See form PTO/SB/28.
(G) The applicant must be willing to have an interview (including an interview before a first Office action) to discuss the prior art and any potential rejections or objections with the intention of clarifying and possibly resolving all issues with respect to patentability at that time. The petition must include a statement that applicant will agree to have such an interview when requested by the examiner. See form PTO/SB/28.
(H) At the time of filing, applicant must provide a statement that a preexamination search was conducted, including an identification of the field of search by United States class and subclass and the date of the search, where applicable, and for database searches, the search logic or chemical structure or sequence used as a query, the name of the file or files searched and the database service, and the date of the search.
(1) This preexamination search must involve U.S. patents and patent application publications, foreign patent documents, and non-patent literature, unless the applicant can justify with reasonable certainty that no references more pertinent than those already identified are likely to be found in the
eliminated source and includes such a justification with this statement.
(2) This preexamination search must be directed to the claimed invention and encompass all of the features of the claims, giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation.
(3) The preexamination search must also encompass the disclosed features that may be claimed. An amendment to the claims (including any new claim) that is not encompassed by the preexamination search or an updated accelerated examination support document (see item I) will be treated as not fully responsive and will not be entered. See subsection IV below for more information.
(4) A search report from a foreign patent office will not satisfy this preexamination search requirement unless the search report satisfies the requirements for a preexamination search.
(5) Any statement in support of a petition to make special must be based on a good faith belief that the preexamination search was conducted in compliance with these requirements. See 37 CFR 1.56 and 11.18.
(I) At the time of filing, applicant must provide in support of the petition an accelerated examination support document.
(1) An accelerated examination support document must include an information disclosure statement (IDS) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98 citing each reference deemed most closely related to the subject matter of each of the claims.
(2) For each reference cited, the accelerated examination support document must include an identification of all the limitations in the claims that are disclosed by the reference specifying where the limitation is disclosed in the cited reference.
(3) The accelerated examination support document must include a detailed explanation of how each of the claims are patentable over the references cited with the particularity required by 37 CFR 1.111(b) and (c).
(4) The accelerated examination support document must include a concise statement of the utility of the invention as defined in each of the independent claims (unless the application is a design application).
700-172Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02(a)
(5) The accelerated examination support document must include a showing of where each limitation of the claims finds support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 in the written description of the specification. If applicable, the showing must also identify:
(i) each means- (or step-) plus-function claim element that invokes consideration under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6; and
(ii) the structure, material, or acts in the specification that correspond to each means- (or step-) plus-function claim element that invokes consideration under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6. If the application claims the benefit of one or more applications under title 35, United States Code, the showing must also include where each limitation of the claims finds support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 in each such application in which such support exists.
(6) The accelerated examination support document must identify any cited references that may be disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
II. DECISION ON PETITION TO MAKE SPECIAL
Applicant will be notified of the decision by the deciding official. If the application and/or petition does not meet all the requirements set forth in subsection I above for the application to be granted special status (including a determination that the search is deemed to be insufficient), the applicant will be notified of the defects and the application will remain in the status of a new application awaiting action in its regular turn. In those instances in which the petition or accelerated examination support document is defective in one or more requirements, applicant will be given a single opportunity to perfect the petition or accelerated examination support document within a time period of one month (no extensions under 37 CFR 1.136(a)). This opportunity to perfect a petition does not apply to applications that are not in condition for examination on filing. See subsection VIII.C. below. If the document is satisfactorily corrected in a timely manner, the petition will then be granted,
but the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing date of the application. Once a petition has been granted, prosecution will proceed according to the procedure set forth below.
III. THE INITIAL ACTION ON THE APPLICATION BY THE EXAMINER
Once the application is granted special status, the application will be docketed and taken up for action expeditiously (e.g., within two weeks of the granting of special status). If it is determined that all the claims presented are not directed to a single invention, the telephone restriction practice set forth in MPEP § 812.01 will be followed. Applicant must make an election without traverse during the telephonic interview. If applicant refuses to make an election without traverse, or the examiner cannot reach the applicant after a reasonable effort, the examiner will treat the first claimed invention (the invention of claim 1) as constructively elected without traverse for examination. Continuing applications (e.g., a divisional application directed to the non-elected inventions) will not automatically be given special status based on papers filed with the petition in the parent application. Each continuing application must on its own meet all requirements for special status.
If the USPTO determines that a possible rejection or other issue must be addressed, the examiner will telephone the applicant to discuss the issue and any possible amendment or submission to resolve such issue. The USPTO will not issue an Office action (other than a notice of allowance) unless either: (A) an interview was conducted but did not result in the application being placed in condition for allowance; or (B) there is a determination that an interview is unlikely to result in the application being placed in condition for allowance. Furthermore, prior to the mailing of any Office action rejecting the claims, the USPTO will conduct a conference to review the rejections set forth in the Office action.
If an Office action other than a notice of allowance or a final Office action is mailed, the Office action will set a shortened statutory period of two months. Extensions of this shortened statutory period under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be permitted. However, filing
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-173
§ 708.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. Failure to timely file a reply will result in abandonment of the application. See subsections V and VI for more information on post-allowance and after-final procedures.
IV. REPLY BY APPLICANT
A reply to an Office action must be limited to the rejections, objections, and requirements made. Any amendment that attempts to: (A) add claims which would result in more than three independent claims, or more than twenty total claims, pending in the application; (B) present claims not encompassed by the preexamination search (see subsection I, item (H) above) or an updated accelerated examination support document (see next paragraph); or (C) present claims that are directed to a nonelected invention or an invention other than previously claimed in the application, will be treated as not fully responsive and will not be entered. See subsection VIII.D. below for more information.
For any amendment to the claims (including any new claim) that is not encompassed by the accelerated examination support document in subsection I, item (I) above, applicant is required to provide an updated accelerated examination support document that encompasses the amended or new claims at the time of filing the amendment. Failure to provide such updated accelerated examination support document at the time of filing the amendment will cause the amendment to be treated as not fully responsive and not to be entered. See subsection VIII.D. below for more information. Any IDS filed with an updated accelerated examination support document must also comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
Any reply or other papers must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the papers are not filed electronically via EFS-Web, or the reply is not fully responsive, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
V. POST-ALLOWANCE PROCESSING
The mailing of a notice of allowance is the final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the accelerated examination program. In response to a notice of allowance, applicant must pay the issue fee within three months from the date of mailing of the Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due (form PTOL-85) to avoid abandonment of the application. In order for the application to be expeditiously issued as a patent, the applicant must also: (A) pay the issue fee (and any outstanding fees due) within one month from the mailing date of the form PTOL-85; and (B) not file any post-allowance papers that are not required by the USPTO (e.g., an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 that was not requested by the USPTO).
VI. AFTER-FINAL AND APPEAL PROCEDURES
The mailing of a final Office action or the filing of a notice of appeal, whichever is earlier, is the final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the accelerated examination program. Prior to the mailing of a final Office action, the USPTO will conduct a conference to review the rejections set forth in the final Office action (i.e., the type of conference conducted in an application on appeal when the applicant requests a pre-appeal brief conference). In order for the application to be expeditiously forwarded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for a decision, applicant must: (A) promptly file the notice of appeal, appeal brief, and appeal fees; and (B) not request a pre-appeal brief conference. A pre-appeal brief conference would not be of value in an application under a final Office action because the examiner will have already conducted such a conference prior to mailing the final Office action. During the appeal process, the application will be treated in accordance with the normal appeal procedures (see MPEP Chapter 1200). The USPTO will continue to treat the application as special under the accelerated examination program after the decision by the PTAB.
Any after-final amendment, affidavit, or other evidence filed under 37 CFR 1.116 or 41.33 must also meet the requirements set forth in subsection IV above. If applicant files a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 with a
700-174Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02(a)
submission and fee, the submission must meet the reply requirements under 37 CFR 1.111 (see 37 CFR 1.114(c)) and the requirements set forth in subsection IV above. The filing of the RCE is a final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the accelerated examination program. The application will retain its special status and remain in the accelerated examination program. Thus, the examiner will continue to examine the application in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsection III above and any subsequent replies filed by applicant must meet the requirements of subsection IV above. The goal of the accelerated examination program will then be to reach a final disposition of the application within twelve months from the filing of the RCE.
VII. PROCEEDINGS OUTSIDE THE NORMAL EXAMINATION PROCESS
If an application becomes involved in proceedings outside the normal examination process (e.g., a secrecy order, national security review, interference, or petitions under 37 CFR 1.181, 1.182, or 1.183), the USPTO will treat the application special under the accelerated examination program before and after such proceedings. During those proceedings, however, the application will not be accelerated. For example, during an interference proceeding, the application will be treated in accordance with the normal interference procedures and will not be treated under the accelerated examination program. Once any one of these proceedings is completed, the USPTO will process the application expeditiously under the accelerated examination program until it reaches final disposition, but that may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
VIII. MORE INFORMATION
A. Eligibility
Any non-reissue utility or design application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after August 25, 2006 is eligible for the accelerated examination program. The following types of filings are not eligible for the accelerated examination program:
(1) plant applications;
(2) reissue applications;
(3) applications entering the national stage from an international application after compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371;
(4) reexamination proceedings;
(5) RCEs under 37 CFR 1.114 (unless the application was previously granted special status under the program);
(6) petitions to make special based on applicant’s health or age (see MPEP § 708.02; and
(7) petitions to make special based on participation in the PPH pilot program. (see MPEP § 708.02(c)).
Rather than participating in the accelerated examination program, applicants for a design patent may participate in the expedited examination program by filing a request in compliance with the guidelines set forth in MPEP § 1504.30. See 37 CFR 1.155.
B. Form
Applicant should use form PTO/SB/28 for filing a petition to make special, other than those based on applicant’s health or age or the PPH pilot program. The form is available on EFS-Web and on the U S P T O ’ s w e b s i t e a t www.uspto.gov/web/forms/index.html.
C. Conditions for Examination
The application must be in condition for examination at the time of filing. This means the application must include the following:
(1) Basic filing fee, search fee, and examination fee, under 37 CFR 1.16 (see MPEP § 607 subsection I);
(2) Application size fee under 37 CFR 1.16(s) (if the specification and drawings exceed 100 sheets of paper) (see MPEP § 607 subsection II);
(3) An executed inventor’s oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 for each inventor;
(4) A specification (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52) containing a description (37 CFR 1.71) and claims in compliance with 37 CFR 1.75;
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-175
§ 708.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(5) A title and an abstract in compliance with 37 CFR 1.72;
(6) Drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84;
(7) Electronic submissions of sequence listings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e), large tables, or computer listings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96, submitted via the USPTO’s electronic filing system (EFS) in ASCII text as part of an associated file (if applicable);
(8) Foreign priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) identified in the executed oath or declaration or an application data sheet (if applicable);
(9) Domestic benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be in an application data sheet and for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be submitted in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet, and for any benefit claim to a non-English language provisional application, the application must include a statement that (a) an English language translation, and (b) a statement that the translation is accurate, have been filed in the provisional application) (if applicable);
(10) English language translation under 37 CFR 1.52(d), a statement that the translation is accurate, and the processing fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i) (if the specification is in a non-English language);
(11) No preliminary amendments present on the filing date of the application; and
(12) For an application filed prior to September 16, 2012, no petition under 37 CFR 1.47 for a non-signing inventor.
Furthermore, if the application is a design application, the application must also comply with the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.151, 1.152, 1.153, and 1.154.
The petition to make special will be dismissed if the application omits an item or includes a paper that causes the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) to mail a notice during the formality review (e.g., a notice of incomplete application, notice to
file missing parts, notice to file corrected application papers, notice of omitted items, or notice of informal application). The opportunity to perfect a petition (subsection II above) does not apply to applications that are not in condition for examination on filing.
D. Reply Not Fully Responsive
If a reply to a non-final Office action is not fully responsive, but is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action, the examiner may provide two months for applicant to supply the omission or a fully responsive reply. Extensions of this time period under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be permitted. However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. Failure to timely file the omission or a fully responsive reply will result in abandonment of the application. If the reply is not a bona fide attempt or if it is a reply to a final Office action, no additional time period will be given. The time period set forth in the previous Office action will continue to run.
E. Withdrawal From Accelerated Examination
There is no provision for “withdrawal” from special status under the accelerated examination program. However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. An applicant may abandon the application that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program in favor of a continuing application, and the continuing application will not be given special status under the accelerated examination program unless the continuing application is filed with a petition to make special under the accelerated examination program. The filing of an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114, however, will not result in an application being withdrawn from special status under the accelerated examination program.
F. The Twelve-Month Goal
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. The twelve-month goal is
700-176Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02(a)
successfully achieved when one of the following final dispositions occurs:
(1) the mailing of a notice of allowance;
(2) the mailing of a final Office action;
(3) the filing of an RCE; or
(4) the abandonment of the application.
The final disposition of an application, however, may occur later than the twelve-month time frame in certain situations (e.g., an IDS citing new prior art after the mailing of a first Office action). See subsection VII above for more information on other events that may cause examination to extend beyond this twelve-month time frame. In any event, however, this twelve-month time frame is simply a goal. Any failure to meet the twelve-month goal or other issues relating to this twelve-month goal are neither petitionable nor appealable matters.
IX. FORM PARAGRAPHS
The following form paragraphs may be used for the accelerated examination program:
¶ 7.126.AE Conclusion of Requirement Mailed Without Any Other Office Action – Application Under Accelerated Examination
This requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and has a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program.
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. Any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should appear at the conclusion of any requirement for information mailed without any other Office action. If the requirement for information is mailed with an Office action, use form paragraph 7.125 instead.
2. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special
status under the accelerated examination program or other provisions under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
3. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.
¶ 7.42.08.AE Request for Continued Examination With Submission Filed Under 37 CFR 1.114 Which Is Not Fully Responsive - Application Under Accelerated Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on [1]. The submission, however, is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because [2]. Since the submission appears to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the prior Office action, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter, to submit a complete reply. This shortened statutory period for reply supersedes the time period set in the prior Office action. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program.
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. To meet that objective, any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to acknowledge an RCE filed with the fee and a submission where the submission is not fully responsive to the prior Office action. This form paragraph may be used for any RCE filed with a submission which is not fully responsive, i.e., an RCE filed after final rejection, after allowance, after an Office action under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935), or after appeal.
2. In bracket 2, identify the reasons why the examiner considers the submission not to be fully responsive.
3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.
4. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
5. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-177
§ 708.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.
¶ 7.51.AE Quayle Action - Application Under Accelerated Examination
This application is in condition for allowance except for the following formal matters: [1].
Prosecution on the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935).
Since this application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program, a shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program.
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. To meet that objective, any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. Explain the formal matters which must be corrected in bracket 1.
2. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
3. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.
¶ 7.70.AE Updated Accelerated Examination Support Document Required for Claim Amendments Not Encompassed by PreviousAccelerated Examination Support Document(s) – Application Under Accelerated Examination
Applicant is reminded that for any amendments to the claims (including any new claim) that is not encompassed by the preexamination search and accelerated examination support documents previously filed, applicant is required to provide updated preexamination search and accelerated examination support documents that encompass the amended or new claims at the time of filing the amendment. Failure to provide such updated preexamination search and accelerated examination support documents at the time of filing the amendment will cause the amendment to be treated as not fully responsive and not to be entered. See MPEP § 708.02(a), subsection VIII.D. for more information.
If the reply is not fully responsive, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph and form paragraph 7.71.AE must be included in every Office action, other than a notice of allowance, in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
2. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway Program (pilot and permanent).
¶ 7.71.AE Use Of Proper Document and Fee Codes When Filing A Reply Electronically Via EFS-Web – Application Under Accelerated Examination
Any reply or other papers must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the papers are not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Any reply to this communication filed via EFS-Web must include a document that is filed using the document description of “Accelerated Exam - Transmittal amendment/reply.” Applicant is reminded to use proper indexing for documents to avoid any delay in processing of follow on papers. Currently document indexing is not automated in EFS-Web and applicant must select a particular document description for each attached file. An incorrect document description for a particular file may potentially delay processing of the application. A complete listing of all document codes currently supported in EFS-Web i s a v a i l a b l e a t www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/efsweb_document_descriptions.xls.
Any payment of fees via EFS-Web must be accompanied by selection of a proper fee code. An improper fee code may potentially delay processing of the application. Instructions on payment of fees via EFS-Web are available at www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph and form paragraph 7.70.AE must be included in every Office action, other than a notice of allowance, in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
2. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway Program (pilot and permanent).
700-178Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02(a)
¶ 7.84.AE Amendment Is Non-Responsive to Interview – Application Under Accelerated Examination
The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the [2] interview. [3] Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program.
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. To meet that objective, any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the date of the interview.
2. In bracket 3, explain the deficiencies.
3. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
4. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.
¶ 7.84.01.AE Paper Is Unsigned – Application Under Accelerated Examination
The proposed reply filed on [1] has not been entered because it is unsigned. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO (2) MONTHS within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program.
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. To meet that objective, any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. Examiner should first try to contact applicant by telephone and ask for a properly signed reply or ratification of the reply. If attempts to contact applicant are unsuccessful, examiner may use this form paragraph in a letter requiring a properly signed reply or ratification if the reply is to a non-final Office action.
2. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
3. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.
¶ 7.95.AE Bona Fide, Non-Responsive Amendments – Application Under Accelerated Examination
The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): [2]. See 37 CFR 1.111. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program.
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. To meet that objective, any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete reply, or where the application is subject to a final Office action. Under such cases, the examiner has no authority to grant an extension if the period for reply has expired. See form paragraph 7.91.
2. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
3. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-179
§ 708.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
¶ 8.26.AE Canceled Elected Claims, Non-Responsive – Application Under Accelerated Examination
The amendment filed on [1] canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to a non-elected invention is non-responsive (MPEP § 821.03). The remaining claims are not readable on the elected invention because [2].
Since the above-mentioned amendment appears to be a bona fide attempt to reply, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) are available. However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program.
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. To meet that objective, any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
2. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.
¶ 19.02.AE Requirement for Information – Application Under Accelerated Examination
The protest under 37 CFR 1.291 filed on [1] has been considered. In order to reach a full and proper consideration of the issues raised therein, it is necessary to obtain additional information from applicant regarding these issues. In particular [2]. The failure to reply to this requirement for information within ONE (1) MONTH or THIRTY (30) DAYS, whichever is longer, of the mailing date of this requirement will result in abandonment of the application. Since this application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program, NO extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be permitted.
The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. To meet that objective, any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. While the examiner normally should not need further information from applicant, this form paragraph may be used to request specific additional information from the applicant.
2. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).
3. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.
708.02(b) Prioritized Examination [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.102 Advancement of examination. *****
(e) A request for prioritized examination under this paragraph must comply with the requirements of this paragraph and be accompanied by the prioritized examination fee set forth in § 1.17(c), the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), and if not already paid, the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d). An application for which prioritized examination has been requested may not contain or be amended to contain more than four independent claims, more than thirty total claims, or any multiple dependent claim. Prioritized examination under this paragraph will not be accorded to international applications that have not entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, design applications, reissue applications, provisional applications, or reexamination proceedings.A request for prioritized examination must also comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) or paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(1) A request for prioritized examination may be filed with an original utility or plant nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The application must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 including at least one claim, a drawing when necessary, and the inventor’s oath or declaration on filing, except that the filing of an inventor’s oath or declaration may be postponed in accordance with § 1.53(f)(3) if an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i) is present upon filing. If the application is a utility application, it must be filed via the Office’s electronic filing system and include the filing fee under § 1.16(a), search fee under § 1.16(k), and examination fee under § 1.16(o) upon filing. If the application is a plant application, it must include the filing fee under § 1.16(c), search fee under § 1.16(m), and examination fee under § 1.16(q) upon filing. The request for prioritized examination in compliance with this paragraph must be present upon filing of the application, except that the applicant may file an amendment to cancel any independent claims in excess of four, any total claims in excess of thirty, and any multiple dependent claim not later than one month from a first decision on the request for prioritized examination. This one-month time period is not extendable.
(2) A request for prioritized examination may be filed with or after a request for continued examination in compliance
700-180Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02(b)
with § 1.114. If the application is a utility application, the request must be filed via the Office’s electronic filing system. The request must be filed before the mailing of the first Office action after the filing of the request for continued examination under § 1.114. Only a single such request for prioritized examination under this paragraph may be granted in an application.
Section 11(h) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provides for prioritized examination whereby applicants may request prioritized examination upon payment of appropriate fees and compliance with certain requirements.
Under prioritized examination, an application will be accorded special status until a final disposition is reached in the application. The goal for handling applications under prioritized examination is to provide, on average, a final disposition within twelve months of prioritized status being granted. Prioritized examination is available at the time of filing an original utility or plant application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), as set forth in 37 CFR 1.102(e)(1). This is referred to as “Track One” prioritized examination. An “original” application includes a continuing application (i.e., a continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional application) but does not include reissue applications. In addition, a single request for prioritized examination may be granted for a request for continued examination (RCE) in a plant or utility application, including an application that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.102(e)(2). This type of prioritized examination is referred to as “prioritized examination for requests for continued examination” (PE-RCE). The Office maintains a “Quick Start Guide” that illustrates how to file an electronic request for prioritized examination at www.uspto.gov/ patents/init_events/track_one_quick_start_guide_11-24-2013.pdf.
To maximize the benefit of prioritized examination, applicants should consider one or more of the following: (A) acquiring a good knowledge of the state of the prior art to be able to file the application with a clear specification having a complete schedule of claims from the broadest which the applicant believes he is entitled in view of the prior art to the narrowest which the applicant is willing to accept; (B) submitting an application in condition for examination; (C) filing replies that are completely responsive to an Office action and within the shortened statutory period for reply set in the Office
action; and (D) being prepared to conduct interviews with the examiner. The phrase “in condition for examination” in this context means the same as it does with respect to the current accelerated examination program, which is discussed in MPEP § 708.02(a), subsection VIII.C.
The Office intends to monitor the prioritized examination program carefully. As the Office gains experience with prioritized examination as a result of the initial implementation, it may reevaluate the annual numerical cap of 10,000 granted prioritized examination requests. The Office may also consider whether there is a need to limit the number of requests for prioritized examination that may be filed in each Technology Center or by any given applicant. Statistical findings about prioritized examination, including statistics concerning the Office’s ability to meet its stated goals for the program are available to the public on the Office’s Internet website at www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp.
I. REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUESTING PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION
The requirements for requesting prioritized examination are set forth below. A request must meet the general requirements specified in subsection I.A. below, and also meet the specific requirements for either subsection I.B. (for a newly filed application) or subsection I.C. (for a request for continued examination).
A. General Requirements
1. Type of Application
The application must be a utility or plant nonprovisional application, including a continuing application (i.e., a continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional application). The procedure for prioritized examination does not apply to design applications, reissue applications, provisional applications, or reexamination proceedings. The procedure for prioritized examination does not apply to international applications that have entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, except that such an application may undergo prioritized examination if an RCE is filed (see I.C. below). A continuing
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-181
§ 708.02(b)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
application will not automatically be given prioritized examination status based on a request filed in the parent application; each application (including each continuing application) must, on its own, meet all requirements for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e). A utility or plant nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) may claim priority to a foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d) or (f) and remain eligible for prioritized examination.
2. Fees
Upon filing the request for prioritized examination, the following fees must be paid for the application:
(A) the prioritized examination fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(c),
(B) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i)(1),
(C) the publication fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.18(d),
(D) the basic filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(a), or for a plant application, 37 CFR 1.16(c),
(E) the search fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(k), or for a plant application, 37 CFR 1.16(m), and
(F) the examination fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(o).
Small entity and micro entity fee reductions are available for many of the above fees; see the current fees at www.uspto.gov/curr_fees. Note that a fee may be set by the USPTO to $0, and in such a case, that fee is considered to be paid and no additional payment is necessary for that fee. If any fee is unpaid at the time of filing of the application, the request for prioritized examination will be dismissed. However, if an explicit authorization to charge any additional required fees has been provided in the papers accompanying the application and the request, the fees will be charged in accordance with the authorization, and the request will not be dismissed for nonpayment of fees.
3. Claims
The application must contain, or be amended to contain, no more than four independent claims and no more than thirty total claims. In addition, the
application must not contain any multiple dependent claims. After prioritized examination has been granted in an application, an amendment that results in more than four independent claims or thirty total claims, or a multiple dependent claim, will result in termination of prioritized examination.
4. Yearly Limit
The request for prioritized examination may be accepted if the requirements under 37 CFR 1.102(e) are satisfied and the limit for the number of requests for the year has not been reached. The number of granted requests for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e) is limited to a maximum of 10,000 per fiscal year, although the Office may choose to revise that cap in the future. The Office posts statistics, including the number of granted prioritized examination requests, on its website at www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/patents.jsp. In addition, the Office will post a message in EFS-Web if/when the number of granted requests is close to the limit. If the limit is reached, the Office will turn off the ability to file a request for prioritized examination in EFS-Web.
5. Additional Requirements
Additional requirements must be met depending on whether prioritized examination is requested upon filing of a new application (Track One), see subsection I.B. or incident to filing a request for continued examination (PE-RCE), see subsection I.C.
It is strongly recommended that applicants use the Office’s certification and request form PTO/AIA/424 to request prioritized examination, but the form is not required. The form is available on EFS-Web and on the Office’s Internet website at www.uspto.gov/forms/index.jsp. Failure to use form PTO/AIA/424 could result in the Office not recognizing the request or delays in processing the request. If applicant decides to use an applicant-created form for requesting prioritized examination, applicant’s form should be an equivalent to the Office’s form.
Any item submitted on the same day the request for prioritized examination is filed will be considered
700-182Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02(b)
to have been filed with the request under 37 CFR 1.102(e).
B. Prioritized Examination for Application Filings under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (Track One)
A newly filed patent application may be granted Track One prioritized examination status if it meets the general conditions in subsection I.A. above, and the additional following conditions:
1. Type of Application
The application must be a utility or plant nonprovisional application, including a continuing application (i.e., a continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional application), filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after September 26, 2011. The application must be filed via the Office’s electronic filing system (EFS-Web) if it is a utility application. Plant applications must be filed in paper. Due to the need to limit the number of applications in the prioritized examination program in its initial stages, applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 are not eligible at the time of entry; see subsection I.C. below for prioritized examination of national stage entries under 35 U.S.C. 371 in which as RCE has been filed. However, an applicant who has filed an international application may participate in the prioritized examination program by filing a by-pass continuation; i.e., a new application filed in the United States under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that claims the benefit of the earlier international application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c), rather than entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. In such a case, it is not necessary that the earlier international application have been filed in English in order to request prioritized examination of the 111(a) application; however, a translation is required in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(1).
2. Disclosure and Inventor’s Oath or Declaration
A proper request for prioritized examination must include, on filing, a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 including at least one claim, and a drawing when necessary. The application must be filed with an executed application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in 1.53(f)(3)(i), or with the inventor’s oath or declaration (under 37 CFR 1.63
and 1.64) executed for each inventor. Such an application data sheet must include the legal name, mailing address, and residence (if not residing at the mailing address) for each inventor. Note that filing an application without the inventor’s oath or declaration requires payment of the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f).
3. Claims
The application must contain no more than four independent claims and no more than thirty total claims. If, at the time the request for prioritized examination is considered by the USPTO, the application does not meet this requirement, applicant will be notified of the deficiency through a decision on the request, which will provide one month for applicant to amend the claims consistent with the requirements for prioritized examination. In order to reduce Office processing and ensure that patent application publications are printed correctly, the Office strongly encourages applicants to file applications without any preliminary amendments.
4. Fees
The application must be filed with the basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination fee, any excess claims fees, and any application size fee. If applicable, any excess claims fees due because the number of independent claims exceeds three, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(h), and any excess claim fee due because the number of claims exceeds twenty, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(i), and any application size fee due because the specification and drawings exceed 100 sheets of paper, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(s), must be paid before Track One status will be granted. If, at the time the request for prioritized examination is considered by the USPTO, any of these three fees are required but have not been paid, applicant will be notified of the deficiency through a decision on the request. These three fees must be paid not later than one month from a first decision on the request for prioritized examination.
A nonpublication request under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i) may be submitted together with a request for prioritized examination. However, the publication fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.18(d) still must be paid upon request for prioritized examination. If
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-183
§ 708.02(b)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
the application is not published, a refund of the publication fee may be requested as provided in subsection III below and in MPEP § 1126.
Color drawings may be filed with new nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and in U.S. national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371 applications through EFS-Web; see MPEP § 502.05, subsection VIII. See also the EFS-Web legal framework at 74 FR 55200 (October 27, 2009). A petition is still required for entry of color drawings; see MPEP § 608.02 subsection VIII.
If applicant discovers that a required item has been inadvertently omitted from the application filing, a follow-on EFS-Web submission may be filed, but only if the follow-on EFS-Web submission is submitted on the same day that the utility application and the prioritized examination request form are filed. For example, if an inventor’s oath or declaration or the filing fees are inadvertently omitted when the application is filed via EFS-Web, then applicant may submit the inventor’s oath or declaration or the filing fees as a follow-on submission directly into the application on the same day as the filing date of the application. Applicants are also reminded that only registered users of EFS-Web can submit follow-on documents via EFS-Web and that follow-on documents are documents filed after the initial submission of the application. Thus, applicant would need to be a registered user of EFS-Web to submit such a follow-on document on the same day the application was filed. See also MPEP § 502.05, subsection III. D. for examples describing implications raised when applicant inadvertently omits an item when filing an application electronically via EFS-Web.
Applicants may receive a notice regarding informalities in their application (e.g., a notice to file corrected application papers because the application papers are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52) which will delay a decision on the request for prioritized examination; however, the request for prioritized examination may still be granted if the request is otherwise compliant with 37 CFR 1.102(e)(1). Any pre-examination notice from the Office of Patent Application Processing will delay a decision on the request for prioritized examination until after applicant has filed a complete and timely
reply to the pre-examination notice. Any request for an extension of time, including an extension of time for the purpose of responding to a pre-examination notice (e.g., Notice to File Missing Parts), will cause the application to be ineligible for further treatment under the prioritized examination program.A request for an extension of time prior to the grant of prioritized examination status will prevent such status from being granted.
If the request for prioritized examination is dismissed, applicant can file a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 if applicant believes that a decision dismissing the request for prioritized examination is not proper. Applicant should review the reason(s) stated in the decision dismissing the request and make a determination that an error was made by the Office in not granting the request before filing such a petition under 37 CFR 1.181. Applicant may not refile a request for Track One prioritized examination in order to correct a deficiency in the request because a proper request for Track One prioritized examination (i.e., for prioritized examination of a newly-filed utility or plant application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and not for an RCE) requires that the request be included upon filing.
C. Prioritized Examination of an Application for a Request for Continued Examination (PE-RCE)
A pending patent application in which a request for continued examination has been filed may be granted PE-RCE prioritized examination status under the following conditions:
1. Type of Application
The application must be a non-reissue utility or plant nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), or that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
2. Fees
The publication fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.18(d) must be paid for the application, either previously or with the request for prioritized examination. Note that a fee may be set by the USPTO to $0, and in such a case, that fee is considered to be paid and no additional payment is necessary for that fee.
700-184Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02(b)
3. Timing of the Request
The PE-RCE request may be filed concurrently with, or subsequently to, the filing of a request for continued examination (RCE). However, the PE-RCE request must be filed before the mailing of the first Office action after the filing of the RCE. The conditions for filing an RCE are set forth in 37 CFR 1.114. Prosecution must be closed; i.e., the application is under appeal, the last Office action is a final action (37 CFR 1.113), a notice of allowance has been issued (37 CFR 1.311), or there has been an action that otherwise closes prosecution in the application. Any request for prioritized examination of an application in which there has been a request for continued examination is premised on the existence of a properly filed RCE. Prioritized examination will not be granted in an application where the RCE does not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114.
4. Number of Requests
Only a single such request for prioritized examination for a request for continued examination may be granted in an application. The prioritized examination program permits a single request to be granted under 37 CFR 1.102(e)(1) upon filing a new application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), and a single request to be granted under 37 CFR 1.102(e)(2) upon filing a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 if applicant believes a decision dismissing a PE-RCE request is not proper. Applicant should review the reason(s) stated in the decision dismissing the PE-RCE request and make a determination that an error was made by the Office in not granting the request before filing such a petition under 37 CFR 1.181. Alternatively, applicant may choose to correct the deficiencies in the PE-RCE request by filing a new PE-RCE request for that same RCE. The new PE-RCE request must include any required fees and be timely; i.e., it must be filed prior to the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of the RCE.
II. PROSECUTION OF AN APPLICATION UNDER PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION
The time periods set for reply in Office actions for applications undergoing prioritized examination will be the same as set forth in MPEP § 710.02(b). Where, however, an applicant files a petition for an extension of time to file a reply or files a request for suspension of action, the petition or request will be acted upon, but the prioritized examination of the application will be terminated. In addition, filing an amendment to the application which results in more than four independent claims, more than thirty total claims, or a multiple dependent claim will terminate the prioritized examination. Upon termination of prioritized examination, the application will be removed from the examiner’s special docket and placed on the examiner’s regular docket in accordance with its stage of prosecution.
The goal of the Office is to provide a final disposition within twelve months, on average, of the date that prioritized status was granted. The final disposition for the twelve-month goal means that within twelve months from the date prioritized status has been granted that one of the following occur: (A) mailing of a notice of allowance; (B) mailing of a final Office action; (C) filing of a notice of appeal; (D) completion of examination as defined in 37 CFR 41.102; (E) filing of a request for continued examination; or (F) abandonment of the application. An application under prioritized examination, therefore, would not be accorded special status during appeal or interference before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), or after the filing of a request for continued examination. As noted above, the submission of an amendment resulting in more than four independent claims or more than thirty total claims is not prohibited, but simply terminates the prioritized examination. Thus, upon mailing of a final rejection (at which point prioritized examination is terminated), applicants may amend the claims to place them in independent form where dependent claims were found allowable, or add new claims, subject only to the limitations applicable to any application under final rejection. See 37 CFR 1.116. Similarly, upon mailing of a notice of allowance, applicants may submit amendments to the claims, again subject only to the limitations applicable to any application that has been allowed.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-185
§ 708.02(b)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
See 37 CFR 1.312. A patent that issues will not contain any indication on its face that it was processed via prioritized examination.
III. REFUND OF FEES
If a request for prioritized examination is dismissed, the prioritized examination fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(c) will be refunded. This fee will be refunded automatically (if paid) without the need for applicant to request such a refund. The processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) will be retained to cover the cost of processing the request. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.26, the application fees, including the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee, and any required application size or excess claim fees cannot be refunded. Applicant may, however, request a refund of the search fee and any excess claims fees by filing a petition for express abandonment of the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.138(d). Furthermore, applicant may request a refund of the publication fee in accordance with MPEP § 1126 if the application is not published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b).
As the termination of prioritized examination does not cause the prioritized examination fee to have been paid by mistake or in an amount in excess of that required, the termination of prioritized examination will not entitle the applicant to a refund of the prioritized examination fee. See 35 U.S.C. 42(d) and 37 CFR 1.26(a).
708.02(c) Patent Prosecution Highway Program [R-07.2015]
The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) speeds up the examination process for corresponding applications filed in participating patent offices. Under PPH, participating patent offices have agreed that when an applicant receives a final ruling from a first patent office that at least one claim is allowed, the applicant may request fast track examination of corresponding claim(s) in a corresponding patent application that is pending in a second patent office. PPH leverages fast-track examination procedures already in place among participating patent offices to allow applicants to reach final disposition of a patent application more quickly and efficiently than standard examination processing.
The USPTO participates in the Global PPH and IP5 PPH pilot programs, and also has PPH agreements with several intellectual property offices that are not yet included in the Global PPH. See www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp for details and forms to request participation in, and to petition to make an application special under, the PPH program.
708.03 Examiner Tenders Resignation [R-11.2013]
Whenever an examiner tenders his or her resignation, the supervisory patent examiner should see that the remaining time as far as possible is used in winding up prosecution in those applications with complex issues or involved records that the examiner is already familiar with (e.g., applications with RCEs and continuation applications) and getting as many of his or her amended cases as possible ready for final disposition.
709 Suspension of Action [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.103 Suspension of action by the Office.
(a) Suspension for cause. On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph for good and sufficient cause. The Office will not suspend action if a reply by applicant to an Office action is outstanding. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must specify a period of suspension not exceeding six months. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must also include:
(1) A showing of good and sufficient cause for suspension of action; and
(2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g), unless such cause is the fault of the Office.
(b) Limited suspension of action in a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under § 1.53(d) . On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph in a continued prosecution application filed under § 1.53(d) for a period not exceeding three months. Any request for suspension of action under this paragraph must be filed with the request for an application filed under § 1.53(d), specify the period of suspension, and include the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i).
(c) Limited suspension of action after a request for continued application (RCE) under § 1.114 . On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph after the filing of a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114 for a period not exceeding three months.Any request for suspension of action under this paragraph must be filed with the request for continued
700-186Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 708.02(c)
examination under § 1.114, specify the period of suspension, and include the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i).
(d) Deferral of examination . On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a deferral of examination under the conditions specified in this paragraph for a period not extending beyond three years from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is claimed under title 35, United States Code. A request for deferral of examination under this paragraph must include the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d) and the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i). A request for deferral of examination under this paragraph will not be granted unless:
(1) The application is an original utility or plant application filed under § 1.53(b) or resulting from entry of an international application into the national stage after compliance with § 1.495;
(2) The applicant has not filed a nonpublication request under § 1.213(a), or has filed a request under § 1.213(b) to rescind a previously filed nonpublication request;
(3) The application is in condition for publication as provided in § 1.211(c); and
(4) The Office has not issued either an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 or a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151.
(e) Notice of suspension on initiative of the Office. The Office will notify applicant if the Office suspends action by the Office on an application on its own initiative.
(f) Suspension of action for public safety or defense. The Office may suspend action by the Office by order of the Director if the following conditions are met:
(1) The application is owned by the United States;
(2) Publication of the invention may be detrimental to the public safety or defense; and
(3) The appropriate department or agency requests such suspension.
Suspension of action (37 CFR 1.103) should not be confused with extension of time for reply (37 CFR 1.136). It is to be noted that a suspension of action applies to an impending Office action by the examiner whereas an extension of time for reply applies to action by the applicant. In other words, the action cannot be suspended in an application which contains an outstanding Office action or requirement awaiting reply by the applicant. It is only the action by the examiner which can be suspended under 37 CFR 1.103.
Suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(a) - (d) at the applicant’s request will cause a reduction in patent term adjustment accumulated (if any) under 37 CFR 1.703. The reduction is equal to the number of days beginning on the date a request for suspension of action was filed and ending on the date of the termination of the suspension. See 37 CFR 1.704(c)(1).
I. REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT
Maximum length of Suspension
Fee(s), 37 CFR Section
RequirementRequest, 37 CFR Section
6 months1.17(g)Petition with a showing of good and sufficient cause.
1.103(a)
3 months1.17(i)Request at the time of filing a CPA1.103(b) 3 months1.17(i)Request at the time of filing an RCE1.103(c) 3 yrs. from earliest filing date for which a benefit is claimed under Title 35.
1.17(i) & 1.18(d)See below in “Deferral of Examination”1.103(d)
A. Petition Under 37 CFR 1.103(a) With a Showing of Good and Sufficient Cause
A request that action in an application be delayed will be granted only under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.103, which provides for “Suspension of Action.” A petition for suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(a) must:
(A) be presented as a separate paper;
(B) be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g);
(C) request a specific and reasonable period of suspension not greater than 6 months; and
(D) present good and sufficient reasons why the suspension is necessary.
If the requirements of 37 CFR 1.103(a) are not met, applicants should expect that their applications, whether new or amended, will be taken up for action
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-187
§ 709EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
by the examiner in the order provided in MPEP § 708, Order of Examination.
A petition for suspension of action to allow applicant time to submit an information disclosure statement will be denied as failing to present good and sufficient reasons, since 37 CFR 1.97 provides adequate recourse for the timely submission of prior art for consideration by the examiner.
In new applications, the mere inclusion in the transmittal form letter of a request that action be delayed cannot be relied upon to avoid immediate action in the application. However, applicant may consider filing a request for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) (see below for the requirements). Applicants should be aware of the possibility of requesting suspension of action by the Office under 37 CFR 1.103(b) or (c) for a period not exceeding three months at the time of filing a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application, or a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Note that effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice does not apply to utility and plant applications. Many Technology Center (TC) art units and examiners have short pendency to first action, and new applications may be taken up for action before preliminary amendments are filed in those applications. Where a preliminary amendment and petition to suspend action have been filed, it would be helpful to telephone the examiner in that regard to avoid having the amendment and the first Office action cross in the mail. The following form paragraphs should be used to notify the grant or denial of the petition under 37 CFR 1.103(a):
¶ 7.54 Suspension of Action, Applicant’s Request
Pursuant to applicant’s request filed on [1], action by the Office is suspended on this application under 37 CFR 1.103(a) for a period of [2] months. At the end of this period, applicant is required to notify the examiner and request continuance of prosecution or a further suspension. See MPEP § 709.
Examiner Note:
1. Maximum period for suspension is 6 months.
2. Only the Technology Center Director can grant second or subsequent suspensions. See MPEP § 1003. Such approval must appear on the Office letter.
¶ 7.56 Request for Suspension, Denied, Outstanding Office Action
Applicant’s request filed [1], for suspension of action in this application under 37 CFR 1.103(a), is denied as being improper. Action cannot be suspended in an application awaiting a reply by the applicant. See MPEP § 709.
A supplemental reply will be entered if it is filed within the period during which action is suspended by the Office under 37 CFR 1.103(a). See MPEP § 714.03(a) regarding supplemental reply.
B. Request for Suspension Under 37 CFR 1.103(b) or (c)
Applicants may request a suspension of action by the Office under 37 CFR 1.103(b) or (c) for a period not exceeding three months in a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application, or in a continued examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR 1.114. The request for suspension must be filed at the time of filing of the CPA or RCE.
A supplemental reply will be entered if it is filed within the period during which action is suspended by the Office under 37 CFR 1.103(c). See MPEP § 714.03(a) regarding supplemental reply.
1. Requirements
The Office will not grant the requested suspension of action unless the following requirements are met:
(A) the request must be filed with the filing of a design CPA or an RCE (applicants may use the check box provided on the transmittal form PTO/SB/29 or PTO/SB/30, or submit the request on a separate paper);
(1) if the request is filed with an RCE, the RCE must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114, i.e., the RCE must be accompanied by a submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e). Note that the payment of the RCE filing fee may not be deferred and the request for suspension cannot substitute for the submission;
(2) if the request is filed with a CPA, a filing date must be assigned to the CPA;
(B) the request should specify the period of suspension in a whole number of months (maximum
700-188Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 709
of 3 months). If the request specifies no period of suspension or a period of suspension that exceeds 3 months, the Office will assume that a 3-month suspension is requested; and
(C) the request must include the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).
2. Missing Parts for the CPA (Filing Date Granted)
If the Office assigns a filing date to the design CPA, the request for suspension will be processed, even if the CPA was not accompanied by the CPA basic filing fee, the search fee, and the examination fee. The suspension request acts to suspend a first Office action by the examiner but will not affect the processing of the CPA for a missing part. The applicant will be given a notice that provides a time period of 2 months from the date of the notification to pay the CPA basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination fee, and the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(f). Applicant must pay the CPA basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination fee, and the surcharge within 2 months to avoid the abandonment of the CPA. Pursuant to applicant’s request for suspension, the action by the Office will be suspended on the CPA for the period requested by the applicant, starting on the filing date of the CPA.
3. Improper RCE or CPA (No Filing Date Granted)
If the CPA or the RCE is improper (e.g., a filing date was not accorded in the CPA or the RCE was filed without a submission or the RCE fee), the Office will not recognize the request for suspension, and action by the Office will not be suspended. A notice of improper CPA or RCE will be sent to applicant as appropriate. The time period set in the previous Office communication (e.g., a final Office action or a notice of allowance) continues to run from the mailing date of that communication. If applicant subsequently files another RCE, the request for suspension should be resubmitted to ensure that the Office processes the request for suspension properly. The request for suspension of action will not be processed until the Office accords a filing date to the CPA or receives a proper RCE in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114.
4. Improper Request for Suspension
If the CPA or the RCE is properly filed, but the request for suspension is improper (e.g., the request for suspension was filed untimely or without the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i)), action by the Office will not be suspended on the application. The Office will process the CPA or RCE and place the application on the examiner’s docket. The examiner will notify the applicant of the denial of the request in the next Office communication using the following form paragraph:
¶ 7.56.01 Request for Suspension of Action under 37 CFR 1.103, Denied
Applicant’s request filed [1], for suspension of action in this application under 37 CFR 1.103(b) or (c) is denied as being improper. The request was (1) not filed at the time of filing a CPA or RCE, and/or (2) not accompanied by the requisite fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). See MPEP § 709.
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the request for suspension of action.
5. Proper Request for Suspension
If the CPA or the RCE and the request for suspension of action are proper, the Office’s technical support staff will process the CPA or RCE, and the request for suspension of action. A notification of the approval of the request for suspension will be sent to the applicant. The application will be placed in suspension status until the end of the suspension period. The suspension request acts to suspend a first Office action by the examiner. Once the suspension period has expired, the application will be placed on the examiner’s docket for further prosecution.
C. Request for Deferral of Examination Under 37 CFR 1.103(d)
In new applications, applicants may request a deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) for a period not extending beyond three years from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), (e), (f), 120, 121, 365, or 386. The request must be filed before the Office issues an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 or a notice of allowance in the application. The suspension will start on the day that the Office grants
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-189
§ 709EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
the request for deferral of examination. Once the deferral of examination has been granted, the application will not be taken up for action by the examiner until the suspension period expires. For example, if an applicant files a request for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) for the maximum period permitted under the rule in an application that claims priority of a foreign application filed 1/3/00, the action by the Office on the application will be suspended and the application will automatically be placed in a regular new case status on the examiner’s docket on 1/4/03 (36 months from the effective filing date of the application, i.e., 1/3/00).
1. Requirements
Form PTO/SB/37 (reproduced at the end of this section) may be used to submit a request for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d).
A request for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) must include:
(A) a period of suspension, in a whole number of months, not extending beyond three years from the earliest effective filing date (if the request includes no period of suspension or a period that exceeds the maximum period permitted under the rule, i.e., beyond 3 years from the earliest effective filing date, the Office will assume that the maximum period is requested);
(B) the publication fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.18(d); and
(C) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The Office will not grant a deferral of examination unless the following conditions are met:
(A) the application must be
(1) an original utility or plant application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or
(2) an application resulting from entry of an international application into the national stage after compliance with 37 CFR 1.495 (the application cannot be a design application, a reissue application, or a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d));
(B) the application must be filed on or after November 29, 2000 (the effective date of the eighteen month publication provisions of the AIPA);
(C) the applicant has not filed a nonpublication request under 37 CFR 1.213(a), or if a nonpublication request has been filed in the application, the applicant must file a request under 37 CFR 1.213(b) to rescind a previously filed nonpublication request (see the second check box on the form PTO/SB/37);
(D) the application must be in condition for publication as provided in 37 CFR 1.211(c) (if the application has been forwarded to the Technology Center by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP), the application can be assumed to be in condition for publication); and
(E) the Office has not issued either an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 (e.g., a restriction, a first Office action on the merits, or a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105) or a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151.
2. Improper Request
If the request is improper, the following form paragraphs may be used to notify the applicant of the denial of the request:
¶ 7.56.02 Request for Deferral of Examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d), Denied
Applicant’s request filed on [1], for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) in the application is denied as being improper. [2]
See MPEP § 709.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the request for deferral of examination.
2. In bracket 2, insert the reason(s) for denying the request. For example, if appropriate insert --The applicant has not filed a request under 37 CFR 1.213(b) to rescind the previously filed nonpublication request--; --A first Office action has been issued in the application--; or --Applicant has not submitted a request for voluntary publication under 37 CFR 1.221--.
3. Proper Request
A supervisory patent examiner’s approval is required for the grant of a deferral of examination in an application. If the request is proper, the following
700-190Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 709
form paragraph may be used to notify applicant that the request for deferral has been granted:
¶ 7.54.01 Request for Deferral of Examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d), Granted
Applicant’s request filed on [1], for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) in the application has been approved. The examination of the application will be deferred for a period of [2] months.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the request for deferral of examination.
2. In bracket 2, insert the number of months for the deferral.
D. Termination of Suspension of Action
Once the request for suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103 has been approved, action on the application will be suspended until the suspension period has expired, unless the applicant submits a request for termination of the suspension of action prior to the end of the suspension period. The request for termination of a suspension of action will be effective when an appropriate official of the Office takes action thereon. If the request for termination properly identifies the application and the period of suspension has not expired when the Office acts on the request, the Office will terminate the suspension and place the application on the examiner’s docket. An acknowledgment should be sent to the applicant using the following form paragraph:
¶ 7.54.02 Request for Termination of a Suspension of Action, Granted
Applicant’s request filed on [1], for termination of a suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103, has been approved. The suspension of action has been terminated on the date of mailing this notice.
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the request for termination of the suspension of action.
II. AT THE INITIATIVE OF THE OFFICE
Suspension of action at the initiative of the Office should be avoided, if possible, because such suspension will cause delays in examination, will increase pendency of the application, and may lead to a shortening of the effective patent term or,
conversely, patent term extension, or adjustment, due to the suspension. Once a suspension of action has been initiated, it should be terminated immediately once the reason for initiating the suspension no longer exists, even if the suspension period has not expired.
37 CFR 1.103(e) provides that the Office will notify applicant if the Office suspends action in an application on its own initiative. Every suspension of action initiated by the Office will be limited to a time period of a maximum of 6 months. An examiner may grant an initial suspension of Office action on his or her own initiative, as in MPEP § 709.01 and MPEP Chapter 2300, for a maximum period of 6 months. A notification of suspension must be mailed to the applicant for each Office-initiated suspension of action, even for second or subsequent suspensions, and must include a suspension period (a maximum of 6 months). When the suspension period has expired, the examiner should take up action on the application or evaluate all possibilities for giving an action on the merits. For example, if a reference is still not available after waiting for six months, the examiner should try to find another source for the information or update the search to find another reference that can be used to make a rejection. If, in an extraordinary circumstance, a second or subsequent suspension is necessary, the examiner must obtain the TC director’s approval (see MPEP § 1003) and prepare another suspension notification with a suspension period (a maximum of 6 months). The notification for a second or subsequent suspension must be signed by the TC Director.
Suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(f) is decided by the TC Director of work group 3640.
The following form paragraphs should be used in actions relating to suspension of action at the initiative of the Office.
¶ 7.52 Suspension of Action, Awaiting New Reference
A reference relevant to the examination of this application may soon become available. Ex parte prosecution is SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF [1] MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Upon expiration of the period of suspension, applicant should make an inquiry as to the status of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. Maximum period for suspension is six months.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-191
§ 709EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
2. The TC Director must approve all second or subsequent suspensions, see MPEP § 1003.
3. The TC Director’s signature must appear on the letter granting any second or subsequent suspension.
¶ 7.53 Suspension of Action, Possible Interference
All claims are allowable. However, due to a potential interference, ex parte prosecution is SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF [1] MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
Upon expiration of the period of suspension, applicant should make an inquiry as to the status of the application.
Examiner Note:
1. Maximum period for suspension is six months.
2. The TC Director must approve all second or subsequent suspensions, see MPEP § 1003.
3. The TC Director’s signature must appear on the letter granting any second or subsequent suspension.
700-192Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 709
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-193
§ 709EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-194Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 709
709.01 Overlapping Applications by Same Applicant or Owned by Same Assignee [R-11.2013]
In general, examiners should not consider ex parte questions which are pending before the Office in
inter partes proceedings involving the same applicant. This situation may arise when at least one application or patent of the same applicant that is involved in an interference, derivation proceeding, inter partes reexamination or inter partes review
contains claims which overlap with claims of an application (original or reissue) under examination or with claims involved in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. An examiner should consult with the TC Quality Assurance Specialist to determine the appropriate course of action.
710 Period for Reply [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 133 Time for prosecuting application.
Upon failure of the applicant to prosecute the application within six months after any action therein, of which notice has been given or mailed to the applicant, or within such shorter time, not less than thirty days, as fixed by the Director in such action, the application shall be regarded as abandoned by the parties thereto.
35 U.S.C. 267 Time for taking action in Government applications.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 133 and 151, the Director may extend the time for taking any action to three years, when an application has become the property of the United States and the head of the appropriate department or agency of the Government has certified to the Director that the invention disclosed therein is important to the armament or defense of the United States.
See MPEP Chapter 1200 for period for reply when appeal is taken or court review sought.
Extension of time under 35 U.S.C. 267 is decided by the Technology Center Director of work group 3640.
710.01 Statutory Period [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.135 Abandonment for failure to reply within time period.
(a) If an applicant of a patent application fails to reply within the time period provided under § 1.134 and § 1.136, the
application will become abandoned unless an Office action indicates otherwise.
(b) Prosecution of an application to save it from abandonment pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must include such complete and proper reply as the condition of the application may require. The admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment after final rejection or any amendment not responsive to the last action, or any related proceedings, will not operate to save the application from abandonment.
(c) When reply by the applicant is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action, and is substantially a complete reply to the non-final Office action, but consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been inadvertently omitted, applicant may be given a new time period for reply under § 1.134 to supply the omission.
The maximum statutory period for reply to an Office action is 6 months. 35 U.S.C. 133. Shortened periods are currently used in practically all cases. See MPEP § 710.02(b).
37 CFR 1.135 provides that if no reply is filed within the time set in the Office action under 37 CFR 1.134 or as it may be extended under 37 CFR 1.136, the application will be abandoned unless an Office action indicates otherwise.
37 CFR 1.135(b) specifies that: (A) the admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment after final rejection, or any related proceedings, will not operate to save the application from abandonment; and (B) the admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment not responsive to the last action, or any related proceedings, will not operate to save the application from abandonment.
37 CFR 1.135(c) was amended to change the practice of providing a nonstatutory time limit (generally 1 month) during which an applicant may supply an omission to a previous reply. Under the current practice, the examiner may set a shortened statutory time period (generally 2 months) during which an applicant must supply the omission to the previous reply to avoid abandonment.
The prior practice under 37 CFR 1.135(c) was to set a time limit during which the applicant could supply the omission to the previous reply. Failure to supply the omission resulted in the abandonment of the application as of the due date for the previous reply. Filing a new application during the time limit, but beyond the due date for the previous reply, could
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-195
§ 710.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
have caused a loss of patent rights due to the lack of copendency between the applications.
37 CFR 1.135(c) now authorizes the examiner to accept a reply to a non-final Office action that is bona fide and is substantially complete but for an inadvertent omission as an adequate reply to avoid abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR 1.135. When a bona fide attempt to reply includes an inadvertent omission that precludes action on the merits of the application (e.g., an amendment is unsigned or improperly signed, or presents an amendment with additional claims so as to require additional fees pursuant to 37 CFR 1.16(h), (i), or (j)), the examiner may consider that reply adequate to avoid abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR 1.135, and give the applicant a shortened statutory time period of 2 months to correct the omission (e.g., provide a duplicate paper or ratification, or submit the additional claims fees or cancel the claims so that no fee is due). The failure to timely supply the omission will result in abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR 1.135. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b) will be available, unless the action setting the shortened statutory period indicates otherwise.
When a bona fide attempt to reply includes an omission that does not preclude action on the merits of the application (e.g., a reply fails to address a rejection or objection), the examiner may waive the deficiency in the reply and act on the application. The examiner may repeat and make final the rejection, objection, or requirement that was the subject of the omission. Thus, a reply to a non-final Office action that is bona fide but includes an omission may be treated by: (A) issuing an Office action that does not treat the reply on its merits but requires the applicant to supply the omission to avoid abandonment; or (B) issuing an Office action that does treat the reply on its merits (and which can also require the applicant to supply the omission to avoid abandonment).
Finally, whether a 2-month shortened statutory time period is provided to the applicant to supply the omission to the previous reply is within the discretion of the examiner. Where the examiner determines that the omission was not inadvertent (e.g., the applicant is abusing the provisions of 37
CFR 1.135(c) to gain additional time to file a proper reply or to delay examination of the application), the examiner should notify the applicant of the omission in the reply and advise the applicant that the omission to the previous reply must be supplied within the period for reply to the prior action, including extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a), if permitted. See also MPEP § 714.03.
710.01(a) Statutory Period, How Computed [R-08.2012]
The actual time taken for reply is computed from the date stamped or printed on the Office action to the date of receipt by the Office of applicant’s reply. No cognizance is taken of fractions of a day and applicant’s reply is due on the corresponding day of the month 6 months or any lesser number of months specified after the Office action.
For example, reply to an Office action with a 3-month shortened statutory period dated November 30 is due on the following February 28 (or 29 if it is a leap year), while a reply to an Office action dated February 28 is due on May 28 and not on the last day of May. Ex parte Messick, 7 USPQ 57 (Comm’r Pat. 1930).
A 1-month extension of time extends the time for reply to the date corresponding to the Office action date in the following month. For example, a reply to an Office action mailed on January 31 with a 3-month shortened statutory period would be due on April 30. If a 1-month extension of time were given, the reply would be due by May 31. The fact that April 30 may have been a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday has no effect on the extension of time. Where the period for reply is extended by some time period other than “1-month” or an even multiple thereof, the person granting the extension should indicate the date upon which the extended period for reply will expire.
When a timely reply is ultimately not filed, the application is regarded as abandoned after midnight of the date the period for reply expired. In the above example where May 31 is not a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday and no further extensions of time are obtained prior to the end of the 6-month statutory period, the application would be abandoned as of
700-196Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 710.01(a)
June 1. The fact that June 1 may be a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday does not change the abandonment date since the reply was due on May 31, a business day. See MPEP § 711.04(a) regarding the pulling and forwarding of abandoned applications.
A 30-day period for reply in the Office means 30 calendar days including Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. However, if the period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the reply is timely if it is filed on the next succeeding business day. If the period for reply is extended, the time extended is added to the last calendar day of the original period, as opposed to being added to the day it would have been due when said last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday.
The date of receipt of a reply to an Office action is given by the “Office date” stamp which appears on the reply paper.
In some cases the examiner’s Office action does not determine the beginning of a statutory reply period. In all cases where the statutory reply period runs from the date of a previous action, a statement to that effect should be included.
Since extensions of time are available pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a), it is incumbent upon applicants to recognize the date for reply so that the proper fee for any extension will be submitted. Thus, the date upon which any reply is due will normally be indicated only in those instances where the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) are not available. See MPEP Chapter 2200 for reexamination proceedings.
710.02 Shortened Statutory Period and Time Limit Actions Computed [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.136 Extensions of time.
(a)
(1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless:
(i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action;
(ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title;
(iii) The reply is a request for an oral hearing submitted pursuant to § 41.47(a) of this title;
(iv) The reply is to a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board pursuant to § 41.50 or § 41.52 of this chapter; or to § 90.3 of this chapter; or
(v) The application is involved in a contested case (§ 41.101(a) of this title) or a derivation proceeding (§ 42.4(b) of this title).
(2) The date on which the petition and the fee have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The expiration of the time period is determined by the amount of the fee paid. A reply must be filed prior to the expiration of the period of extension to avoid abandonment of the application (§ 1.135), but in no situation may an applicant reply later than the maximum time period set by statute, or be granted an extension of time under paragraph (b) of this section when the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section are available.
(3) A written request may be submitted in an application that is an authorization to treat any concurrent or future reply, requiring a petition for an extension of time under this paragraph for its timely submission, as incorporating a petition for extension of time for the appropriate length of time. An authorization to charge all required fees, fees under § 1.17, or all required extension of time fees will be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent or future reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under this paragraph for its timely submission. Submission of the fee set forth in § 1.17(a) will also be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under this paragraph for its timely submission.
(b) When a reply cannot be filed within the time period set for such reply and the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section are not available, the period for reply will be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for an extension of time under this paragraph must be filed on or before the day on which such reply is due, but the mere filing of such a request will not effect any extension under this paragraph. In no situation can any extension carry the date on which reply is due beyond the maximum time period set by statute. Any request under this paragraph must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
(c) If an applicant is notified in a “Notice of Allowability” that an application is otherwise in condition for allowance, the following time periods are not extendable if set in the “Notice of Allowability” or in an Office action having a mail date on or after the mail date of the “Notice of Allowability”:
(1) The period for submitting the inventor’s oath or declaration;
(2) The period for submitting formal drawings set under § 1.85(c); and
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-197
§ 710.02EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(3) The period for making a deposit set under § 1.809(c).
(d) See § 1.550(c) for extensions of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings, § 1.956 for extensions of time in inter partes reexamination proceedings; §§ 41.4(a) and 41.121(a)(3) of this chapter for extensions of time in contested cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; § 42.5(c) of this chapter for extensions of time in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and § 90.3 of this chapter for extensions of time to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or to commence a civil action.
37 CFR 1.136 implements 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(8) which directs the Director of the USPTO to charge fees for extensions of time to take action in patent applications.
Under 37 CFR 1.136 (35 U.S.C. 133) an applicant may be required to reply in a shorter period than 6 months, not less than 30 days. Some situations in which shortened periods for reply are used are listed in MPEP § 710.02(b).
In other situations, for example, the rejection of a copied patent claim, the examiner may require applicant to reply on or before a specified date. These are known as time limit actions and are established under authority of 35 U.S.C. 2 and 35 U.S.C. 3. Some situations in which time limits are set are noted in MPEP § 710.02(c). The time limit requirement should be typed in capital letters where required.
An indication of a shortened time for reply should appear prominently on the first page of all copies of actions in which a shortened time for reply has been set so that a person merely scanning the action can easily see it.
Shortened statutory periods are subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) unless applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action. See MPEP § 710.02(e) for a discussion of extensions of time. See Chapter 2200 for ex parte reexamination
proceedings and Chapter 2600 for inter partes reexamination proceedings.
710.02(a) [Reserved]
710.02(b) Shortened Statutory Period: Situations in Which Used [R-07.2015]
Under the authority given him or her by 35 U.S.C. 133, the Director of the USPTO has directed the examiner to set a shortened period for reply to every action. The length of the shortened statutory period to be used depends on the type of reply required. Some specific cases of shortened statutory periods for reply are given below. These periods may be changed under special, rarely occurring circumstances.
A shortened statutory period may not be less than 30 days (35 U.S.C. 133).
The Patent Law Treaty (PLT), which entered into force with respect to the United States on December 18, 2013, provides for a time period of at least two months for replies to most Office actions and other notices. The Office has certain pilot programs that are not encompassed by this requirement of the PLT and set a time period of less than two months for reply.
2 MONTHS
(A) Requirement for restriction or election of species only (no action on the merits) ...... MPEP §§ 809.02(a) and 817.
(B) When a reply by an applicant for a nonfinal Office action is bona fide but includes an inadvertent omission, the examiner may set a 2 month shortened statutory time period to correct the omission .... MPEP §§ 710.01 and 714.03.
(C) Winning party in a terminated interference to reply to an unanswered Office action ...... MPEP Chapter 2300.
Where, after the termination of an interference proceeding, the application of the winning party contains an unanswered Office action, final rejection or any other action, the primary examiner notifies the applicant of this fact. In this
700-198Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 710.02(a)
case reply to the Office action is required within a shortened statutory period running from the date of such notice. See Ex parte Peterson, 49 USPQ 119, 1941 C.D. 8, 525 OG 3 (Comm’r Pat. 1941).
(D) To reply to an Ex parte Quayle Office action ......... MPEP § 714.14.
When an application is in condition for allowance, except as to matters of form, such as correction of the specification, a new oath, etc., the application will be considered special and prompt action taken to require correction of formal matters. Such action should include an indication on the Office Action Summary form PTOL-326 that prosecution on the merits is closed in accordance with the decision in Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935). A 2-month shortened statutory period for reply should be set.
(E) Multiplicity rejection — no other rejection ........ MPEP § 2173.05(n).
3 MONTHS
To reply to any Office action on the merits.
PERIOD FOR REPLY RESTARTED
Where the citation of a reference is incorrect or an Office action contains some other defect and this error is called to the attention of the Office within 1 month of the mail date of the action, the Office will restart the previously set period for reply to run from the date the error is corrected, if requested to do so by applicant. See MPEP § 710.06.
710.02(c) Specified Time Limits: Situations in Which Used [R-11.2013]
There are certain situations in which the examiner specifies a time for the applicant to take some action, and the applicant’s failure to timely take the specified action results in a consequence other than abandonment. Situations in which a specified time limit for taking an action is set are as follows:
(A) Where a member of the public files a petition under 37 CFR 1.14(a) for access to an application, the Office may give the applicant a specified time (usually 3 weeks) within which to state any objections to the granting of the petition for access and the reasons why it should be denied.
The failure to timely reply will not affect the prosecution of the application (assuming that it is still pending), but will result in the Office rendering a decision on the petition for access without considering any objections by the applicant. See MPEP § 103.
(B) Where an information disclosure statement complies with the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.97 (including the requirement for fees or statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) based upon the time of filing), but part of the content requirement of 37 CFR 1.98 has been inadvertently omitted, the examiner may set a 1-month time limit for completion of the information disclosure statement. The failure to timely comply will not result in abandonment of the application, but will result in the information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See MPEP § 609.05(a).
(C) Where an application is otherwise allowable but contains a traverse of a restriction requirement, the applicant may be given a specified time (e.g., a 2-month time limit) to cancel claims to the nonelected invention or species or take other appropriate action (i.e., petition the restriction requirement under 37 CFR 1.144). The failure to timely file a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 (or cancel the claims to the nonelected invention or species) will not result in abandonment of the application, but will be treated as authorization to cancel the claims to the non-elected invention or species, and the application will be passed to issue. See 37 CFR 1.141 and 1.144, and MPEP §§ 821.01 and 821.04(a).
(D) A portion of 37 CFR 41.202(c) provides that in suggesting claims for interference:
An examiner may require an applicant to add a claim to provoke an interference for an application subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). Failure to satisfy the requirement within a period (not less than one month) the examiner sets will operate as a concession of priority for the subject matter of the claim.
The failure to timely present the suggested claim will not result in abandonment of the application, but will be treated as a concession by the applicant of the priority of the subject matter of the claim. See MPEP Chapter 2300.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-199
§ 710.02(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Where the failure to take the specified action may result in abandonment (e.g., filing a new complete appeal brief correcting the deficiencies in a prior appeal brief), a time period should be set for taking the specified action. Where the condition of the application requires that such action not be subject to extensions under 37 CFR 1.136, the action should specify that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 (or 1.136(a)) do not apply to the time period for taking action (i.e., a specified time limit should not be set simply to exclude the possibility of extending the period for reply under 37 CFR 1.136).
710.02(d) Difference Between Shortened Statutory Periods for Reply and Specified Time Limits [R-07.2015]
Examiners and applicants should not lose sight of the distinction between a specified time for a particular action and a shortened statutory period for reply under 35 U.S.C. 133:
(A) The penalty attaching to failure to take a particular action within a specified time is a loss of rights in regard to the particular matter (e.g., the failure to timely copy suggested claims results in a disclaimer of the involved subject matter). On the other hand, a failure to reply within the set statutory period under 35 U.S.C. 133 results in abandonment of the entire application. Abandonment of an application is not appealable, but a petition to revive may be granted if the delay was unintentional (37 CFR 1.137(a)).
(B) As a specified time or time limit is not a shortened statutory period under 35 U.S.C. 133, the Office may specify a time for taking action (or a time limit) of less than the 30 day minimum specified in 35 U.S.C. 133. See MPEP § 103.
(C) Where an applicant replies a day or two after the specified time, the delay may be excused by the examiner if satisfactorily explained. The examiner may use his or her discretion to request an explanation for the delay if the reason for the delay is not apparent from the reply. A reply 1 day late in an application carrying a shortened statutory period under 35 U.S.C. 133, no matter what the excuse, results in abandonment. Extensions of the statutory period under 35 U.S.C. 133 may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136, provided the extension does not go
beyond the 6-month statutory period from the date of the Office action (35 U.S.C. 133).
The 2-month time period for filing an appeal brief on appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (37 CFR 41.37(a) ) and the 1-month time period for filing a new appeal brief to correct the deficiencies in a defective appeal brief (37 CFR 41.37(d) ) are time periods, but are not (shortened) statutory periods for reply set pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 133. Thus, these periods are, unless otherwise provided, extendable by up to 5 months under 37 CFR 1.136(a), and, in an exceptional situation, further extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(b) (i.e., these periods are not statutory periods subject to the 6-month maximum set in 35 U.S.C. 133). In addition, the failure to file an appeal brief (or a new appeal brief) within the time period set in 37 CFR 41.37(a) (or (d)) results in dismissal of the appeal. The dismissal of an appeal results in abandonment, unless there is any allowed claim(s) (see MPEP § 1215.04), in which case the examiner should cancel the nonallowed claims and allow the application.
The 2-month time period for reply to A Notice to File Missing Parts of an Application is not identified on the Notice as a statutory period subject to 35 U.S.C. 133. Thus, extensions of time of up to 5 months under 37 CFR 1.136(a), followed by additional time under 37 CFR 1.136(b), when appropriate, are permitted.
710.02(e) Extension of Time [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.136 Extensions of time.
(a)(1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless:
(i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action;
(ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title;
(iii) The reply is a request for an oral hearing submitted pursuant to § 41.47(a) of this title;
(iv) The reply is to a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board pursuant to § 41.50 or § 41.52 of this chapter; or to § 90.3 of this chapter; or
700-200Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 710.02(d)
(v) The application is involved in a contested case (§ 41.101(a) of this title) or a derivation proceeding (§ 42.4(b) of this title).
(2) The date on which the petition and the fee have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The expiration of the time period is determined by the amount of the fee paid. A reply must be filed prior to the expiration of the period of extension to avoid abandonment of the application (§ 1.135), but in no situation may an applicant reply later than the maximum time period set by statute, or be granted an extension of time under paragraph (b) of this section when the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section are available.
(3) A written request may be submitted in an application that is an authorization to treat any concurrent or future reply, requiring a petition for an extension of time under this paragraph for its timely submission, as incorporating a petition for extension of time for the appropriate length of time. An authorization to charge all required fees, fees under § 1.17, or all required extension of time fees will be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent or future reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under this paragraph for its timely submission. Submission of the fee set forth in § 1.17(a) will also be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under this paragraph for its timely submission.
(b) When a reply cannot be filed within the time period set for such reply and the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section are not available, the period for reply will be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for an extension of time under this paragraph must be filed on or before the day on which such reply is due, but the mere filing of such a request will not affect any extension under this paragraph. In no situation can any extension carry the date on which reply is due beyond the maximum time period set by statute. Any request under this section must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
(c) If an applicant is notified in a “Notice of Allowability” that an application is otherwise in condition for allowance, the following time periods are not extendable if set in the “Notice of Allowability” or in an Office action having a mail date on or after the mail date of the “Notice of Allowability”:
(1) The period for submitting an inventor’s oath or declaration
(2) The period for submitting formal drawings set under § 1.85(c); and
(3) The period for making a deposit set under § 1.809(c).
(d) See § 1.550(c) for extensions of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings, § 1.956 for extensions of time in inter partes reexamination proceedings; §§ 41.4(a) and 41.121(a)(3) of this chapter for extensions of time in contested cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; § 42.5(c) of this chapter for extensions of time in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and § 90.3 of this chapter for extensions
of time to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or to commence a civil action.
37 CFR 1.136 provides for two distinct procedures to extend the period for action or reply in particular situations. The procedure which is available for use in a particular situation will depend upon the circumstances. 37 CFR 1.136(a) permits an applicant to file a petition for extension of time and a fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a) up to 5 months after the end of the time period set to take action except:
(A) where prohibited by statute,
(B) where prohibited by one of the items listed in the rule, or
(C) where applicant has been notified otherwise in an Office action.
The petition and fee must be filed within the extended time period for reply requested in the petition and can be filed prior to, with, or without the reply. The filing of the petition and fee will extend the time period to take action up to 5 months dependent on the amount of the fee paid except in those circumstances noted above. 37 CFR 1.136(a) will effectively reduce the amount of paperwork required by applicants and the Office since the extension will be effective upon filing of the petition and payment of the appropriate fee and without acknowledgment or action by the Office and since the petition and fee can be filed with or without the reply. 37 CFR 1.136(b) provides for requests for extensions of time upon a showing of sufficient cause when the procedure of 37 CFR 1.136(a) is not available. Although the petition and fee procedure of 37 CFR 1.136(a) will normally be available within 5 months after a set period for reply has expired, an extension request for cause under 37 CFR 1.136(b) must be filed during the set period for reply. Extensions of time in interference proceedings are governed by 37 CFR 41.4(a).
It should be very carefully noted that neither the primary examiner nor the Director of the USPTO has authority to extend the shortened statutory period unless a petition for the extension is filed. While the shortened period may be extended within the limits of the statutory 6 months period, no extension can operate to extend the time beyond the 6 months.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-201
§ 710.02(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Any request under 37 CFR 1.136(b) for extension of time for reply must state a reason in support thereof and supply the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(g). Such extensions will only be granted for sufficient cause and must be filed prior to the end of the set period for reply.
Extensions of time with the payment of a fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) are possible in reply to most Office actions of the examiner. Exceptions include:
(A) all extensions in a reexamination proceeding (see 37 CFR 1.550(c) and MPEP § 2265 for ex parte reexamination, and 37 CFR 1.956 and MPEP § 2665 for inter partes reexamination);
(B) all extensions during an interference proceeding (but not preparatory to an interference where a claim is suggested for interference);
(C) those specific situations where an Office action states that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) are not applicable (e.g., reply to a notice of allowability, in reissue applications associated with litigation, or where an application in allowable condition has nonelected claims and time is set to cancel such claims); and
(D) those limited instances where applicant is given a specified time limit to take certain actions.
The fees for extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) are set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a) and are subject to a 50% reduction for persons or concerns qualifying as small entities. The fees itemized at 37 CFR 1.17(a) are cumulative. Thus, if an applicant has paid an extension fee in the amount set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a)(l) for a 1-month extension of time and thereafter decides that an additional 1 month is needed, the proper fee would be the amount set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a)(2) less the amount set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a)(l) which was previously paid.
37 CFR 1.136(a)(3) provides that:
(A) a written request may be submitted in an application that is an authorization to treat any concurrent or future reply that requires a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to be timely, as incorporating a petition for extension of time for the appropriate length of time;
(B) an authorization to charge all required fees, fees under 37 CFR 1.17, or all required extension of time fees will be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent or future reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to be timely; and
(C) submission of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a) will be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to be timely.
Accordingly, 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3) is a “safety net” to avoid a potential loss of patent rights for applicants who inadvertently omitted a petition, but who had:
(A) previously filed a written request to treat a reply requiring an extension of time as incorporating a petition for such extension of time;
(B) previously filed an authorization to charge all required fees, fees under 37 CFR 1.17, or all required extension of time fees; or
(C) submitted the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a) with the reply.
The Office strongly recommends including a written petition for any desired extension of time in reply to the Office action for which the extension was requested to avoid processing delays.
A proper petition may be only a few sentences such as
The applicant herewith petitions the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to extend the time for reply to the Office action dated ____ for ____ month(s) from ____ to ____ . Submitted herewith is a check for $____ to cover the cost of the extension [Please Charge my deposit account number ____ , in the amount of $ ____ to cover the cost of the extension. Any deficiency or overpayment should be charged or credited to the above numbered deposit account.]
37 CFR 1.136(a)(2) provides, in part, that “[t]he date on which the petition and the fee have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee.”
700-202Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 710.02(e)
Thus, a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) need not be accompanied by a reply (e.g. , in situations in which the extension is necessary for copendency with a continuing application). 37 CFR 1.136(a)(2), however, clarifies that “[a] reply must be filed prior to the expiration of the period of extension to avoid abandonment of the application” under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR 1.135 (e.g., where the extension is obtained solely for the purpose of copendency with a continuing application, and no reply is filed, the application will become abandoned upon expiration of the so-extended period for reply).
While a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) must be filed within the extended period for reply, the petition need not be filed within the original shortened statutory period for reply. If a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) (with or without a reply) requests an insufficient period of extension such that the petition would be filed outside the so-extended period for reply, but the period for reply could be further extended under 37 CFR 1.136(a) such that the petition would be filed within the further extended period for reply, it is Office practice to simply treat the petition for extension of time as requesting the period of extension necessary to make the petition filed within the further extended period for reply if the petition or application contains an authorization to charge extension fees or fees under 37 CFR 1.17 to a deposit account. That is, in such situations a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) is simply construed as requesting the appropriate period of extension. For example, if a petition (and requisite fee) for a two-month extension of time containing an authorization to charge fee deficiencies to a deposit account are filed in an application four and one-half months after the date a notice of appeal was filed in that application, it is Office practice to treat the petition as requesting the period of extension (three months) necessary to make the petition filed within the extended period for reply. This practice applies even if no further reply (appeal brief or continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d)) is filed in the application to be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3).
To facilitate processing, any petition for an extension of time (or petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137)
in which a continuing application is filed in lieu of a reply should specifically refer to the filing of the continuing application and also should include an express abandonment of the prior application conditioned upon the granting of the petition and the granting of a filing date to the continuing application.
Applicants are cautioned that an extension of time will not be effected in the prior application by filing a petition for an extension of time, extension fee, or fee authorization, in the continuing application. This is because the petition for an extension of time (or constructive petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3)) must be directed toward and filed in the application to which it pertains in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4 and 1.5.
Where a reply is filed after the set period for reply has expired and no petition or fee accompanies it, the reply will not be accepted as timely until the petition (which may be a constructive petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3)) and the appropriate fee are submitted. For example, if an Office action sets a 3-month period for reply and applicant replies in the 4th month and includes only the petition for a 1-month extension of time, the reply is not acceptable until the fee is filed. If the fee is not filed until the 5th month, an additional fee for the 2nd month extension would also be required in order to render the reply timely.
An extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 is not necessary when submitting a supplemental reply to an Office action if a complete first reply was timely filed in reply to the Office action.
When the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) are not applicable, extensions of time for cause pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(b) may be possible. Any such extension must be filed on or before the day on which the reply is due. The mere filing of such a request will not effect any extension. All such requests are to be decided by the Technology Center (TC) Director. No extension can operate to extend the time beyond the 6-month statutory period. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(b) (or 37 CFR 1.136(a)) are not available to extend the time period set in a Notice of Allowability, or in an Office action having a mail date after the mail date of the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-203
§ 710.02(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Notice of Allowability, to submit an inventor’s oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 and 1.64, to submit formal drawings, or to make a deposit of biological material.
If a request for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(b) is filed in duplicate and accompanied by a stamped return-addressed envelope, the Office will indicate the action taken on the duplicate and return it promptly in the envelope. Utilization of this procedure is optional on the part of applicant. In this procedure, the action taken on the request should be noted on the original and on the copy which is to be returned. The notation on the original, which becomes a part of the file record, should be signed by the person granting or denying the extension, and the name and title of that person should also appear in the notation on the copy which is returned to the person requesting the extension.
When the request is granted, no further action by the Office is necessary. When the request is granted in part, the extent of the extension granted will be clearly indicated on both the original and on the copy which is to be returned. When the request is denied, the reason for the denial will be indicated on both the original and on the copy which is to be returned or a formal decision letter giving the reason for the denial will be forwarded promptly after the mailing of the duplicate.
If the request for extension of time is granted, the due date is computed from the date stamped or printed on the action, as opposed to the original due date. See MPEP § 710.01(a). For example, a reply to an action with a 3-month shortened statutory period, dated November 30, is due on the following February 28 (or 29, if it is a leap year). If the period for reply is extended an additional month, the reply becomes due on March 30, not on March 28.
Hand-carried requests for extensions of time will no longer be accepted in the TCs. Hand-carried requests for extensions of time may only be delivered to the Customer Window, which is located at:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314
Applicant should be advised promptly regarding action taken on the request for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(b) so that the file record will be complete.
Form paragraphs 7.98 or 7.98.01 may be used where a reply is filed late but an extension of time is possible.
¶ 7.98 Reply Is Late, Extension of Time Suggested
Applicant’s reply was received in the Office on [1], which is after the expiration of the period for reply set in the last Office action mailed on [2]. This application will become abandoned unless applicant obtains an extension of time to reply to the last Office action under 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Examiner Note:
Since the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) do not apply to reexamination proceedings or to litigation related reissue applications, do not use this form paragraph in these cases.
¶ 7.98.01 Reply Is Late, Extension of Time Suggested, Pro Se
Applicant’s reply to the Office Action of [1] was received in the Patent and Trademark Office on [2], which is after the expiration of the period for reply set in the above noted Office action. The application will become abandoned unless applicant obtains an extension of the period for reply set in the above noted Office action. An extension of the reply period may be obtained by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a) (copy of current fee schedule attached). The date on which the reply, the petition, and the fee have been filed is the date of the reply and also the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee due. The expiration of the time period is determined by the amount of the fee paid. Applicant is advised that in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to an Office action beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute. Additionally, extensions may not be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a) for more than FIVE MONTHS beyond the time period set in an Office action.
Examiner Note:
Enclose a photocopy of current fee schedule with action so that applicant can determine the required fee.
700-204Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 710.02(e)
I. FINAL REJECTION — TIME FOR REPLY
If an applicant initially replies within 2 months from the date of mailing of any final rejection setting a 3-month shortened statutory period for reply and the Office does not mail an advisory action until after the end of the 3-month shortened statutory period, the period for reply for purposes of determining the amount of any extension fee will be the date on which the Office mails the advisory action advising applicant of the status of the application, but in no event can the period extend beyond 6 months from the date of the final rejection. This procedure applies only to a first reply to a final rejection. The following language must be included by the examiner in each final rejection.
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST REPLY IS FILED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION AND THE ADVISORY ACTION IS NOT MAILED UNTIL AFTER THE END OF THE THREE-MONTH SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD, THEN THE SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD WILL EXPIRE ON THE DATE THE ADVISORY ACTION IS MAILED, AND ANY EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 CFR 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION.
For example, if applicant initially replies within 2 months from the date of mailing of a final rejection and the examiner mails an advisory action before the end of 3 months from the date of mailing of the final rejection, the shortened statutory period will expire at the end of 3 months from the date of mailing of the final rejection. In such a case, if a petition for extension of time is granted, the due date for a reply is computed from the date stamped or printed on the Office action with the final rejection. See MPEP § 710.01(a). If the examiner, however,
does not mail an advisory action until after the end of 3 months, the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the examiner mails the advisory action and any extension of time fee may be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event will the statutory period for reply expire later than 6 months from the mailing date of the final Office action.
See also MPEP § 706.07(f).
II. EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS AFTER FINAL REJECTION
Frequently, applicants request an extension of time, stating as a reason therefor that more time is needed in which to submit an affidavit. When such a request is filed after final rejection, the granting of the request for extension of time is without prejudice to the right of the examiner to question why the affidavit is now necessary and why it was not earlier presented. If applicant’s showing is insufficient, the examiner may deny entry of the affidavit, notwithstanding the previous grant of an extension of time to submit it. The grant of an extension of time in these circumstances serves merely to keep the application from becoming abandoned while allowing the applicant the opportunity to present the affidavit or to take other appropriate action. Moreover, prosecution of the application to save it from abandonment must include such timely, complete and proper action as required by 37 CFR 1.113. The admission of the affidavit for purposes other than allowance of the application, or the refusal to admit the affidavit, and any proceedings relative thereto, shall not operate to save the application from abandonment.
Implicit in the above practice is the fact that affidavits submitted after final rejection are subject to the same treatment as amendments submitted after final rejection. See 37 CFR 1.116(c).
Failure to file a reply during the shortened statutory period results in abandonment of the application.
Extensions of time to appeal to the courts under 37 CFR 90.3(c) are covered in MPEP § 1216.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-205
§ 710.02(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
III. NO EXTENSIONS OF TIMEAFTER PAYMENT OF ISSUE FEE
The statutory (nonextendable) time period for payment of the issue fee is 3 months from the date of the Notice of Allowance (35 U.S.C. 151). In situations where informalities such as drawing corrections are outstanding at the time of allowance, applicants will be notified on the PTOL-37 (Notice of Allowability) of such informalities. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b) are NOT available to correct such informalities. Any such informalities must be corrected and the issue fee and the publication fee, if required, must be paid within the 3-month period. If a Notice Requiring Inventor’s Oath or Declaration (PTOL-2306) is sent with the Notice of Allowability, the required inventor’s oath or declaration must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee. See 35 U.S.C. 115(f).
710.03 [Reserved]
710.04 Two Periods Running [R-08.2012]
There sometimes arises a situation where two different periods for reply are running against an application, the one limited by the regular statutory period, the other by the limited period set in a subsequent Office action. The running of the first period is not suspended nor affected by an ex parte limited time action or even by an appeal therefrom. For an exception involving suggested claims, see MPEP Chapter 2300.
710.04(a) Copying Patent Claims [R-08.2012]
Where, in an application in which there is an unanswered rejection of record, claims are copied from a patent and all of these claims are rejected there results a situation where two different periods for reply are running against the application. One period, the first, is the regular statutory period of the unanswered rejection of record, the other period is the limited period set for reply to the rejection (either first or final). The date of the last unanswered Office action on the claims other than the copied patent claims is the controlling date of the statutory period.
See Ex parte Milton, 63 USPQ 132 (P.O. Super Exam. 1938). See also MPEP Chapter 2300 .
710.05 Period Ending on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal Holiday [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 21 Filing date and day for taking action.
*****
(b) When the day, or the last day, for taking any action or paying any fee in the United States Patent and Trademark Office falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia the action may be taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding secular or business day.
37 CFR 1.7 Times for taking action; Expiration on Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.
(a) Whenever periods of time are specified in this part in days, calendar days are intended. When the day, or the last day fixed by statute or by or under this part for taking any action or paying any fee in the United States Patent and Trademark Office falls on Saturday, Sunday, or on a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the action may be taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding business day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday. See § 90.3 of this chapter for time for appeal or for commencing civil action.
(b) If the day that is twelve months after the filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) and § 1.53(c) falls on Saturday, Sunday, or on a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the period of pendency shall be extended to the next succeeding secular or business day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday.
The federal holidays under 5 U.S.C. 6103(a) are New Year’s Day, January 1; Martin Luther King’s birthday, the third Monday in January; Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February; Memorial Day, the last Monday in May; Independence Day, July 4; Labor Day, the first Monday in September; Columbus Day, the second Monday in October; Veteran’s Day, November 11; Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November; and Christmas Day, December 25. Whenever a federal holiday falls on a Sunday, the following day (Monday) is also a federal holiday. Exec. Order No. 11582, 36 FR 2957 (February 11, 1971); 5 U.S.C. 6103.
When a federal holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding day, Friday, is considered to be a federal holiday and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be closed for business on that day (5 U.S.C. 6103). Accordingly, any action or fee due on such a federal holiday Friday or Saturday is to be considered timely if the action is taken, or the fee
700-206Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 710.03
paid, on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 6103(c), Inauguration Day (January 20, every 4 years) “is a legal public holiday for the purpose of statutes relating to pay and leave of employees . . .” employed in the District of Columbia and surrounding areas. It further provides that when Inauguration Day falls on a Sunday, the next day selected for the observance of the Inauguration is considered a legal public holiday for purposes of this subsection. No provision is made for an Inauguration Day falling on a Saturday.
When an amendment is filed a day or two later than the expiration of the period fixed by statute, care should be taken to ascertain whether the last day of that period was Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday and if so, whether the amendment was filed or the fee paid on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday.
An amendment received on such succeeding day which was due on Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday is endorsed with the date of receipt. The Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday is also indicated.
The period of pendency of a provisional application will be extended to the next succeeding secular or business day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday, if the day that is twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) and 37 CFR 1.53(c) falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3) and MPEP § 201.04.
710.06 Situations When Reply Period Is Reset or Restarted [R-11.2013]
Where the citation of a reference is incorrect or an Office action contains some other error that affects applicant’s ability to reply to the Office action and this error is called to the attention of the Office within 1 month of the mail date of the action, the Office will restart the previously set period for reply to run from the date the error is corrected, if requested to do so by applicant. If the error is brought to the attention of the Office within the
period for reply set in the Office action but more than 1 month after the date of the Office action, the Office will set a new period for reply, if requested to do so by the applicant, to substantially equal the time remaining in the reply period. For example, if the error is brought to the attention of the Office 5 weeks after mailing the action, then the Office would set a new 2-month period for reply. The new period for reply must be at least 1 month and would run from the date the error is corrected. See MPEP § 707.05(g) for the manner of correcting the record where there has been an erroneous citation.
Where for any reason it becomes necessary to remail any action (MPEP § 707.13), applicant’s period for reply will be restarted to correspond to the remailing date of the action.
A supplementary action after a rejection explaining the references more explicitly or giving the reasons more fully, even though no further references are cited, establishes a new date from which the statutory period runs.
If the error in citation or other defective Office action is called to the attention of the Office after the expiration of the period for reply, the period will not be restarted and any appropriate extension fee will be required to render a reply timely. The Office letter correcting the error will note that the time period for reply remains as set forth in the previous Office action.
See MPEP §§ 505, 512, and 513 for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office practice on date stamping documents.
In the event that correspondence from the Office is received late (A) due to delays in the U.S. Postal Service, or (B) because the mail was delayed in leaving the USPTO (the postmark date is later than the mail date printed on the correspondence), applicants may petition to reset the period for reply, which petition shall be evaluated according to the guidelines which follow. Where the Office action involved in the petition was mailed by a Technology Center (TC), the authority to decide such petitions has been delegated to the TC Director. See Notice entitled “Petition to reset a period for response due
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-207
§ 710.06EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
to late receipt of a PTO action,” 1160 OG 14 (March 1, 1994).
I. PETITIONS TO RESET A PERIOD FOR REPLY DUE TO LATE RECEIPT OF AN OFFICE ACTION
The Office will grant a petition to restart the previously set period for reply to an Office action to run from the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address when the following criteria are met:
(A) the petition is filed within 2 weeks of the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address;
(B) a substantial portion of the set reply period had elapsed on the date of receipt (e.g., at least 1 month of a 2- or 3-month reply period had elapsed); and
(C) the petition includes (1) evidence showing the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address (e.g., a copy of the Office action having the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address stamped thereon, a copy of the envelope (which contained the Office action) having the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address stamped thereon, etc.), and (2) a statement setting forth the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address and explaining how the evidence being presented establishes the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address.
There is no statutory requirement that a shortened statutory period of longer than 30 days to reply to an Office action be reset due to delay in the mail or in the Office. However, when a substantial portion of the set reply period had elapsed on the date of receipt at the correspondence address (e.g., at least 1 month of a 2- or 3-month period had elapsed), the procedures set forth above for late receipt of action are available. Where an Office action was received with less than 2 months remaining in a shortened statutory period of 3 months the period may be restarted from the date of receipt. Where the period remaining is between 2 and 3 months, the period will be reset only in extraordinary situations, e.g., complex Office action suggesting submission of comparative data.
II. PETITIONS TO RESET A PERIOD FOR REPLY DUE TO A POSTMARK DATE LATER THAN THE MAIL DATE PRINTED ON AN OFFICE ACTION
The Office will grant a petition to restart the previously set period for reply to an Office action to run from the postmark date shown on the Office mailing envelope which contained the Office action when the following criteria are met:
(A) the petition is filed within 2 weeks of the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address;
(B) the reply period was for payment of the issue fee, or the reply period set was 1 month or 30 days; and
(C) the petition includes (1) evidence showing the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address (e.g., copy of the Office action having the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address stamped thereon, etc.), (2) a copy of the envelope which contained the Office action showing the postmark date, and (3) a statement setting forth the date of receipt of the Office action at the correspondence address and stating that the Office action was received in the postmarked envelope.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.8 and 1.10 apply to the filing of the above-noted petitions with regard to the requirement that the petition be filed within 2 weeks of the date of receipt of the Office action.
The showings outlined above may not be sufficient if there are circumstances that point to a conclusion that the Office action may have been delayed after receipt rather than a conclusion that the Office action was delayed in the mail or in the Office.
711 Abandonment of Patent Application [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.135 Abandonment for failure to reply within time period.
(a) If an applicant of a patent application fails to reply within the time period provided under § 1.134 and § 1.136, the application will become abandoned unless an Office action indicates otherwise.
(b) Prosecution of an application to save it from abandonment pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must include such complete and proper reply as the condition of the
700-208Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711
application may require. The admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment after final rejection or any amendment not responsive to the last action, or any related proceedings, will not operate to save the application from abandonment.
(c) When reply by the applicant is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action, and is substantially a complete reply to the non-final Office action, but consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been inadvertently omitted, applicant may be given a new time period for reply under § 1.134 to supply the omission.
37 CFR 1.138 Express abandonment.
(a) An application may be expressly abandoned by filing a written declaration of abandonment identifying the application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Express abandonment of the application may not be recognized by the Office before the date of issue or publication unless it is actually received by appropriate officials in time to act.
(b) A written declaration of abandonment must be signed by a party authorized under § 1.33(b)(1) or (b)(3) to sign a paper in the application, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph. A registered attorney or agent, not of record, who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34 when filing a continuing application, may expressly abandon the prior application as of the filing date granted to the continuing application.
(c) An applicant seeking to abandon an application to avoid publication of the application (see § 1.211(a)(1)) must submit a declaration of express abandonment by way of a petition under this section including the fee set forth in § 1.17(h) in sufficient time to permit the appropriate officials to recognize the abandonment and remove the application from the publication process. Applicant should expect that the petition will not be granted and the application will be published in regular course unless such declaration of express abandonment and petition are received by the appropriate officials more than four weeks prior to the projected date of publication.
Abandonment may be either of the invention or of an application. This discussion is concerned with abandonment of the application for patent.
An abandoned application, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.135 and 1.138, is one which is removed from the Office docket of pending applications through:
(A) formal abandonment
(1) by the applicant,
(2) by the attorney or agent of record , or
(3) by a registered attorney or agent acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 when filing a continuing application; or
(B) failure of applicant to take appropriate action within a specified time at some stage in the prosecution of the application.
711.01 Express or Formal Abandonment [R-07.2015]
The applicant or the attorney/agent of record, if any, can sign an express abandonment. It is imperative that the attorney or agent of record exercise every precaution in ascertaining that the abandonment of the application is in accordance with the desires and best interests of the applicant prior to signing a letter of express abandonment of a patent application. Moreover, special care should be taken to ensure that the appropriate application is correctly identified in the letter of abandonment.
A letter of abandonment properly signed becomes effective when an appropriate official of the Office takes action thereon. When so recognized, the date of abandonment may be the date of recognition or a later date if so specified in the letter itself. For example, where a continuing application is filed with a request to abandon the prior application as of the filing date accorded the continuing application, the date of the abandonment of the prior application will be in accordance with the request once it is recognized.
A letter of express abandonment or a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) for express abandonment to avoid publication of the application (see 37 CFR 1.211(a)(1)) accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) may be:
(A) mailed to Mail Stop Express Abandonment, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; or
(B) filed electronically using EFS-Web.
Since a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) will not stop publication of the application unless it is recognized and acted on by the Pre-Grant Publication Division in sufficient time to avoid publication, applicants should transmit the petition electronically using EFS-Web in all instances where the projected publication date is less than 3 months from the date of the petition. This will increase the chance of such petition being received by the appropriate officials in sufficient time to recognize the abandonment and
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-209
§ 711.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
remove the application from the publication process. If the issue fee has been paid, the letter of express abandonment should be directed to the Office of Petitions instead of the Pre-Grant Publication Division and be accompanied by a petition to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c). See subsection “I. After Payment of Issue Fee.”
Action in recognition of an express abandonment may take the form of an acknowledgment by the Publishing Division of the receipt of the express abandonment, indicating that it is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.138.
It is suggested that divisional applications be reviewed before filing to ascertain whether the prior application should be abandoned. Care should be exercised in situations such as these as the Office looks on express abandonments as acts of deliberation, intentionally performed.
Applications may be expressly abandoned as provided for in 37 CFR 1.138. When a letter expressly abandoning an application (not in issue) is received, the Office should acknowledge receipt thereof, and indicate whether it does or does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.138.
The filing of a request for a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a design application is considered to be a request to expressly abandon the prior application as of the filing date granted the continuing application.
If the letter expressly abandoning the application does comply with 37 CFR 1.138, the Office personnel should respond by using a “Notice of Abandonment” form PTO-1432, and by checking the appropriate box(es). If such a letter does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.138, a fully explanatory letter should be sent.
A letter of express abandonment which is not timely filed (because it was not filed within the period for reply), is not acceptable to expressly abandon the application. The letter of express abandonment should be placed in the application file but not formally entered.
The application should be pulled for abandonment after expiration of the maximum permitted period for reply (see MPEP § 711.04(a)) and applicant notified of the abandonment for failure to reply within the statutory period. See MPEP §§ 711.02 and 711.04(c).
An amendment canceling all of the claims is not an express abandonment. The Office will not enter any amendment that would cancel all of the claims in an application without presenting any new or substitute claims. See Exxon Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 265 F.3d 1249, 60 USPQ2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Such an amendment is regarded as nonresponsive and is not a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. The practice set forth in 37 CFR 1.135(c) does not apply to such amendment. Applicant should be notified as explained in MPEP §§ 714.03 to 714.05.
An attorney or agent not of record in an application may file a withdrawal of an appeal under 37 CFR 1.34 except in those instances where such withdrawal would result in abandonment of the application. In such instances the withdrawal of appeal is in fact an express abandonment.
I. AFTER PAYMENT OF ISSUE FEE
If a letter of express abandonment is being submitted in an allowed application after the payment of the issue fee, the express abandonment must be accompanied by a petition to withdraw from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c) and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h). Also see MPEP § 1308. The express abandonment may not be recognized by the Office unless it is actually received by appropriate officials in time to withdraw the application from issue. A petition under 37 CFR 1.313 will not be effective to withdraw the application from issue unless it is actually received and granted by the appropriate official before the date of issue. After the issue fee has been paid, the application will not be withdrawn upon petition by the applicant for any reason except those reasons listed in 37 CFR 1.313(c), which include express abandonment of the application. An application may be withdrawn from issue for express abandonment of the application in favor of a continuing application. The petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) accompanied by the petition fee should be
700-210Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.01
addressed to the Office of Petitions. If the petition and the letter of abandonment are received by appropriate officials in sufficient time to act on the petition and remove the application from the issue process, the letter of abandonment will be acknowledged by the Office of Data Management after the petition is granted. Petitions to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c) may be:
(A) mailed to Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450;
(B) transmitted by facsimile transmission to (571) 273-0025; or
(C) hand-carried to the Office of Petitions,
Madison West, 7th Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. At the guard station in Madison West, the security guard should call the Office of Petitions at (571) 272-3282 for delivery assistance; or
(D) submitted electronically by EFS-Web.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to either transmit by EFS-Web, or facsimile or hand-carry the petition to the Office of Petitions to allow sufficient time to process the petition and if the petition can be granted, withdraw the application from issue.
See MPEP §§ 711.05 and 1308. In cases where 37 CFR 1.313 precludes giving effect to an express abandonment, the appropriate remedy is a petition, with fee, under 37 CFR 1.183, showing an extraordinary situation where justice requires suspension of 37 CFR 1.313.
II. TO AVOID PUBLICATION OF APPLICATION
A petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) will not stop publication of the application unless it is recognized and acted on by the Pre-Grant Publication Division in sufficient time to avoid publication. The petition will be granted when it is recognized in sufficient time to avoid publication of the application. The petition will be denied when it is not recognized in time to avoid publication. Generally, a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) will not be granted and the application will be published in regular course unless such declaration of express abandonment and
petition are received by the appropriate officials more than four weeks prior to the projected date of publication. It is unlikely that a petition filed within four weeks of the projected date of publication will be effective to avoid publication. Also note that withdrawal of an application from issue after payment of the issue fee may not be effective to avoid publication of an application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). See 37 CFR 1.313(d).
III. TO OBTAIN REFUND OF SEARCH FEE AND EXCESS CLAIMS FEE
37 CFR 1.138 Express abandonment. *****
(d) An applicant seeking to abandon an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and § 1.53(b) on or after December 8, 2004, to obtain a refund of the search fee and excess claims fee paid in the application, must submit a declaration of express abandonment by way of a petition under this paragraph before an examination has been made of the application. The date indicated on any certificate of mailing or transmission under § 1.8 will not be taken into account in determining whether a petition under § 1.138(d) was filed before an examination has been made of the application. If a request for refund of the search fee and excess claims fee paid in the application is not filed with the declaration of express abandonment under this paragraph or within two months from the date on which the declaration of express abandonment under this paragraph was filed, the Office may retain the entire search fee and excess claims fee paid in the application. This two-month period is not extendable. If a petition and declaration of express abandonment under this paragraph are not filed before an examination has been made of the application, the Office will not refund any part of the search fee and excess claims fee paid in the application except as provided in § 1.26.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.138(d), refund of the search fee and excess claims fee paid in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53(b) on or after December 8, 2004 may be obtained by submitting a petition and declaration of express abandonment before an examination has been made of the application.
A petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) will be granted if it was filed before an examination has been made of the application and will be denied if it was not filed before an examination has been made of the application. This averts the situation in which an applicant files a declaration of express abandonment to obtain a refund of the search fee and excess claims fee, the request for a refund is not granted because the declaration of express abandonment was not filed
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-211
§ 711.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
before an examination has been made of the application, the applicant then wishes to rescind the declaration of express abandonment upon learning that the declaration of express abandonment was not filed before an examination has been made of the application, and the Office cannot revive the application (once the declaration of express abandonment is recognized) because the application was expressly and intentionally abandoned by the applicant.
An “examination has been made of the application” for purposes of 37 CFR 1.138(d) once an action (e.g., restriction or election of species requirement, requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105, first Office action on the merits, notice of allowability or notice of allowance, or action under Ex parte Quayle , 1935 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 11 (1935)) is shown in the Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) system as having been counted. For purposes of 37 CFR 1.138(d), “before” means occurring earlier in time, in that if a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) is filed and an action is counted on the same day, the petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) was not filed before an examination has been made of the application. In addition, the date indicated on any certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 is not taken into account in determining whether a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) was filed before an examination has been made of the application.
The PALM system maintains computerized contents records of all patent applications and reexamination proceedings. The PALM system will show a status higher than 031 once an action has been counted. If the status of an application as shown in PALM is higher than 031 before or on the day that the petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) was filed, the petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) will be denied and the search fee and excess claims fee will not be refunded except as provided in 37 CFR 1.26.
A petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) may not be effective to stop publication of an application unless the petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) is granted and the abandonment processed before technical preparations for publication of the application has begun. Technical preparations for publication of an application generally begin four months prior to the projected date of publication.
The Office recommends that petitions under 37 CFR 1.138(d) be submitted by EFS-Web. The use of form PTO/SB/24B (or PTO/AIA/24B), reproduced in MPEP § 711.01, subsection V., is recommended.
IV. APPLICATION IN INTERFERENCE
An express abandonment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.138 of an application involved in an interference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135 is considered an abandonment of the contest and it is construed as a request for entry of an adverse judgment against the applicant. See 37 CFR 41.127(b)(4).
V. FORMS FOR FILING EXPRESS ABANDONMENT
Form PTO/AIA/24 (or PTO/SB/24 for applications filed before September 16, 2012) may be used for filing a letter of express abandonment or a letter of express abandonment in favor of a continuing application. Form PTO/AIA/24A (or PTO/SB/24A for applications filed before September 16, 2012) may be used for filing a petition for express abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138(c) to avoid publication of the application. Form PTO/AIA/24B (or PTO/SB/24B for applications filed before September 16, 2012) may be used for filing a petition for express abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138(d) to obtain a refund of the search fee and excess claims fee.
700-212Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-213
§ 711.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-214Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-215
§ 711.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-216Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-217
§ 711.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-218Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.01
711.02 Failure To Take Required Action During Statutory Period [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.135(a) specifies that an application becomes abandoned if applicant “fails to reply” to an office action within the fixed statutory period. This failure may result either from (A) failure to reply within the statutory period, or (B) insufficiency of reply, i.e., failure to file a “complete and proper reply, as the condition of the case may require” within the statutory period (37 CFR 1.135(b)).
When an amendment is filed after the expiration of the statutory period, the application is abandoned and the remedy is to petition to revive it. The examiner should notify the applicant or attorney at once that the application has been abandoned by using Notice of Abandonment form PTOL-1432. The proper boxes on the form should be checked and the blanks for the dates of the proposed amendment and the Office action completed. The late amendment is placed in the file wrapper but not formally entered. See MPEP § 714.17.
Form paragraph 7.90 or 7.98.02 may also be used.
¶ 7.90 Abandonment, Failure to Reply
This application is abandoned in view of applicant’s failure to submit a proper reply to the Office action mailed on [1] within the required period for reply.
Examiner Note:
1. A letter of abandonment should not be mailed until after the period for requesting an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) has expired.
2. In pro se cases see form paragraph 7.98.02.
¶ 7.98.02 Reply Is Late, Petition To Revive Suggested, Pro Se
Applicant’s reply to the Office Action of [1] was received in the Patent and Trademark Office on [2], which is after the expiration of the period for reply set in the last Office Action. Since no time remains for applicant to obtain an extension of the period for reply by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a), this application is abandoned. Applicant is advised that the abandonment of this application may only be overcome by filing a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137. A petition to revive may be appropriate if applicant’s failure to reply was unintentional, as set forth below.
Failure to reply was unintentional.
A petition to revive an abandoned application on the grounds that the failure to reply was unintentional (37 CFR 1.137) must be accompanied by: (1) the required reply (which has been filed); (2) a statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 was unintentional; (3) any terminal disclaimer required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(d); and (4) the $[3] petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m). No consideration to the substance of a petition will be given until this fee is received. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
The required items and fees must be submitted promptly under a cover letter entitled “Petition to Revive.”
Further correspondence with respect to this matter should be addressed as follows:
By mail:
Mail Stop Petition Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX:
571-273-8300 Attn: Office of Petitions
Telephone inquiries with respect to this matter should be directed to the Office of Petitions Staff at (571) 272-3282. For more detailed information, see MPEP § 711.03(c).
To pass on questions of abandonment, it is essential that the examiner know the dates that mark the beginning and end of the statutory period under varying situations. Applicant’s reply must reach the Office within the set shortened statutory period for reply dating from the date stamped or printed on the Office letter or within the extended time period obtained under 37 CFR 1.136. (See MPEP § 710 to § 710.06.)
For a petition to withdraw a holding of abandonment based upon failure to receive an Office action, see MPEP § 711.03(c).
711.02(a) Insufficiency of Reply [R-08.2012]
Abandonment may result from a situation where applicant’s reply is within the period for reply but is not fully responsive to the Office action. But see
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-219
§ 711.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
MPEP § 710.02(c). See also MPEP § 714.02 to § 714.04.
¶ 7.91 Reply Is Not Fully Responsive, Extension of Time Suggested
The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because: [2]. Since the period for reply set forth in the prior Office action has expired, this application will become abandoned unless applicant corrects the deficiency and obtains an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate extension fee have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. In no case may an applicant reply outside the SIX (6) MONTH statutory period or obtain an extension for more than FIVE (5) MONTHS beyond the date for reply set forth in an Office action. A fully responsive reply must be timely filed to avoid abandonment of this application.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, set forth why the examiner considers there to be a failure to take “complete and proper action” within the statutory period.
2. If the reply appears to be a bona fide attempt to respond with an inadvertent omission, do not use this form paragraph; instead use form paragraph 7.95.
711.02(b) Special Situations Involving Abandonment [R-07.2015]
The following situations involving questions of abandonment often arise, and should be specially noted:
(A) Copying claims from a patent when not suggested by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not constitute a reply to the last Office action and will not save the application from abandonment, unless the last Office action relied solely on the patent for the rejection of all the claims rejected in that action.
(B) An application may become abandoned through withdrawal of, or failure to prosecute, an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See MPEP §§ 1215.01 to 1215.04.
(C) An application may become abandoned through dismissal of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or civil action, where there was not filed prior to such dismissal an amendment putting the application in condition for issue or fully responsive to the Board’s decision. Abandonment results from failure to perfect an appeal as required
by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See MPEP §§ 1215.04 and 1216.01.
(D) Where claims are suggested for interference near the end of the period for reply running against the application. See MPEP Chapter 2300.
(E) Where a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is filed. See MPEP §§ 201.06(d) and 711.01.
(F) Prior to a decision by the Board, an application on appeal that has no allowed claims may become abandoned when a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) is improperly filed without the appropriate fee or a submission (37 CFR 1.114(d)) in the application. The filing of an RCE will be treated as a withdrawal of the appeal by the applicant. See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection X.
(G) When a reply to a final Office action is outstanding, an application may become abandoned if an RCE is filed without a timely submission that meets the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111. The filing of an improper RCE will not operate to toll the running of any time period set in the previous Office action for reply to avoid abandonment of the application. See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection VI.
(H) Prior to payment of the issue fee, an allowed application may become abandoned if an RCE is improperly filed without the appropriate fee or a submission in the application. The improper RCE will not operate to toll the running of the time period for payment of the issue fee. See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection IX.
711.02(c) Termination of Proceedings [R-11.2013]
“Termination of proceedings” is an expression found in 35 U.S.C. 120. As there stated, a second application is considered to be copending with an earlier application if it is filed before
(A) the patenting,
(B) the abandonment of, or
(C) termination of proceedings on the earlier application.
“Before” has consistently been interpreted, in this context, to mean “not later than.”
700-220Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.02(b)
In each of the following situations, proceedings are terminated:
(A) When the issue fee is not paid and the application is abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee, proceedings are terminated as of the date the issue fee was due and the application is the same as if it were abandoned after midnight on that date (but if the issue fee is later accepted, on petition, the application is revived). See MPEP § 711.03(c).
(B) If an application is in interference wherein all the claims present in the application correspond to the counts and the application loses the interference as to all the claims, then proceedings on that application are terminated as of the date appeal or review by civil action was due if no appeal or civil action was filed.
(C) Proceedings are terminated in an application after decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as explained in MPEP § 1214.06.
(D) Proceedings are terminated after a decision by the court as explained in MPEP § 1216.01.
711.03 Reconsideration of Holding of Abandonment; Revival [R-08.2012]
When advised of the abandonment of his or her application, applicant may either ask for reconsideration of such holding, if he or she disagrees with it on the basis that there is no abandonment in fact; or petition for revival under 37 CFR 1.137.
711.03(a) Holding Based on Insufficiency of Reply [R-8.2012]
Applicant may deny that the reply was incomplete.
While the primary examiner has no authority to act upon an application in which no action by applicant was taken during the period for reply, he or she may reverse his or her holding as to whether or not an amendment received during such period was responsive and act on an application of such character which he or she has previously held abandoned. This is not a revival of an abandoned
application but merely a holding that the application was never abandoned. See also MPEP § 714.03.
711.03(b) Holding Based on Failure To Reply Within Period [R-08.2012]
When an amendment reaches the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after the expiration of the period for reply and there is no dispute as to the dates involved, no question of reconsideration of a holding of abandonment can be presented.
However, the examiner and the applicant may disagree as to the date on which the period for reply commenced to run or ends. In this situation, as in the situation involving sufficiency of reply, the applicant may take issue with the examiner and point out to him or her that his or her holding was erroneous.
711.03(c) Petitions Relating to Abandonment [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.135 Abandonment for failure to reply within time period.
(a) If an applicant of a patent application fails to reply within the time period provided under § 1.134 and § 1.136, the application will become abandoned unless an Office action indicates otherwise.
(b) Prosecution of an application to save it from abandonment pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must include such complete and proper reply as the condition of the application may require. The admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment after final rejection or any amendment not responsive to the last action, or any related proceedings, will not operate to save the application from abandonment.
(c) When reply by the applicant is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action, and is substantially a complete reply to the non-final Office action, but consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been inadvertently omitted, applicant may be given a new time period for reply under § 1.134 to supply the omission.
37 CFR 1.137 Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or limited reexamination prosecution.
(a) Revival on the basis of unintentional delay. If the delay in reply by applicant or patent owner was unintentional, a petition may be filed pursuant to this section to revive an abandoned application or a reexamination prosecution terminated under § 1.550(d) or § 1.957(b) or limited under § 1.957(c).
(b) Petition requirements. A grantable petition pursuant to this section must be accompanied by:
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-221
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(1) The reply required to the outstanding Office action or notice, unless previously filed;
(2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m);
(3) Any terminal disclaimer (and fee as set forth in § 1.20(d)) required pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section; and
(4) A statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to this section was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
(c) Reply. In an application abandoned under § 1.57(a), the reply must include a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application. In an application or patent abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee or any portion thereof, the required reply must include payment of the issue fee or any outstanding balance. In an application abandoned for failure to pay the publication fee, the required reply must include payment of the publication fee. In a nonprovisional application abandoned for failure to prosecute, the required reply may be met by the filing of a continuing application. In a nonprovisional utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, abandoned after the close of prosecution as defined in § 1.114(b), the required reply may also be met by the filing of a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114.
(d) Terminal disclaimer.
(1) Any petition to revive pursuant to this section in a design application must be accompanied by a terminal disclaimer and fee as set forth in § 1.321 dedicating to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the period of abandonment of the application. Any petition to revive pursuant to this section in either a utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995, must be accompanied by a terminal disclaimer and fee as set forth in § 1.321 dedicating to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the lesser of:
(i) The period of abandonment of the application; or
(ii) The period extending beyond twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.
(2) Any terminal disclaimer pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section must also apply to any patent granted on a continuing utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995, or a continuing design application, that contains a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the application for which revival is sought.
(3) The provisions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section do not apply to applications for which revival is sought solely for purposes of copendency with a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, to reissue applications, or to reexamination proceedings.
(e) Request for reconsideration. Any request for reconsideration or review of a decision refusing to revive an abandoned application, or a terminated or limited reexamination prosecution, upon petition filed pursuant to this section, to be considered timely, must be filed within two months of the decision refusing to revive or within such time as set in the decision. Unless a decision indicates otherwise, this time period may be extended under:
(1) The provisions of § 1.136 for an abandoned application;
(2) The provisions of § 1.550(c) for a terminated ex parte reexamination prosecution, where the ex parte reexamination was filed under § 1.510; or
(3) The provisions of § 1.956 for a terminated inter partes reexamination prosecution or an inter partes reexamination limited as to further prosecution, where the inter partes reexamination was filed under § 1.913.
(f) Abandonment for failure to notify the Office of a foreign filing. A nonprovisional application abandoned pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for failure to timely notify the Office of the filing of an application in a foreign country or under a multinational treaty that requires publication of applications eighteen months after filing, may be revived pursuant to this section. The reply requirement of paragraph (c) of this section is met by the notification of such filing in a foreign country or under a multinational treaty, but the filing of a petition under this section will not operate to stay any period for reply that may be running against the application.
(g) Provisional applications. A provisional application, abandoned for failure to timely respond to an Office requirement, may be revived pursuant to this section. Subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3) and § 1.7(b), a provisional application will not be regarded as pending after twelve months from its filing date under any circumstances.
37 CFR 1.181 Petition to the Director.
(a) Petition may be taken to the Director:
(1) From any action or requirement of any examiner in the ex parte prosecution of an application, or in ex parte or inter partes prosecution of a reexamination proceeding which is not subject to appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to the court;
(2) In cases in which a statute or the rules specify that the matter is to be determined directly by or reviewed by the Director; and
(3) To invoke the supervisory authority of the Director in appropriate circumstances. For petitions involving action of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, see § 41.3 of this title.
*****
(f) The mere filing of a petition will not stay any period for reply that may be running against the application, nor act as a stay of other proceedings. Any petition under this part not filed within two months of the mailing date of the action or notice from which relief is requested may be dismissed as untimely, except as otherwise provided. This two-month period is not extendable.
700-222Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
*****
I. PETITION TO WITHDRAW HOLDING OF ABANDONMENT
A petition to revive an abandoned application (discussed below) should not be confused with a petition from an examiner’s holding of abandonment. Where an applicant contends that the application is not in fact abandoned (e.g., there is disagreement as to the sufficiency of the reply, or as to controlling dates), a petition under 37 CFR 1.181(a) requesting withdrawal of the holding of abandonment is the appropriate course of action, and such petition does not require a fee. Where there is no dispute as to whether an application is abandoned (e.g., the applicant’s contentions merely involve the cause of abandonment), a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 (accompanied by the appropriate petition fee) is necessary to revive the abandoned application.
The procedure available for reviving an application that has become abandoned due to a failure to reply to an Office Action is a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) based on unintentional delay.
A. Petition To Withdraw Holding of Abandonment Based on Failure To Receive Office Action
In Delgar v. Schulyer, 172 USPQ 513 (D.D.C. 1971), the court decided that the Office should mail a new Notice of Allowance in view of the evidence presented in support of the contention that the applicant’s representative did not receive the original Notice of Allowance. Under the reasoning of Delgar, an allegation that an Office action was never received may be considered in a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment. If adequately supported, the Office may grant the petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment and remail the Office action. That is, the reasoning of Delgar is applicable regardless of whether an application is held abandoned for failure to timely pay the issue fee (35 U.S.C. 151) or for failure to prosecute (35 U.S.C. 133).
The showing required to establish nonreceipt of an Office communication must include a statement from the practitioner describing the system used for recording an Office action received at the correspondence address of record with the USPTO.
The statement should establish that the docketing system is sufficiently reliable. It is expected that the record would include, but not be limited to, the application number, attorney docket number, the mail date of the Office action and the due date for the response.
Practitioner must state that the Office action was not received at the correspondence address of record, and that a search of the practitioner’s record(s), including any file jacket or the equivalent, and the application contents, indicates that the Office action was not received. A copy of the record(s) used by the practitioner where the non-received Office action would have been entered had it been received is required.
A copy of the practitioner’s record(s) required to show non-receipt of the Office action should include the master docket for the firm. That is, if a three month period for reply was set in the nonreceived Office action, a copy of the master docket report showing all replies docketed for a date three months from the mail date of the nonreceived Office action must be submitted as documentary proof of nonreceipt of the Office action. If no such master docket exists, the practitioner should so state and provide other evidence such as, but not limited to, the following: the application file jacket; incoming mail log; calendar; reminder system; or the individual docket record for the application in question.
The showing outlined above may not be sufficient if there are circumstances that point to a conclusion that the Office action may have been lost after receipt rather than a conclusion that the Office action was lost in the mail (e.g., if the practitioner has a history of not receiving Office actions).
Evidence of nonreceipt of an Office communication or action (e.g., Notice of Abandonment or an advisory action) other than that action to which reply was required to avoid abandonment would not warrant withdrawal of the holding of abandonment. Abandonment takes place by operation of law for failure to reply to an Office action or timely pay the issue fee, not by operation of the mailing of a Notice of Abandonment. See Lorenz v. Finkl, 333 F.2d 885, 889-90, 142 USPQ 26, 29-30 (CCPA 1964);
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-223
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Krahn v. Commissioner, 15 USPQ2d 1823, 1824 (E.D. Va. 1990); In re Application of Fischer, 6 USPQ2d 1573, 1574 (Comm’r Pat. 1988).
B. Petition To Withdraw Holding of Abandonment Based on Evidence That a Reply Was Timely Mailed or Filed
37 CFR 1.10(c) through 1.10(e) and 1.10(g) set forth procedures for petitioning the Director of the USPTO to accord a filing date to correspondence as of the date of deposit of the correspondence as Priority
Mail Express®. A petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment relying upon a timely reply placed
in Priority Mail Express® must include an appropriate petition under 37 CFR 1.10(c), (d), (e), or (g) (see MPEP § 513). When a paper is shown to have been mailed to the Office using the “Express Mail” procedures, the paper must be entered in
PALM with the Priority Mail Express® date.
Similarly, applicants may establish that a reply was filed with a postcard receipt that properly identifies the reply and provides prima facie evidence that the reply was timely filed. See MPEP § 503. For example, if the application has been held abandoned for failure to file a reply to a first Office action, and applicant has a postcard receipt showing that an amendment was timely filed in response to the Office action, then the holding of abandonment should be withdrawn upon the filing of a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment. When the reply is shown to have been timely filed based on a postcard receipt, the reply must be entered into PALM using the date of receipt of the reply as shown on the post card receipt.
Where a certificate of mailing under 37 CFR 1.8, but not a postcard receipt, is relied upon in a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment, see 37 CFR 1.8(b) and MPEP § 512. As stated in 37 CFR 1.8(b)(3) the statement that attests to the previous timely mailing or transmission of the correspondence must be on a personal knowledge basis, or to the satisfaction of the Director of the USPTO. If the statement attesting to the previous timely mailing is not made by the person who signed the Certificate of Mailing (i.e., there is no personal knowledge basis), then the statement attesting to the previous
timely mailing should include evidence that supports the conclusion that the correspondence was actually mailed (e.g., copies of a mailing log establishing that correspondence was mailed for that application). When the correspondence is shown to have been timely filed based on a certificate of mailing, the correspondence is entered into PALM with the actual date of receipt (i.e., the date that the duplicate copy of the papers was filed with the statement under 37 CFR 1.8).
37 CFR 1.8(b) also permits applicant to notify the Office of a previous mailing or transmission of correspondence and submit a statement under 37 CFR 1.8(b)(3) accompanied by a duplicate copy of the correspondence when a reasonable amount of time (e.g., more than one month) has elapsed from the time of mailing or transmitting of the correspondence. Applicant does not have to wait until the application becomes abandoned before notifying the Office of the previous mailing or transmission of the correspondence. Applicant should check the private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system for the status of the correspondence before notifying the Office. See MPEP § 512.
C. Treatment of Untimely Petition To Withdraw Holding of Abandonment
37 CFR 1.181(f) provides that, inter alia , except as otherwise provided, any petition not filed within 2 months from the action complained of may be dismissed as untimely. Therefore, any petition (under 37 CFR 1.181) to withdraw the holding of abandonment not filed within 2 months of the mail date of a notice of abandonment (the action complained of) may be dismissed as untimely. 37 CFR 1.181(f).
Rather than dismiss an untimely petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment under 37 CFR 1.181(f), the Office may require a terminal disclaimer as a condition of granting an untimely petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment.
Where the record indicates that the applicant intentionally delayed the filing of a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment, the Office may simply dismiss the petition as untimely (37 CFR
700-224Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
1.181(f)) solely on the basis of such intentional delay in taking action in the application without further addressing the merits of the petition. Obviously, intentional delay in seeking the revival of an abandoned application precludes relief under 37 CFR 1.137(a) (discussed below).
1. Design Applications, Utility Applications Filed Before June 8, 1995, and Plant Applications Filed Before June 8, 1995
(a) Applicant Receives Notice of Abandonment
In any design application, any utility application filed before June 8, 1995, or any plant application filed before June 8, 1995, if applicant receives a notice of abandonment, any petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment that is not filed within two months of the mail date of the notice of abandonment will not (absent extraordinary circumstances) be treated on its merits unless accompanied by a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(a), and the required fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(d). The period to be disclaimed is the terminal part of the term of any patent granted on the application, or of any patent granted on any utility or plant application that claims the benefit of the filing date of the application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), equivalent to the period between:
(A) the date that is two months after the mail date of the notice of abandonment; and
(B) the filing date of a grantable petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment.
See MPEP § 711.03(c), subsection II.G.
(b) Applicant Does Not Receive Notice of Abandonment
In any design application, any utility application filed before June 8, 1995, or any plant application filed before June 8, 1995, if applicant never receives the notice of abandonment, any petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment that is not filed within twelve months from the date of applicant’s filing (or date of submission, if the correspondence was never received by the Office) of correspondence with the Office for which further action by the Office can
reasonably be expected, will not (absent extraordinary circumstances) be treated on its merit unless accompanied by a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(a), and the required fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(d). The period to be disclaimed is the terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon, or of any patent granted on any utility or plant application that claims the benefit of the filing date of the application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), equivalent to the period between:
(A) the date that is twelve months from the date of applicant’s filing or submission of correspondence with the Office, for which further action by the Office can reasonably be expected; and
(B) the filing date of a grantable petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment.
See MPEP § 711.03(c), subsection II.G.
2. Utility and Plant Applications Filed on or After June 8, 1995 but Before May 29, 2000
In utility and plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, but before May 29, 2000, a terminal disclaimer should not be required as a condition of granting an untimely petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment. However, the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) must be consulted in such situations if the holding of abandonment involves a period during: (A) appellate review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; (B) an interference or derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135, including any suspension due to an interference or derivation proceeding; or (C) which the application was in a sealed condition or prosecution was suspended due to a secrecy order under 35 U.S.C. 181. This is because it is necessary to effect (if appropriate) a reduction of patent term extension under the “due diligence” provisions of 37 CFR 1.701(d)(2).
3. Utility and Plant Applications Filed on or After May 29, 2000
In utility and plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, a terminal disclaimer should not be required as a condition of granting an untimely petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment. This is because any patent term adjustment is
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-225
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
automatically reduced under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.704(c)(4) in applications subject to the patent term adjustment provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) if a petition to withdraw a holding of abandonment is not filed within two months from the mailing date of the notice of abandonment, and if applicant does not receive the notice of abandonment, any patent term adjustment is reduced under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.704(a) by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant “failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution” (processing or examination) of the application.
II. PETITIONS TO REVIVE AN ABANDONED APPLICATION, OR ACCEPT LATE PAYMENT OF ISSUE FEE
Effective December 18, 2013, the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA), Public Law 112-211, amended the patent laws to implement the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) in title II. Notable changes to the law included the restoration of patent rights via the revival of abandoned applications and acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments. Section 201(b) of the PLTIA specifically added new 35 U.S.C. 27, providing that the Director may establish procedures to revive an unintentionally abandoned application for patent, accept an unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing a patent, or accept an unintentionally delayed response by the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, upon petition by the applicant for patent or patent owner. The PLTIA eliminated the provisions of the patent statutes relating to revival of abandoned applications or acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments on the basis of a showing of “unavoidable” delay.
35 U.S.C. 27 Revival of applications; reinstatement of reexamination proceedings.
The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to revive an unintentionally abandoned application for patent, accept an unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing each patent, or accept an unintentionally delayed response by the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, upon petition by the applicant for patent or patent owner.
37 CFR 1.137 provides for the revival of abandoned applications, or terminated or limited reexamination
prosecution on the basis of unintentional delay for the failure:
(A) to timely reply to an Office requirement in a provisional application;
(B) to timely prosecute in a nonprovisional application;
(C) to timely pay the issue fee for a design application;
(D) to timely pay the issue fee for a utility or plant application; and
(E) to provide copendency between the abandoned application and a subsequently filed application.
A petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) requires:
(A) the required reply, unless previously filed;
(B) the petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m);
(C) any terminal disclaimer (and fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(d)) required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(d); and
(D) a statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 was unintentional.
The Director of the USPTO may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
A. Reply Requirement
Unlike a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment, a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 must be accompanied by, inter alia, the required reply. Generally, the required reply is the reply sufficient to have avoided abandonment, had such reply been timely filed. A petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 and a fee for such an extension of time are not required to be included with the reply.
37 CFR 1.137(c) applies to the reply requirement for a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a). In an application abandoned under 37 CFR 1.57(a), the reply must include a copy of the specification and
700-226Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
any drawings of the previously filed application. In an application or patent abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee or any portion thereof, the required reply must include payment of the issue fee or any outstanding balance. In an application abandoned for failure to pay the publication fee, the required reply must include payment of the publication fee. In a nonprovisional application abandoned for failure to prosecute, the required reply may be met by the filing of a continuing application. In a nonprovisional utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, abandoned after the close of prosecution as defined in 37 CFR 1.114(b), the required reply may also be met by the filing of a request for continued examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. See below for more details on the reply requirement in specific situations of abandonment.
1. Abandonment for Failure To Timely Submit A Copy of the Specification and Any Drawings In An Application Filed By Reference Under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a)
In an application abandoned under 37 CFR 1.57(a), the required reply must include a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application. Although not required as a condition for revival, a certified copy of the previously filed application may be required for an application filed by reference. If the certified copy is required and is not filed within the later of four months from the filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the previously filed application, a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 are required. For more details regarding an application filed by reference under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a), see MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III.
2. Abandonment for Failure To Pay the Issue Fee or Publication Fee
In an application abandoned for failure to timely pay the issue fee, the required reply must include the issue fee (and any required publication fee).
Section 202(b)(6) of the PLTIA amended 35 U.S.C. 151 to provide that: (1) if it appears that an applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, a written notice
of allowance of the application shall be given or mailed to the applicant; (2) the notice of allowance shall specify a sum, constituting the issue fee and any required publication fee, which shall be paid within three months thereafter; and (3) upon payment of this sum, the patent may issue, but if payment is not timely made, the application shall be regarded as abandoned. Under the changes to 35 U.S.C. 151 in the PLTIA, the sum specified in the notice of allowance will constitute the issue fee and any required publication fee, and the Office will proceed to issue a patent when the applicant pays the sum specified in the notice of allowance, regardless of the issue fee and/or publication fee in effect on the date the sum specified in the notice of allowance is paid.
Section 201(b) of the PLTIA specifically added new 35 U.S.C. 27, providing that the Director may establish procedures to revive an unintentionally abandoned application for a patent, accept an unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing a patent, or accept an unintentionally delayed response by the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, upon petition by the applicant for patent or patent owner.
35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) authorizes the acceptance of an “unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing each patent.” Thus, 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) requires payment of the issue fee as a condition of reviving an application abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee. Therefore, the filing of a continuing application without payment of the issue fee is not an acceptable reply in an application abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee.
The issue fee due with the petition to revive is the issue fee specified in the notice of allowance. If the notice of allowance also specified a publication fee, then the publication fee must also be paid in the amount specified on the notice of allowance. An applicant may change the entity status with the filing of the petition to revive, if appropriate, and pay the petition fee in the new entity status amount, but the issue fee (and any publication fee) must be paid in the amount specified in the notice of allowance.
In an application abandoned for failure to pay the publication fee, the required reply must include
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-227
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
payment of the publication fee. Even if an application abandoned for failure to pay the publication fee is being revived solely for purposes of continuity with a continuing application, the petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 must include payment of the publication fee.
3. Abandonment for Failure To Provide Required Drawings
In an application abandoned for failure to provide required drawings, a petition to revive the application will be dismissed unless the required drawings are filed before or with the petition to revive the application.
4. Abandonment for Failure To Reply in a Nonprovisional Application
(a) Abandonment for Failure To Reply to a Non-Final Action
The required reply to a non-final action in a nonprovisional application abandoned for failure to prosecute may be either:
(A) an argument or an amendment under 37 CFR 1.111;
(B) the filing of a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application).
The grant of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 is not a determination that any reply under 37 CFR 1.111 is complete. Where the proposed reply is to a non-final Office action, the petition may be granted if the reply appears to be bona fide . After revival of the application, the patent examiner may, upon more detailed review, determine that the reply is lacking in some respect. In this limited situation, the patent examiner should send out a letter giving a 2-month shortened statutory period under 37 CFR 1.135(c) for correction of the error or omission. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) are permitted. If applicant does not correct the omission within the time period set in the letter (including any extension), the application is again abandoned.
(b) Abandonment for Failure To Reply to a Final Action
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final action must include a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 or cancellation of, or appeal from the rejection of, each claim so rejected. Accordingly, in a nonprovisional application abandoned for failure to reply to a final action, the reply required for consideration of a petition to revive must be:
(A) a Notice of Appeal and appeal fee;
(B) an amendment under 37 CFR 1.116 that cancels all the rejected claims or otherwise prima facie places the application in condition for allowance;
(C) the filing of an RCE (accompanied by a submission that meets the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111 and the requisite fee) under 37 CFR 1.114 for utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995 (see paragraph (d) below); or
(D) the filing of a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application).
When a notice of appeal is the reply filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(b)(1), the time period under 37 CFR 41.37 for filing the appeal brief will be set by the Director of the USPTO in the decision granting the petition.
An application subject to a final action in which a proposed amendment under 37 CFR 1.116 is filed as the required reply will normally be routed by the Office of Petitions to the Technology Center (TC) to determine whether a proposed amendment places the application in condition for allowance prior to granting any petition to revive such application. The examiner is instructed that if the reply places the application in condition for allowance, the examiner should use the typewriter tool in Adobe Acrobat to write in the margin of the reply “OK to enter upon revival.” If the petition is otherwise grantable and the examiner indicates that the reply places the application in condition for allowance, the petition will be granted. If, on the other hand, the reply would not place the application in condition for allowance, the examiner is instructed to complete form PTOL-303 and return the form to the Office of
700-228Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
Petitions with the application. Form PTOL-303 should not be mailed to the applicant by the examiner. In this situation, the Office of Petitions will not grant the petition. A copy of the form PTOL-303 is marked with the notation “Courtesy Copy” by the Office of Petitions. The courtesy copy is sent as an attachment with the decision on the petition. The advisory form PTOL-303 merely serves as an advisory notice to the Office of Petitions regarding the decision of the examiner on the amendment after final rejection.
(c) Abandonment for Failure To File an Appeal Brief
In those situations where abandonment occurred because of the failure to file an appeal brief, the reply required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(b)(1) must be either:
(A) an appeal brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37(c);
(B) the filing of an RCE accompanied by a submission and the requisite fee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114 for utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, abandoned after the close of prosecution as defined in 37 CFR 1.114(b) (see paragraph (d) below); or
(C) the filing of a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design application).
(d) Filing an RCE as the Required Reply
For utility or plant applications abandoned for failure to reply to a final Office action or for failure to file an appeal brief, the required reply may be the filing of an RCE accompanied by a submission and the requisite fee. When an RCE is the reply filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(b)(1) to revive such an application, the submission accompanying the RCE must be a reply responsive within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.111 to the last Office action. Consideration of whether the submission is responsive within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.111 to the last Office action is done without factoring in the “final” status of such action. The submission may be a previously filed amendment after final or a statement that incorporates by reference the arguments in a previously filed appeal or reply brief. See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection II.
The petition may be granted if the submission appears to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the last Office action. After revival of the application, the examiner may, upon a more detailed review, determine that the reply is lacking in some respect. In this limited situation, the examiner should send out a letter giving a 2-month shortened statutory period under 37 CFR 1.135(c) for correction of the error or omission. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) are permitted. If the applicant does not correct the omission within the time period set in the letter (including any extension), the application is again abandoned.
(e) A Continuing Application or RCE May Be Required by the Office
The Office may require the filing of a continuing application or an RCE (if the prosecution prior to abandonment was closed) (or request for further examination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.129(a)) to meet the reply requirement of 37 CFR 1.137(b)(1) where, under the circumstances of the application, treating a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 or 1.113 would place an inordinate burden on the Office. Exemplary circumstances of when treating a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 or 1.113 may place an inordinate burden on the Office are where:
(A) an application has been abandoned for an inordinate period of time;
(B) an application file contains multiple or conflicting replies to the last Office action; or
(C) the reply or replies submitted under 37 CFR 1.137(b)(1)) are questionable as to compliance with 37 CFR 1.111 or 1.113.
5. Abandonment for Failure To Notify the Office of a Foreign Filing After the Submission of a Non-Publication Request
If an applicant makes a nonpublication request upon filing with the appropriate certifications, the utility or plant application filed on or after November 29, 2000 will not be published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(1). See 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i). If an applicant makes a nonpublication request and then rescinds, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(ii), the nonpublication request before or on the date a counterpart application is filed in a foreign country,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-229
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen-month publication, the nonpublication request will be treated as annulled and the application will be treated as if the nonpublication request were never made. See MPEP §§ 1123 and 1124. An applicant who has made a nonpublication request, but who subsequently files an application directed to the invention disclosed in the U.S. application in a foreign country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen-month publication before the nonpublication request is rescinded, must, in addition to the rescission, notify the Office of such filing within forty-five days after the date of such filing. The requirement in 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for notice of the foreign filing is in addition to any rescission of the nonpublication request under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(ii). If an applicant files a counterpart application in a foreign country after having filed an application in the USPTO with a nonpublication request, filing a rescission of the nonpublication request under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(ii) without also providing a notice of the foreign filing in a timely manner will result in the abandonment of the U.S. application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii). 37 CFR 1.137(f), however, provides that an application abandoned as a result of the failure to timely provide such a notice to the Office is subject to revival pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 if the delay in submitting the notice was unintentional.
A nonprovisional application abandoned pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for failure to timely notify the Office of the filing of an application in a foreign country or under a multinational treaty that requires eighteen-month publication may be revived only on the basis of unintentional delay pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137. The reply requirement of 37 CFR 1.137(c) is met by the notification of such filing in a foreign country or under a multinational treaty, but the filing of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 will not operate to stay any period for reply that may be running against the application. Since the Office cannot ascertain whether an application is abandoned under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii), the Office may continue to process and examine the application until the Office is notified of applicant’s failure to meet the forty-five days notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii). Therefore, the filing of a petition
under 37 CFR 1.137 to revive such an application will not operate to stay any period for reply that may be running against the application. Applicants may use form PTO/SB/64a to file a petition for revival under 37 CFR 1.137.
B. Petition Fee Requirement
35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) provides that the Office shall charge $1,700.00 on filing each petition for the revival of an abandoned application for a patent, for the delayed payment of the fee for issuing each patent, for the delayed response by the patent owner in any reexamination proceeding, for the delayed payment of the fee for maintaining a patent in force, for the delayed submission of a priority or benefit claim, or for the extension of the 12-month period for filing a subsequent application. 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) also provides that the Director may refund any part of the fee, in exceptional circumstances as determined by the Director. This provision permits the Office to refund (or waive) the fee specified in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) in situations in which the failure to take the required action or pay the required fee was due to a widespread disaster, such as a hurricane, earthquake, or flood, in the manner that the Office would waive surcharges that are not required by statute. The “exceptional circumstances” provision does not permit applicants to request a refund on the basis of there being exceptional circumstances.
The phrase “[o]n filing” in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) means that the petition fee is required for the filing (and not merely the grant) of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137. See H.R. Rep. No. 542, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 770 (“[t]he fees set forth in this section are due on filing the petition”). Therefore, the Office: (A) will not refund the petition fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(m), regardless of whether the petition under 37 CFR 1.137 is dismissed or denied (unless there are exceptional circumstances as determined by the Director); and (B) will not reach the merits of any petition under 37 CFR 1.137 lacking the requisite petition fee.
C. Unintentional Delay
While the Office reserves the authority to require further information concerning the cause of
700-230Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
abandonment and delay in filing a petition to revive, the Office relies upon the applicant’s duty of candor and good faith and accepts the statement that “the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(a) was unintentional” without requiring further information in the vast majority of petitions under 37 CFR 1.137(a). This is because the applicant is obligated under 37 CFR 11.18 to inquire into the underlying facts and circumstances when a practitioner provides this statement to the Office. In addition, providing an inappropriate statement in a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) to revive an abandoned application may have an adverse effect when attempting to enforce any patent resulting from the application. See Lumenyte Int’l Corp. v. Cable Lite Corp., Nos. 96-1011, 96-1077, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16400, 1996 WL 383927 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 1996)(unpublished)(patents held unenforceable due to a finding of inequitable conduct in submitting an inappropriate statement that the abandonment was unintentional).
The Office is almost always satisfied as to whether “the entire delay…was unintentional” on the basis of statement(s) by the applicant or representative explaining the cause of the delay (accompanied at most by copies of correspondence relevant to the period of delay).
The legislative history of Public Law 97-247, § 3, 96 Stat. 317 (1982), reveals that the purpose of 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) is to permit the Office to have discretion to revive abandoned applications in appropriate circumstances, but places a limit on this discretion stating that “[u]nder this section a petition accompanied by [the requisite fee] would not be granted where the abandonment or the failure to pay the fee for issuing the patent was intentional as opposed to being unintentional or unavoidable.” H.R. Rep. No. 542, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 6-7 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 770-71. A delay resulting from a deliberately chosen course of action on the part of the applicant is not an “unintentional” delay within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137.
Where the applicant deliberately permits an application to become abandoned (e.g., due to a conclusion that the claims are unpatentable, that a
rejection in an Office action cannot be overcome, or that the invention lacks sufficient commercial value to justify continued prosecution), the abandonment of such application is considered to be a deliberately chosen course of action, and the resulting delay cannot be considered as “unintentional” within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137. See In re Application of G, 11 USPQ2d 1378, 1380 (Comm’r Pat. 1989). An intentional course of action is not rendered unintentional when, upon reconsideration, the applicant changes his or her mind as to the course of action that should have been taken. See In re Maldague, 10 USPQ2d 1477, 1478 (Comm’r Pat. 1988).
A delay resulting from a deliberately chosen course of action on the part of the applicant does not become an “unintentional” delay within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137 because:
(A) the applicant does not consider the claims to be patentable over the references relied upon in an outstanding Office action;
(B) the applicant does not consider the allowed or patentable claims to be of sufficient breadth or scope to justify the financial expense of obtaining a patent;
(C) the applicant does not consider any patent to be of sufficient value to justify the financial expense of obtaining the patent;
(D) the applicant does not consider any patent to be of sufficient value to maintain an interest in obtaining the patent; or
(E) the applicant remains interested in eventually obtaining a patent, but simply seeks to defer patent fees and patent prosecution expenses.
Likewise, a change in circumstances that occurred subsequent to the abandonment of an application does not render “unintentional” the delay resulting from a previous deliberate decision to permit an application to be abandoned. These matters simply confuse the question of whether there was a deliberate decision not to continue the prosecution of an application with why there was a deliberate decision not to continue the prosecution of an application.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-231
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
In order to expedite treatment, applicants filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 to revive an abandoned application are advised to include the statement “the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(a) was unintentional,” even if applicant chooses to include a statement of the facts concerning the delay. Electronic petitions, that are automatically processed and immediately decided, may be filed using the Web-based ePetition process for the following types of petitions: (1) Petitions to Accept Late Payment of Issue Fee - Unintentional Late Payment (37 CFR 1.137(a)); (2) Petitions for Revival of an Application based on Failure to Notify the Office of a Foreign
or International Filing (37 CFR 1.137(f)); (3) Petitions for Revival of an Application for Continuity Purposes Only (37 CFR 1.137(a)); and (4) Petitions for Revival of an Abandoned Patent Application Abandoned Unintentionally (37 CFR 1.137(a)) (For Cases Abandoned After 1st Action and Prior to Notice of Allowance). Applicants may use the forms provided by the Office (PTO/SB/64, PTO/SB/64a, or PTO/SB/64PCT). Additional information regarding the ePetition process is available from: www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/ epetition-resource-page.
Applicants may use the forms provided by the Office (PTO/SB/64, PTO/SB/64a, or PTO/SB/64PCT).
700-232Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-233
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-234Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-235
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-236Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-237
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-238Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-239
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-240Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-241
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
D. Delay Until the Filing of a Grantable Petition
There are three periods to be considered during the evaluation of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137:
(A) the delay in reply that originally resulted in the abandonment;
(B) the delay in filing an initial petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 to revive the application; and
(C) the delay in filing a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 to revive the application.
As discussed above, the abandonment of an application is considered to be a deliberately chosen course of action, and the resulting delay cannot be considered as “unintentional” within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137, where the applicant deliberately permits the application to become abandoned. See Application of G, 11 USPQ2d at 1380. Likewise, where the applicant deliberately chooses not to seek or persist in seeking the revival of an abandoned application, or where the applicant deliberately chooses to delay seeking the revival of an abandoned application, the resulting delay in seeking revival of the abandoned application cannot be considered as “unintentional” within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137. An intentional delay resulting from a deliberate course of action chosen by the applicant is not affected by:
(A) the correctness of the applicant’s (or applicant’s representative’s) decision to abandon the application or not to seek or persist in seeking revival of the application;
(B) the correctness or propriety of a rejection, or other objection, requirement, or decision by the Office; or
(C) the discovery of new information or evidence, or other change in circumstances subsequent to the abandonment or decision not to seek or persist in seeking revival.
Obviously, delaying the revival of an abandoned application, by a deliberately chosen course of action, until the industry or a competitor shows an interest in the invention is the antithesis of an “unintentional” delay. An intentional abandonment of an application, or an intentional delay in seeking the revival of an abandoned application, precludes a finding of unavoidable or unintentional delay
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137. See Maldague, 10 USPQ2d at 1478.
The Office does not generally question whether there has been an intentional or otherwise impermissible delay in filing an initial petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137, when such petition is filed: (A) within 3 months of the date the applicant is first notified that the application is abandoned; and (B) within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application. Thus, an applicant seeking revival of an abandoned application is advised to file a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 within 3 months of the first notification that the application is abandoned to avoid the question of intentional delay being raised by the Office (or by third parties seeking to challenge any patent issuing from the application).
Where a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 is not filed within 3 months of the date the applicant is first notified that the application is abandoned, the Office may consider there to be a question as to whether the delay was unintentional. In such instances the Office may require further information as to the cause of the delay between the date the applicant was first notified that the application was abandoned and the date a 37 CFR 1.137 petition was filed, and how such delay was “unintentional.”
To avoid delay in the consideration of the merits of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 in instances in which such petition was not filed within 3 months of the date the applicant was first notified that the application was abandoned, applicants should include a showing as to how the delay between the date the applicant was first notified by the Office that the application was abandoned and the filing of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 was “unintentional.”
Where a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 is not filed within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application (note that abandonment takes place by operation of law, rather than by the mailing of a Notice of Abandonment), the Office may require:
(A) further information as to when the applicant (or the applicant’s representative) first became aware of the abandonment of the application; and
(B) a showing as to how the delay in discovering the abandoned status of the application occurred
700-242Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
despite the exercise of due care or diligence on the part of the applicant (or applicant’s representative).
To avoid delay in the consideration of the merits of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 in instances in which such petition was not filed within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application, applicants should include:
(A) the date that the applicant first became aware of the abandonment of the application; and
(B) a showing as to how the delay in discovering the abandoned status of the application occurred despite the exercise of due care or diligence on the part of the applicant.
Applicant’s failure to carry the burden of proof to establish that the “entire” delay was “unintentional” may lead to the denial of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137, regardless of the circumstances that originally resulted in the abandonment of the application.
E. Party Whose Delay Is Relevant
The question under 37 CFR 1.137 is whether the delay on the part of the party having the right or authority to reply to avoid abandonment (or not reply) was unintentional. When the applicant assigns the entire right, title, and interest in an invention to a third party (and thus does not retain any legal or equitable interest in the invention), the applicant’s delay is irrelevant in evaluating whether the delay was unintentional. See Kim v. Quigg, 718 F. Supp. 1280, 1284, 12 USPQ2d 1604, 1607-08 (E.D. Va. 1989). When an applicant assigns the application to a third party (e.g., the inventor/applicant’s employer), and the third party decides not to file a reply to avoid abandonment, the applicant’s actions, inactions or intentions are irrelevant under 37 CFR 1.137, unless the third party has reassigned the application to the applicant prior to the due date for the reply. Id.
Likewise, where the applicant permits a third party (whether a partial assignee, licensee, or other party) to control the prosecution of an application, the third party’s decision whether or not to file a reply to avoid abandonment is binding on the applicant. See Winkler, 221 F. Supp. at 552, 138 USPQ at 667.
Where an applicant enters an agreement with a third party for the third party to take control of the
prosecution of an application, the applicant will be considered to have given the third party the right and authority to prosecute the application to avoid abandonment (or not prosecute), unless, by the express terms of the contract between applicant and the third party, the third party is conducting the prosecution of the application for the applicant solely in a fiduciary capacity. See Futures Technology Ltd. v. Quigg, 684 F. Supp. 430, 431, 7 USPQ2d 1588, 1589 (E.D. Va. 1988). Otherwise, the applicant will be considered to have given the third party unbridled discretion to prosecute (or not prosecute) the application to avoid abandonment, and will be bound by the actions or inactions of such third party.
F. Burden of Proof To Establish Unintentional Delay
37 CFR 1.137(b)(4) requires that a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 must be accompanied by a statement that the entire delay in providing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 was unintentional, but also provides that “[t]he Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.” While the Office will generally require only the statement that the entire delay in providing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 was unintentional, the Office may require an applicant to carry the burden of proof to establish that the delay from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition was unintentional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 27 and 37 CFR 1.137 where there is a question whether the entire delay was unintentional. See Application of G, 11 USPQ2d at 1380.
G. Terminal Disclaimer Requirement
37 CFR 1.137(d) requires that a petition under 37 CFR 1.137 be accompanied by a terminal disclaimer (and fee), regardless of the period of abandonment, in:
(A) a design application;
(B) a nonprovisional utility application (other than a reissue application) filed before June 8, 1995; or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-243
§ 711.03(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(C) a nonprovisional plant application (other than a reissue application) filed before June 8, 1995.
In addition, a terminal disclaimer (and fee) is also required for a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, but before May 29, 2000, where the application became abandoned (1) during appeal, (2) during interference, or (3) while under a secrecy order. The reason being that utility and plant patents issuing on applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, but before May 29, 2000, are eligible for the patent term extension under former 35 U.S.C. 154(b) (as a result of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)). See 35 U.S.C. 154(b) (1999); see also 37 CFR 1.701. If such an application is abandoned (1) during appeal, (2) during interference, or (3) while under a secrecy order, the patentee of a patent issuing from such an application is eligible for patent term extension for the entire period of abandonment. The requirement for a terminal disclaimer for these situations will make certain that any patent term extension obtained for the period of abandonment while the application is under appeal, interference, or a secrecy order will be dedicated to the public. For utility and plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, a terminal disclaimer (and fee) is not required since the period of abandonment is reduced from the patent term adjustment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.704.
The terminal disclaimer submitted in a design application must dedicate to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the period of abandonment of the application. The terminal disclaimer submitted in either a utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995 must dedicate to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the lesser of: (1) the period of abandonment of the application; or (2) the period extending beyond twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), from the date on which the earliest such application was filed. The terminal disclaimer must also apply to any patent granted on any continuing utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995, or any continuing design application, entitled under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to the benefit of the filing date of the application for which revival is
sought. The terminal disclaimer requirement of 37 CFR 1.137(d) does not apply to (A) applications for which revival is sought solely for purposes of copendency with a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, (B) reissue applications, or (C) reexamination proceedings.
The Office cannot determine (at the time a petition to revive is granted) the period disclaimed (i.e., which period is lesser: the period of abandonment of the application, or the period extending beyond twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), from the date on which the earliest such application was filed). Therefore, the Office will not indicate the period disclaimed under 37 CFR 1.137(d) in its decision granting a petition to revive an abandoned application.
The filing of a terminal disclaimer is not a substitute for unintentional delay. See Application of Takao, 17 USPQ2d at 1159. The requirement that the entire delay have been unintentional (37 CFR 1.137) is distinct from the requirement for a terminal disclaimer. Therefore, the filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot excuse an intentional delay in filing a petition or renewed petition to revive an abandoned application. Likewise, an unintentional delay in filing a petition or renewed petition to revive an abandoned application will not warrant waiver of the terminal disclaimer requirement of 37 CFR 1.137(d).
In the event that an applicant considers the requirement for a terminal disclaimer to be inappropriate under the circumstances of the application at issue, the applicant should file a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 (and petition fee) to request a waiver of this requirement of 37 CFR 1.183. Such a petition may request waiver of this requirement in toto, or to the extent that such requirement exceeds the period considered by applicant as the appropriate period of disclaimer. The grant of such a petition, however, is strictly limited to situations wherein applicant has made a showing of an “extraordinary situation” in which “justice requires” the requested relief. An example of such a situation is when the abandonment of the
700-244Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.03(c)
application caused no actual delay in prosecution (e.g., an application awaiting decision by the Board of Appeals and Interferences during period of abandonment).
See MPEP § 1490 for additional information pertaining to terminal disclaimers.
H. Request for Reconsideration
37 CFR 1.137(e) requires that any request for reconsideration or review of a decision refusing to revive an abandoned application must be filed within 2 months of the decision refusing to revive or within such time as set in the decision. 37 CFR 1.137(e) further provides that, unless a decision indicates otherwise, this time period for requesting reconsideration or review may be extended under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136.
37 CFR 1.137(e) specifies a time period within which a renewed petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 must be filed to be considered timely. Where an applicant files a renewed petition, request for reconsideration, or other petition seeking review of a prior decision on a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 outside the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.137(e), the Office may require, inter alia , a specific showing as to how the entire delay was “unintentional.” As discussed above, a delay resulting from the applicant deliberately choosing not to persist in seeking the revival of an abandoned application cannot be considered “unintentional” within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137, and the correctness or propriety of the decision on the prior petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137, the correctness of the applicant’s (or the applicant’s representative’s) decision not to persist in seeking revival, the discovery of new information or evidence, or other change in circumstances subsequent to the abandonment or decision to not persist in seeking revival are immaterial to such intentional delay caused by the deliberate course of action chosen by the applicant.
I. Provisional Applications
37 CFR 1.137 is applicable to a provisional application abandoned for failure to reply to an Office requirement. A petition under 37 CFR
1.137(a) must be accompanied by any outstanding reply to an Office requirement, since 37 CFR 1.137(c) permits the filing of a continuing application in lieu of the required reply only in a nonprovisional application.
35 U.S.C. 111(b)(5) provides that a provisional application shall be regarded as abandoned 12 months after its filing date and shall not be subject to revival after such 12-month period. 37 CFR 1.137(g) provides that a provisional application, abandoned for failure to timely respond to an Office requirement, may be revived pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137, however a provisional application will not be regarded as pending after twelve months from its filing date under any circumstances. Note that the pendency of a provisional application is extended to the next succeeding secular or business day if the day that is twelve months after the filing date of the provisional application falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3).
A provisional application may be abandoned prior to 12 months from its filing date for failure to reply to an Office requirement (e.g., failure to submit the filing fee and/or cover sheet). Applicant may petition to have an abandoned provisional application revived as a pending provisional application for a period of no longer than 12 months from the filing date of the provisional application where the delay was unintentional. It would be permissible to file a petition for revival later than 12 months from the filing date of the provisional application but only to revive the application for the 12-month period following the filing of the provisional application. Thus, even if the petition were granted to establish the pendency up to the end of the 12-month period, the provisional application would not be considered pending after 12 months from its filing date.
711.03(d) Examiner’s Statement on Petition To Set Aside Examiner’s Holding [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.181 states that the examiner “may be directed by the Director to furnish a written statement, within a specific time, setting forth the reasons for his or her decision upon the matters averred in the petition, supplying a copy to the petitioner.” Unless requested, however, such a
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-245
§ 711.03(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
statement should not be prepared. See MPEP § 1002.01.
711.04 Public Access to Abandoned Applications [R-08.2012]
Access will be provided to the application file itself for any non-Image File Wrapper (IFW) abandoned published application. When access to the IFW system is available in the File Information Unit (FIU) and/or Internet access to abandoned published IFW applications, such files will be provided to the public via the FIU and/or Internet. Since there is no paper file wrapper for IFW applications, if electronic access is not available to the public, then access to IFW files is only available by ordering a copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the published application or a specific document in the file of the published application from the Office of Public Records and payment of the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b). See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(ii).
Access to an abandoned unpublished application may be provided to any person if a written request for access is submitted, and the abandoned application is identified or relied upon:
(A) in a U.S. patent application publication or patent;
(B) in statutory invention registration; or
(C) in an international application that is published in accordance with PCT Article 21(2).
An application is considered identified in a document such as a patent when the application number or serial number and filing date, first named inventor, title and filing date or other application specific information are provided in the text of the patent, but not when the identification is made in a paper in the file contents of the patent and is not included in the printed patent. See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv). A copy of the application-as-filed, the file contents of the abandoned application, or a specific document in the file of the abandoned application may also be provided to any person upon written request, and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b). See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv). See also MPEP § 103. Form
PTO/SB/68 may be used to request access of an abandoned application under 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv).
711.04(a) Date of Abandonment [R-11.2013]
Applications are not ordinarily reviewed for possible abandonment until the maximum permissible period for which an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) plus 1 month has expired.
The applications should be carefully scrutinized by the appropriate examiner to verify that they are actually abandoned. A check should be made of files containing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for the presence of allowed claims to avoid erroneously treating the proceedings as terminated (see MPEP § 1214.06, subsections II-IV for proper treatment of any claims that stand allowed).
If the application is abandoned, the date of the abandonment is after midnight of the date on which the set shortened statutory period, including any extensions under 37 CFR 1.136, expired. This is normally the end of the 3-month shortened statutory period.
711.04(b) Ordering of Patented and Abandoned Files [R-11.2013]
In examination of an application it is sometimes necessary to inspect the application papers of a previously patented or abandoned application. It is always necessary to do so in the examination of a reissue application.
Recently patented and abandoned paper files are stored at the Files Repository. Older files are housed in warehouses located off site. Image File Wrapper (IFW) applications are stored electronically and do not have a paper file wrapper to be stored other than certain artifact material. The electronic file is the official record of the application.
Patented and abandoned paper files or artifact folders are ordered by means of a PALM transaction. To place such an order, the examiner is required to input his/her PALM location code, employee number, and patent number(s) and/or application number(s) of the file(s) that are needed. After transmission of the
700-246Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.04
requested transaction by the examiner, a “response” screen informs him/her of the status of the request for each file. The examiner is informed that the request is:
(A) accepted;
(B) accepted, but for which the file is stored at a warehouse off site (in which case delivery time is increased);
(C) not accepted because the file is not located at the repository or warehouse;
(D) not accepted because a previous request for the file has not yet been filled; or
(E) not accepted because the patent or application number inputted is not valid.
Personnel at the Files Repository regularly perform a PALM print transaction which produces a list of all accepted requests in patent number order and, for requests for abandoned files, in application number order. The printed record of each request is detached from the list when its associated file is found and then stapled to it. Periodic deliveries of files are made to the offices of their requestors by Files Repository personnel, and files that are ready to be returned to the repository are picked up. For applications stored in IFW, this process is not necessary.
With the exception of certain older files, the drawings of patented and abandoned files, if any, are now stored within their respective application file wrappers. Since it is desired not to separate one from the other, both the file and its drawings are delivered when a file is ordered.
711.04(c) Notifying Applicants of Abandonment [R-07.2015]
The Patent Examining Corps currently mails to the correspondence address of record, a Notice of Abandonment form PTOL-1432 in all applications which become abandoned for failure to prosecute. However, in no case will mere failure to receive a notice of abandonment affect the status of an abandoned application.
This procedure should enable applicants to take appropriate and diligent action to reinstate an
application inadvertently abandoned for failure to timely reply to an official communication. In most cases, a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 will be the appropriate remedy. It may be that a reply to the Office action was mailed to the Office with a certificate of mailing declaration as a part thereof (MPEP § 512) but was not received in the Office. In this instance, adequate relief may be available by means of a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment. See MPEP § 711.03(c).
In any instance, if action is not taken promptly after receiving the notice of abandonment, appropriate relief may not be granted. If a lack of diligent action is predicated on the contention that neither the Office action nor the notice of abandonment was received, one may presume that there is a problem with the correspondence address of record. Accordingly, attention is directed to MPEP §§ 403 and MPEP § 601.03(a) and (b) dealing with changes of address. In essence, it is imperative that a paper notifying the Office of a change of address be filed promptly in each application in which the correspondence address is to be changed (except as provided for under Customer Number practice — see MPEP § 403).
711.05 Letter of Abandonment Received After Application Is Allowed [R-08.2012]
Receipt of a letter of abandonment while an application is allowed is acknowledged by the Publishing Division.
An express abandonment arriving after the issue fee has been paid will not be accepted without a showing of one of the reasons indicated in 37 CFR 1.313(c), or else a showing under 37 CFR 1.183 justifying suspension of 37 CFR 1.313. See also MPEP § 711.01.
711.06 Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive Publications [R-08.2012]
I. ABSTRACTS
Abstracts were prepared and published in accordance with the Notice of January 25, 1949, 619 OG 258. Each abstract includes a summary of the disclosure
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-247
§ 711.06EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
of the abandoned application, and in applications having drawings, a figure of the drawing. The publication of such abstracts was discontinued in 1953.
II. ABBREVIATURES
Abbreviatures were prepared and published in accordance with the procedure indicated in the Notice of October 13, 1964, 808 OG 1. Each abbreviature contains a specific portion of the disclosure of the abandoned application, preferably a detailed representative claim, and, in applications having drawings, a figure of the drawing. The publication of such abbreviatures was discontinued in 1965.
III. DEFENSIVE PUBLICATIONS
The Defensive Publication Program, which provided for the publication of the abstract of the technical disclosure of a pending application if the applicant waived his or her rights to an enforceable patent, was available between April 1968 and May 8, 1985. The program was ended in view of the applicant’s ability to obtain a Statutory Invention Registration.
An application was laid open for public inspection under the Defensive Publication Program and the applicant provisionally abandoned the application, retaining rights to an interference for a limited period of 5 years from the earliest effective U.S. filing date.
The Defensive Publication Abstract and a selected figure of the drawing, if any, were published in the
Official Gazette. Defensive Publication Search Copies, containing the defensive publication abstract and suitable drawings, if any, were provided for the application file, the Patent Search Room and the examiner’s search files. A defensive publication is not a patent or an application publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b); it is a publication. Therefore, it is prior art only as of its publication date. See MPEP § 2136.
The defensive publication application files are accessible by request to the File Information Unit (Record Room).
Defensive Publication Number
Distinct numbers are assigned to all Defensive Publications published December 16, 1969 through October 1980, for example.
For Defensive Publications published on and after November 4, 1980, a different numbering system is used.
The revised numbering system is as follows:
Defensive Publications are included in subclass lists and subscription orders. The distinct numbers are used for all official reference and document copy requirements.
A conversion table from the application serial number to the distinct number for all Defensive Publications published before December 16, 1969 appears at 869 OG 687.
711.06(a) Citation and Use of Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive Publications as References [R-11.2013]
It is important that abstracts, abbreviatures, and defensive publications (OG Defensive Publication and Defensive Publication Search Copy) be referred to as publications.
700-248Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 711.06(a)
These printed publications are cited as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(b) effective from the date of publication in the Official Gazette. See Ex parte Osmond, 191 USPQ 334 (Bd. App. 1973) and Ex Parte Osmond, 191 USPQ 340 (Bd. App. 1976). See also MPEP § 2136.
An application or portion thereof from which an abstract, abbreviature or defensive publication has been prepared may be used as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), effective from the actual date of filing in the United States, only for evidence of prior knowledge of another.
These publications may be used alone or in combination with other prior art in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
Defensive Publications are listed with “U.S. Patent Documents.” Abstracts and Abbreviatures are listed under “Other References” in the citation thereof as follows:
(A) Abstracts and Abbreviatures
Brown, (abstract or abbreviature) of Serial No. ........, filed ............., published in OG ........., on ........, (list classification).
(B) Applications or designated portions thereof, abstracts, abbreviatures, and defensive publications
Jones, Application Serial No. ........, filed ............., laid open to public inspection on ............... as noted at .......... OG (portion of application relied on), (list classification, if any).
712 [Reserved]
713 Interviews [R-07.2015]
Discussions between an applicant and an examiner are often indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application. Generally, interviews that improve the mutual understanding of specific issues in an application should be promoted. Properly conducted, an interview can bridge the gap between an examiner and an applicant with regard to the substantive matters at issue in an application.
Interviews often help to advance prosecution and identify patentable subject matter. The applicant and the examiner should consider the advantages of conducting an interview to advance the prosecution of a particular patent application. Positions presented during an interview should be advanced with decorum and courtesy.
An interview should be granted when the nature of the case is such that the interview serves to develop or clarify outstanding issues in an application. Both applicants and examiners should understand that interview time is limited for both, and therefore they should use the interview time efficiently. Both parties should ensure the interview does not extend beyond a reasonable time and minimize interruptions during the interview. Applicants and examiners should facilitate the grouping of interviews where effective.
All discussions between the applicant/practitioner and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. This includes any and all records or communications received in connection with the interview, whether the interview was conducted in-person or through a telephone conversation, video conference, electronic mail, or electronic message system. This policy and other interview tips are detailed in the Interview Best Practices document which is available at www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/interview_ best_ practices.pdf. Where an electronic record is created as part of the interview, e.g., a series of electronic messages, a copy of the electronic record is to be made of record in the application. Where an electronic record is not created a summary of the interview must be made of record.
713.01 General Policy, How Conducted [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.133 Interviews.
(a)(1) Interviews with examiners concerning applications and other matters pending before the Office must be conducted on Office premises and within Office hours, as the respective examiners may designate. Interviews will not be permitted at any other time or place without the authority of the Director.
(2) An interview for the discussion of the patentability of a pending application will not occur before the first Office
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-249
§ 713.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
action, unless the application is a continuing or substitute application or the examiner determines that such an interview would advance prosecution of the application.
(3) The examiner may require that an interview be scheduled in advance.
(b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in §§ 1.111 and 1.135.
I. WHERE AND WHEN TO CONDUCT INTERVIEWS
i) Face-to-face interviews may be accomplished via video conferencing or in-person. The physical location of either party participating in an interview should not limit the USPTO’s ability to hold face-to-face interviews. A request for a face-to-face interview will normally be granted. Other times, a telephone interview provides an appropriate level of interaction.
ii) In-person interviews with the examiner should normally be granted. In-person interviews must be conducted on the Office premises, such as in an examiner’s office, a conference room, an interview room or a video conference center, and should be held during normal business hours of 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
iii) Interviews other than in-person interviews should be held during normal business hours and may also be held during mutually agreed upon non-traditional business hours, such as Saturday and evening hours.
iv) When an examiner is working remotely from a USPTO campus, there may not be an opportunity to have an in-person interview. The examiner shall accommodate an applicant, attorney, or agent’s preference for an interview via telephone conversation, video conference, electronic mail, or electronic instant message system using USPTO-based collaboration tools, consistent with the special requirements of section II. below. Alternatively, an applicant, attorney, or agent may request to have an interview on a USPTO campus while the examiner is remotely participating via the phone or video conference. In this instance, appropriate arrangements will be made on the USPTO campus for equipment and/or internet access to facilitate the interview. Appropriate USPTO
representative may be present with the applicant during the on campus interview.
v) Any Examiner may, with the applicant’s consent, conduct an interview by using video conferencing and collaboration tools provided by the Office.
vi) Examiners who normally work remotely should arrange to hold an interview on campus if the timing can be mutually agreed upon with the applicant. In special situations the examiner will be required to travel to campus for an in-person interview. The decision on special situations will be made at the TC Director level or higher as to whether the examiner of record or another USPTO representative will be on campus for the interview. A hoteling examiner within the local commuting area of a satellite office may use that satellite office for in-person or video conference interviews.
vii) Examiners working on campus may hold interviews in-person, telephonically, or via video conference. Examiners may receive requests from an applicant for an interview using video conferencing. Such requests should normally be granted. See MPEP § 713.01, subsection III below. Telework does not prevent examiners from conducting interviews via video conference or telephonically from their approved alternate worksite.
II. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USING INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS
Internet email, instant message system, or video conferencing shall NOT be used to conduct an exchange or communications similar to those exchanged during telephone or personal interviews unless authorization from the applicants or an attorney/agent of record has been given to use Internet communications. See MPEP § 502.03.
A. Written Authorization
The following is a sample written authorization which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33
700-250Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 713.01
and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
B. Oral Authorization
The best practice is to have a written authorization of record in the file. However, an oral authorization from the applicant/practitioner is sufficient for video conferencing interviews. The oral authorization is limited to the arrangement of video conference interview (including the meeting invitation) and does not extend to other communications regarding the application. The examiner should note on the record the details of the oral authorization in the interview summary or in a separate communication.
III. VIDEO CONFERENCING
i) A video conference is a meeting, usually via the Internet, using USPTO-supplied collaboration tools to visually interact and collaborate with people anywhere in real time.
ii) All video conferences for interviews MUST originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners may not conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the subject application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO-supplied collaboration tools.
iii) When an applicant requests a video conference with an examiner, the request should normally be granted. When applicants request an in-person interview but there is not an opportunity for both parties to be on the same USPTO campus at a mutually agreed upon time, a video conference should be offered. All examiners, regardless of worksite location, should offer and hold interviews via video conferencing when appropriate.
iv) Video conferencing should be conducted consistent with the special procedure of subsection II above. Authorization from the applicant, preferably written, should be obtained prior to scheduling and setting up a video conference. See MPEP § 502.03.
IV. SCHEDULING AND CONDUCTING AN INTERVIEW
An interview should normally be arranged for in advance, as by letter, facsimile, electronic mail, or telephone call, in order to insure that the primary examiner and/or the examiner in charge of the application will be available. When applicant is initiating a request for an interview, an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request” form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, instant message system or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed “Applicant Initiated Interview Request” form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant’s representative.Applicants are encouraged to use form PTO-413A, however, the fact that applicant does not submit an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request” form is not, by itself, grounds for the examiner to deny a request for an interview. When a second art unit is involved, such as in the case where approval of a Patentability Report is necessary, the availability of the second examiner should also be checked. See MPEP §§ 705-705.01(f). An appointment for interview once arranged should be kept by examiner and applicant, attorney, or agent. When, after an appointment has been made, circumstances compel the absence of a party necessary to an effective interview (e.g., applicant, applicant’s representative, or examiner), the other party should be notified immediately so that substitute arrangements may be made.
When a telephone call is made to an examiner and it becomes evident that a lengthy discussion will ensue or that the examiner needs time to restudy the situation, the call should be terminated with an agreement that the examiner will call back at a specified time. Such a call and all other calls originated by the examiner should be made through the Office’s telephone system.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-251
§ 713.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
An examiner’s suggestion of allowable subject matter may justify indicating the possibility of an interview to accelerate early agreement on allowable claims.
The unexpected appearance of an attorney or applicant requesting an interview without any previous notice may well justify the examiner’s refusal of the interview at that time, particularly in an involved case.
An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application.
Thus, the attorney when presenting himself or herself for an interview should be fully prepared to discuss the issues raised in the Office action. When it is obvious that the attorney is not so prepared, the interview should be rescheduled. It is desirable that the attorney or applicant indicate in advance what issues he or she desires to discuss at the interview by submitting, in writing, a proposed amendment. This would permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the matters set forth in the proposed amendment.
In order to have an effective interview, both parties should avoid unnecessary interruptions. Do not take incoming telephone calls, emails, or text messages unless an emergency. All parties participating in an interview should familiarize themselves with the status and existing issues in an application or reexamination proceeding before an interview.
The examiner should not hesitate to state, when appropriate, that claims presented for discussion at an interview would require further search and consideration. Nor should the examiner hesitate to conclude an interview when it appears that no common ground can be reached or when it becomes apparent that the application requires further amendment or an additional action by the examiner. However, the examiner should attempt to identify issues and resolve differences during the interview as much as possible.
It is the responsibility of all participants to see that the interview is not extended beyond a reasonable period, usually 30 minutes. It is the duty of the primary examiner to see that an interview is not extended beyond a reasonable period.
During an interview with a pro se applicant (i.e., an applicant who is prosecuting his or her own case and is not familiar with Office procedure), the examiner may make suggestions that will advance the prosecution of this case; this lies wholly within the examiner’s discretion. Excessive time, however, should not be allowed for such interviews.
Examiners should inspect all incoming papers. See MPEP § 714.05. Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, a telephone consultation to be initiated by the examiner or a video conference, or where an out-of-town attorney under similar circumstances requests that the examiner defer taking any further action on the case until the attorney’s next visit to a USPTO campus (provided such visit is not beyond the date when the Office action would normally be taken up for action), the examiner, as soon as he or she has considered the effect of the reply, should grant such request if it appears that the interview or consultation would result in expediting the case to a final action.
Where agreement is reached as a result of an interview, applicant’s representative should be advised that an amendment pursuant to the agreement should be promptly submitted. If the amendment prepares the case for final action, the examiner should take the case up as special. If not, the case should await its turn.
A duplicate copy of a filed amendment and/or remarks may be sent to the examiner in order to facilitate early consideration.
A duplicate copy is unnecessary when the amendment and/or remarks are filed via the Office’s electronic filing system (EFS-Web) as the examiner will be able to quickly access such documents. See the EFS-Web Guidance and Resources page of the Office website (www.uspto.gov/patents /process/file/efs/guidance/index. jsp) for additional information. See also MPEP § 502.05.
700-252Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 713.01
The substance of any interview, whether in person, by video conference, by electronic mail, electronic message system or by telephone must be made of record in the application. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.04. A paper copy of the Internet email contents or instant message system transcripts or video conferencing transcripts, if any, MUST be made and placed in the patent application file as required by the Federal Records Act in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form is entered.
Examiners may grant one interview after final rejection. See MPEP § 713.09.
V. VIEWING OF VIDEO DURING INTERVIEWS
The USPTO has compact disc player equipment available for viewing video discs from applicants during interviews with patent examiners.
Attorneys or applicants wishing to show a video during an examiner interview must be able to demonstrate that the content of the video has a bearing on an outstanding issue in the application and its viewing will advance the prosecution of the application. If the video that applicant would like to display during the interview is in a format other than current DVD format, the applicant should also bring to the interview the equipment necessary to display
the video. The substance of the interview, including a summary of the content of the video must be made of record in the application. See MPEP § 713.04.
VI. EXAMINATION BY EXAMINER OTHER THAN THE ONE WHO CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEW
Sometimes the examiner who conducted the interview is transferred to another Technology Center or resigns, and the examination is continued by another examiner. If there is an indication that an interview had been held, the second examiner should ascertain if any agreements were reached at the interview. Where conditions permit, as in the absence of a clear error or knowledge of other prior art, the second examiner should take a position consistent with the agreements previously reached. See MPEP § 812.01 for a statement of telephone practice in restriction and election of species situations.
VII. COLLABORATION TOOLS
Collaboration tools include instant messaging, document sharing and whiteboard, virtual meeting tools, and video conferencing equipment and software. All collaboration tools used for interviews must be supplied by the USPTO and hosted by the USPTO network.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-253
§ 713.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-254Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 713.01
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-255
§ 713.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-256Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 713.01
713.02 Interviews Prior to First Official Action [R-07.2015]
A request for an interview prior to the first Office action is ordinarily granted in continuing or substitute applications. In all other applications, an interview before the first Office action is encouraged where the examiner determines that such an interview would advance prosecution of the application. Thus, the examiner may require that an applicant requesting an interview before the first Office action provide a paper that includes a general statement of the state of the art at the time of the invention, and an identification of no more than three (3) references believed to be the “closest” prior art and an explanation as to how the broadest claim distinguishes over such references. See 37 CFR 1.133(a). Applicants seeking prioritized examination should be prepared to participate in an interview with the examiner. See MPEP § 708.02(b). Similarly the Office announced a pilot program in which an interview is conducted before a first action on the merits. Information on this pilot program is available f r o m : www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/faipp_full.jsp.
I. SEARCHING IN GROUP
Seeking search help in the Technology Center art unit should be permitted only with the consent of a primary examiner.
II. EXPOUNDING PATENT LAW
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cannot act as an expounder of the patent law, nor as a counselor for individuals.
713.03 Interview for “Sounding Out” Examiner Not Permitted [R-08.2012]
Interviews that are solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, as by a local attorney acting for an out-of-town attorney, should not be permitted when it is apparent that any agreement
that would be reached is conditional upon being satisfactory to the principal attorney.
713.04 Substance of Interview Must Be Made of Record [R-07.2015]
A complete written statement as to the substance of any in-person, video conference, electronic mail, telephone interview, or electronic message system discussion with regard to the merits of an application must be made of record in the application, whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview. The requirement may be satisfied by submitting a transcript generated during an electronic mail or message exchange. See 37 CFR 1.133(b) and MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01.
37 CFR 1.133 Interviews. *****
(b) In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office actions as specified in §§ 1.111 and 1.135.
37 CFR 1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.
All business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
The action of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself incomplete through the failure to record the substance of interviews.
It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the application file, except where the interview was initiated by the examiner and the examiner indicated on the “Examiner Initiated Interview Summary” form (PTOL-413B) that the examiner will provide a written summary. It is the examiner’s responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies which bear directly on the question of patentability.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-257
§ 713.04EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Examiners must complete an Interview Summary form PTOL-413 for each interview where a matter of substance has been discussed during the interview by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in the appropriate blanks. If applicant initiated the interview, a copy of the completed “Applicant Initiated Interview Request” form, PTOL-413A (if available), should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 and a copy be given to the applicant (or applicant’s attorney or agent), upon completion of the interview. If the examiner initiates an interview, the examiner should complete part I of the “Examiner Initiated Interview Summary” form, PTOL-413B, in advance of the interview identifying the rejections, claims and prior art documents to be discussed with applicant. The examiner should complete parts II and III of the “Examiner Initiated Interview Summary” form at the conclusion of the interview. The completed PTOL-413B form will be considered a proper interview summary record and it will not be necessary for the examiner to complete another PTOL-413 form. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in MPEP § 812.01, or pointing out typographical errors in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures. Where a complete record of the interview has been incorporated in an examiner’s amendment, it will not be necessary for the examiner to complete an Interview Summary form.
The Interview Summary form PTOL-413 shall include the date the interview was held and the substance of the interview shall be properly recorded. In a personal interview, the duplicate copy of the Interview Summary form along with any attachment(s) is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the conclusion of the interview. In the case of a telephonic, electronic mail, electronic message system or video conference interview, the copy is mailed to the applicant’s correspondence address either with or prior to the next official communication. A copy of the form may be faxed or, if the Office has appropriate authorization to conduct communications via the Internet, a copy of the form may be e-mailed to applicant (or applicant’s attorney or agent) at the conclusion of the interview. If additional correspondence from the examiner is
not likely before an allowance or if other circumstances dictate, the Interview Summary form should be mailed promptly after the telephonic, electronic mail, electronic message system or video conference interview rather than with the next official communication.
The PTOL-413 form provides for recordation of the following information:
(A) application number;
(B) name of applicant;
(C) name of examiner;
(D) date of interview;
(E) type of interview (personal, telephonic, or video conference);
(F) name of participant(s) (applicant, applicant’s representative, etc.);
(G) an indication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted;
(H) an identification of the claims discussed;
(I) an identification of the specific prior art discussed;
(J) an indication whether an agreement was reached and if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by attachment of a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). (Agreements as to allowability are tentative and do not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.);
(K) the signature of the examiner who conducted the interview;
(L) names of other U.S. Patent and Trademark Office personnel present.
The PTOL-413 form also contains a statement reminding the applicant of his or her responsibility to record the substance of the interview.
It is desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substance of the interview in each case unless the interview was initiated by the examiner and the examiner indicated on the “Examiner Initiated Interview Summary” form, PTOL-413B, that the examiner will provide a written summary. Where
700-258Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 713.04
an interview initiated by the applicant results in the allowance of the application, the applicant is advised to file a written record of the substance of the interview as soon as possible to prevent any possible delays in the issuance of a patent. Where an examiner initiated interview directly results in the allowance of the application, the examiner may check the appropriate box on the “Examiner Initiated Interview Summary” form, PTOL-413B, to indicate that the examiner will provide a written record of the substance of the interview with the Notice of Allowability.
It should be noted, however, that the Interview Summary form will not be considered a complete and proper recordation of the interview unless it includes, or is supplemented by the applicant, or the examiner to include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the substance of the interview.
The complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
(A) a brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted;
(B) identification of the claims discussed;
(C) identification of specific prior art discussed;
(D) identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the Interview Summary form completed by the examiner;
(E) the general thrust of the principal arguments of the applicant and the examiner should also be identified, even where the interview is initiated by the examiner. The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully describe those arguments which he or she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner;
(F) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed;
(G) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the interview; and
(H) in the case of an interview via electronic mail a paper copy of the contents exchanged over the internet MUST be made and placed in the patent application file as required by the Federal Records Act in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form, PTOL-413, is entered.
Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant’s record of the substance of an interview. If the record is not complete or accurate, the examiner may give the applicant a 2-month time period to complete the reply under 37 CFR 1.135(c) where the record of the substance of the interview is in a reply to a non-final Office action.
¶ 7.84 Amendment Is Non-Responsive to Interview
The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the [2] interview. [3] Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the date of the interview.
2. In bracket 3, explain the deficiencies.
EXAMINER TO CHECK FOR ACCURACY
Applicant’s summary of what took place at the interview should be carefully checked to determine the accuracy of any argument or statement attributed to the examiner during the interview. If there is an inaccuracy and it bears directly on the question of patentability, it should be pointed out in the next Office communication from the examiner (e.g., rejection, interview summary, or notice of allowability), and the examiner should set forth his or her version of the statement attributed to him or her.
If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should electronically annotate the record with the indication “Interview record OK” on the paper recording the substance of the interview.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-259
§ 713.04EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-260Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 713.04
713.05 Interviews Prohibited or Granted, Special Situations [R-07.2015]
Except in unusual situations, interviews with examiners are not permitted after the submission of an appeal brief or after a notice of allowability for the application has been mailed.
An interview may be appropriate before applicant’s first reply when the examiner has suggested that allowable subject matter is present or where it will assist applicant in judging the propriety of continuing the prosecution.
Office employees are forbidden to hold either oral or written communication with an unregistered or a suspended or excluded attorney or agent regarding an application unless it is one in which said attorney or agent is the applicant. See MPEP § 105.
Interviews (MPEP § 713) are frequently requested by persons whose credentials are of such informal character that there is serious question as to whether such persons are entitled to any information under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.14. In general, interviews are not granted to persons who lack proper authority from the applicant or attorney or agent of record in the form of a paper on file in the application. A MERE POWER TO INSPECT IS NOT SUFFICIENTAUTHORITY FOR GRANTINGAN INTERVIEW INVOLVING THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION.
Interviews are generally not granted to registered individuals to whom there is no power of attorney or authorization to act in a representative capacity. See MPEP § 405 for additional information and for form PTO/SB/84, Authorization to Act in a Representative Capacity. Note that pursuant to 37 CFR 11.106, a practitioner cannot authorize other registered practitioners to conduct interviews unless the client gives informed consent. Furthermore, even with informed consent, a practitioner should not authorize a nonpractitioner to conduct interviews as this could be considered aiding in the unauthorized practice of law. See 37 CFR 11.505.
While a registered practitioner not of record may request an interview (if the practitioner is authorized to do so by the applicant or the attorney of record),
it is recommended that a power of attorney or authorization to act in a representative capacity be filed, preferably via EFS-Web, prior to the interview. Otherwise, the examiner will conduct the telephone interview with the Office’s file closed and work solely from the practitioner’s file, which may be difficult to do if the interview is not in-person.
Interviews normally should not be granted unless the requesting party has authority to bind the principal concerned.
For an interview with an examiner who does not have negotiation authority, arrangements should always include an examiner who does have such authority, and who is familiar with the application, so that authoritative agreement may be reached at the time of the interview.
GROUPED INTERVIEWS
For attorneys remote from the Washington, D.C. area who prefer in-person or video conference interviews, the grouped interview practice is effective. If in any case there is a prearranged interview, with agreement to file a prompt supplemental amendment putting the case as nearly as may be in condition for concluding action, prompt filing of the supplemental amendment gives the application special status, and brings it up for immediate special action.
713.06 No Inter Partes Questions Discussed Ex Parte [R-08.2012]
The examiner may not discuss inter partes questions ex parte with any of the interested parties.
713.07 Exposure of Other Cases [R-11.2013]
Prior to an interview in the examiner’s office space or via video conference, the examiner should arrange his or her desk so that all files, drawings and other
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-261
§ 713.07EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
papers, except those necessary in the interview, are placed out of view. See MPEP § 101.
713.08 Demonstration, Exhibits, Models [R-07.2015]
The invention in question may be exhibited or demonstrated during the interview by a model or exhibit thereof. A model or exhibit will not generally be admitted as part of the record of an application. See 37 CFR 1.91. However, a model or exhibit submitted by the applicant which complies with 37 CFR 1.91 would be made part of the application record. See MPEP §§ 608.03 and 608.03(a).
If the model or exhibit is merely used for demonstration purpose during the course of the interview, it will not be made part of the record (does not comply with 37 CFR 1.91). A full description as to what was demonstrated/exhibited must be made of record in the application. See 37 CFR 1.133(b). Demonstrations of apparatus or exhibits too large to be brought into the Office may be viewed by the examiner outside of the Office (in the Washington, D.C. area) with the approval of the supervisory patent examiner. It is presumed that the witnessing of the demonstration or the reviewing of the exhibit is actually essential in the developing and clarifying of the issues involved in the application.
713.09 Finally Rejected Application [R-11.2013]
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. See MPEP § 714.13.
Interviews may be held after the expiration of the shortened statutory period and prior to the maximum
permitted statutory period of 6 months without an extension of time. See MPEP § 706.07(f).
A second or further interview after a final rejection may be held if the examiner is convinced that it will expedite the issues for appeal or disposal of the application.
713.10 Interview Preceding Filing Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.312 [R-08.2012]
After an application is sent to issue, it is technically no longer under the jurisdiction of the primary examiner. 37 CFR 1.312. An interview with an examiner that would involve a detailed consideration of claims sought to be entered and perhaps entailing a discussion of the prior art for determining whether or not the claims are allowable should not be given. Obviously an applicant is not entitled to a greater degree of consideration in an amendment presented informally than is given an applicant in the consideration of an amendment when formally presented, particularly since consideration of an amendment filed under 37 CFR 1.312 cannot be demanded as a matter of right.
Requests for interviews on cases where a notice of allowance has been mailed should be granted only with specific approval of the Technology Center Director upon a showing in writing of extraordinary circumstances.
714 Amendments, Applicant’s Action [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.121 Manner of making amendments in application.
(a) Amendments in applications, other than reissue applications. Amendments in applications, other than reissue applications, are made by filing a paper, in compliance with § 1.52, directing that specified amendments be made.
(b) Specification . Amendments to the specification, other than the claims, computer listings (§ 1.96) and sequence listings (§ 1.825), must be made by adding, deleting or replacing a paragraph, by replacing a section, or by a substitute specification, in the manner specified in this section.
(1) Amendment to delete, replace, or add a paragraph. Amendments to the specification, including amendment to a section heading or the title of the invention which are considered for amendment purposes to be an amendment of a paragraph, must be made by submitting:
700-262Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 713.08
(i) An instruction, which unambiguously identifies the location, to delete one or more paragraphs of the specification, replace a paragraph with one or more replacement paragraphs, or add one or more paragraphs;
(ii) The full text of any replacement paragraph with markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strikethrough cannot be easily perceived;
(iii) The full text of any added paragraphs without any underlining; and;
(iv) The text of a paragraph to be deleted must not be presented with strike-through or placed within double brackets. The instruction to delete may identify a paragraph by its paragraph number or include a few words from the beginning, and end, of the paragraph, if needed for paragraph identification purposes.
(2) Amendment by replacement section . If the sections of the specification contain section headings as provided in § 1.77(b), § 1.154(b), or § 1.163(c), amendments to the specification, other than the claims, may be made by submitting:
(i) A reference to the section heading along with an instruction, which unambiguously identifies the location, to delete that section of the specification and to replace such deleted section with a replacement section; and;
(ii) A replacement section with markings to show all changes relative to the previous version of the section. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived.
(3) Amendment by substitute specification. The specification, other than the claims, may also be amended by submitting:
(i) An instruction to replace the specification; and
(ii) A substitute specification in compliance with §§ 1.125(b) and (c).
(4) Reinstatement of previously deleted paragraph or section. A previously deleted paragraph or section may be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment adding the previously deleted paragraph or section.
(5) Presentation in subsequent amendment document. Once a paragraph or section is amended in a first amendment document, the paragraph or section shall not be represented in a subsequent amendment document unless it is amended again or a substitute specification is provided.
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes ( e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement ( e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn— currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-263
§ 714EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
(d) Drawings : One or more application drawings shall be amended in the following manner:Any changes to an application drawing must be in compliance with § 1.84, or, for a nonprovisional international design application, in compliance with §§ 1.84(c) and 1.1026, and must be submitted on a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document and, in the top margin, labeled “Replacement Sheet”. Any replacement sheet of drawings shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Any new sheet of drawings containing an additional figure must be labeled in the top margin as “New Sheet.” All changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper.
(1) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be included. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
(2) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, must be provided when required by the examiner.
(e) Disclosure consistency. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
(f) No new matter. No amendment may introduce new matter into the disclosure of an application.
(g) Exception for examiner’s amendments. Changes to the specification, including the claims, of an application made by the Office in an examiner’s amendment may be made by specific instructions to insert or delete subject matter set forth in the examiner’s amendment by identifying the precise point in the specification or the claim(s) where the insertion or deletion is to be made. Compliance with paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (c) of this section is not required.
(h) Amendment sections. Each section of an amendment document ( e.g., amendment to the claims, amendment to the specification, replacement drawings, and remarks) must begin on a separate sheet.
(i) Amendments in reissue applications. Any amendment to the description and claims in reissue applications must be made in accordance with § 1.173.
(j) Amendments in reexamination proceedings. Any proposed amendment to the description and claims in patents involved in reexamination proceedings must be made in accordance with § 1.530.
(k) Amendments in provisional applications. Amendments in provisional applications are not usually made. If an
amendment is made to a provisional application, however, it must comply with the provisions of this section. Any amendments to a provisional application shall be placed in the provisional application file but may not be entered.
I. WHEN APPLICANT MAY AMEND
The applicant may amend:
(A) ) before or after the first Office action and also after the second Office actions as specified in 37 CFR 1.112;
(B) after final rejection, if the amendment meets the criteria of 37 CFR 1.116;
(C) after the date of filing a notice of appeal pursuant to 37 CFR 41.31(a), if the amendment meets the criteria of 37 CFR 41.33; and
(D) when and as specifically required by the examiner.
Amendments in provisional applications are not normally made. If an amendment is made to a provisional application, however, it must comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121. Any amendments to a provisional application will be placed in the provisional application file, but may not be entered.
II. MANNER OF MAKINGAMENDMENTS UNDER 37 CFR 1.121
All amendments filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121 as revised in the notice of final rule making published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2003 at 65 FR 38611. The manner of making amendments has been revised to assist in the implementation of beginning-to-end electronic image processing of patent applications. Specifically, changes have been made to facilitate electronic image data capture and processing and streamline the patent application process. If an amendment filed on or after July 30, 2003 does not comply with revised 37 CFR 1.121, the Office will notify applicants via a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment that the amendment is not accepted.
The revised amendment practice is summarized as follows.
700-264Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714
A. Amendment Sections
Each section of an amendment document (e.g., Specification Amendments, Claim Amendments, Drawing Amendments, and Remarks) must begin on a separate sheet to facilitate separate indexing and electronic scanning of each section of an amendment document for placement in an image file wrapper.
It is recommended that applicants use the following format when submitting amendment papers. The amendment papers should include, in the following order:
(A) a cover sheet, or introductory comments, providing the appropriate application information (e.g., application number, applicant, filing date) and which serves as a table of contents to the amendment document by indicating on what page of the amendment document each of the following sections begin;
(B) a section (must begin on a separate sheet) entitled “Amendments to the Specification” (if there are any amendments to the specification). This section should include all amendments to the specification including amendments to the abstract of the disclosure. A more detailed discussion is provided in subsection II.B below;
(C) a section (must begin on a separate sheet) entitled “Amendments to the Claims” which includes a complete listing of all claims ever presented in the application (if there are any amendments to the claims). A more detailed discussion is provided in subsection II.C below;
(D) a section (must begin on a separate sheet) entitled “Amendments to the Drawings” in which all changes to the drawings are discussed (if there are any amendments to the drawings). A more detailed discussion is provided in subsection II.D below;
(E) a remarks section (must begin on a separate sheet); and
(F) any drawings being submitted including any “Replacement Sheet,” “New Sheet,” or “Annotated Sheet.”
B. Amendments to the Specification
Amendments to the specification, other than the claims, computer listings (37 CFR 1.96) and sequence listings (37 CFR 1.825), must be made by adding, deleting or replacing a paragraph, by replacing a section, or by a substitute specification. In order to delete, replace or add a paragraph to the specification of an application, the amendment must unambiguously identify the paragraph to be modified either by paragraph number (see MPEP § 608.01), page and line, or any other unambiguous method and be accompanied by any replacement or new paragraph(s). Replacement paragraphs must include markings to show the changes. A separate clean version of any replacement paragraphs is not required. Any new paragraphs must be presented in clean form without any markings (i.e., underlining).
Where paragraph numbering has been included in an application as provided in 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6), applicants can easily refer to a specific paragraph by number when presenting an amendment. If a numbered paragraph is to be replaced by a single paragraph, the added replacement paragraph should be numbered with the same number of the paragraph being replaced. Where more than one paragraph is to replace a single original paragraph, the added paragraphs should be numbered using the number of the original paragraph for the first replacement paragraph, followed by increasing decimal numbers for the second and subsequent added paragraphs, e.g., original paragraph [0071] has been replaced with paragraphs [0071], [0071.1], and [0071.2]. If a numbered paragraph is deleted, the numbering of the subsequent paragraphs should remain unchanged.
37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(ii) requires that the full text of any replacement paragraph be provided with markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show the deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters (e.g., [[eroor]]). The term “brackets” set forth in 37 CFR 1.121 means square brackets – [ ], and not parentheses – ( ). The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-265
§ 714EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., deletion of the number “4” must be shown as [[4]]). As an alternative to using double brackets, however, extra portions of text may be included before and after text being deleted, all in strike-through, followed by including and underlining the extra text with the desired change (e.g., number 4 as number 14 as). For added paragraphs, 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(iii) requires that the full text of any added paragraph(s) be presented in clean form without any underlining. Similarly, under 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(iv), a marked up version does not have to be supplied for any deleted paragraph(s). It is sufficient to merely indicate or identify any paragraph that has been deleted. The instruction to delete may identify a paragraph by its paragraph number, page and line number, or include a few words from the beginning, and end, or the paragraph, if needed for paragraph identification.
Applicants are also permitted to amend the specification by replacement sections (e.g., as provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), 1.154(b), or 1.163(c)). As with replacement paragraphs, the amended version of a replacement section is required to be provided with markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the section. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show the deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived.
Specifically regarding amendments to the abstract of the disclosure, where the amendments to the abstract are minor in nature, the abstract should be provided as a marked-up version under 37 CFR 1.121(b)(2)(ii) using strike-through and underlining as the methods to show all changes relative to the immediate prior version. Where the abstract is being substantially rewritten and the amended abstract bears little or no resemblance to the previously filed version of the abstract, a new (substitute) abstract may be provided in clean form accompanied by an instruction for the cancellation of the previous
version of the abstract. The text of the new abstract must not be underlined. It would be counterproductive for applicant to prepare and provide an abstract so riddled with strike-through and underlining that its meaning and language are obscured from view and comprehension. Whether supplying a marked-up version of a previous abstract or a clean form new abstract, the abstract must comply with 37 CFR 1.72(b) regarding the length and placement of the abstract on a separate sheet of paper.
Applicants are also permitted to amend the specification by submitting a substitute specification, provided the requirements of 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) are met. Under 37 CFR 1.125, a clean version of the substitute specification, a separate marked up version showing the changes in the specification relative to the previous version, and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter are required.
Any previously deleted paragraph or section can only be reinstated by a subsequent amendment presenting the previously deleted subject matter. A direction by applicant to remove a previously entered amendment will not be permitted.
C. Amendments to the Claims
Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, including the deletion of an existing claim, or submission of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented (including previously canceled and non-entered claims) in the application. After each claim number, the status identifier of the claim must be presented in a parenthetical expression, and the text of each claim under examination as well as all withdrawn claims (each with markings if any, to show current changes) must be presented. The listing will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims in the application.
(A) Status Identifiers: The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled),
700-266Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714
(withdrawn), (new), or (not entered). The status identifier (withdrawn – currently amended) is also acceptable for a withdrawn claim that is being currently amended. See paragraph (E) below for acceptable alternative status identifiers.
Claims added by a preliminary amendment must have the status identifier (new) instead of (original), even when the preliminary amendment is present on the filing date of the application and such claim is treated as part of the original disclosure. If applicant files a subsequent amendment, applicant must use the status identifier (previously presented) if the claims are not being amended, or (currently amended) if the claims are being amended, in the subsequent amendment. Claims that are canceled by a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application are required to be listed and must have the status identifier (canceled) in the preliminary amendment and in any subsequent amendment.
The status identifier (not entered) is used for claims that were previously proposed in an amendment (e.g., after-final) that was denied entry.
In an amendment submitted in a U.S. national stage application, claims that were present on the international filing date or rectified pursuant to PCT Rule 91 must have the status identifier (original); claims that were amended or added under PCT Article 19 or 34 with effect in the U.S. national stage application must have the status identifier (previously presented); and claims that were canceled pursuant to PCT Article 19 or 34 with effect in the U.S. national stage application must have the status identifier (canceled). If the amendment submitted in the U.S. national stage application is making a change in a claim, the status identifier (currently amended) must be used for that claim.
For any amendment being filed in response to a restriction or election of species requirement and any subsequent amendment, any claims which are non-elected must have the status identifier (withdrawn). Any non-elected claims which are being amended must have either the status identifier (withdrawn) or (withdrawn – currently amended) and the text of the non-elected claims must be presented with markings to indicate the changes. Any non-elected claims that are being canceled must have the status identifier (canceled).
(B) Markings to Show the Changes: All claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. The changes in any amended claim must be shown by strike-through (for deleted matter) or underlining (for added matter) with 2 exceptions: (1) for deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters, double brackets may be used (e.g., [[eroor]]); (2) if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., deletion of number “4” or certain punctuation marks), double brackets must be used (e.g., [[4]]). As an alternative to using double brackets, however, extra portions of text may be included before and after text being deleted, all in strike-through, followed by including and underlining the extra text with the desired change (e.g., number 4 as number 14 as ). An accompanying clean version is not required and should not be presented. Only claims of the status “currently amended” or “withdrawn” will include markings.
Any claims added by amendment must be indicated as “new” and the text of the claim must not be underlined.
(C) Claim Text: The text of all pending claims under examination and withdrawn claims must be submitted each time any claim is amended. The text of pending claims not being currently amended, including withdrawn claims, must be presented in clean version, i.e., without any markings. Any claim presented in clean version will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims. A claim being canceled must be indicated as “canceled;” the text of the claim must not be presented. Providing an instruction to cancel is optional. Canceled and not entered claims must be listed by only the claim number and status identifier, without presenting the text of the claims. When applicant submits the text of canceled or not-entered claims in the amendment, the Office may accept such an amendment, if the amendment otherwise complies with 37 CFR 1.121, instead of sending out a notice of non-compliant amendment to reduce the processing time.
(D) Claim Numbering: All of the claims in each amendment paper must be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive canceled
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-267
§ 714EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
or not entered claims may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1 – 5 (canceled)).
A canceled claim can be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number. The original numbering of the claims must be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. For example, when applicant cancels all of the claims in the original specification and adds a new set of claims, the claim listing must include all of the canceled claims with the status identifier (canceled) (the canceled claims may be aggregated into one statement). The new claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claim previously presented (whether entered or not) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.126.
Example of listing of claims: Claims 1-5 (canceled) Claim 6 (withdrawn): A process for molding a bucket. Claim 7 (previously presented): A bucket with a handle. Claim 8 (currently amended): A bucket with a green blue handle. Claim 9 (withdrawn): The process for molding a bucket of claim 6 using molten plastic material. Claim 10 (original): The bucket of claim 8 with a wooden handle. Claim 11 (canceled) Claim 12 (previously presented): A bucket having a circumferential upper lip. Claim 13 (not entered) Claim 14 (new): A bucket with plastic sides and bottom.
(E) Acceptable Alternative Status Identifiers : To prevent delays in prosecution, the Office will waive certain provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 and accept alternative status identifiers not specifically set forth in 37 CFR 1.121(c). See Acceptance of Certain Non-Compliant Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.121(c) , OG (July 5, 2005). Accordingly claim listings that include alternative status identifiers as set forth below may be accepted if the amendment otherwise complies with 37 CFR 1.121.
Acceptable AlternativesStatus Identifiers Set Forth in 37 CFR 1.121(c)
Original Claim; and Originally Filed Claim
1. Original
Presently amended; and Currently amended claim
2. Currently amended
Canceled without prejudice; Cancel;
3. Canceled
Canceled; Canceled herein; Previously canceled; Canceled claim; and Deleted Withdrawn from consideration; Withdrawn
4. Withdrawn
– new; Withdrawn claim; and Withdrawn – currently amended Previously amended; Previously added;
5. Previously presented
Previously submitted; and Previously presented claim Newly added; and New claim
6. New
Not entered claim7. Not entered
The Office may also accept additional variations of the status identifiers provided in 37 CFR 1.121(c) not listed above if an Office personnel determines that the status of the claims is accurate and clear. When accepting alternative status identifiers, the examiner is not required to correct the status identifiers using an examiner’s amendment. Applicant will not be notified and will not be required to submit a corrective compliant amendment. The examiner does not need to make a statement on the record that the alternative status identifiers have been accepted.
D. Amendments to the Drawing
Any changes to an application drawing must comply with 37 CFR 1.84 and must be submitted on a replacement sheet of drawings, even when applicant is only submitting better quality drawings without any substantive changes. Any additional new drawings must be submitted on a new sheet of drawings. The replacement or new sheet of drawings must be an attachment to the amendment document and must be identified in the top margin as
700-268Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714
“Replacement Sheet.” The new drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “New Sheet.” The replacement drawing sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be included. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, must be provided when required by the examiner.
An explanation of the changes made must be presented in the “Amendments to the Drawings” or the remarks section of the amendment document. If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not approved by the examiner, applicant will be notified in the next Office action. Applicant must amend the brief and detailed description of drawings sections of the specification if they are not consistent with the changes to the drawings. For example, when applicant files a new drawing sheet, an amendment to the specification is required to add the brief and detailed description of the new drawings.
The proposed drawing correction practice has been eliminated. For any changes to the drawings, applicant is required to submit a replacement sheet of drawings with the changes made. No proposed changes in red ink should be submitted. Any proposed drawing corrections will be treated as non-compliant under 37 CFR 1.121(d). In response to any drawing objections, applicant should submit drawing changes by filing a replacement sheet of drawings or a new sheet of drawings with the corrections made. A letter to the official draftsman is no longer required.
Drawing submissions without any amendments to the specification and claims after allowance should be forwarded to the Office of Data Management.
E. Examiner’s Amendments
37 CFR 1.121(g) permits the Office to make amendments to the specification, including the claims, by examiner’s amendments without paragraph/section/claim replacement in the interest of expediting prosecution and reducing cycle time. Additions or deletions of subject matter in the specification, including the claims, may be made by instructions to make the change at a precise location in the specification or the claims. Examiner’s amendments do not need to comply with paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (c) of 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 1302.04.
If a non-compliant amendment would otherwise place the application in condition for allowance, the examiner may enter the non-compliant amendment and provide an examiner’s amendment to correct the non-compliance (e.g., an incorrect status identifier). Similarly, if an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 after allowance is non-compliant under 37 CFR 1.121 and the entry of the amendment would have been otherwise recommended, the examiner may enter the amendment and correct the non-compliance (e.g., an incorrect status identifier) using an examiner’s amendment. See subsection “F. Non-Compliant Amendments” for more information on non-compliant amendments. For example, if some of the status identifiers are incorrect in an amendment, the examiner may enter the non-compliant amendment and:
(A) provide a claim listing presenting all of the claims with the proper status identifiers in an examiner’s amendment;
(B) print a copy of the claim listing of the non-compliant amendment, cross out the improper status identifiers, write in the correct status identifiers and include it as an attachment to an examiner’s amendment; or
(C) correct the improper status identifiers by instructions in an examiner’s amendment.
The examiner’s amendment should include the reason why the amendment is non-compliant and indicate how it was corrected. Authorization from the applicant or attorney/agent of record and appropriate extensions of time are not required if the changes are not substantive (e.g., corrections of
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-269
§ 714EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
format errors or typographical errors). Such an examiner’s amendment may be made after the time period for reply, or after the shortened statutory period without any extensions of time, as long as the non-compliant amendment was timely filed.
Authorization and appropriate extensions of time are required if the changes made in the examiner’s amendment are substantive (e.g., the examiner’s amendment would include a cancellation of a claim or change the scope of the claims). The authorization must be given within the time period for reply set forth in the last Office action. See MPEP § 1302.04.
F. Non-Compliant Amendments
If an amendment submitted on or after July 30, 2003, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121 (as revised on June 30, 2003), the Office will notify applicant by a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment, Form PTOL-324, that the amendment fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 and identify: (1) which section of the amendment is non-compliant (e.g., the amendments to the claims section); (2) items that are required for compliance (e.g., a claim listing in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c)); and (3) the reasons why the section of the amendment fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121 (e.g., the status identifiers are missing). The type of amendment will determine whether applicant will be given a period of time in which to comply with the rule and whether applicant’s reply to a notice should consist of the corrected section of the amendment (e.g., a complete claim listing in compliance of 37 CFR 1.121(c)) instead of the entire corrected amendment. If the noncompliant amendment is:
(A) A preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the application , the technical support staff (TSS) will send the notice which sets a time period of two months for reply. No extensions of time are permitted. Failure to submit a timely reply will result in the application being examined without entry of the preliminary amendment. Applicant’s reply is required to include the corrected section of the amendment.
(B) A preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application , the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will send applicant a notice (e.g., Notice to File Corrected
Application Papers) which sets a time period of 2 months for reply. Extensions of time are available under 37 CFR 1.136(a). Failure to reply to the (OPAP) notice will result in abandonment of the application. Applicant’s reply is required to include either a substitute specification under 37 CFR 1.125 if the amendment is to the specification, or a complete claim listing under 37 CFR 1.121(c) if the amendment is to the claims.
(C) A non-final amendment including an amendment filed as a submission for an RCE, the TSS will send the notice which sets a time period of two months for reply. Extensions of time are available under 37 CFR 1.136(a). Failure to reply to this notice will result in abandonment of the application. Applicant’s reply is required to include the corrected section of the amendment.
(D) An after-final amendment , the amendment will be forwarded in unentered status to the examiner. In addition to providing reasons for non-entry when the amendment is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116 (e.g., the proposed amendment raises new issues that would require further consideration and/or search), the examiner should also indicate in the advisory action any non-compliance in the after-final amendment. The examiner should attach a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment to the advisory action. The notice provides no new time period for correcting the non-compliance. The time period for reply continues to run from the mailing of the final Office action. Applicant still needs to respond to the final Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If the applicant wishes to file another after-final amendment, the entire corrected amendment (not only the corrected section of the amendment) must be submitted within the time period set forth in the final Office action.
(E) A supplemental amendment filed when there is no suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(a) or (c), the amendment will be forwarded to the examiner. Such a supplemental amendment is not entered as a matter of right. See 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2)(ii). The examiner will notify the applicant if the amendment is not approved for entry. The examiner may use form paragraph 7.147. See MPEP § 714.03(a).
(F) A supplemental amendment filed within a suspension period under 37 CFR 1.103(a) or (c)
700-270Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714
(e.g., applicant requested a suspension of action at the time of filing an RCE), the TSS will send the notice which sets a time period of two months for reply. No extensions of time are permitted. Failure to submit a timely reply will result in the application being examined without entry of the supplemental amendment. Applicant’s reply is required to include the corrected section of the amendment.
(G) An amendment filed in response to a Quayle action , the TSS will send the notice which sets a time period of 30 days or one month, whichever is later, for reply. Extensions of time are available under 37 CFR 1.136(a). Failure to reply to this notice will result in abandonment of the application. Applicant’s reply is required to include the corrected section of the amendment.
(H) An after-allowance amendment under 37 CFR 1.312, the amendment will be forwarded to the examiner. Amendments under 37 CFR 1.312 are not entered as matter of right. The examiner will notify the applicant if the amendment is not approved for entry. The examiner may attach a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121) to the form PTO-271, Response to Rule 312 Communication (see MPEP § 714.16(d)). The notice provides no new time period. If applicant wishes to file another after-allowance amendment under 37 CFR 1.312, the entire corrected amendment must be submitted before the payment of the issue fee.
Any amendments (including after-final amendments) that add new claims in excess of the number of claims previously paid for in an application must be accompanied by the payment of the required excess claims fees. Failure to pay the excess claims fees will result in non-entry of the amendment. See MPEP § 607.
G. Entry of Amendments, Directions for, Defective
The directions for the entry of an amendment may be defective. Examples include inaccuracy in the paragraph number and/or page and line designated, or a lack of precision where the paragraph or section to which insertion of the amendment is directed occurs. If the correct place of entry is clear from the context, the amendatory paper will be properly amended in the Technology Center and notation thereof, initialed in ink by the examiner, who will assume full responsibility for the change, will be made on the margin of the amendatory paper. In the next Office action, the applicant should be informed of this alteration in the amendment and the entry of the amendment as thus amended. The applicant will also be informed of the nonentry of an amendment where defective directions and context leave doubt as to the intent of applicant.
H. Amendment of Amendments
When a replacement paragraph or section of the specification is to be amended, it should be wholly rewritten and the original insertion canceled. A marked-up version of the replacement paragraph or section of the specification should be presented using underlining to indicate added subject matter and strike-through to indicate deleted subject matter. Matter canceled by amendment can be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the canceled matter as a new insertion. A claim cancelled by amendment (deleted in its entirety) may be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-271
§ 714EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-272Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714
III. AMENDMENT IN REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS AND REISSUE APPLICATIONS
Amendments in reissue applications must be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.173. Amendments in ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings must be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.530. In patent-owner-filed ex parte reexaminations, the patent owner may amend at the time of the request for ex parte reexamination in accordance with 37 CFR 1.510(e). In any ex parte reexamination proceeding, no amendment or response can be filed between the date of the request for ex parte reexamination and the order for ex parte reexamination. See 37 CFR 1.530(a). Following the order for ex parte reexamination under 37 CFR 1.525 and prior to the examination phase of ex parte reexamination proceeding, an amendment may be filed only with the patent owner’s statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b). During the examination phase of the ex parte reexamination proceeding, an amendment may be filed:
(A) after the first examination as specified in 37 CFR 1.112;
(B) after final rejection or an appeal has been taken, if the amendment meets the criteria of 37 CFR 1.116; and
(C) when and as specifically required by the examiner.
See also MPEP § 714.12.
For amendments in ex parte reexamination proceedings see MPEP § 2250 and § 2266. For amendments by patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding, see MPEP § 2666.01 and § 2672. For amendments in reissue applications, see MPEP § 1453.
714.01 Signatures to Amendments [R-08.2012]
An amendment must be signed by a person having authority to prosecute the application. An unsigned or improperly signed amendment will not be entered. See MPEP § 714.01(a).
To facilitate any telephone call that may become necessary, it is recommended that the complete
telephone number with area code and extension be given, preferably near the signature.
714.01(a) Unsigned or Improperly Signed Amendment [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.33 Correspondence respecting patent applications, reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings.
*****
(b) Amendments and other papers . Amendments and other papers, except for written assertions pursuant to § 1.27(c)(2)(iii) or (c)(2)(iv), filed in the application must be signed by:
(1) A patent practitioner of record;
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34; or
(3) The applicant (§ 1.42). Unless otherwise specified, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner.
*****
37 CFR 1.33 (pre-AIA) Correspondence respecting patent applications, reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings (applicable to applications filed before September 16, 2012).
*****
(b) Amendments and other papers . Amendments and other papers, except for written assertions pursuant to § 1.27(c)(2)(ii) of this part, filed in the application must be signed by:
(1) A patent practitioner of record appointed in compliance with § 1.32(b);
(2) A patent practitioner not of record who acts in a representative capacity under the provisions of § 1.34;
(3) An assignee as provided for under § 3.71(b) of this chapter; or
(4) All of the applicants (§ 1.41(b)) for patent, unless there is an assignee of the entire interest and such assignee has taken action in the application in accordance with § 3.71 of this chapter.
*****
An unsigned amendment or one not properly signed by a person having authority to prosecute the application is not entered. This applies, for instance, where the amendment is signed by only one of two joint inventors and the one signing has not been given a power of attorney by the other inventor.
When an unsigned or improperly signed amendment is received the amendment will be listed in the contents of the application file, but not entered. The examiner will notify applicant of the status of the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-273
§ 714.01(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
application, advising him or her to furnish a duplicate amendment properly signed or to ratify the amendment already filed. In an application not under final rejection, applicant should be given a 1-month time period in which to ratify the previously filed amendment (37 CFR 1.135(c)).
Applicants may be advised of unsigned amendments by use of form paragraph 7.84.01.
¶ 7.84.01 Paper Is Unsigned
The proposed reply filed on [1] has not been entered because it is unsigned. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide , applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO (2) MONTHS within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Sometimes problems arising from unsigned or improperly signed amendments may be disposed of by calling in the local representative of the attorney or agent of record, since he or she may have the authority to sign the amendment.
An amendment signed by a practitioner who has been suspended or excluded from practice under the provisions of 37 CFR Part 11 is not entered. The file and unentered amendment are submitted to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action.
714.01(b) [Reserved]
714.01(c) Signed by Attorney or Agent Not of Record [R-11.2013]
A registered attorney or agent acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34, may sign amendments even though he or she does not have a power of attorney in the application. See MPEP § 402.03 .
714.01(d) Amendment Signed by Applicant but Not by Attorney or Agent of Record [R-11.2013]
If an amendment signed by the applicant is received in an application in which there is a duly appointed attorney or agent, the amendment should be entered
and acted upon. Attention should be called to 37 CFR 1.33 in patent applications. Two copies of the action should be prepared, one being sent to the attorney and the other directly to the applicant. The notation: “Copy to applicant” should appear on the original and on both copies.
714.01(e) Amendments Before First Office Action [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.115 Preliminary amendments.
(a) A preliminary amendment is an amendment that is received in the Office (§ 1.6) on or before the mail date of the first Office action under § 1.104. The patent application publication may include preliminary amendments (§ 1.215(a)).
(1) A preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of an application is part of the original disclosure of the application.
(2) A preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the application is not part of the original disclosure of the application.
*****
A preliminary amendment is an amendment that is received in the Office on or before the mail date of the first Office action under 37 CFR 1.104. See 37 CFR 1.115(a). For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004 (the effective date of 37 CFR 1.115(a)(1)), a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application is part of the original disclosure of the application. For applications filed before September 21, 2004, a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application is part of the original disclosure of the application if the preliminary amendment was referred to in the first executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 filed in the application. See MPEP § 602. Any amendment filed after the filing date of the application is not part of the original disclosure of the application. See MPEP § 706.03(o) regarding new matter. When the Office publishes the application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), the Office may include preliminary amendments in the patent application publication. See MPEP § 1121.
If a preliminary amendment is filed in a format that cannot be included in the publication, the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will issue a notice to the applicant requiring the applicant to submit the amendment in a format usable for publication purposes. See 37 CFR 1.115(a)(1) and
700-274Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.01(b)
1.215. The only format for an amendment to the specification (other than the claims) that is usable for publication is a substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125. As a result, the Office has revised its procedures to mail a notice (e.g., “Notice to File Corrected Application Papers”) requiring a substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125, if an applicant included a preliminary amendment to the specification (other than the claims) on filing.
For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, where applicant intends to claim the benefit of a prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78, the specific reference to the benefit application may be submitted in an application data sheet (ADS) under 37 CFR 1.76 or in a preliminary amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.78(h). If the specific reference is submitted in a preliminary amendment, a substitute specification will not be required if the preliminary amendment only adds or amends a benefit claim to a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 119(e). If an applicant receives a notice from OPAP (e.g., “Notice to File Corrected Application Papers”) requiring a substitute specification because a preliminary amendment was filed that only adds or amends a benefit claim, applicant may reply to the notice explaining that a substitute specification should not have been required because the amendment was only to add or amend a benefit claim. In order to avoid abandonment, applicant should file a reply with the required substitute specification or an explanation that the substitute specification is not necessary because the preliminary amendment only adds or amends a benefit claim. If the preliminary amendment contains other amendments to the specification (other than the claims), a substitute specification will be required, and a reply to a notice requiring a substitute specification without the substitute specification will be treated as an incomplete reply with no new time period for reply being provided. Note that the above does not apply to applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, because the reference to a prior application as required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78, must be submitted in an application data sheet (ADS) under 37 CFR 1.76.
Requiring a substitute specification (with all preliminary amendments made therein) is also important to ensure that applicants do not circumvent the limitations upon redacted publications set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(v). As preliminary amendments to the specification, excluding the claims, cannot be easily published, the Office must require a substitute specification whenever an application is filed with a preliminary amendment to the specification, excluding the claims, in order to ensure that the application, including any new matter added by way of a preliminary amendment included on the filing date of the application, is published.
Because a preliminary amendment to the claims or abstract in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c) or 1.121(b)(2) will include a complete claim listing or replacement abstract, the Office can publish the amended claims or the replacement abstract as submitted in the preliminary amendment without a substitute specification being filed. Applicants should note, however, that there is no need to file a preliminary amendment to the claims on filing. By making the new claim set part of the originally filed specification, applicant may avoid having to pay an application size fee, as both the specification (including the claims) and any preliminary amendment are used in counting the number of pages for purposes of 37 CFR 1.16(s). The claim set submitted should be the set of claims intended to be examined, and when the claims submitted on filing are part of the specification (on sequentially numbered pages of the specification (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(5))), no status identifiers and no markings showing the changes need to be used.
A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11. See MPEP § 1893.03(b). Accordingly, a “Notice to File Corrected Application Papers” requiring a substitute specification will not ordinarily be mailed in an international application even if the national stage submission includes a preliminary amendment.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-275
§ 714.01(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Since a request for continued examination (RCE) is not a new application, an amendment filed before the first Office action after the filing of the RCE is not a preliminary amendment. See MPEP § 706.07(h).Any amendment canceling claims in order to reduce the excess claims fees should be filed before the expiration of the time period set forth in a notice that requires excess claims fees. Such an amendment would be effective to reduce the number of claims to be considered in calculating the excess claims fees. See MPEP § 607.
I. PRELIMINARY AMENDMENTS MUST COMPLY WITH 37 CFR 1.121
Any preliminary amendment, regardless of when it is filed, must comply with 37 CFR 1.121, e.g., the preliminary amendment must include a complete listing of all of the claims and each section of the amendment must begin on a separate sheet of paper. See MPEP § 714. Preliminary amendments made in a transmittal letter of the application will not comply with 37 CFR 1.121. For example, applicants should include the reference to a prior filed application in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title (for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012) or in an application data sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 instead of submitting the reference in a preliminary amendment in a transmittal letter. See MPEP § 211 et seq. If a preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the application fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121, applicant will be notified by way of a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment and given a non-extendable period of two months to bring the amendment into compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. If the applicant takes no corrective action, examination of the application will commence without consideration of the proposed changes in the non-compliant preliminary amendment. If a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121, the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will notify applicant of the non-compliance and give a two-month time period to correct the non-compliance to avoid the abandonment of the application. See MPEP § 714.
Filing a preliminary amendment is not recommended because the changes made by the preliminary
amendment may not be reflected in the patent application publication even if the preliminary amendment is referred to in an oath or declaration. If there is insufficient time to have the preliminary amendment be entered into the Office file wrapper of the application before technical preparations for publication of the application have begun, the preliminary amendment will not be reflected in the patent application publication. Technical preparations for publication of an application generally begin four months prior to the projected date of publication. For more information on publication of applications, see MPEP § 1121. Applicants may avoid preliminary amendments by incorporating any desired amendments into the text of the specification including a new set of claims, even where the application is a continuation or divisional application of a previously filed patent application. In such a continuation or divisional application, a clean copy of a specification (i.e., reflecting amendments made in the parent application) may be submitted together with a copy of the oath or declaration from the previously filed application. See 37 CFR 1.63(d)(1) and MPEP § 201.06(c).
II. PRELIMINARY AMENDMENTS PRESENT ON THE FILING DATE OF THE APPLICATION
Applicants are strongly discouraged from submitting any preliminary amendments so as to minimize the burden on the Office in processing preliminary amendments and reduce delays in processing the application.
For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004 (the effective date of 37 CFR 1.115(a)(1)), a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application is part of the original disclosure of the application.
For applications filed before September 21, 2004, a preliminary amendment that was present on the filing date of the application is part of the original disclosure of the application if the preliminary amendment was referred to in the first oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 filed in the application. See MPEP §§ 602 and 608.04(b). If the preliminary amendment was not referred to in the oath or declaration, applicant should submit a
700-276Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.01(e)
supplemental oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.67 referring to both the application and the preliminary amendment filed with the original application. A surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f) will also be required unless it has been previously paid.
III. PRELIMINARY AMENDMENTS MUST BE TIMELY
Any preliminary amendments should either accompany the application or be filed after the application has received its application number and filing date so that the preliminary amendments would include the appropriate identifications (e.g., the application number and filing date). See MPEP § 502. Any amendments filed after the mail date of the first Office action is not a preliminary amendment. If the date of receipt (37 CFR 1.6) of the amendment is later than the mail date of the first Office action and is not responsive to the first Office action, the Office will not mail a new Office action, but simply advise the applicant that the amendment is nonresponsive to the first Office action and that a responsive reply must be timely filed to avoid abandonment. See MPEP § 714.03.
IV. PRELIMINARY AMENDMENTS MAY BE DISAPPROVED
37 CFR 1.115 Preliminary amendments. *****
(b) A preliminary amendment in compliance with § 1.121 will be entered unless disapproved by the Director.
(1) A preliminary amendment seeking cancellation of all the claims without presenting any new or substitute claims will be disapproved.
(2) A preliminary amendment may be disapproved if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of a first Office action in an application. Factors that will be considered in disapproving a preliminary amendment include:
(i) The state of preparation of a first Office action as of the date of receipt (§ 1.6) of the preliminary amendment by the Office; and
(ii) The nature of any changes to the specification or claims that would result from entry of the preliminary amendment.
(3) A preliminary amendment will not be disapproved under (b)(2) of this section if it is filed no later than:
(i) Three months from the filing date of an application under § 1.53(b);
(ii) The filing date of a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d); or
(iii) Three months from the date the national stage is entered as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application.
(4) The time periods specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are not extendable.
A preliminary amendment filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 will be entered unless it is disapproved by the Director. A preliminary amendment will be disapproved by the Director if the preliminary amendment cancels all the claims in the application without presenting any new or substitute claims. A preliminary amendment may also be disapproved by the Director if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of an Office action. 37 CFR 1.115(b).
A. Cancellations of All the Claims
If applicant files a preliminary amendment (whether submitted prior to, on or after the filing date of the application) seeking cancellation of all claims in the application without presenting any new claims, the Office will not enter such an amendment. See Exxon Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 265 F.3d 1249, 60 USPQ2d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001), 37 CFR 1.115(b)(1), and MPEP § 601.01(e). Thus, the application will not be denied a filing date merely because such a preliminary amendment was submitted on filing. For fee calculation purposes, the Office will treat such an application as containing only a single claim. In most cases, an amendment that cancels all the claims in the application without presenting any new claims would not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) that requires a complete claim listing. See MPEP § 714. The Office will send a notice of non-compliant amendment (37 CFR 1.121) to applicant and require an amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121.
B. Unduly InterferesWith the Preparation of an Office Action
Once the examiner has started to prepare a first Office action, entry of a preliminary amendment may be disapproved if the preliminary amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of the first Office action. Applicants are encouraged to file all preliminary amendments as soon as possible. Entry
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-277
§ 714.01(e)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
of a preliminary amendment will not be disapproved under 37 CFR 1.115(b)(2) if it is filed no later than:
(A) 3 months from the filing date of the application under 37 CFR 1.53(b);
(B) 3 months from the date the national stage is entered as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 in an international application;
(C) the filing date of a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a design application; or
(D) the last day of any suspension period requested by applicant under 37 CFR 1.103 (see MPEP § 709).
Even if the examiner has spent a significant amount of time preparing the first Office action, entry of a preliminary amendment filed within these time periods should not be disapproved under 37 CFR 1.115(b)(2). These time periods are not extendable. See 37 CFR 1.115(b)(4).
If a preliminary amendment is filed after these time periods and the conditions set forth below are met, entry of the preliminary amendment may be denied subject to the approval of the supervisory patent examiner (MPEP § 1002.02(d)).
1. When Disapproval is Appropriate
The factors that will be considered for denying entry of preliminary amendments under 37 CFR 1.115 include:
(A) The state of preparation of a first Office action as of the date of receipt (37 CFR 1.6) of the preliminary amendment; and
(B) The nature of any changes to the specification or claims that would result from entry of the preliminary amendment.
The entry of a preliminary amendment that would unduly interfere with the preparation of an Office action may be denied if the following two conditions are met:
(A) the examiner has devoted a significant amount of time on the preparation of an Office action before the amendment is received in the Office (i.e., the 37 CFR 1.6 receipt date of the amendment); and
(B) the entry of the amendment would require significant additional time in the preparation of the Office action.
For example, if the examiner has spent a significant amount of time to conduct a prior art search or draft an Office action before a preliminary amendment is received by the Office, the first condition is satisfied. Entry of the amendment may be denied if it:
(A) amends the claims;
(B) adds numerous new claims;
(C) amends the specification to change the scope of the claims;
(D) amends the specification so that a new matter issue would be raised;
(E) includes arguments;
(F) includes an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 or 37 CFR 1.132; or
(G) includes evidence traversing rejections from a prior Office action in the parent application,
and would require the examiner to spend significant additional time to conduct another prior art search or revise the Office action (i.e., the second condition is satisfied). This list is not an exhaustive list, and the entry of a preliminary amendment may be denied in other situations that satisfy the two conditions set forth above. Once these conditions are met, the examiner should obtain the approval of the SPE before the entry of the amendment may be denied.
2. When Disapproval is Inappropriate
Denying entry of a preliminary amendment under 37 CFR 1.115(b)(2) is inappropriate if either:
(A) the examiner has NOT devoted a significant amount of time on the preparation of an Office action before the amendment is received in the Office (i.e., the 37 CFR 1.6 receipt date of the amendment); or
(B) the entry of the amendment would NOT require significant additional time in the preparation of the Office action.
Thus, the amendment will be entered unless it is denied entry for other reasons such as those listed in MPEP § 714.19.
700-278Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.01(e)
For example, if before the preliminary amendment is received in the Office, the examiner has not started working on the Office action or has started, but has merely inspected the file for formal requirements, then the examiner should enter and consider the preliminary amendment.
Furthermore, even if the examiner has devoted a significant amount of time to prepare an Office action prior to the date the preliminary amendment is received in the Office, it is not appropriate to disapprove the entry of such an amendment if it:
(A) merely cancels some of the pending claims;
(B) amends the claims to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph;
(C) amends the claims to place the application in condition for allowance; or
(D) only includes changes that were previously suggested by the examiner, and would not require the examiner to spend significant additional time to revise the Office action.
3. Form Paragraph
Form paragraph 7.46 should be used to notify applicant that the entry of a preliminary amendment is denied because the amendment unduly interferes with the preparation of an Office action.
¶ 7.46 Preliminary Amendment Unduly Interferes with the Preparation of an Office Action
The preliminary amendment filed on [1] was not entered because entry of the amendment would unduly interfere with the preparation of the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.115(b)(2). The examiner spent a significant amount of time on the preparation of an Office action before the preliminary amendment was received. On the date of receipt of the amendment, the examiner had completed [2].
Furthermore, entry of the preliminary amendment would require significant additional time on the preparation of the Office action. Specifically, entry of the preliminary amendment would require the examiner to [3].
A responsive reply (under 37 CFR 1.111 or 37 CFR 1.113 as appropriate) to this Office action must be timely filed to avoid abandonment.
If this is not a final Office action, applicant may wish to resubmit the amendment along with a responsive reply under 37 CFR 1.111 to ensure proper entry of the amendment.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, provide the date that the Office received the preliminary amendment (use the date of receipt under 37 CFR 1.6, not the certificate of mailing date under 37 CFR 1.8).
2. In bracket 2, provide an explanation on the state of preparation of the Office action as of the receipt date of the preliminary amendment. For example, where appropriate insert --the claim analysis and the search of prior art of all pending claims-- or --the drafting of the Office action and was waiting for the supervisory patent examiner’s approval--.
3. In bracket 3, provide a brief explanation of how entry of the preliminary amendment would require the examiner to spend significant additional time in the preparation of the Office action. For example, where appropriate insert --conduct prior art search in another classification area that was not previously searched and required-- or --revise the Office action extensively to address the new issues raised and the new claims added in the preliminary amendment--.
714.02 Must Be Fully Responsive [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.111 Reply by applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office action.
(a)(1) If the Office action after the first examination (§ 1.104) is adverse in any respect, the applicant or patent owner, if he or she persists in his or her application for a patent or reexamination proceeding, must reply and request reconsideration or further examination, with or without amendment. See §§ 1.135 and 1.136 for time for reply to avoid abandonment.
(2) Supplemental replies.
(i) A reply that is supplemental to a reply that is in compliance with § 1.111(b) will not be entered as a matter of right except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. The Office may enter a supplemental reply if the supplemental reply is clearly limited to:
(A) Cancellation of a claim(s);
(B) Adoption of the examiner suggestion(s);
(C) Placement of the application in condition for allowance;
(D) Reply to an Office requirement made after the first reply was filed;
(E) Correction of informalities ( e.g., typographical errors); or
(F) Simplification of issues for appeal.
(ii) A supplemental reply will be entered if the supplemental reply is filed within the period during which action by the Office is suspended under § 1.103(a) or (c).
(b) In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-279
§ 714.02EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
(c) In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In all cases where reply to a requirement is indicated as necessary for further consideration of the claims, or where allowable subject matter has been indicated in an application, a complete reply must either comply with the formal requirements or specifically traverse each one not complied with.
Drawing and specification corrections, presentation of a new oath and the like are generally considered as formal matters, although the filing of drawing corrections in reply to an objection to the drawings cannot normally be held in abeyance. However, the line between formal matter and those touching the merits is not sharp, and the determination of the merits of an application may require that such corrections, new oath, etc., be insisted upon prior to any indication of allowable subject matter.
The claims may be amended by canceling particular claims, by presenting new claims, or by rewriting particular claims as indicated in 37 CFR 1.121(c). The requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b) must be complied with by pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over the references in presenting arguments in support of new claims and amendments.
An amendment submitted after a second or subsequent non-final action on the merits which is otherwise responsive but which increases the number of claims drawn to the invention previously acted
upon is not to be held not fully responsive for that reason alone. (See 37 CFR 1.112, MPEP § 706.)
The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.
Replies to requirements to restrict are treated under MPEP § 818.
714.03 Amendments Not Fully Responsive, Action To Be Taken [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.135 Abandonment for failure to reply within time period.
*****
(c) When reply by the applicant is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action, and is substantially a complete reply to the non-final Office action, but consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been inadvertently omitted, applicant may be given a new time period for reply under § 1.134 to supply the omission.
An examiner may treat an amendment not fully responsive to a non-final Office action by:
(A) accepting the amendment as an adequate reply to the non-final Office action to avoid abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR 1.135;
(B) notifying the applicant that the reply must be completed within the remaining period for reply to the non-final Office action (or within any extension pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)) to avoid abandonment; or
(C) setting a new time period for applicant to complete the reply pursuant to 37 CFR 1.135(c).
The treatment to be given to the amendment depends upon:
(A) whether the amendment is bona fide;
700-280Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.03
(B) whether there is sufficient time for applicant’s reply to be filed within the time period for reply to the non-final Office action; and
(C) the nature of the deficiency.
Where an amendment substantially responds to the rejections, objections, or requirements in a non-final Office action (and is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action) but contains a minor deficiency (e.g. , fails to treat every rejection, objection, or requirement), the examiner may simply act on the amendment and issue a new (non-final or final) Office action. The new Office action may simply reiterate the rejection, objection, or requirement not addressed by the amendment (or otherwise indicate that such rejection, objection, or requirement is no longer applicable). This course of action would not be appropriate in instances in which an amendment contains a serious deficiency (e.g. , the amendment is unsigned or does not appear to have been filed in reply to the non-final Office action). Where the amendment is bona fide but contains a serious omission, the examiner should: A) if there is sufficient time remaining for applicant’s reply to be filed within the time period for reply to the non-final Office action (or within any extension pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)), notify applicant that the omission must be supplied within the time period for reply; or B) if there is insufficient time remaining, issue an Office action setting a 2-month time period to complete the reply pursuant to 37 CFR 1.135(c). In either event, the examiner should not further examine the application on its merits unless and until the omission is timely supplied.
If a new time period for reply is set pursuant to 37 CFR 1.135(c), applicant must supply the omission within this new time period for reply (or any extensions under 37 CFR 1.136(a) thereof) in order to avoid abandonment of the application. The applicant, however, may file a continuing application during this period (in addition or as an alternative to supplying the omission), and may also file any further reply as permitted under 37 CFR 1.111.
Where there is sufficient time remaining in the period for reply (including extensions under 37 CFR 1.136(a)), the applicant may simply be notified that
the omission must be supplied within the remaining time period for reply. This notification should be made, if possible, by telephone, and, when such notification is made by telephone, an interview summary record (see MPEP § 713.04) must be completed and entered into the file of the application to provide a record of such notification. When notification by telephone is not possible, the applicant must be notified in an Office communication that the omission must be supplied within the remaining time period for reply. For example, when an amendment is filed shortly after an Office action has been mailed, and it is apparent that the amendment was not filed in reply to such Office action, the examiner need only notify the applicant (preferably by telephone) that a reply responsive to the Office action must be supplied within the remaining time period for reply to such Office action.
The practice set forth in 37 CFR 1.135(c) does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete reply; rather, 37 CFR 1.135(c) is applicable only when the missing matter or lack of compliance is considered by the examiner as being “inadvertently omitted.” For example, if an election of species has been required and applicant does not make an election because he or she believes the requirement to be improper, the amendment on its face is not a “bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action” (37 CFR 1.135(c)), and the examiner is without authority to postpone decision as to abandonment. Similarly, an amendment that would cancel all of the claims in an application and does not present any new or substitute claims is not a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. The Office will not enter such an amendment. See Exxon Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 265 F.3d 1249, 60 USPQ2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001). If there is time remaining to reply to the non-final Office action (or within any extension of time pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)), applicant will be notified to complete the reply within the remaining time period to avoid abandonment. Likewise, once an inadvertent omission is brought to the attention of the applicant, the question of inadvertence no longer exists. Therefore, a second Office action giving another new (2-month) time period to supply the omission would not be appropriate under 37 CFR 1.135(c).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-281
§ 714.03EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
37 CFR 1.135(c) authorizes, but does not require, an examiner to give the applicant a new time period to supply an omission. Thus, where the examiner concludes that the applicant is attempting to abuse the practice under 37 CFR 1.135(c) to obtain additional time for filing a reply (or where there is sufficient time for applicant’s reply to be filed within the time period for reply to the non-final Office action), the examiner need only indicate by telephone or in an Office communication (as discussed above) that the reply must be completed within the period for reply to the non-final Office action or within any extension pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) to avoid abandonment.
The practice under 37 CFR 1.135(c) of giving applicant a time period to supply an omission in a bona fide reply does not apply after a final Office action. Amendments after final are approved for entry only if they place the application in condition for allowance or in better form for appeal. Otherwise, they are not approved for entry. See MPEP § 714.12 and § 714.13. Thus, an amendment should be denied entry if some point necessary for a complete reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (after final) was omitted, even if the omission was through an apparent oversight or inadvertence. Where a submission after a final Office action (e.g. , an amendment under 37 CFR 1.116) does not place the application in condition for allowance, the period for reply under 37 CFR 1.113 continues to run until a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (i.e., a notice of appeal or an amendment that places the application in condition for allowance) is filed. The nature of the omission (e.g. , whether the amendment raises new issues, or would place the application in condition for allowance but for it being unsigned or not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121) is immaterial. The examiner cannot give the applicant a time period under 37 CFR 1.135(c) to supply the omission; however, applicant may obtain additional time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to file another or supplemental amendment in order to supply the omission.
When a reply to a final Office action substantially places the application in condition for allowance, an examiner may request that the applicant (or representative) authorize an examiner’s amendment to correct the omission and place the application in condition for allowance, in which case the date of
the reply is the date of such authorization (and not the date the incomplete reply was filed). An examiner also has the authority to enter the reply, withdraw the finality of the last Office action, and issue a new Office action, which may be a non-final Office action, a final Office action (if appropriate), or an action closing prosecution on the merits in an otherwise allowable application under Ex parte Quayle , 25 USPQ 74, 1935 C.D. 11, 435 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935) (if appropriate). These courses of action, however, are solely within the discretion of the examiner. It is the applicant’s responsibility to take the necessary action in an application under a final Office action to provide a complete reply under 37 CFR 1.113.
Where there is an informality as to the fee in connection with an amendment to a non-final Office action presenting additional claims, the applicant is notified by the technical support staff. See MPEP §§ 607 and 714.10.
Form paragraph 7.95, and optionally form paragraph 7.95.01, should be used where a bona fide reply to a non-final Office action is not fully responsive.
¶ 7.95 Bona Fide, Non-Responsive Amendments
The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): [2]. See 37 CFR 1.111. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Examiner Note:
This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete reply, or where the application is subject to a final Office action. Under such cases, the examiner has no authority to grant an extension if the period for reply has expired. See form paragraph 7.91.
¶ 7.95.01 Lack of Arguments in Response
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
700-282Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.03
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.95.
2. This form paragraph is intended primarily for use in pro se applications.
714.03(a) Supplemental Amendment [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.111 Reply by applicant or patent owner to a non-final Office action.
(a)(1) If the Office action after the first examination (§ 1.104) is adverse in any respect, the applicant or patent owner, if he or she persists in his or her application for a patent or reexamination proceeding, must reply and request reconsideration or further examination, with or without amendment. See §§ 1.135 and 1.136 for time for reply to avoid abandonment.
(2) Supplemental replies.
(i) A reply that is supplemental to a reply that is in compliance with § 1.111(b) will not be entered as a matter of right except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section. The Office may enter a supplemental reply if the supplemental reply is clearly limited to:
(A) Cancellation of a claim(s);
(B) Adoption of the examiner suggestion(s);
(C) Placement of the application in condition for allowance;
(D) Reply to an Office requirement made after the first reply was filed;
(E) Correction of informalities ( e.g., typographical errors); or
(F) Simplification of issues for appeal.
(ii) A supplemental reply will be entered if the supplemental reply is filed within the period during which action by the Office is suspended under § 1.103(a) or (c).
*****
Applicants are encouraged to include a complete fully responsive reply in compliance with 37 CFR 1.111(b) to an outstanding Office action in the first reply to prevent the need for supplemental replies. Supplemental replies will not be entered as a matter of right, except when a supplemental reply is filed within a suspended period under 37 CFR 1.103(a) or (c) (e.g., a suspension of action requested by the applicant when filing an RCE). See MPEP § 709 regarding suspension of action. The Office may enter a supplemental reply if the supplemental reply is clearly limited to:
(A) cancellation of a claim;
(B) adoption of the examiner’s suggestions;
(C) placement of the application in condition of allowance;
(D) reply to an Office requirement made after the first reply was filed;
(E) correction of informalities (e.g., typographical errors); or
(F) simplification of issues for appeal.
When a supplemental reply is filed in sufficient time to be entered into the application before the examiner considers the prior reply, the examiner may approve the entry of the supplemental reply if, after a cursory review, the examiner determines that the supplemental reply is limited to one of the situations set forth above. This list is not exhaustive. The examiner has the discretion to approve the entry of a supplemental reply that is not listed above. If a supplemental reply is a non-compliant amendment under 37 CFR 1.121 (see MPEP § 714), the supplemental reply will not be entered. If a supplemental reply is not approved for entry, the examiner should notify the applicant in the subsequent Office action. If applicant wishes to have a not-entered supplemental reply considered, applicant should include the changes in a reply filed in response to the next Office action. Applicant cannot simply request for its entry in the subsequent reply. The submission of a supplemental reply will cause a reduction of any accumulated patent term adjustment under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(8). If the supplemental reply is approved for entry, the examiner should clearly indicate that the subsequent Office action is responsive to the first reply and the supplemental reply.
Examiners may use form paragraph 7.147 to notify applicants that a supplemental reply is not approved for entry.
¶ 7.147 Supplemental Reply Not Approved for Entry
The supplemental reply filed on [1] was not entered because supplemental replies are not entered as a matter of right except as provided in 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2)(ii). [2].
Examiner Note:
1. Use this form paragraph to notify applicant that the supplemental reply filed on or after October 21, 2004 is not approved for entry.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-283
§ 714.03(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
2. Do not use this form paragraph if the supplemental reply has been entered. Use the Office Action Summary (PTOL-326) or the Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), whichever is appropriate, to indicate that the Office action is responsive to the reply filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and the supplemental reply.
3. Do not use this form paragraph if the supplemental reply was filed within the period during which action is suspended by the Office under 37 CFR 1.103(a) or (c). Such supplemental reply must be entered. If the supplemental reply filed during the suspended period is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121, a notice of non-compliant amendment (PTOL-324) should be mailed to the applicant.
4. In bracket 1, provide the date that the Office received the supplemental reply (use the date of receipt under 37 CFR 1.6, not the certificate of mailing date under 37 CFR 1.8).
5. In bracket 2, insert a reason for non-entry as noted in 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2)(i). For example, “The supplemental reply is clearly not limited to placement of the application in condition for allowance.”
If a supplemental reply is received in the Office after the mail date of an Office action, and it is not responsive to that Office action, the Office will not mail a new Office action responsive to that supplemental reply. As a courtesy, applicant may be notified that the supplemental reply is nonresponsive to the mailed Office action and that a responsive reply (under 37 CFR 1.111 or 1.113 as the situation may be) to the mailed Office action must be timely filed to avoid abandonment. Also see MPEP § 714.03 for replies not fully responsive and MPEP § 714.05 when the Office action crosses in the mail with a supplemental reply.
714.04 Claims Presented in Amendment With No Attempt To Point Out Patentable Novelty [R-08.2012]
In the consideration of claims in an amended case where no attempt is made to point out the patentable novelty, the claims should not be allowed. See 37 CFR 1.111 and MPEP § 714.02.
An amendment failing to point out the patentable novelty which the applicant believes the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made may be held to be not fully responsive and a time period set to furnish a proper reply if the statutory period has expired or almost expired (MPEP § 714.03). However, if the claims as amended are clearly open
to rejection on grounds of record, a final rejection should generally be made.
714.05 Examiner Should Immediately Review [R-11.2013]
Actions by applicant, especially those filed near the end of the period for reply, should be reviewed as soon as possible upon becoming available to the examiner to determine whether they are completely responsive to the preceding Office action so as to prevent abandonment of the application. If found inadequate, and sufficient time remains, applicant should be notified of the deficiencies and warned to complete the reply within the period. See MPEP § 714.03.
All amended applications forwarded to the examiner should be reviewed at once to determine the following:
(A) If the amendment is properly signed (MPEP § 714.01(a)).
(B) If the amendment has been filed within the statutory period, set shortened statutory period, or time limit (MPEP § 710 - § 710.05).
(C) If the amendment is fully responsive (MPEP § 714.03 and § 714.04) and complies with 37 CFR 1.121 (MPEP § 714).
(D) If the changes made by the amendment warrant transfer (MPEP § 903.08(d)).
(E) If the application is special (MPEP § 708.01).
(F) If claims suggested to applicant for interference purposes have been copied. (MPEP Chapter 2300).
(G) If there is a traversal of a requirement for restriction MPEP § 818.01(a)).
(H) If applicant has cited references (MPEP § 707.05(b) and § 1302.12).
(I) If a terminal disclaimer has been filed (MPEP § 804.02, § 804.03, and § 1490).
(J) If any matter involving security has been added (MPEP § 115).
700-284Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.04
ACTION CROSSES AMENDMENT
A supplemental action may be necessary when an amendment is filed on or before the mailing date of the regular action but reaches the Technology Center later. The supplemental action should be promptly prepared. It need not reiterate all portions of the previous action that are still applicable but it should specify which portions are to be disregarded, pointing out that the period for reply runs from the mailing of the supplemental action. The action should be headed “Responsive to amendment of (date) and supplemental to the action mailed (date).”
714.06 [Reserved]
714.07 Amendments Not in Permanent Ink [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.52(a) requires “permanent dark ink or its equivalent” to be used on papers which will become part of the record. So-called “Easily Erasable” paper having a special coating so that erasures can be made more easily may not provide a “permanent” copy. However, because application papers are now maintained in an Image File Wrapper, the type of paper is unlikely to be an issue so long as the Office is able to scan and reproduce the papers that were filed.
See MPEP § 608.01 for more discussion on acceptable copies.
714.08 -714.09 [Reserved]
714.10 Claims Added in Excess of Claims Previously Paid For [R-08.2012]
Applicant is required to pay excess claims fees for each claim that is in excess of 3 in independent form or in excess of 20 (whether dependent or independent). Fees for a proper multiple dependent claim are calculated based on the number of claims to which the multiple dependent claim refers (37 CFR 1.75(c)) and a separate fee is also required in each application containing a proper multiple
dependent claim. See MPEP § 607. When applicant adds a new excess claim that is in excess of the number of claims that were previously paid for after taking into account claims that have been canceled, applicant must pay the required excess claims fees before the examiner considers the new claim. For example, in an application that contains 6 independent claims and 30 total claims for which the excess claims fees were previously paid, when applicant cancels 10 claims, 2 of which are independent, and adds 11 claims, 3 of which are
independent, excess claims fees for a 7th
independent claim and a 31st claim are required.
714.11 Amendment Filed During Interference Proceedings [R-08.2012]
See MPEP Chapter 2300.
714.12 Amendments and Other RepliesAfter Final Rejection or Action [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.116 Amendments and affidavits or other evidence after final action and prior to appeal.
(a) An amendment after final action must comply with § 1.114 or this section.
(b) After a final rejection or other final action (§ 1.113) in an application or in an ex parte reexamination filed under § 1.510, or an action closing prosecution (§ 1.949) in an inter partes reexamination filed under § 1.913, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal (§ 41.31 or § 41.61 of this title):
(1) An amendment may be made canceling claims or complying with any requirement of form expressly set forth in a previous Office action;
(2) An amendment presenting rejected claims in better form for consideration on appeal may be admitted; or
(3) An amendment touching the merits of the application or patent under reexamination may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented.
(c) The admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment after a final rejection, a final action, an action closing prosecution, or any related proceedings will not operate to relieve the application or reexamination proceeding from its condition as subject to appeal or to save the application from abandonment under § 1.135, or the reexamination prosecution from termination under § 1.550(d) or § 1.957(b) or limitation of further prosecution under § 1.957(c).
(d)
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, no amendment other than canceling claims, where
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-285
§ 714.12EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
such cancellation does not affect the scope of any other pending claim in the proceeding, can be made in an inter partes reexamination proceeding after the right of appeal notice under § 1.953 except as provided in § 1.981 or as permitted by § 41.77(b)(1) of this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, an amendment made after a final rejection or other final action (§ 1.113) in an ex parte reexamination filed under § 1.510, or an action closing prosecution (§ 1.949) in an inter partes reexamination filed under § 1.913 may not cancel claims where such cancellation affects the scope of any other pending claim in the reexamination proceeding except as provided in § 1.981 or as permitted by § 41.77(b)(1) of this title.
(e) An affidavit or other evidence submitted after a final rejection or other final action (§ 1.113) in an application or in an ex parte reexamination filed under § 1.510, or an action closing prosecution (§ 1.949) in an inter partes reexamination filed under § 1.913 but before or on the same date of filing an appeal (§ 41.31 or § 41.61 of this title), may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented.
(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section, no affidavit or other evidence can be made in an inter partes reexamination proceeding after the right of appeal notice under § 1.953 except as provided in § 1.981 or as permitted by § 41.77(b)(1) of this title.
(g) After decision on appeal, amendments, affidavits and other evidence can only be made as provided in §§ 1.198 and 1.981, or to carry into effect a recommendation under § 41.50(c) of this title.
Once a final rejection that is not premature has been entered in an application, applicant or patent owner no longer has any right to unrestricted further prosecution. This does not mean that no further amendment or argument will be considered. Any amendment that will place the application either in condition for allowance or in better form for appeal may be entered. Also, amendments filed after a final rejection, but before or on the date of filing an appeal, complying with objections or requirements as to form are to be permitted after final action in accordance with 37 CFR 1.116(b). Amendments filed after the date of filing an appeal may be entered if the amendment complies with 37 CFR 41.33. See MPEP § 1206. Ordinarily, amendments filed after the final action are not entered unless approved by the examiner. See MPEP § 706.07(f), § 714.13 and § 1206.
An affidavit or other evidence filed after a final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, may be entered upon a showing of good and
sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e). See 37 CFR 41.33 and MPEP § 1206 for information on affidavit or other evidence filed after appeal.
The prosecution of an application before the examiner should ordinarily be concluded with the final action. However, one personal interview by applicant may be entertained after such final action if circumstances warrant. Thus, only one request by applicant for a personal interview after final should be granted, but in exceptional circumstances, a second personal interview may be initiated by the examiner if in his or her judgment this would
materially assist in placing the application in condition for allowance.
Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept.
714.13 Amendments and Other RepliesAfter Final Rejection or Action, Procedure Followed [R-07.2015]
I. FINAL REJECTION — TIME FOR REPLY
If an applicant initially replies within 2 months from the date of mailing of any final rejection setting a 3-month shortened statutory period for reply and the Office does not mail an advisory action until after the end of the 3-month shortened statutory period, the period for reply for purposes of determining the amount of any extension fee will be the date on which the Office mails the advisory action advising applicant of the status of the application, but in no event can the period extend beyond 6 months from the date of the final rejection. This procedure applies only to a first reply to a final rejection. The following language must be included by the examiner in each final rejection:
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET
700-286Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.13
TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST REPLY IS FILED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION AND THE ADVISORY ACTION IS NOT MAILED UNTIL AFTER THE END OF THE THREE-MONTH SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD, THEN THE SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD WILL EXPIRE ON THE DATE THE ADVISORY ACTION IS MAILED, AND ANY EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 CFR 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION.
This wording is part of form paragraphs 7.39, 7.40, 7.40.01, 7.40.02, 7.41, 7.41.03.fti, 7.42.03, and 7.42.09. Form paragraph 7.39 appears in MPEP § 706.07. Form paragraphs 7.40, 7.40.01 and 7.40.02 appear in MPEP § 706.07(a). Form paragraphs 7.41, 7.41.03.fti, and 7.42.09 appear in MPEP § 706.07(b). Form paragraph 7.42.03 appears in MPEP § 706.07(g).
For example, if applicant initially replies within 2 months from the date of mailing of a final rejection and the examiner mails an advisory action before the end of 3 months from the date of mailing of the final rejection, the shortened statutory period will expire at the end of 3 months from the date of mailing of the final rejection. In such a case, any extension fee would then be calculated from the end of the 3-month period. If the examiner, however, does not mail an advisory action until after the end of 3 months, the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the examiner mails the advisory action and any extension fee may be calculated from that date. In the event that a first reply is not filed within 2 months of the mailing date of the final rejection, any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the end of the reply period set in the final rejection.
Failure to file a reply during the shortened statutory period results in abandonment of the application
unless the time is extended under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136.
II. ENTRY NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT
It should be kept in mind that applicant cannot, as a matter of right, amend any finally rejected claims, add new claims after a final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.116) or reinstate previously canceled claims.
Except where an amendment merely cancels claims, adopts examiner suggestions, removes issues for appeal, or in some other way requires only a cursory review by the examiner, compliance with the requirement of a showing under 37 CFR 1.116(b)(3) is expected in all amendments after final rejection. An affidavit or other evidence filed after a final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, may be entered upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e). See 37 CFR 41.33 and MPEP § 1206 for information on affidavit or other evidence filed after appeal. Failure to properly reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to the final rejection results in abandonment. A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 is limited to:
(A) an amendment complying with 37 CFR 1.116;
(B) a Notice of Appeal (and appeal fee); or
(C) a request for continued examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR 1.114 with a submission (i.e., an amendment that meets the reply requirement of 37 CFR 1.111) and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e). RCE practice under 37 CFR 1.114 does not apply to utility or plant patent applications filed before June 8, 1995 and design applications.
Further examination of the application may be obtained by filing a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d), if the application is a design application. See MPEP § 201.06(d). Effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice does not apply to utility and plant applications.
An amendment filed at any time after final rejection, but before an appeal brief is filed, may be entered upon or after filing of an appeal brief provided the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-287
§ 714.13EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
total effect of the amendment is to (A) remove issues for appeal, and/or (B) adopt examiner suggestions.
See also MPEP § 1206 and § 1211.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not recognize “conditional” authorizations to charge an appeal fee if an amendment submitted after a final Office action is not entered. Any “conditional” authorization to charge an appeal fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(b) will be treated as an unconditional payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(b).
III. ACTION BY EXAMINER
See also MPEP § 706.07(f).
In the event that a proposed amendment does not place the case in better form for appeal, nor in condition for allowance, applicant should be promptly informed of this fact, whenever possible, within the statutory period. The refusal to enter the proposed amendment should not be arbitrary. The proposed amendment should be given sufficient consideration to determine whether the claims are in condition for allowance and/or whether the issues on appeal are simplified. Ordinarily, the specific deficiencies of the amendment need not be discussed. However, if the proposed amendment raises the issue of new matter, the examiner should identify the subject matter that would constitute new matter. If the proposed amendment presents new issues requiring further consideration and/or search, the examiner should provide an explanation as to the reasons why the proposed amendment raises new issues that would require further consideration and/or search. The reasons for nonentry should be concisely expressed. For example:
(A) The claims, if amended as proposed, would not avoid any of the rejections set forth in the last Office action, and thus the amendment would not place the case in condition for allowance or in better condition for appeal.
(B) The claims, if amended as proposed, would raise the issue of new matter.
(C) The claims as amended present new issues requiring further consideration or search.
(D) Since the amendment presents additional claims without canceling any finally rejected claims it is not considered as placing the application in better condition for appeal. Ex parte Wirt, 1905 C.D. 247, 117 OG 599 (Comm’r Pat. 1905).
Examiners should indicate the status of each claim of record or proposed in the amendment, and which proposed claims would be entered on the filing of an appeal if filed in a separate paper. Whenever such an amendment is entered for appeal purposes, the examiner must indicate on the advisory action which individual rejection(s) set forth in the action from which the appeal was taken (e.g., the final rejection) would be used to reject the new or amended claim(s).
Applicant should be notified, if certain portions of the amendment would be acceptable as placing some of the claims in better form for appeal or complying with objections or requirements as to form, if a separate paper were filed containing only such amendments. Similarly, if the proposed amendment to some of the claims would render them allowable, applicant should be so informed. This is helpful in assuring the filing of a brief consistent with the claims as amended. A statement that the final rejection stands and that the statutory period runs from the date of the final rejection is also in order.
Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief form PTOL-303 should be used to acknowledge receipt of a reply from applicant after final rejection where such reply is prior to filing of an appeal brief and does not place the application in condition for allowance. This form has been devised to advise applicant of the disposition of the proposed amendments to the claims and of the effect of any argument or affidavit not placing the application in condition for allowance or which could not be made allowable by a telephone call to clear up minor matters.
Any amendment timely filed after a final rejection should be immediately considered to determine whether it places the application in condition for allowance or in better form for appeal. An examiner is expected to turn in a response to an amendment after final rejection within an average of 11 calendar days from the time the amendment is received by the examiner. A reply to an amendment after final rejection should be mailed within 30 days of the date
700-288Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.13
the amendment is received by the Office. In all instances, both before and after final rejection, in which an application is placed in condition for allowance, applicant should be notified promptly of the allowability of the claims by a Notice of Allowability form PTOL-37. If delays in processing the Notice of Allowability are expected, e.g., because an extensive examiner’s amendment must be entered, and the end of a statutory period for reply is near, the examiner should notify applicant by way of an interview that the application has been placed in condition for allowance, and an Examiner Initiated Interview Summary PTOL-413B should be mailed. Prompt notice to applicant is important because it may avoid an unnecessary appeal and act as a safeguard against a holding of abandonment. Every effort should be made to mail the letter before the period for reply expires.
If no appeal has been filed within the period for reply and no amendment has been submitted to make the application allowable or which can be entered in part (see MPEP § 714.20), the application stands abandoned.
It should be noted that under 37 CFR 1.181(f), the filing of a 37 CFR 1.181 petition will not stay the period for reply to an examiner’s action which may be running against an application. See MPEP § 1206 for appeal and post-appeal procedure. For after final rejection practice relative to affidavits or declarations filed under 37 CFR 1.131(a) and 1.132, see MPEP § 715.09 and § 716.
Form paragraph 7.169 may be used to notify applicant in the Advisory Action that the proposed amendment(s) will be entered upon appeal and how the new or amended claim(s) would be rejected.
¶ 7.169 Advisory Action, Proposed Rejection of Claims, Before Appeal Brief
For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s) will be entered and the proposed rejection(s) detailed below will be included in the Examiner’s Answer. To be complete, such rejection(s) must be addressed in any brief on appeal.
Upon entry of the amendment(s) for purposes of appeal:
Claim(s) [1] would be rejected for the reasons set forth in [2] of the final Office action mailed [3].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify all the new or amended claim(s) that would be grouped together in a single rejection.
2. In bracket 2, identify the rejection by referring to either the paragraph number or the statement of the rejection (e.g., the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based upon A in view of B) in the final Office action under which the claims would be rejected on appeal.
3. Repeat this form paragraph for each group of claims subject to the same rejection(s).
4. Use this form paragraph if item 7 of the Advisory Action form, PTOL-303 (Rev. 9-04 or later) has been checked to indicate that the proposed amendment(s) will be entered upon appeal.
IV. HAND DELIVERY OF PAPERS
Hand carried papers for the Technology Centers (TCs) may only be delivered to the Customer Window which is located at:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314
Effective December 1, 2003, all official patent application related correspondence for organizations reporting to the Commissioner of Patents (e.g., TCs, the Office of Data Management, and the Office of Petitions) that is hand-carried (or delivered by other delivery services, e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.) must be delivered to the Customer Window, with a few limited exceptions. See MPEP § 502. Hand-carried amendments and other replies after final rejection (37 CFR 1.116) will no longer be accepted in the TCs. Any courier who attempts delivery of such after final correspondence at a TC (or where it is no longer permitted) will be re-directed to the Customer Window. Patent application related compact disks (CDs) and other non-paper submissions that are hand-carried must be delivered to the Customer Window.
V. EXPEDITED PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING AMENDMENTS AND OTHER REPLIES AFTER FINAL REJECTION (37 CFR 1.116)
In an effort to improve the timeliness of the processing of amendments and other replies under 37 CFR 1.116, and thereby provide better service to
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-289
§ 714.13EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
the public, an expedited processing procedure has been established which the public may utilize in filing amendments and other replies after final rejection under 37 CFR 1.116.
Amendments and other replies under 37 CFR 1.116 filed via EFS-Web are processed promptly provided the submitter describes the document as an amendment after final rejection. Based on the document description selected by the user, a document code is assigned and a message regarding the document submitted to the USPTO will be forwarded to the appropriate organization for processing, and to the appropriate official for consideration. Accurate document indexing is important to facilitate efficient processing and proper consideration of the document by the USPTO.
In order for an applicant to take advantage of the expedited procedure, an amendment or other reply under 37 CFR 1.116 filed in paper format must be marked as a “Reply under 37 CFR 1.116 — Expedited Procedure - Technology Center (Insert Technology Center Number)” on the upper right portion of the amendment or other reply and the envelope must be clearly marked “Mail Stop AF” in the lower left hand corner. If the reply is mailed to the Office, the envelope should contain only replies under 37 CFR 1.116 and should be mailed to “Mail Stop AF, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia, 22313-1450.” Instead of mailing the envelope to “Mail Stop AF” as noted above, the reply may be hand-carried to the Customer Window located at the above address. The outside of the envelope should be marked “Reply Under 37 CFR 1.116 - Expedited Procedure - Technology Center (Insert Technology Center Number).”
Upon receipt by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from the U.S. Postal Service of an envelope appropriately marked “Mail Stop AF,” the envelope will be specially processed by the Mail Center and forwarded to the Technology Center after being uploaded as a scanned image into the file wrapper. Upon receipt of the reply in the TC it will be promptly processed by a designated technical support staff member and forwarded to the examiner, via the supervisory patent examiner (SPE), for action. The SPE is responsible for ensuring that prompt action
on the reply is taken by the examiner. If the examiner to which the application is assigned is not available and will not be available for an extended period, the SPE will ensure that action on the application is promptly taken to assure meeting the USPTO goal described below. Once the examiner has completed his or her consideration of the reply, the examiner’s action will be promptly typed and printed, and mailed by technical support staff or other Office personnel designated to expedite the processing of replies filed under this procedure. The TC supervisory personnel, e.g., the supervisory patent examiner, supervisory applications examiner, and TC Director are responsible for ensuring that actions on replies filed under this procedure are promptly processed and mailed. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office goal is to mail the examiner’s action on the reply within 1 month from the date on which the amendment or reply is received by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Applicants are encouraged to utilize this expedited procedure in order to facilitate U.S. Patent and Trademark Office processing of replies under 37 CFR 1.116. If applicants do not utilize the procedure by appropriately marking the envelope and enclosed papers, the benefits expected to be achieved therefrom will not be attained. The procedure cannot be expected to result in achievement of the goal in applications in which the delay results from actions by the applicant, e.g., delayed interviews, applicant’s desire to file a further reply, or a petition by applicant which requires a decision and delays action on the reply. In any application in which a reply under this procedure has been filed and no action by the examiner has been received within the time referred to herein, plus normal mailing time, a telephone call to the SPE of the relevant TC art unit would be appropriate in order to permit the SPE to determine the cause for any delay. If the SPE is unavailable or if no satisfactory reply is received, the TC Director should be contacted.
714.14 Amendments After Allowance of All Claims [R-08.2012]
Under the decision in Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 1935 C.D. 11; 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935), after all claims in an application have been allowed the prosecution of the application on the merits is
700-290Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.14
closed even though there may be outstanding formal objections which preclude fully closing the prosecution.
Amendments touching the merits are treated in a manner similar to amendments after final rejection, though the prosecution may be continued as to the formal matters. See MPEP § 714.12 and § 714.13.
See MPEP § 714.20 for amendments entered in part.
See MPEP § 607 for additional fee requirements.
See MPEP § 714 for non-compliant amendments.
Use form paragraph 7.51 to issue an Ex parte Quayle action.
¶ 7.51 Quayle Action
This application is in condition for allowance except for the following formal matters: [1].
Prosecution on the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
Examiner Note:
Explain the formal matters which must be corrected in bracket 1.
714.15 Amendment Received in Technology Center After Mailing of Notice of Allowance [R-08.2012]
Where an amendment, even though prepared by applicant prior to allowance, does not reach the Office until after the notice of allowance has been mailed, such amendment has the status of one filed under 37 CFR 1.312. Its entry is a matter of grace. For discussion of amendments filed under 37 CFR 1.312, see MPEP § 714.16 to § 714.16(e).
If the amendment is filed in the Office prior to the mailing of the notice of allowance, but is received by the examiner after the mailing of the notice of allowance, it may also not be approved for entry. If the amendment is a supplemental reply filed when
action is not suspended, such an amendment will not be approved for entry because supplemental replies are not entered as matter of right. See 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2) and MPEP § 714.03(a). If the amendment is a preliminary amendment, such an amendment may be disapproved under 37 CFR 1.115(b). See MPEP § 714.01(e). If the amendment is approved for entry, the examiner may enter the amendment and provide a supplemental notice of allowance, or withdraw the application from issue and provide an Office action.
The application will not be withdrawn from issue for the entry of an amendment that would reopen the prosecution if the Office action next preceding the notice of allowance closed the application to further amendment, i.e., by indicating the patentability of all of the claims, or by allowing some and finally rejecting the remainder.
After an applicant has been notified that the claims are all allowable, further prosecution of the merits of the application is a matter of grace and not of right. Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935).
714.16 Amendment After Notice of Allowance, 37 CFR 1.312 [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.312 Amendments after allowance.
No amendment may be made as a matter of right in an application after the mailing of the notice of allowance. Any amendment filed pursuant to this section must be filed before or with the payment of the issue fee, and may be entered on the recommendation of the primary examiner, approved by the Director, without withdrawing the application from issue.
The amendment of an application by applicant after allowance falls within the guidelines of 37 CFR 1.312. Further, the amendment of an application broadly encompasses any change in the file record of the application. Accordingly, the following are examples of “amendments” by applicant after allowance which must comply with 37 CFR 1.312:
(A) an amendment to the specification,
(B) a change in the drawings,
(C) an amendment to the claims,
(D) a change in the inventorship,
(E) the submission of prior art,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-291
§ 714.16EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(F) a request to correct the spelling of an inventor’s name (37 CFR 1.48(f)),
(G) a request to change the order of the names of the inventors (37 CFR 1.48(f)), etc.
Finally, it is pointed out that an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 must be filed on or before the date the issue fee is paid, except where the amendment is required by the Office of Data Management, see MPEP § 714.16(d), subsection III. An amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 must comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121. If the amendment is non-compliant under 37 CFR 1.121 and the entry of the amendment would have been otherwise recommended, the examiner may enter the amendment and correct the non-compliance (e.g., an incorrect status identifier) using an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 714.
The Director has delegated the approval of recommendations under 37 CFR 1.312 to the supervisory patent examiners.
With the exception of a supplemental oath or declaration submitted in a reissue, a supplemental oath or declaration is not treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312. See MPEP § 603.01. A supplemental reissue oath or declaration is treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 because the correction of the patent which it provides is an amendment of the patent, even though no amendment is physically entered into the specification or claim(s). Thus, for a reissue oath or declaration submitted after allowance to be entered, the reissue applicant must comply with 37 CFR 1.312 in the manner set forth in this section.
After the Notice of Allowance has been mailed, the application is technically no longer under the jurisdiction of the primary examiner. He or she can, however, make examiner’s amendments (see MPEP § 1302.04) and has authority to enter amendments submitted after Notice of Allowance of an application which embody merely the correction of formal matters in the specification or drawing, or formal matters in a claim without changing the scope thereof, or the cancellation of claims from the application, without forwarding to the supervisory patent examiner for approval.
Amendments other than those which merely embody the correction of formal matters without changing the scope of the claims require approval by the supervisory patent examiner. The Technology Center (TC) Director establishes TC policy with respect to the treatment of amendments directed to trivial informalities which seldom affect significantly the vital formal requirements of any patent, namely, (A) that its disclosure be adequately clear, and (B) that any invention present be defined with sufficient clarity to form an adequate basis for an enforceable contract.
Consideration of an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 cannot be demanded as a matter of right. Prosecution of an application should be conducted before, and thus be complete including editorial revision of the specification and claims at the time of the Notice of Allowance. However, where amendments of the type noted are shown (A) to be needed for proper disclosure or protection of the invention, and (B) to require no substantial amount of additional work on the part of the Office, they may be considered and, if proper, entry may be recommended by the primary examiner.
The requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(c) (MPEP § 714.02) with respect to pointing out the patentable novelty of any claim sought to be added or amended, apply in the case of an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312, as in ordinary amendments. See MPEP §§ 713.04 and 713.10 regarding interviews. As to amendments affecting the disclosure, the scope of any claim, or that add a claim, the remarks accompanying the amendment must fully and clearly state the reasons on which reliance is placed to show:
(A) why the amendment is needed;
(B) why the proposed amended or new claims require no additional search or examination;
(C) why the claims are patentable; and
(D) why they were not presented earlier.
I. NOT TO BE USED FOR CONTINUED PROSECUTION
37 CFR 1.312 was never intended to provide a way for the continued prosecution of an application after it has been passed for issue. When the recommendation is against entry, a detailed statement
700-292Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.16
of reasons is not necessary in support of such recommendation. The simple statement that the proposed claim is not obviously allowable and briefly the reason why is usually adequate. Where appropriate, any one of the following reasons is considered sufficient:
(A) an additional search is required;
(B) more than a cursory review of the record is necessary; or
(C) the amendment would involve materially added work on the part of the Office, e.g., checking excessive editorial changes in the specification or claims.
Where claims added by amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 are all of the form of dependent claims, some of the usual reasons for nonentry are less likely to apply although questions of new matter, sufficiency of disclosure, or undue multiplicity of claims could arise.
See MPEP §§ 607 and 714.16(c) for additional fee requirements.
II. AMENDMENTS FILED AFTER PAYMENT OF ISSUE FEE
No amendments should be filed after the date the issue fee has been paid.
¶ 13.10 Amendment Filed After the Payment of Issue Fee, Not Entered
Applicant’s amendment filed on [1] will not be entered because the amendment was filed after the issue fee was paid. 37 CFR 1.312 no longer permits filing an amendment after the date the issue fee has been paid.
Examiner Note:
1. Use this paragraph with form PTOL-90 or PTO-90C.
2. In bracket 1, insert the date of the amendment.
714.16(a) Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312, Copied Patent Claims [R-08.2012]
See MPEP Chapter 2300 for the procedure to be followed when an amendment is received after notice of allowance which includes one or more claims copied or substantially copied from a patent.
The entry of the copied patent claims is not a matter of right. See MPEP § 714.19.
See MPEP § 607 and § 714.16(c) for additional fee requirements.
714.16(b) Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312 Filed With a Motion Under 37 CFR 41.208 [R-08.2012]
Where an amendment filed with a motion under 37 CFR 41.208(c)(2) applies to an application in issue, the amendment is not entered unless and until the motion has been granted.
714.16(c) Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312, Additional Claims [R-08.2012]
If the amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 adds claims (total and independent) in excess of the number previously paid for, additional fees are required. The amendment is not considered by the examiner unless accompanied by the full fee required. See MPEP § 607 and 35 U.S.C. 41.
714.16(d) Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312, Handling [R-07.2015]
I. AMENDMENTS AFFECTING THE DISCLOSURE OF THE SPECIFICATION,ADDING CLAIMS, OR CHANGING THE SCOPE OF ANY CLAIM
Amendments under 37 CFR 1.312 are sent to the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) to be scanned and uploaded into the IFW. Thereafter OPAP messages the Office of Data Management, which reviews the message and forwards the message to the Technology Center (TC) which allowed the application. Once the TC completes the action, the TC will message the Office of Data Management that issue processing can resume. If an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 has been filed directly with the TC, the paper will be forwarded to OPAP for scanning.
Hand delivered amendments under 37 CFR 1.312 are no longer accepted in the TC. Hand delivered amendments (unless specifically required by the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-293
§ 714.16(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Office of Data Management, see subsection III. below) may only be delivered to the Customer Window located at:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314
In the event that the class and subclass in which the application is classified has been transferred to another TC after the application was allowed, the proposed amendment, file and drawing (if any) are transmitted directly to said other TC and the Publishing Division notified. If the examiner who allowed the application is still employed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office but not in said other TC, he or she may be consulted about the propriety of the proposed amendment and given credit for any time spent in giving it consideration.
The amendment is PROMPTLY considered by the examiner who indicates whether or not its entry is recommended by using the typewriter tool in Adobe Acrobat to annotate the amendment with “Enter — 312,” “Do Not Enter” or “Enter In Part” in the upper left corner.
In addition, the amendment must comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 714.
If the amendment is favorably considered, it is entered and a Response to Rule 312 Communication (PTO-271) is prepared. The primary examiner indicates his or her recommendation by stamping and signing his or her name on the PTO-271. Form paragraph 7.85 may also be used to indicate entry.
¶ 7.85 Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.312 Entered
The amendment filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.312 has been entered.
Examiner Note:
Use this form paragraph both for amendments under 37 CFR 1.312 that do not affect the scope of the claims (may be signed by primary examiner) and for amendments being entered under 37 CFR 1.312 which do affect the scope of the claims (requires signature of supervisory patent examiner). See MPEP § 714.16.
If the examiner’s recommendation is completely adverse, a Response to Rule 312 Communication form PTO-271 is prepared and signed by the primary examiner.
Form paragraph 7.87 may also be used to indicate nonentry.
¶ 7.87 Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.312 Not Entered
The proposed amendment filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 has not been entered. [2]
Examiner Note:
The reasons for non-entry should be specified in bracket 2, for example:
--The amendment changes the scope of the claims.--
In either case, whether the amendment is entered or not entered, the file, drawing, and unmailed notices are forwarded to the supervisory patent examiner for consideration, approval, and mailing.
For entry-in-part, see MPEP § 714.16(e).
The filling out of the appropriate form by the technical support staff does not signify that the amendment will be entered; although the amendment paper is placed in the application file, it is not officially entered unless and until approved by the supervisory patent examiner.
See MPEP §§ 607 and 714.16(c) for additional fee requirements.
II. AMENDMENTS WHICH EMBODY MERELY THE CORRECTION OF FORMAL MATTERS IN THE SPECIFICATION, FORMAL CHANGES IN A CLAIM WITHOUT CHANGING THE SCOPE THEREOF, ORTHE CANCELLATION OF CLAIMS
The examiner indicates approval of amendments concerning merely formal matters by writing “Enter” thereon with the stamper tool in Adobe Acrobat. Such amendments do not require submission to the supervisory patent examiner prior to entry. See MPEP § 714.16. The Response to Rule 312 Communication form PTO-271 is date stamped and mailed by the TC. If such amendments are disapproved either in whole or in part, they require the signature of the supervisory patent examiner.
700-294Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.16(d)
III. AMENDMENTS REQUIRED BY THE OFFICE OF DATA MANAGEMENT
In preparation of a patent for issuance as a patent grant, if the Office of Data Management discovers an error in the text, or drawings of a patent application, including any missing text, or an inconsistency between the drawings and the application papers, the Office of Data Management may require an appropriate amendment to the specification or drawings. 37 CFR 1.312, however, does not permit an amendment after the payment of the issue fee without withdrawal of the application from issue. In order to be able to accept such an amendment as may be required without having to withdraw an application from issue, the Office of Data Management has been delegated the authority to waive the requirement of 37 CFR 1.312 and accept an amendment filed after the payment of the issue fee. Furthermore, these amendments required by the Office of Data Management may be hand delivered to the Office of Data Management located at:
Office of Data Management Randolph Square Building 9th Floor 2800 South Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22206
714.16(e) Amendments Under 37 CFR 1.312, Entry in Part [R-11.2013]
The general rule that an amendment cannot be entered in part and refused in part should not be relaxed, but when, under 37 CFR 1.312, an amendment, for example, is proposed containing a plurality of claims or amendments to claims, some of which may be entered and some not, the acceptable claims or amendments should be entered in the application. If necessary, the claims should be renumbered to run consecutively with the claims already in the case. The examiner should annotate the amendments by using the Strike-Out Line tool to cross out any refused claims or amendments.
The examiner should then submit a Response to Rule 312 Communication form PTO-271 recommending the entry of the acceptable portion of the amendment and the nonentry of the remaining portion together with his or her reasons therefor. The claims entered should be indicated by number in this response.
Applicant may also be notified by using form paragraph 7.86.
¶ 7.86 Amendment Under 37 CFR 1. 312 Entered in Part
The amendment filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.312 has been entered-in-part. [2]
Examiner Note:
When an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 is proposed containing plural changes, some of which may be acceptable and some not, the acceptable changes should be entered.An indication of which changes have and have not been entered with appropriate explanation should follow in bracket 2.
Handling is similar to complete entry of a 37 CFR 1.312 amendment.
Entry in part is not recommended unless the full additional fee required, if any, accompanies the amendment. See MPEP § 607 and § 714.16(c).
714.17 Amendment Filed After the Period for Reply Has Expired [R-08.2012]
When an application is not prosecuted within the period set for reply and thereafter an amendment is filed without a petition for extension of time and fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a), such amendment shall be placed in the file of the application, but not formally entered. The technical support staff shall immediately notify the applicant, by telephone and letter, that the amendment was not filed within the time period and therefore cannot be entered and that the application is abandoned unless a petition for extension of time and the appropriate fee are timely filed. See MPEP § 711.02.
See MPEP § 710.02(e) for a discussion of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
714.18 Entry of Amendments [R-11.2013]
All amendments received in the technical support staff sections are processed and distributed to the examiners.
Every mail delivery should be carefully screened so that all amendments replying to a final action in which a time period is running against the applicant
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-295
§ 714.18EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
are promptly processed (e.g., within the next 24 hours).
The purpose of this procedure is to ensure uniform and prompt treatment by the examiners of all applications where the applicant is awaiting a reply to a proposed amendment after final action. In cases of this type, the applicant should receive an Office communication in sufficient time to adequately consider his or her next action if the application is not allowed. Consequently, technical support staff handling will continue to be special when these applications are returned by the examiners to the technical support staff.
Evaluation of the amendment after final rejection for compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 should be left to the examiner, and not treated by the technical support staff before forwarding the amendment to the examiner. If the examiner determines that the proposed amendment is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121, the examiner should notify applicant of this fact and attach a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment to the advisory action. See MPEP § 714.
Amendments are entered as papers into the IFW. When several amendments are made in an application on the same day no particular order as to the hour of the receipt or the mailing of the amendments can be assumed, but consideration of the application must be given as far as possible as though all the papers filed were a composite single paper.
After entry of the amendment the application is “up for action.” It is forwarded to the examiner, and he or she is responsible for its proper disposal. The examiner should immediately inspect the amendment as set forth in MPEP § 714.05. After inspection, if no immediate or special action is required, the application awaits examination in regular order.
See MPEP § 714 for the treatment of amendments that are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121.
714.19 List of Amendments, Entry Denied [R-11.2013]
The following types of amendments are ordinarily denied entry:
(A) An amendment presenting an unpatentable claim, or a claim requiring a new search or otherwise raising a new issue in an application whose prosecution before the primary examiner has been closed, as where
(1) All claims have been allowed,
(2) All claims have been finally rejected (for exceptions see MPEP § 714.12, § 714.13, and § 714.20, item (D)),
(3) Some claims have been allowed and the remainder finally rejected. See MPEP § 714.12 to § 714.14.
(B) Substitute specification that does not comply with 37 CFR 1.125. See MPEP § 608.01(q) and § 714.20.
(C) A patent claim suggested by the examiner and not presented within the time limit set or an extension thereof, unless entry is authorized by the Director. See MPEP Chapter 2300.
(D) While copied patent claims are generally admitted even though the application is under final rejection or on appeal, under certain conditions, the claims may be refused entry. See MPEP Chapter 2300.
(E) An unsigned or improperly signed amendment or one signed by a suspended or excluded attorney or agent.
(F) An amendment filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after the expiration of the statutory period or set time period for reply and any extension thereof. See MPEP § 714.17.
(G) An amendment so worded that it cannot be entered with certain accuracy. See MPEP § 714, subsection II.G.
(H) An amendment canceling all of the claims and presenting no substitute claim or claims. See 37 CFR 1.115(b)(1), MPEP § 711.01 and § 714.01(e).
700-296Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.19
(I) An amendment after a notice of allowance has been mailed in an application, with certain limited exceptions. See MPEP § 714.16.
(J) Amendments to the drawing held by the examiner to contain new matter are not entered until the question of new matter is settled. This practice of nonentry because of alleged new matter, however, does not apply in the case of amendments to the specification and claims. See MPEP § 608.04 and § 706.03(o).
(K) An amendatory paper containing objectionable remarks that, in the opinion of the examiner, brings it within the condemnation of 37 CFR 1.3, will be submitted to the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. See MPEP § 714.25 and MPEP § 1002.02(b). If the Deputy Commissioner determines that the remarks are in violation of 37 CFR 1.3, he or she will notify the applicant of the non-entry of the paper.
(L) Amendments that cannot be scanned or clearly reproduced. See MPEP § 714.07.
(M) An amendment presenting claims (total and independent) in excess of the number previously paid for and not accompanied by the full fee for the claims or an authorization to charge the fee to a deposit account or credit card. See MPEP § 509 and § 607.
(N) An amendment canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to the nonelected invention should not be entered. Such an amendment is nonresponsive. Applicant should be notified as directed in MPEP § 714.03 and § 714.05. See MPEP § 821.03.
(O) An amendment including changes to the specification/claims which is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121, e.g., one which does not include replacement paragraphs or claim listings. See MPEP § 714.
(P) A preliminary amendment that unduly interferes with the preparation of a first Office action. Factors to be considered in denying entry of the preliminary amendment are set forth in 37 CFR 1.115(b). See MPEP § 714.01(e).
(Q) A supplemental reply is not entered as a matter of right unless it is filed during a suspension period under 37 CFR 1.103(a) or (c). See 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2) and MPEP § 714.03(a).
While amendments falling within any of the foregoing categories should not be entered by the examiner at the time of filing, a subsequent showing by applicant may lead to entry of the amendment.
714.20 List of Amendments Entered in Part [R-11.2013]
To avoid confusion of the record the general rule prevails that an amendment should not be entered in part. At times, the strict observance of its letter may sometimes work more harm than would result from its infraction, especially if the amendment in question is received at or near the end of the period for reply. Thus:
(A) An “amendment” presenting an unacceptable substitute specification along with amendatory matter, as amendments to claims or new claims, should be entered in part, rather than refused entry in toto. The substitute specification should be denied entry and so marked, while the rest of the paper should be entered. The application as thus amended is acted on when reached in its turn, the applicant being advised that the substitute specification has not been entered.
See 37 CFR 1.125 and MPEP § 608.01(q) for information regarding the submission of a substitute specification.
Under current practice, substitute specifications may be voluntarily filed by the applicant if he or she desires. A proper substitute specification will normally be accepted by the Office even if it has not been required by the examiner. However, entry of a substitute specification filed after the notice of allowance has been mailed (37 CFR 1.312) is not a matter of right.
(B) An amendment under 37 CFR 1.312, which in part is approved and in other part disapproved, is entered only as to the approved part. See MPEP § 714.16(e).
(C) In an application in which prosecution on the merits is closed, i.e., after the issuance of an Ex Parte Quayle action, where an amendment is presented curing the noted formal defect and adding one or more claims some or all of which are in the opinion of the examiner not patentable, or will require a further search, the amendment in such a case will be entered only as to the formal matter.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-297
§ 714.20EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Applicant has no right to have new claims considered or entered at this point in the prosecution.
(D) In an amendment accompanying a motion granted only in part, the amendment is entered only to the extent that the motion was granted.
NOTE. The examiner writes “Enter” with the Stamper tool in Adobe Acrobat in the left margin opposite the enterable portions.
714.21 Amendments Inadvertently Entered, No Legal Effect [R-11.2013]
If the technical support staff inadvertently enters an amendment when it should not have been entered, such entry is of no legal effect, and the same action is taken as if the changes had not been actually made, inasmuch as they have not been legally made. Unless such unauthorized entry is deleted, suitable notation should be made on the margin of the amendatory paper, as “Not Officially Entered” with the typewriter tool in Adobe Acrobat.
If an amendatory paper is to be retained in the file, even though not entered, it should be given a paper number and listed on the file wrapper with the notation “Not Entered.” See 37 CFR 1.3 and MPEP § 714.25 for an example of a paper which may be denied entry.
714.22 -714.24 [Reserved]
714.25 Discourtesy of Applicant or Attorney [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.3 Business to be conducted with decorum and courtesy.
Applicants and their attorneys or agents are required to conduct their business with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with decorum and courtesy. Papers presented in violation of this requirement will be submitted to the Director and will not be entered. A notice of the non-entry of the paper will be provided. Complaints against examiners and other employees must be made in correspondence separate from other papers.
All papers received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should be briefly reviewed to determine whether any discourteous remarks appear therein.
If the attorney or agent is discourteous in the remarks or arguments in his or her amendment or other paper submitted for entry in an application file, either the discourtesy should be entirely ignored or the paper should be submitted to the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy for review. See MPEP § 1002.02(b). If the Deputy Commissioner determines that the remarks are in violation of 37 CFR 1.3, the Deputy Commissioner will send a notice of non-entry of the paper to the applicant. At its discretion, the Office may also close the non-entered paper in the IFW of the application or remove the paper from the IFW.
715 Swearing Behind a Reference — Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section and the provisions of 37 CFR 1.131(a) are not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
37 CFR 1.131 Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art.
(a) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected claim, the owner of the patent under reexamination, or the party qualified under § 1.42 or § 1.46, may submit an appropriate oath or declaration to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based. The effective date of a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or international application publication under PCT Article 21(2) is the earlier of its publication date or the date that it is effective as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as in effect on March 15, 2013. Prior invention may not be established under this section in any country other than the United States, a NAFTA country, or a WTO member country. Prior invention may not be established under this section before December 8, 1993, in a NAFTA country other than the United States, or before January 1, 1996, in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA country. Prior invention may not be established under this section if either:
700-298Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 714.21
(1) The rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication of a pending or patented application naming another inventor which claims interfering subject matter as defined in § 41.203(a) of this chapter, in which case an applicant may suggest an interference pursuant to § 41.202(a) of this chapter; or
(2) The rejection is based upon a statutory bar.
(b) The showing of facts for an oath or declaration under paragraph (a) of this section shall be such, in character and weight, as to establish reduction to practice prior to the effective date of the reference, or conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from prior to said date to a subsequent reduction to practice or to the filing of the application. Original exhibits of drawings or records, or photocopies thereof, must accompany and form part of the affidavit or declaration or their absence must be satisfactorily explained.
(c) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as in effect on March 15, 2013, on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication which is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as in effect on March 15, 2013, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent or published application are not identical but are not patentably distinct, and the inventions are owned by the same party, the applicant or owner of the patent under reexamination may disqualify the patent or patent application publication as prior art. The patent or patent application publication can be disqualified as prior art by submission of:
(1) A terminal disclaimer in accordance with § 1.321(c); and
(2) An oath or declaration stating that the application or patent under reexamination and patent or published application are currently owned by the same party, and that the inventor named in the application or patent under reexamination is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013.
(d) The provisions of this section apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains, or contained at any time:
(1) A claim to an invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is before March 16, 2013; or
(2) A specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to any patent or application that contains, or contained at any time, a claim to an invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is before March 16, 2013.
(e) In an application for patent to which the provisions of § 1.130 apply, and to any patent issuing thereon, the provisions of this section are applicable only with respect to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in effect on March 15, 2013.
Under 37 CFR 1.131(a) which provides for the establishment of a date of completion of the
invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country, as well as in the United States, an applicant or patent owner can establish a date of completion in a NAFTA member country on or after December 8, 1993, the effective date of section 331 of Public Law 103-182, the North American Free Trade Agreement Act, and can establish a date of completion in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA member country on or after January 1, 1996, the effective date of section 531 of Public Law 103-465, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). Acts occurring prior to the effective dates of NAFTA or URAA may be relied upon to show completion of the invention; however, a date of completion of the invention may not be established under 37 CFR 1.131(a) before December 8, 1993, in a NAFTA country or before January 1, 1996, in a WTO country other than a NAFTA country, in applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104.
If a country joined the WTO after January 1, 1996, the effective date for proving inventive activity in that country for the purpose of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 and 37 CFR 1.131(a) is the date the country becomes a member of the WTO. See MPEP § 213.01 for a list that includes WTO member countries.
Any printed publication or activity dated prior to an applicant’s or patent owner’s effective filing date, or any domestic patent of prior filing date, which is in its disclosure pertinent to the claimed invention, is available for use by the examiner as a reference in the rejection of the claims of the application or patent under reexamination. In addition, patent application publications and certain international application publications having an effective prior art date prior to the application being examined may be used in a rejection of the claims. See MPEP §§ 706.02(a) and 2136 - 2136.03.
Such a rejection may be overcome, in certain instances noted below, by filing of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a), known as “swearing behind” the reference.
It should be kept in mind that it is the rejection that is withdrawn and not the reference.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-299
§ 715EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
I. SITUATIONS WHERE 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVITS OR DECLARATIONS CAN BE USED
Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 may be used to overcome rejections in applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, and to overcome rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) in applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and current 35 U.S.C. 102, for example:
(A) To antedate a reference or activity that qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and not under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), e.g., where the prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) of the patent, the publication or activity used to reject the claim(s) is less than 1 year prior to applicant’s or patent owner’s effective filing date. If the prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, the reference may not be antedated if it claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of “interfering subject matter.”
(B) To antedate a reference that qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), where the reference has a prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to applicant’s effective filing date, and shows but does not claim interfering subject matter. See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of “interfering subject matter.” See MPEP § 706.02(a) and §§ 2136 - 2136.03 for an explanation of what references qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
(C) During examination, to antedate an activity that qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and not under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), e.g., where the prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) of the activity used to reject the claim(s) is less than 1 year prior to applicant’s or patent owner’s effective filing date. If the evidence of the activity under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, the evidence may not be antedated if it claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of “interfering subject matter”.
II. SITUATIONS WHERE 37 CFR 1.131(a) AFFIDAVITS OR DECLARATIONS ARE INAPPROPRIATE
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is not appropriate in the following situations:
(A) Where the application is subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102 and the affidavit or declaration is not directed to evidence used in a rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g).
(B) Where the reference publication date is more than 1 year prior to applicant’s or patent owner’s effective filing date. Such a reference is a “statutory bar” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as referenced in 37 CFR 1.131(a)(2). A reference that only qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e) is not a “statutory bar.”
(C) Where the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05 for a discussion of “interfering subject matter” and MPEP Chapter 2300 . Where the reference patent and the application or patent under reexamination are commonly owned, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent are not identical but are not patentably distinct, a terminal disclaimer and an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 718.
(D) Where the reference is a foreign patent for the same invention to applicant or patent owner or his or her legal representatives or assigns issued prior to the filing date of the domestic application or patent on an application filed more than 12 months prior to the filing date of the domestic application. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d).
(E) Where the effective filing date of applicant’s or patent owner’s parent application or an International Convention proved filing date is prior to the effective date of the reference, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is unnecessary because the reference should not have been used. See MPEP §§ 211 - 216.
(F) Where the reference is a prior U.S. patent to the same entity, claiming the same invention. The question involved is one of “double patenting.”
700-300Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715
(G) Where applicant has clearly admitted on the record that subject matter relied on in the reference is prior art. In this case, that subject matter may be used as a basis for rejecting his or her claims and may not be overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131. In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 177 USPQ 170 (CCPA 1973); In re Garfinkel, 437 F.2d 1000, 168 USPQ 659 (CCPA 1971); In re Blout, 333 F.2d 928, 142 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1964); In re Lopresti, 333 F.2d 932, 142 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1964).
(H) Where the subject matter relied upon is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
(I) Where the subject matter corresponding to a lost count in an interference is either prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) or barred to applicant by the doctrine of interference estoppel. In re Bandel , 348 F.2d 563, 146 USPQ 389 (CCPA 1965); In re Kroekel , 803 F.2d 705, 231 USPQ 640 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Deckler , 977 F.2d 1449, 24 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Under the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel , applicant was not entitled to claims that were patentably indistinguishable from the claim lost in interference even though the subject matter of the lost count was not available for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103). But see In re Zletz , 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (A losing party to an interference, on showing that the invention now claimed is not “substantially the same” as that of the lost count, may employ the procedures of 37 CFR 1.131(a) to antedate the filing date of an interfering application). On the matter of when a “lost count” in an interference constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g), see In re McKellin, 529 F.2d 1342, 188 USPQ 428 (CCPA 1976) (A count is not prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) as to the loser of an interference where the count was lost based on the winner’s foreign priority date). Similarly, where one party in an interference wins a count by establishing a date of invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country (see pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104), the subject matter of that count is unpatentable to the other party by the doctrine of interference estoppel, even though it is not available as statutory prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See MPEP §§ 2138.01 and 2138.02.
III. REFERENCE DATE TO BE OVERCOME
The date to be overcome under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is the effective date of the reference (i.e., the date on which the reference is available as prior art).
A. U.S. Patents, U.S. Patent Application Publications, and International Application Publications
See MPEP §§ 706.02(a), 706.02(f)(1), and 2136 - 2136.03 for a detailed discussion of the effective date of a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication of an international application as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
The effective date of a domestic patent when used as a reference in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is not the foreign filing date to which the application for patent may have been entitled under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) during examination. In re Hilmer, 359 F.2d 859, 149 USPQ 480 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, the date to be overcome under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is the effective U.S. filing date, not the foreign priority date. When a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication reference is entitled to claim the benefit of an earlier filed application, its effective filing date is determined under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). See MPEP §§ 706.02(a), 706.02(f)(1), and 2136 - 2136.03.
B. Foreign Patents
See MPEP §§ 2126 through 2127 regarding date of availability of foreign patents as prior art.
C. Printed Publications
A printed publication, including a published foreign patent application, is effective as of its publication date, not its date of receipt by the publisher. For additional information regarding effective dates of printed publications, see MPEP §§ 2128 - 2128.02.
D. Activities
An applicant may make an admission, or submit evidence of use of the invention or knowledge of the invention by others, or the examiner may have personal knowledge that the invention was used or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-301
§ 715EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
known by others in this country. See MPEP §§ 706.02(c) and 2133.03. The effective date of the activity used to reject the claim(s) is the date the activity was first known to have occurred.
FORM PARAGRAPHS
Form paragraphs 7.57.fti - 7.64.fti may be used to respond to 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavits.
¶ 7.57.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective- Heading
The [1] filed on [2] under 37 CFR 1.131(a) has been considered but is ineffective to overcome the [3] reference.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.
2. This form paragraph must be followed by one or more of form paragraphs 7.58.fti to 7.63.fti or a paragraph setting forth proper basis for the insufficiency, such as failure to establish acts performed in this country, or that the scope of the declaration or affidavit is not commensurate with the scope of the claim(s).
¶ 7.58.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Claiming Same Invention
The [1] reference is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication of a pending or patented application that claims the rejected invention. An affidavit or declaration is inappropriate under 37 CFR 1.131(a) when the reference is claiming interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a), see MPEP Chapter 2300. If the reference and this application are not commonly owned, the reference can only be overcome by establishing priority of invention through interference proceedings. See MPEP Chapter 2300 for information on initiating interference proceedings. If the reference and this application are commonly owned, the reference may be disqualified as prior art by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c). See MPEP § 718.
Examiner Note:
1. If used to respond to the submission of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131(a), this paragraph must be preceded by paragraph 7.57.fti.
2. This form paragraph may be used without form paragraph 7.57.fti when an affidavit has not yet been filed, and the examiner desires to notify applicant that the submission of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131(a) would be inappropriate.
¶ 7.59.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Insufficient Evidence of Reduction to Practice Before Reference Date
The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish a reduction to practice of the invention in this country or a NAFTA or WTO
member country prior to the effective date of the [1] reference. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.
2. An explanation of the lack of showing of the alleged reduction to practice must be provided in bracket 2.
¶ 7.60.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Reference Is a Statutory Bar
The [1] reference is a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and thus cannot be overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.
¶ 7.61.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Insufficient Evidence of Conception
The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish a conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the [1] reference. While conception is the mental part of the inventive act, it must be capable of proof, such as by demonstrative evidence or by a complete disclosure to another. Conception is more than a vague idea of how to solve a problem. The requisite means themselves and their interaction must also be comprehended. See Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 1897 C.D. 724, 81 OG 1417 (D.C.
Cir. 1897). [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.
2. An explanation of the deficiency in the showing of conception must be presented in bracket 2.
3. If the affidavit additionally fails to establish either diligence or a subsequent reduction to practice, this form paragraph should be followed by form paragraph 7.62.fti and/or 7.63.fti. If either diligence or a reduction to practice is established, a statement to that effect should follow this paragraph.
¶ 7.62.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Diligence Lacking
The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish diligence from a date prior to the date of reduction to practice of the [1] reference to either a constructive reduction to practice or an actual reduction to practice. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.
2. If the affidavit additionally fails to establish conception, this paragraph must also be preceded by form paragraph 7.61.fti.
700-302Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715
If the affidavit establishes conception, a statement to that effect should be added to this paragraph.
3. If the affidavit additionally fails to establish an alleged reduction to practice prior to the application filing date, this paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 7.63.fti. If such an alleged reduction to practice is established, a statement to that effect should be added to this paragraph.
4. An explanation of the reasons for a holding of non-diligence must be provided in bracket 2.
5. See MPEP § 715.07(a) which explains that diligence is not required after reduction to practice.
¶ 7.63.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Insufficient Evidence of Actual Reduction to Practice
The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish applicant’s alleged actual reduction to practice of the invention in this country or a NAFTA or WTO member country after the effective date of the [1] reference. [2].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.
2. If the alleged reduction to practice is prior to the effective date of the reference, do not use this paragraph. See form paragraph 7.59.fti.
3. If the affidavit additionally fails to establish either conception or diligence, form paragraphs 7.61.fti and/or 7.62.fti should precede this paragraph. If either conception or diligence is established, a statement to that effect should be included after this paragraph.
4. An explanation of the lack of showing of the alleged reduction to practice must be given in bracket 2.
¶ 7.64.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Effective To Overcome Reference
The [1] filed on [2] under 37 CFR 1.31(a) is sufficient to overcome the [3] reference.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.
2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.
3. In bracket 3, insert the name of the reference.
715.01 37 CFR 1.131(a) Affidavits Versus 37 CFR 1.132 Affidavits [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.].
The purpose of a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration is to overcome a prior art rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 by proving invention of the claimed subject matter by applicant prior to the effective date of the reference or activity relied upon in the rejection.
In some situations, an applicant may, alternatively, be able to overcome prior art rejections relying on references or activities which are available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or references which are available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by proving that the subject matter relied upon in the reference or activity was applicant’s own invention.
Similarly, where the reference relied upon in a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection qualifies as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), or, in an application filed on or after November 29, 1999, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by proving that the subject matter relied upon and the claimed invention were commonly owned or subject to common assignment at the time the later invention was made. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) through § 706.02(l)(3).
715.01(a) Reference Is a Joint Patent or Published Application to Applicant and Another [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-303
§ 715.01(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
When subject matter disclosed in a patent or patent application publication filed jointly by S and another is claimed in a later application filed by S, the joint patent or joint patent application publication is a valid reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (e), or (f) unless overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing prior invention (see MPEP § 715) or by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. An unequivocal declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by S that he/she conceived or invented the subject matter that was disclosed but not claimed in the patent or application publication and relied on in the rejection would be sufficient to overcome the rejection. In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982). Where the reference is a U.S. patent or patent application publication which includes a claim reciting the subject matter relied upon in a rejection and that subject matter anticipates or would render obvious the subject matter of a claim in the application under examination, a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must also explain the presence of the additional inventor in the reference (e.g., the disclosure in claim 1 of the reference is relied upon to reject the claims; the affidavit or declaration explains that S is the sole inventor of claim 1, and the additional inventor and S are joint inventors of claim 2 of the reference). Disclaimer by the other patentee or applicant of the patent application publication should not be required but, if submitted, may be accepted by the examiner.
Note that an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) cannot be used to overcome a rejection based on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication naming another inventor which claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05. See MPEP § 716.10 for a discussion of the use of 37 CFR 1.132 affidavits or declarations to overcome rejections by establishing that the subject matter relied on in the patent or application publication was the invention of the applicant.
For applications subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102, see MPEP §§ 717 and 2155.01.
Although affidavits or declarations submitted for the purpose of establishing that the reference discloses applicant’s invention are properly filed under 37 CFR 1.132, rather than 37 CFR 1.131(a), such
affidavits submitted improperly under 37 CFR 1.131(a) will be considered as though they were filed under 37 CFR 1.132 to traverse a ground of rejection. In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1969).
715.01(b) Reference and Application Have Common Assignee [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
The mere fact that the reference patent or application publication which shows but does not claim certain subject matter and the application which claims it are owned by the same assignee does not avoid the necessity of filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a), in the absence of a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the patentee derived the subject matter relied on from the applicant (MPEP § 716.10). The common assignee does not obtain any rights in this regard by virtue of common ownership which he or she would not have in the absence of common ownership. In re Frilette, 412 F.2d 269, 162 USPQ 163 (CCPA 1969); Pierce v. Watson, 275 F.2d 890, 124 USPQ 356 (D.C. Cir. 1960); In re Beck, 155 F.2d 398, 69 USPQ 520 (CCPA 1946). Where, however, a rejection is applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f)/103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)/103, or, in an application filed on or after November 29, 1999, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 using the reference, a showing that the invention was commonly owned, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, at the time the later invention was made would preclude such a rejection or be sufficient to overcome such a rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l) and § 706.02(l)(1).
700-304Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715.01(b)
For applications subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102, see MPEP § 2154.02(c).
715.01(c) Reference Is Publication of Applicant’s Own Invention [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
Unless it is a statutory bar, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art based on a publication may be overcome by a showing that it was published either by applicant himself/herself or on his/her behalf. Since such a showing is not made to show a date of invention by applicant prior to the date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a), the limitation in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 and in 37 CFR 1.131(a) that only acts which occurred in this country or in a NAFTA or WTO member country may be relied on to establish a date of invention is not applicable. See MPEP § 716.10 regarding 37 CFR 1.132 affidavits submitted to show that the reference is a publication of applicant’s own invention to overcome a rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. For applications subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102, see MPEP §§ 2153 and 2154.
I. CO-AUTHORSHIP
Where the applicant is one of the co-authors of a publication cited against his or her application, he or she may overcome the rejection by filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a). Alternatively, the applicant may overcome the rejection by filing a specific affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 establishing that the article is describing applicant’s own work. An affidavit or declaration by applicant alone indicating that applicant is the sole inventor and that the others were merely working under his or her direction is sufficient to remove the publication as a reference
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
II. DERIVATION
When the unclaimed subject matter of a patent, application publication, or other publication is applicant’s own invention, a rejection, which is not a statutory bar, on that patent or publication may be removed by submission of evidence establishing the fact that the patentee, applicant of the published application, or author derived his or her knowledge of the relevant subject matter from applicant. Moreover applicant must further show that he or she made the invention upon which the relevant disclosure in the patent, application publication, or other publication is based. In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 161 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1969); In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1969).
715.01(d) Activities Applied Against the Claims [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
Unless it is a statutory bar, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based on an activity showing that the claimed invention was used or known prior to the filing date of the application may be overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) establishing a date of invention prior to the date of the activity. Alternatively, the applicant(s) may overcome the rejection by filing a specific affidavit
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-305
§ 715.01(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that the activity was performed by the applicant(s).
715.02 How Much of the Claimed Invention Must Be Shown, Including the General Rule as to Generic Claims [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
The 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration must establish possession of either the whole invention claimed or something falling within the claim (such as a species of a claimed genus), in the sense that the claim as a whole reads on it. In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 146 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1965) (Where applicant claims an alloy comprising both nitrogen and molybdenum, an affidavit showing applicant made an alloy comprising nitrogen but not molybdenum is not sufficient under 37 CFR 1.131 to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the combined teachings of one reference disclosing an alloy comprising nitrogen but not molybdenum and a second reference disclosing an alloy comprising molybdenum but not nitrogen). Note, however, where the differences between the claimed invention and the disclosure of the reference(s) are so small as to render the claims obvious over the reference(s), an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is required to show no more than the reference shows. In re Stryker, 435 F.2d 1340, 168 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1971). In other words, where the examiner, in rejecting a claim under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, has treated a claim limitation as being an obvious feature or modification of the disclosure of the reference(s) relied upon, without citation of a reference which teaches such feature or modification, a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration may be sufficient to overcome the rejection even if it does not show such feature or modification.
Further, a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit is not insufficient merely because it does not show the identical disclosure of the reference(s) or the identical subject matter involved in the activity relied upon. If the affidavit contains facts showing a completion of the invention commensurate with the extent of the invention as claimed is shown in the reference or activity, the affidavit or declaration is sufficient, whether or not it is a showing of the identical disclosure of the reference or the identical subject matter involved in the activity. See In re Wakefield, 422 F.2d 897, 164 USPQ 636 (CCPA 1970).
Even if applicant’s 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit is not fully commensurate with the rejected claim, the applicant can still overcome the rejection by showing that the differences between the claimed invention and the showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of applicant’s 37 CFR 1.131(a) evidence, prior to the effective date of the reference(s) or the activity. Such evidence is sufficient because applicant’s possession of what is shown carries with it possession of variations and adaptations which would have been obvious, at the same time, to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the affidavit or declaration showing must still establish possession of the invention (i.e., the basic inventive concept) and not just of what one reference (in a combination of applied references) happens to show, if that reference does not itself teach the basic inventive concept. In re Spiller, 500 F.2d 1170, 182 USPQ 614 (CCPA 1974) (Claimed invention was use of electrostatic forces to adhere dry starch particles to a wet paper web on the Fourdrinier wire of a paper-making machine. 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit established use of electrostatic forces to adhere starch particles to wet blotting paper moved over a fluidized bed of starch particles prior to the applied reference date. Affidavit was sufficient in view of prior art reference showing that deposition of dry coatings directly on wet webs on the Fourdrinier wire of a paper-making machine was well known in the art prior to the date of the applied reference. The affidavit established possession of the basic invention, i.e., use of electrostatic forces to adhere starch to wet paper.).
700-306Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715.02
I. SWEARING BEHIND ONE OF A PLURALITY OF COMBINED REFERENCES
Applicant may overcome a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on a combination of references by showing completion of the invention by applicant prior to the effective date of any of the references; applicant need not antedate the reference with the earliest filing date. However, as discussed above, applicant’s 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit must show possession of either the whole invention as claimed or something falling within the claim(s) prior to the effective date of the reference being antedated; it is not enough merely to show possession of what the reference happens to show if the reference does not teach the basic inventive concept.
Where a claim has been rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Reference A in view of Reference B, with the effective date of secondary Reference B being earlier than that of Reference A, the applicant can rely on the teachings of Reference B to show that the differences between what is shown in his or her 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of Reference A. However, the 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration must still establish possession of the claimed invention, not just what Reference A shows, if Reference A does not teach the basic inventive concept.
II. GENERAL RULE AS TO GENERIC CLAIMS
A reference or activity applied against generic claims may (in most cases) be antedated as to such claims by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing completion of the invention of only a single species, within the genus, prior to the effective date of the reference or activity (assuming, of course, that the reference or activity is not a statutory bar or a patent, or an application publication, claiming the same invention). See Ex parte Biesecker, 144 USPQ 129 (Bd. App. 1964). See, also, In re Fong, 288 F.2d 932, 129 USPQ 264 (CCPA 1961); In re Dafano, 392 F.2d 280, 157 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1968) (distinguishing chemical species of genus compounds from embodiments of a single invention).
See, however, MPEP § 715.03 for practice relative to cases in unpredictable arts.
715.03 Genus-Species, Practice Relative to Cases Where Predictability Is in Question [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
Where generic claims have been rejected on a reference or activity which discloses a species not antedated by the affidavit or declaration, the rejection will not ordinarily be withdrawn, subject to the rules set forth below, unless the applicant is able to establish that he or she was in possession of the generic invention prior to the effective date of the reference or activity. In other words, the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) must show as much as the minimum disclosure required by a patent specification to furnish support for a generic claim.
I. REFERENCE OR ACTIVITY DISCLOSES SPECIES
A. Species Claim
Where the claim under rejection recites a species and the reference or activity discloses the claimed species, the rejection can be overcome under 37 CFR 1.131(a) directly by showing prior completion of the claimed species or indirectly by a showing of prior completion of a different species coupled with a showing that the claimed species would have been an obvious modification of the species completed by applicant. See In re Spiller, 500 F.2d 1170, 182 USPQ 614 (CCPA 1974).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-307
§ 715.03EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
B. Genus Claim
The principle is well established that the disclosure of a species in a cited reference is sufficient to prevent a later applicant from obtaining a “generic claim.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 125 USPQ 345 (CCPA 1960).
Where the only pertinent disclosure in the reference or activity is a single species of the claimed genus, the applicant can overcome the rejection directly under 37 CFR 1.131(a) by showing prior possession of the species disclosed in the reference or activity. On the other hand, a reference or activity which discloses several species of a claimed genus can be overcome directly under 37 CFR 1.131(a) only by a showing that the applicant completed, prior to the date of the reference or activity, all of the species shown in the reference. In re Stempel, 241 F.2d 755, 113 USPQ 77 (CCPA 1957).
Proof of prior completion of a species different from the species of the reference or activity will be sufficient to overcome a reference indirectly under 37 CFR 1.131(a) if the species shown in the reference or activity would have been obvious in view of the species shown to have been made by the applicant. In re Clarke, 356 F.2d 987, 148 USPQ 665 (CCPA 1966); In re Plumb, 470 F.2d 1403, 176 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1973); In re Hostettler, 356 F.2d 562, 148 USPQ 514 (CCPA 1966). Alternatively, if the applicant cannot show possession of the species of the reference or activity in this manner, the applicant may be able to antedate the reference or activity indirectly by, for example, showing prior completion of one or more species which put him or her in possession of the claimed genus prior to the reference’s or activity’s date. The test is whether the species completed by applicant prior to the reference date or the activity’s date provided an adequate basis for inferring that the invention has generic applicability. In re Plumb, 470 F.2d 1403, 176 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1973); In re Rainer, 390 F.2d 771, 156 USPQ 334 (CCPA 1968); In re Clarke, 356 F.2d 987, 148 USPQ 665 (CCPA 1966); In re Shokal, 242 F.2d 771, 113 USPQ 283 (CCPA 1957).
It is not necessary for the affidavit evidence to show that the applicant viewed his or her invention as encompassing more than the species actually made. The test is whether the facts set out in the affidavit are such as would persuade one skilled in the art that the applicant possessed so much of the invention as is shown in the reference or activity. In re Schaub, 537 F.2d 509, 190 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1976).
C. Species Versus Embodiments
References or activities which disclose one or more embodiments of a single claimed invention, as opposed to species of a claimed genus, can be overcome by filing a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit showing prior completion of a single embodiment of the invention, whether it is the same or a different embodiment from that disclosed in the reference or activity. See In re Fong , 288 F.2d 932, 129 USPQ 264 (CCPA 1961) (Where applicant discloses and claims a washing solution comprising a detergent and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), with no criticality alleged as to the particular detergent used, the PVP being used as a soil-suspending agent to prevent the redeposition of the soil removed, the invention was viewed as the use of PVP as a soil-suspending agent in washing with a detergent. The disclosure in the reference of the use of PVP with two detergents, both of which differed from that shown in applicant’s 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit, was considered a disclosure of different embodiments of a single invention, rather than species of a claimed genus); In re Defano, 392 F.2d 280, 157 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1968).
II. REFERENCE OR ACTIVITY DISCLOSES CLAIMED GENUS
In general, where the reference or activity discloses the claimed genus, a showing of completion of a single species within the genus is sufficient to antedate the reference or activity under 37 CFR 1.131(a). Ex parte Biesecker, 144 USPQ 129 (Bd. App. 1964).
In cases where predictability is in question, on the other hand, a showing of prior completion of one or a few species within the disclosed genus is generally not sufficient to overcome the reference or activity. In re Shokal, 242 F.2d 771, 113 USPQ 283 (CCPA
700-308Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715.03
1957). The test is whether the species completed by applicant prior to the reference date or the date of the activity provided an adequate basis for inferring that the invention has generic applicability. In re Mantell, 454 F.2d 1398, 172 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1973); In re Rainer, 390 F.2d 771, 156 USPQ 334 (CCPA 1968); In re DeFano, 392 F.2d 280, 157 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1968); In re Clarke, 356 F.2d 987, 148 USPQ 665 (CCPA 1965). In the case of a small genus such as the halogens, which consists of four species, a reduction to practice of three, or perhaps even two, species might show possession of the generic invention, while in the case of a genus comprising hundreds of species, reduction to practice of a considerably larger number of species would be necessary. In re Shokal, supra.
It is not necessary for the affidavit evidence to show that the applicant viewed his or her invention as encompassing more than the species he or she actually made. The test is whether the facts set out in the affidavit are such as would persuade one skilled in the art that the applicant possessed so much of the invention as is shown in the reference. In re Schaub, 537 F. 509, 190 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1976).
715.04 Who May Make Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a); Formal Requirements of Affidavits and Declarations [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
I. WHO MAY MAKE AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION
Affidavits or declarations filed under 37 CFR 1.131 to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 must be made by either:
(A) All the inventors of the subject matter claimed.
(B) Less than all named inventors of an application if it is shown by affidavit or declaration that less than all named inventors of an application invented the subject matter of the claim or claims under rejection. For example, one of two joint inventors is accepted where it is shown that one of the joint inventors is the sole inventor of the claim or claims under rejection.
(C) For affidavits and declarations submitted in an application filed before September 16, 2012, a joint inventor or assignee under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 if a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 was granted or the application was accepted under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42 or 1.43.
(D) For affidavits and declarations in applications filed before September 16, 2012, the legal representative of a deceased, insane or otherwise legally incapacitated inventor under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42 or 1.43.
(E) For affidavits and declarations submitted in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the party qualified under 37 CFR 1.42 or 1.46.
(F) The assignee or other party in interest when it is not possible to produce the affidavit or declaration of the inventor. Ex parte Foster, 1903 C.D. 213, 105 OG 261 (Comm’r Pat. 1903).
(G) The owner of the patent under reexamination.
For affidavits and declarations submitted in applications filed before September 16, 2012, where one or more of the named inventors of the subject matter of the rejected claim(s) (who had originally signed the oath or declaration for patent application under 37 CFR 1.63) is thereafter unavailable to sign an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a), the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) may be signed by the remaining joint inventors provided a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of the signature of the unavailable inventor is submitted with the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a). Proof that the non-signing inventor is unavailable or cannot be found (similar to the proof required for a petition under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47) must be submitted with the petition under 37 CFR 1.183 (see MPEP § 409.03(d)). Petitions under
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-309
§ 715.04EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
37 CFR 1.183 are decided by the Office of Petitions (see MPEP § 1002.02(b)).
II. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS
An affidavit is a statement in writing made under oath before a notary public, magistrate, or officer authorized to administer oaths. See MPEP § 602 et seq. for additional information regarding formal requirements of affidavits.
37 CFR 1.68 permits a declaration to be used instead of an affidavit. The declaration must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
715.05 U.S. Patent orApplication Publication Claiming Same Invention [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, when the reference in question is a noncommonly owned U.S. patent or patent application publication claiming the same invention as applicant and its publication date is less than 1 year prior to the presentation of claims to that invention in the application being examined, applicant’s remedy, if any, must be by way of 37 CFR 41.202 instead of 37 CFR 1.131(a). If the reference is claiming the same invention as the application and its publication date is less than 1 year prior to the presentation of
claims to that invention in the application, this fact should be noted in the Office action. The reference can then be overcome only by way of interference. See MPEP Chapter 2300. If the reference is a U.S. patent which claims the same invention as the application and its issue date is more than 1 year prior to the presentation of claims to that invention in the application, a rejection of the claims of the application under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(1) applicable generally to applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, see MPEP § 2159, should be made. See In re McGrew, 120 F.3d 1236, 1238, 43 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The court holding that application of 35 U.S.C. 135(b) is not limited to inter partes interference proceedings, but may be used as a basis for ex parte rejections.). The expression “prior to one year from the date on which the patent was granted” in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b) includes the one-year anniversary date of the issuance of a patent. See Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964).
If the reference is a U.S. patent application publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), or a WIPO publication on an international application filed on or after November 29, 2000, which claims the same invention as the application being examined and its publication date is more than 1 year prior to the presentation of claims to that invention in the application being examined, a rejection of the claims of the application (being examined) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(2) applicable generally to applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, see MPEP § 2159, should be made only if the application being examined was filed after the publication date of the reference.
Form paragraph 23.14 or 23.14.01 may be used when making a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b).
¶ 23.14 Claims Not Copied Within OneYear of Patent Issue Date
Claim [l] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(1) as not being made prior to one year from the date on which U.S. Patent No. [2] was granted. See In re McGrew, 120 F.3d 1236, 1238, 43 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where the Court held that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b) may be used as a basis for ex parte rejections.
700-310Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715.05
¶ 23.14.01 Claims Not Copied Within One Year Of Application Publication Date
Claim [l] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(2) as not being made prior to one year from the date on which [2] was published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). See In re McGrew, 120 F.3d 1236, 1238, 43 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where the Court held that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b) may be used as a basis for ex parte rejections.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the publication number of the published application.
2. This form paragraph should only be used if the application being examined was filed after the publication date of the published application.
Where the reference and the application or patent under reexamination are commonly owned, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the reference are not identical but are not patentably distinct, a terminal disclaimer and an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) may be used to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 718.
A 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit is ineffective to overcome a United States patent or patent application publication, not only where there is a verbatim correspondence between claims of the application and of the patent, but also where there is no patentable distinction between the respective claims. In re Clark, 457 F.2d 1004, 173 USPQ 359 (CCPA 1972); In re Hidy, 303 F.2d 954, 133 USPQ 650 (CCPA 1962); In re Teague, 254 F.2d 145, 117 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1958); In re Ward, 236 F.2d 428, 111 USPQ 101 (CCPA 1956); In re Wagenhorst, 62 F.2d 831, 16 USPQ 126 (CCPA 1933).
If the application (or patent under reexamination) and the domestic reference contain claims which are identical, or which are not patentably distinct, then the application and patent are claiming “interfering subject matter” as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a).
As provided in 37 CFR 41.203(a), an interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa. An applicant who is claiming an invention which is identical to, or obvious in view
of, the invention as claimed in a domestic patent or patent application publication cannot employ an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131(a) as a means for avoiding an interference with the reference. To allow an applicant to do so would result in the issuance of two patents to the same invention.
Since 37 CFR 1.131(a) defines “interfering subject matter” in the same way as the interference rules (37 CFR 41.203(a)), the USPTO cannot prevent an applicant from overcoming a reference by a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration on the grounds that the reference claims applicant’s invention and, at the same time, deny applicant an interference on the grounds that the claims of the application and those of the reference are not for substantially the same invention. See In re Eickmeyer, 602 F.2d 974, 202 USPQ 655 (CCPA 1979). Where, in denying an applicant’s motion in interference to substitute a broader count, it is held that the limitation to be deleted was material for the opponent patentee, this constitutes a holding that the proposed count is for an invention which is not interfering subject matter with respect to the claims of the reference. Therefore, the applicant may file an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) to overcome a prior art rejection based on the reference. Adler v. Kluver, 159 USPQ 511 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1968).
Form paragraph 7.58.fti (reproduced in MPEP § 715) may be used to note such a situation in the Office action.
715.06 [Reserved]
715.07 Facts and Documentary Evidence [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-311
§ 715.07EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The essential thing to be shown under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is priority of invention and this may be done by any satisfactory evidence of the fact. FACTS, not conclusions, must be alleged. Evidence in the form of exhibits may accompany the affidavit or declaration. Each exhibit relied upon should be specifically referred to in the affidavit or declaration, in terms of what it is relied upon to show. For example, the allegations of fact might be supported by submitting as evidence one or more of the following:
(A) attached sketches;
(B) attached blueprints;
(C) attached photographs;
(D) attached reproductions of notebook entries;
(E) an accompanying model;
(F) attached supporting statements by witnesses, where verbal disclosures are the evidence relied upon. Ex parte Ovshinsky, 10 USPQ2d 1075 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989);
(G) testimony given in an interference. Where interference testimony is used, the applicant must point out which parts of the testimony are being relied on; examiners cannot be expected to search the entire interference record for the evidence;
(H) documents submitted under the Disclosure Document Program (discontinued February 1, 2007) may be used as documentary evidence of conception.
Exhibits and models must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 to be entered into an application file. See also MPEP § 715.07(d).
A general allegation that the invention was completed prior to the date of the reference is not sufficient. Similarly, a declaration by the inventor to the effect that his or her invention was conceived or reduced to practice prior to the reference date, without a statement of facts demonstrating the correctness of this conclusion, is insufficient to satisfy 37 CFR 1.131(a).
37 CFR 1.131(b) requires that original exhibits of drawings or records, or photocopies thereof, accompany and form part of the affidavit or declaration or their absence satisfactorily explained. In Ex parte Donovan, 1890 C.D. 109, 52 OG 309 (Comm’r Pat. 1890) the court stated:
If the applicant made sketches he should so state, and produce and describe them; if the sketches were made and lost, and their contents remembered, they should be reproduced and furnished in place of the originals. The same course should be pursued if the disclosure was by means of models. If neither sketches nor models are relied upon, but it is claimed that verbal disclosures, sufficiently clear to indicate definite conception of the invention, were made the witness should state as nearly as possible the language used in imparting knowledge of the invention to others.
When reviewing a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration, the examiner must consider all of the evidence presented in its entirety, including the affidavits or declarations and all accompanying exhibits, records and “notes.” An accompanying exhibit need not support all claimed limitations, provided that any missing limitation is supported by the declaration itself. Ex parte Ovshinsky, 10 USPQ2d 1075 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
The affidavit or declaration and exhibits must clearly explain which facts or data applicant is relying on to show completion of his or her invention prior to the particular date. Vague and general statements in broad terms about what the exhibits describe along with a general assertion that the exhibits describe a reduction to practice “amounts essentially to mere pleading, unsupported by proof or a showing of facts” and, thus, does not satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.131(b). In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974). Applicant must give a clear explanation of the exhibits pointing out exactly what facts are established and relied on by applicant. 505 F.2d at 718-19, 184 USPQ at 33. See also In re Harry, 333 F.2d 920, 142 USPQ 164 (CCPA 1964) (Affidavit “asserts that facts exist but does not tell what they are or when they occurred.”).
700-312Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715.07
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF DATES
If the dates of the exhibits have been removed or blocked off, the matter of dates can be taken care of in the body of the oath or declaration.
When alleging that conception or a reduction to practice occurred prior to the effective date of the reference, the dates in the oath or declaration may be the actual dates or, if the applicant or patent owner does not desire to disclose his or her actual dates, he or she may merely allege that the acts referred to occurred prior to a specified date. However, the actual dates of acts relied on to establish diligence must be provided. See MPEP § 715.07(a) regarding the diligence requirement.
III. THREE WAYS TO SHOW PRIOR INVENTION
The affidavit or declaration must state FACTS and produce such documentary evidence and exhibits in support thereof as are available to show conception and completion of invention in this country or in a NAFTA or WTO member country (MPEP § 715.07(c)), at least the conception being at a date prior to the effective date of the reference. Where there has not been reduction to practice prior to the date of the reference, the applicant or patent owner must also show diligence in the completion of his or her invention from a time just prior to the date of the reference continuously up to the date of an actual reduction to practice or up to the date of filing his or her application (filing constitutes a constructive reduction to practice, 37 CFR 1.131).
As discussed above, 37 CFR 1.131(b) provides three ways in which an applicant can establish prior invention of the claimed subject matter. The showing of facts must be sufficient to show:
(A) (actual) reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference; or
(B) conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from prior to the reference date to a subsequent (actual) reduction to practice; or
(C) conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from prior to the reference date to the filing
date of the application (constructive reduction to practice).
A conception of an invention, though evidenced by disclosure, drawings, and even a model, is not a complete invention under the patent laws, and confers no rights on an inventor, and has no effect on a subsequently granted patent to another, UNLESS THE INVENTOR FOLLOWS IT WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE BY SOME OTHER ACT, such as an actual reduction to practice or filing an application for a patent. Automatic Weighing Mach. Co. v. Pneumatic Scale Corp., 166 F.2d 288, 1909 C.D. 498, 139 OG 991 (1st Cir. 1909).
Conception is the mental part of the inventive act, but it must be capable of proof, as by drawings, complete disclosure to another person, etc. In Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 1897 C.D. 724, 81 OG
1417 (D.C. Cir. 1897), it was established that conception is more than a mere vague idea of how to solve a problem; the means themselves and their interaction must be comprehended also.
In general, proof of actual reduction to practice requires a showing that the apparatus actually existed and worked for its intended purpose. However, “there are some devices so simple that a mere construction of them is all that is necessary to constitute reduction to practice.” In re Asahi/America Inc., 68 F.3d 442, 37 USPQ2d 1204, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Citing Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and Sachs v. Wadsworth, 48 F.2d 928, 929, 9 USPQ
252, 253 (CCPA 1931). The claimed restraint coupling held to be so simple a device that mere construction of it was sufficient to constitute reduction to practice. Photographs, coupled with articles and a technical report describing the coupling in detail were sufficient to show reduction to practice.).
The facts to be established under 37 CFR 1.131(a) are similar to those to be proved in interference. The difference lies in the way in which the evidence is presented. If applicant disagrees with a holding that the facts are insufficient to overcome the rejection, his or her remedy is by appeal from the continued rejection.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-313
§ 715.07EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
See MPEP § 2138.04 through § 2138.06 for a detailed discussion of the concepts of conception, reasonable diligence, and reduction to practice.
For the most part, the terms “conception,” “reasonable diligence,” and “reduction to practice” have the same meanings under 37 CFR 1.131(a) as they have in interference proceedings. However, in In re Eickmeyer, 602 F.2d 974, 202 USPQ 655
(CCPA 1979), the court stated:
The purpose of filing a [37 CFR 1.]131 affidavit is not to demonstrate prior invention, per se, but merely to antedate the effective date of a reference. See In re Moore, 58 CCPA 1340, 444 F.2d 572, 170 USPQ 260 (1971). Although the test for sufficiency of an affidavit under Rule 131(b) parallels that for determining priority of invention in an interference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g), it does not necessarily follow that Rule 131 practice is controlled by interference law. To the contrary, “[t]he parallel to interference practice found in Rule 131(b) should be recognized as one of convenience rather than necessity.” Id. at 1353, 444 F.2d at 580, 170 USPQ at 267. Thus, “the ‘conception’ and ‘reduction to practice’ which must be established under the rule need not be the same as what is required in the ‘interference’ sense of those terms.” Id.; accord, In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718-19, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974).
One difference is that in interference practice a reduction to practice requires a proof that a utility was known, whereas under 37 CFR 1.131(a) practice, proof of a utility must be shown only if the reference discloses a utility. In re Wilkinson, 304 F.2d 673, 134 USPQ 171 (CCPA 1962); In re Moore, 444 F.2d 572, 170 USPQ 260 (CCPA 1971). Where proof of utility is required, whether or not test results are required to establish the utility of the subject matter in question depends on the facts of each case. The ultimate issue is whether the evidence is such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be satisfied to a reasonable certainty that the subject matter necessary to antedate the reference possessed the alleged utility. In re Blake, 358 F.2d 750, 149 USPQ 217 (CCPA 1966). Also, in interference practice, conception, reasonable diligence, and
reduction to practice require corroboration, whereas averments made in a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration do not require corroboration; an applicant may stand on his or her own affidavit or declaration if he or she so elects. Ex parte Hook, 102 USPQ 130 (Bd. App. 1953).
Form paragraph 7.59 or 7.63 (both reproduced in MPEP § 715) may be used where insufficient evidence is included in a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit.
715.07(a) Diligence [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
Where conception occurs prior to the date of the reference, but reduction to practice is afterward, it is not enough merely to allege that applicant or patent owner had been diligent. Rather, applicant must show evidence of facts establishing diligence.
In determining the sufficiency of a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration, diligence need not be considered unless conception of the invention prior to the effective date is clearly established, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.131(b), diligence comes into question only after prior conception is established.
In patent law, an inventor is either diligent at a given time or he is not diligent; there are no degrees of diligence. An applicant may be diligent within the meaning of the patent law when he or she is doing nothing, if his or her lack of activity is excused. Note, however, that the record must set forth an explanation or excuse for the inactivity; the USPTO or courts will not speculate on possible explanations for delay or inactivity. See In re Nelson, 420 F.2d 1079, 164 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1970). Diligence must be judged on the basis of the particular facts in each case. See MPEP § 2138.06 for a detailed discussion
700-314Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715.07(a)
of the diligence requirement for proving prior invention.
Under 37 CFR 1.131(a), the critical period in which diligence must be shown begins just prior to the effective date of the reference or activity and ends with the date of a reduction to practice, either actual or constructive (i.e., filing a United States patent application). Note, therefore, that only diligence before reduction to practice is a material consideration. Any lack of due diligence between an actual reduction to practice of an invention and the filing of an application thereon is not relevant to the sufficiency of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
Form paragraph 7.62 (reproduced in MPEP § 715) may be used to respond to a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit where diligence is lacking.
715.07(b) Interference Testimony Sometimes Used [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
In place of an affidavit or declaration the testimony of the applicant in an interference may be sometimes used to antedate a reference in lieu of a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration.
The part of the testimony to form the basis of priority over the reference should be pointed out. Ex parte
Bowyer, 1939 C.D. 5, 42 USPQ 526 (Comm’r Pat. 1939).
715.07(c) Acts Relied Upon Must Have Been Carried Out in This Country or a NAFTA or WTO Member Country [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 Invention Made Abroad.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) PROCEEDINGS.—In proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and before any other competent authority, an applicant for a patent, or a patentee, may not establish a date of invention by reference to knowledge or use thereof, or other activity with respect thereto, in a foreign country other than a NAFTA country or a WTO member country, except as provided in sections 119 and 365.
(2) RIGHTS.—If an invention was made by a person, civil or military—
(A) while domiciled in the United States, and serving in any other country in connection with operations by or on behalf of the United States,
(B) while domiciled in a NAFTA country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that NAFTA country, or
(C) while domiciled in a WTO member country and serving in another country in connection with operations by or on behalf of that WTO member country, that person shall be entitled to the same rights of priority in the United States with respect to such invention as if such invention had been made in the United States, that NAFTA country, or that WTO member country, as the case may be.
(3) USE OF INFORMATION.—To the extent that any information in a NAFTA country or a WTO member country concerning knowledge, use, or other activity relevant to proving or disproving a date of invention has not been made available for use in a proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office, a court, or any other competent authority to the same extent as such information could be made available in the United States, the Director, court, or such other authority shall draw appropriate inferences, or take other action permitted by statute, rule, or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-315
§ 715.07(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
regulation, in favor of the party that requested the information in the proceeding.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—
(1) The term “NAFTA country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(4) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; and
(2) The term “WTO member country” has the meaning given that term in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
The 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration must contain an allegation that the acts relied upon to establish the date prior to the reference or activity were carried out in this country or in a NAFTA country or WTO member country. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104.
Under 37 CFR 1.131(a), which provides for the establishment of a date of completion of the invention in a NAFTA or WTO member country, as well as in the United States, the applicant or patent owner can establish a date of completion in a NAFTA member country on or after December 8, 1993, the effective date of section 331 of Public Law 103-182, the North American Free Trade Agreement Act, and can establish a date of completion in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA member country on or after January 1, 1996, the effective date of section 531 of Public Law 103-465, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Acts occurring prior to the effective dates of NAFTA or URAA may be relied upon to show completion of the invention; however, a date of completion of the invention may not be established under 37 CFR 1.131(a) before December 8, 1993 in a NAFTA country or before January 1, 1996 in a WTO country other than a NAFTA country.
715.07(d) Disposition of Exhibits [R-11.2013]
Exhibits, such as those filed as part of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a), must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 to be entered into an application file. Exhibits that do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 will be
disposed of or returned to applicant at the discretion of the Office. See also MPEP § 608.03(a).
715.08 Decided by Primary Examiner [R-11.2013]
The question of sufficiency of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(a) should be reviewed and decided by a primary examiner.
Review of an examiner’s decision with regard to questions of formal sufficiency and propriety of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) is by a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.181. Such petitions are answered by the Technology Center Directors (MPEP § 1002.02(c)).
Review of an examiner’s determination on the merits of a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration is by appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
715.09 Timely Presentation [R-11.2013]
Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(a) must be timely presented in order to be admitted. Affidavits and declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.131(a) and other evidence traversing rejections are considered timely if submitted:
(A) prior to a final rejection;
(B) before appeal in an application not having a final rejection;
(C) after final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e); or
(D) after the prosecution is closed (e.g., after a final rejection, after appeal, or after allowance) if applicant files the affidavit or other evidence with a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 in a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995; or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a design application.
All admitted affidavits and declarations are acknowledged and commented upon by the examiner in his or her next succeeding action.
700-316Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 715.07(d)
For affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(a) filed after appeal, see 37 CFR 41.33(d) and MPEP § 1206 and § 1211.03.
Review of an examiner’s refusal to enter an affidavit as untimely is by petition and not by appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In re Deters, 515 F.2d 1152, 185 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1975); Ex parte Hale, 49 USPQ 209 (Bd. App. 1941). See MPEP § 715.08 regarding review of questions of propriety of 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavits and declarations.
715.10 Review of Affidavit or Declaration for Evidence of Prior Public Use or Sale or Failure to Disclose Best Mode [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717. For a discussion of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), see MPEP § 718.]
Any affidavits or declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.131(a) and the accompanying evidence must be reviewed carefully by the examiner in order to determine whether they show that the claimed invention was “in public use” or “on sale” in this country more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the application, which acts constitute a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Although the rejection based on the reference(s) or activity sought to be antedated may actually be overcome by such an affidavit or declaration, the effect of the applicant’s prior “public use” or “on sale” activities may not be overcome under 37 CFR 1.131(a). See MPEP § 2133.03 regarding rejections based on “public use” and “on sale” statutory bars under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.
Where the 37 CFR 1.131(a) evidence relies on an embodiment of the invention not disclosed in the application, the question of whether the application includes the “best mode” must be considered. However, a “best mode” rejection should not be
made unless the record, taken as a whole, establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant’s specification has not set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention. See MPEP §§ 2165 - § 2165.04 regarding the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
716 Affidavits or Declarations Traversing Rejections, 37 CFR 1.132 [R-11.2013]
37 CFR 1.132 Affidavits or declarations traversing rejections or objections.
When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected or objected to, any evidence submitted to traverse the rejection or objection on a basis not otherwise provided for must be by way of an oath or declaration under this section.
It is the responsibility of the primary examiner to personally review and decide whether affidavits or declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 for the purpose of traversing grounds of rejection are responsive to the rejection and present sufficient facts to overcome the rejection.
This rule sets forth the general policy of the Office consistently followed for a long period of time of receiving affidavit evidence traversing rejections or objections. All affidavits or declarations presented which do not fall within or under other specific rules are to be treated or considered as falling under this rule.
Form paragraph 7.65 or 7.66 and any of form paragraphs 7.66.01 through 7.66.05, as appropriate, should be used to comment on a 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration.
¶ 7.65 Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132: Effective To Withdraw Rejection
The [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed [2] is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [3] based upon [4].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.
2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.
3. In bracket 3, insert the affected claim or claims.
4. In bracket 4, indicate the rejection that has been overcome, including the statutory grounds, e.g.: insufficiency of disclosure
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-317
§ 716EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. 101; inoperativeness under 35 U.S.C. 101; a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103; etc. See MPEP § 716.
¶ 7.66 Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132: Insufficient
The [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed [2] is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [3] based upon [4] as set forth in the last Office action because:
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.
2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.
3. In bracket 3, insert the claim or claims affected.
4. In bracket 4, indicate the rejection that has not been overcome, including the statutory grounds, i.e.: insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; lack of utility and/or inoperativeness under 35 U.S.C. 101; a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103; etc. See MPEP § 716.
5. Following this form paragraph, set forth the reasons for the insufficiency; e.g., categories include: --untimely--; --fails to set forth facts--; --facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue--;--showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims--; etc. See MPEP § 716. Also include a detailed explanation of the reasons why the affidavit or declaration is insufficient. Any of form paragraphs 7.66.01 - 7.66.05 may be used, as appropriate.
¶ 7.66.01 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient:Affiant Has Never Seen Invention Before
It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the affiant has never seen the claimed subject matter before. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.
¶ 7.66.02 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Invention Works as Intended
It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.
¶ 7.66.03 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Refers Only to Invention, Not to Claims
It refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. As such the declaration does not show that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.
¶ 7.66.04 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: No Evidence of Long-Felt Need
It states that the claimed subject matter solved a problem that was long standing in the art. However, there is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of the above cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem. See MPEP § 716.04.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.
¶ 7.66.05 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should be presented as a conclusion to your explanation of why the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 is insufficient, and it must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.
716.01 Generally Applicable Criteria [R-08.2012]
The following criteria are applicable to all evidence traversing rejections submitted by applicants,
700-318Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 716.01
including affidavits or declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.132:
(A) Timeliness.
Evidence traversing rejections must be timely or seasonably filed to be entered and entitled to consideration. In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 125 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1960).
Affidavits and declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 and other evidence traversing rejections are considered timely if submitted:
(1) prior to a final rejection,
(2) before appeal in an application not having a final rejection,
(3) after final rejection , but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e); or
(4) after the prosecution is closed (e.g., after a final rejection, after appeal, or after allowance) if applicant files the affidavit or other evidence with a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 in a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995; or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a design application. For affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 filed after appeal, see 37 CFR 41.33(d) and MPEP § 1206 and § 1211.03.
(B) Consideration of evidence.
Evidence traversing rejections, when timely presented, must be considered by the examiner whenever present. All entered affidavits, declarations, and other evidence traversing rejections are acknowledged and commented upon by the examiner in the next succeeding action. The extent of the commentary depends on the action taken by the examiner. Where an examiner holds that the evidence is sufficient to overcome the prima facie case, the comments should be consistent with the guidelines for statements of reasons for allowance. See MPEP § 1302.14. Where the evidence is insufficient to overcome the rejection, the examiner must specifically explain why the evidence is insufficient. General statements such as “the declaration lacks technical validity” or “the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims”
without an explanation supporting such findings are insufficient.
716.01(a) Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness [R-08.2012]
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN TIMELY PRESENT
Affidavits or declarations, when timely presented, containing evidence of criticality or unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, etc., must be considered by the examiner in determining the issue of obviousness of claims for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983) that “evidence rising out of the so-called ‘secondary considerations’ must always when present be considered en route to a determination of obviousness.” Such evidence might give light to circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or unobviousness, such evidence may have relevancy. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966); In re Palmer, 451 F.2d 1100, 172 USPQ 126 (CCPA 1971); In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973). The Graham v. John Deere pronouncements on the relevance of commercial success, etc. to a determination of obviousness were not negated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1979) or Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969), where reliance was placed upon A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147,
87 USPQ 303 (1950). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 226 n.4, 189 USPQ 257, 261 n. 4 (1976).
Examiners must consider comparative data in the specification which is intended to illustrate the claimed invention in reaching a conclusion with regard to the obviousness of the claims. In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029, 228 USPQ 940 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The lack of objective evidence of nonobviousness does not weigh in favor of obviousness. Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 878, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1129 (Fed. Cir.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-319
§ 716.01(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
1993), cert. denied,127 L. Ed. 232 (1994). However, where a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the failure to provide rebuttal evidence is dispositive.
716.01(b) Nexus Requirement and Evidence of Nonobviousness [R-08.2012]
TO BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE, ANY SECONDARY EVIDENCE MUST BE RELATED TO THE CLAIMED INVENTION (NEXUS REQUIRED)
The weight attached to evidence of secondary considerations by the examiner will depend upon its relevance to the issue of obviousness and the amount and nature of the evidence. Note the great reliance apparently placed on this type of evidence by the Supreme Court in upholding the patent in United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39,148 USPQ 479 (1966).
To be given substantial weight in the determination of obviousness or nonobviousness, evidence of secondary considerations must be relevant to the subject matter as claimed, and therefore the examiner must determine whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 305 n.42, 227 USPQ 657, 673-674 n. 42 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988).
716.01(c) Probative Value of Objective Evidence [R-08.2012]
I. TO BE OF PROBATIVE VALUE, ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL PROOF
Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of
unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the applicant. See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence.” “[A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument.”). See also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991).
II. ATTORNEY ARGUMENTS CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the applicant.
See MPEP § 2145 generally for case law pertinent to the consideration of applicant’s rebuttal arguments.
III. OPINION EVIDENCE
Although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962) (expert opinion that an application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 is not entitled to any weight; however, facts
700-320Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 716.01(b)
supporting a basis for deciding that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 are entitled to some weight); In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967) (Although an affiant’s or declarant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in the case, “some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him.” 385 F.2d at 456, 155 USPQ at 524 (emphasis in original)).
In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). See also In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 198 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1978) (factually based expert opinions on the level of ordinary skill in the art were sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness); Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (statement in publication dismissing the “preliminary identification of a human b-NGF-like molecule” in the prior art, even if considered to be an expert opinion, was inadequate to overcome the rejection based on that prior art because there was no factual evidence supporting the statement); In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184, 202 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1979) (expert opinion on what the prior art taught, supported by documentary evidence and formulated prior to the making of the claimed invention, received considerable deference); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (declarations of seven persons skilled in the art offering opinion evidence praising the merits of the claimed invention were found to have little value because of a lack of factual support); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (conclusory statements that results were “unexpected,” unsupported by objective factual evidence, were considered but were not found to be of substantial evidentiary value).
Although an affidavit or declaration which states only conclusions may have some probative value, such an affidavit or declaration may have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence
of record in the application. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).
An affidavit of an applicant as to the advantages of his or her claimed invention, while less persuasive than that of a disinterested person, cannot be disregarded for this reason alone. Ex parte Keyes, 214 USPQ 579 (Bd. App. 1982); In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717, 97 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1953).
716.01(d) Weighing Objective Evidence [R-08.2012]
IN MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF PATENTABILITY, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PATENTABILITY MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PRIMA FACIE CASE
When an applicant timely submits evidence traversing a rejection, the examiner must reconsider the patentability of the claimed invention. The ultimate determination of patentability must be based on consideration of the entire record, by a preponderance of evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of any arguments and any secondary evidence. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The submission of objective evidence of patentability does not mandate a conclusion of patentability in and of itself. In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Facts established by rebuttal evidence must be evaluated along with the facts on which the conclusion of a prima facie case was reached, not against the conclusion itself. In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, each piece of rebuttal evidence should not be evaluated for its ability to knockdown the prima facie case. All of the competent rebuttal evidence taken as a whole should be weighed against the evidence supporting the prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Although the record may establish evidence of secondary considerations which are indicia of nonobviousness, the record may also establish such a strong case of obviousness that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989); Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-321
§ 716.01(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1484, 44 USPQ2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (showing of unexpected results and commercial success of claimed ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine combination in single tablet form, while supported by substantial evidence, held not to overcome strong prima facie case of obviousness). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) for a detailed discussion of the proper roles of the examiner’s prima facie case and applicant’s rebuttal evidence in the final determination of obviousness.
If, after evaluating the evidence, the examiner is still not convinced that the claimed invention is patentable, the next Office action should include a statement to that effect and identify the reason(s) (e.g., evidence of commercial success not convincing, the commercial success not related to the technology, etc.). See Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also MPEP § 716.01. See MPEP § 2145 for guidance in determining whether rebuttal evidence is sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.
716.02 Allegations of Unexpected Results [R-08.2012]
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (differences in sedative and anticholinergic effects between prior art and claimed antidepressants were not unexpected). In In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276, 182 USPQ 290, 293 (CCPA 1974), the court held that unexpected results for a claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a demonstration of “a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree.” Compare In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 884, 152 USPQ 552, 560 (CCPA 1967) (differences in properties cannot be disregarded on the ground they are differences in degree rather than in kind); Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
1992) (“we generally consider a discussion of results in terms of ‘differences in degree’ as compared to ‘differences in kind’ . . . to have very little meaning in a relevant legal sense”).
716.02(a) Evidence Must Show Unexpected Results [R-08.2012]
I. GREATER THAN EXPECTED RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
“A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” In re Corkill, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In Corkhill, the claimed combination showed an additive result when a diminished result would have been expected. This result was persuasive of nonobviousness even though the result was equal to that of one component alone. Evidence of a greater than expected result may also be shown by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects taken separately (i.e., demonstrating “synergism”). Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). However, a greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (Evidence showing greater than additive sweetness resulting from the claimed mixture of saccharin and L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine was not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness because the teachings of the prior art lead to a general expectation of greater than additive sweetening effects when using mixtures of synthetic sweeteners.).
II. SUPERIORITY OF A PROPERTY SHARED WITH THE PRIOR ART IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
Evidence of unobvious or unexpected advantageous properties, such as superiority in a property the
700-322Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 716.02
claimed compound shares with the prior art, can rebut prima facie obviousness. “Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties . . . can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” No set number of examples of superiority is required. In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Evidence showing that the claimed herbicidal compound was more effective than the closest prior art compound in controlling quackgrass and yellow nutsedge weeds in corn and soybean crops was sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, even though the specification indicated the claimed compound was an average performer on crops other than corn and soybean.). See also Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (unexpected superior therapeutic activity of claimed compound against anaerobic bacteria was sufficient to rebut prima facie obviousness even though there was no evidence that the compound was effective against all bacteria).
III. PRESENCE OFAN UNEXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
Presence of a property not possessed by the prior art is evidence of nonobviousness. In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (rejection of claims to compound structurally similar to the prior art compound was reversed because claimed compound unexpectedly possessed anti-inflammatory properties not possessed by the prior art compound); Ex parte Thumm, 132 USPQ 66 (Bd. App. 1961) (Appellant showed that the claimed range of ethylene diamine was effective for the purpose of producing “‘regenerated cellulose consisting substantially entirely of skin’” whereas the prior art warned “this compound has ‘practically no effect.’ ”). The submission of evidence that a new product possesses unexpected properties does not necessarily require a conclusion that the claimed invention is nonobvious. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979). See the discussion of latent properties and additional advantages in MPEP § 2145.
IV. ABSENCE OF AN EXPECTED PROPERTY IS EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
Absence of property which a claimed invention would have been expected to possess based on the teachings of the prior art is evidence of unobviousness. Ex parte Mead Johnson & Co., 227 USPQ 78 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (Based on prior art disclosures, claimed compounds would have been expected to possess beta-andrenergic blocking activity; the fact that claimed compounds did not possess such activity was an unexpected result sufficient to establish unobviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.).
716.02(b) Burden on Applicant [R-08.2012]
I. BURDEN ON APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH RESULTSARE UNEXPECTEDAND SIGNIFICANT
The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength “are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration.”); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in MPEP § 716.02(c).
II. APPLICANTS HAVE BURDEN OF EXPLAINING PROFFERED DATA
“[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness.” Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-323
§ 716.02(b)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
III. DIRECT AND INDIRECT COMPARATIVE TESTS ARE PROBATIVE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e). See In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311, 1317, 182 USPQ 294, 298 (CCPA 1974) and In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 1241-42, 169 USPQ 429, 433 (CCPA 1971) for examples of cases where indirect comparative testing was found sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
The patentability of an intermediate may be established by unexpected properties of an end product “when one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascribe to a claimed intermediate the ‘contributing cause’ for such an unexpectedly superior activity or property.” In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366, 373, 202 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1979). “In order to establish that the claimed intermediate is a ‘contributing cause’of the unexpectedly superior activity or property of an end product, an applicant must identify the cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property (compared to the prior art) in the end product and establish a nexus for that cause between the intermediate and the end product.” Id. at 479.
716.02(c) Weighing Evidence of Expected and Unexpected Results [R-08.2012]
I. EVIDENCE OF UNEXPECTEDAND EXPECTED PROPERTIES MUST BE WEIGHED
Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (Claims directed to a method of effecting analgesia without producing physical dependence by administering the levo isomer of a compound having a certain chemical structure were rejected as obvious over the prior art. Evidence that the compound was unexpectedly nonaddictive was sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection. Although the compound also
had the expected result of potent analgesia, there was evidence of record showing that the goal of research in this area was to produce an analgesic compound which was nonaddictive, enhancing the evidentiary value of the showing of nonaddictiveness as an indicia of nonobviousness.). See MPEP § 716.01(d) for guidance on weighing evidence submitted to traverse a rejection.
Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) (Claims were directed to a display/memory device which was prima facie obvious over the prior art. The court found that a higher memory margin and lower operating voltage would have been expected properties of the claimed device, and that a higher memory margin appears to be the most significant improvement for a memory device. Although applicant presented evidence of unexpected properties with regard to lower peak discharge current and higher luminous efficiency, these properties were not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than that of the expected higher memory margin and lower operating voltage. The court held the evidence of nonobviousness was not sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness.); In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Evidence of improved feed efficiency in steers was not sufficient to rebut prima facie case of obviousness based on prior art which specifically taught the use of compound X537A to enhance weight gain in animals because the evidence did not show that a significant aspect of the claimed invention would have been unexpected.).
II. EXPECTED BENEFICIAL RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF OBVIOUSNESS
“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967) (resultant decrease of dental enamel solubility accomplished by adding an acidic buffering agent to a fluoride containing
700-324Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 716.02(c)
dentifrice was expected based on the teaching of the prior art); Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a process of sterilizing a polyolefinic composition which contains an antioxidant with high-energy radiation. Although evidence was presented in appellant’s specification showing that particular antioxidants are effective, the Board concluded that these beneficial results would have been expected because one of the references taught a claimed antioxidant is very efficient and provides better results compared with other prior art antioxidants.).
716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention [R-08.2012]
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at “elevated temperatures” using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term “elevated temperatures” encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments
limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
I. NONOBVIOUSNESS OFA GENUS OR CLAIMED RANGE MAY BE SUPPORTED BY DATA SHOWING UNEXPECTED RESULTS OF A SPECIES OR NARROWER RANGE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
The nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) (Claims directed to mixtures of an herbicide known as “FENAC” with a diphenyl ether herbicide in certain relative proportions were rejected as prima facie obvious. Applicant presented evidence alleging unexpected results testing three species of diphenyl ether herbicides over limited relative proportion ranges. The court held that the limited number of species exemplified did not provide an adequate basis for concluding that similar results would be obtained for the other diphenyl ether herbicides within the scope of the generic claims. Claims 6-8 recited a FENAC:diphenyl ether ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 for the three specific ethers tested. For two of the claimed ethers, unexpected results were demonstrated over a ratio of 16:1 to 2:1, and the effectiveness increased as the ratio approached the untested region of the claimed range. The court held these tests were commensurate in scope with the claims and supported the nonobviousness thereof. However, for a third ether, data was only provided over the range of 1:1 to 2:1 where the effectiveness decreased to the “expected level” as it approached the untested region. This evidence was not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection.); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was “no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.”).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-325
§ 716.02(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
716.02(e) Comparison With Closest Prior Art [R-08.2012]
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). “A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference.” In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential).
I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MAY BE COMPARED WITH PRIORART THAT IS CLOSER THAN THAT APPLIED BY THE EXAMINER
Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the examiner. In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (Bd. App. 1961) (Claims to a 13-chloro substituted compound were rejected as obvious over nonchlorinated analogs of the claimed compound. Evidence showing unexpected results for the claimed compound as compared with the 9-, 12-, and 14- chloro derivatives of the compound rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness because the compounds compared
against were closer to the claimed invention than the prior art relied upon.).
II. COMPARISONS WHEN THERE ARE TWO EQUALLY CLOSE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
Showing unexpected results over one of two equally close prior art references will not rebut prima facie obviousness unless the teachings of the prior art references are sufficiently similar to each other that the testing of one showing unexpected results would provide the same information as to the other. In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1461, 223 USPQ 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claimed compounds differed from the prior art either by the presence of a trifluoromethyl group instead of a chloride radical, or by the presence of an unsaturated ester group instead of a saturated ester group. Although applicant compared the claimed invention with the prior art compound containing a chloride radical, the court found this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because the evidence did not show relative effectiveness over all compounds of the closest prior art. An applicant does not have to test all the compounds taught by each reference, “[h]owever, where an applicant tests less than all cited compounds, the test must be sufficient to permit a conclusion respecting the relative effectiveness of applicant’s claimed compounds and the compounds of the closest prior art.” Id. (quoting In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 316, 203 USPQ 245,
256 (CCPA 1979)) (emphasis in original).).
III. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MAY BE COMPARED WITH THE CLOSEST SUBJECT MATTER THAT EXISTS IN THE PRIOR ART
Although evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art, applicant is not required to compare the claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art. In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 689, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Newman, J., concurring) (Evidence rebutted prima facie case by comparing claimed invention with the most relevant prior art. Note that the majority held the Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) (Requiring applicant to compare claimed invention with polymer suggested by the
700-326Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 716.02(e)
combination of references relied upon in the rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103 “would be requiring comparison of the results of the invention with the results of the invention.” 357 F.2d at 422, 148 USPQ at 714.).
716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent [R-08.2012]
The totality of the record must be considered when determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, evidence and arguments directed to advantages not disclosed in the specification cannot be disregarded. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the purported advantage of placement of a selective catalytic reduction catalyst in the bag retainer of an apparatus for controlling emissions was not disclosed in the specification, evidence and arguments rebutting the conclusion that such placement was a matter of “design choice” should have been considered as part of the totality of the record. “We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant’s evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution.” 66 F.3d at 299, 36 USPQ2d at 1095.). See also In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 928, 142 USPQ 158, 161 (CCPA 1964) (evidence that claimed compound minimized side effects of hypotensive activity must be considered because this undisclosed property would inherently flow from disclosed use as tranquilizer); Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103, 104 - 05 (Bd. App. 1981) (evidence relating to initially undisclosed relative toxicity of claimed pharmaceutical compound must be considered).
The specification need not disclose proportions or values as critical for applicants to present evidence showing the proportions or values to be critical. In
re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 607, 170 USPQ 213, 220 (CCPA 1971).
716.02(g) Declaration or Affidavit Form [R-08.2012]
“The reason for requiring evidence in declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 25 and 18 U.S.C. 1001.” Permitting a publication to substitute for expert testimony would circumvent the guarantees built into the statute. Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922, 1928 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Publications may, however, be evidence of the facts in issue and should be considered to the extent that they are probative.
716.03 Commercial Success [R-08.2012]
I. NEXUS BETWEEN CLAIMED INVENTIONAND EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS REQUIRED
An applicant who is asserting commercial success to support its contention of nonobviousness bears the burden of proof of establishing a nexus between the claimed invention and evidence of commercial success.
The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that applicant bears the burden of establishing nexus, stating:
In the ex parte process of examining a patent application, however, the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant’s assertion that the sale constitute commercial success. C.f. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990)(evidentiary routine of shifting burdens in civil proceedings inappropriate in ex parte prosecution proceedings because examiner has no available means for adducing evidence). Consequently, the PTO must rely upon the applicant to provide hard evidence of commercial success.
In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See also In re GPAC,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-327
§ 716.03EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
57 F.3d 1573, 1580, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Evidence of commercial success of articles not covered by the claims subject to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection was not probative of nonobviousness).
The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the evidence of commercial success and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
II. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ABROAD IS RELEVANT
Commercial success abroad, as well as in the United States, is relevant in resolving the issue of nonobviousness. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
716.03(a) Commercial Success Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention [R-08.2012]
I. EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST BE COMMENSURATE IN SCOPE WITH THE CLAIMS
Objective evidence of nonobviousness including commercial success must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229, 17 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228, 22 USPQ2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not
commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.).
An affidavit or declaration attributing commercial success to a product or process “constructed according to the disclosure and claims of [the] patent application” or other equivalent language does not establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial success because there is no evidence that the product or process which has been sold corresponds to the claimed invention, or that whatever commercial success may have occurred is attributable to the product or process defined by the claims. Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).
II. REQUIREMENTS WHEN CLAIMED INVENTION IS NOT COEXTENSIVE WITH COMMERCIAL PRODUCT OR PROCESS
If a particular range is claimed, applicant does not need to show commercial success at every point in the range. “Where, as here, the claims are directed to a combination of ranges and procedures not shown by the prior art, and where substantial commercial success is achieved at an apparently typical point within those ranges, and the affidavits definitely indicate that operation throughout the claimed ranges approximates that at the particular points involved in the commercial operation, we think the evidence as to commercial success is persuasive.” In re Hollingsworth, 253 F.2d 238, 240, 117 USPQ 182, 184 (CCPA 1958). See also Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (where the commercially successful product or process is not coextensive with the claimed invention, applicant must show a legally sufficient relationship between the claimed feature and the commercial product or process).
716.03(b) Commercial Success Derived From Claimed Invention [R-8.2012]
I. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST BE DERIVED FROM THE CLAIMED INVENTION
In considering evidence of commercial success, care should be taken to determine that the commercial success alleged is directly derived from the invention
700-328Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 716.03(a)
claimed, in a marketplace where the consumer is free to choose on the basis of objective principles, and that such success is not the result of heavy promotion or advertising, shift in advertising, consumption by purchasers normally tied to applicant or assignee, or other business events extraneous to the merits of the claimed invention, etc. In re Mageli, 470 F.2d 1380, 176 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1973) (conclusory statements or opinions that increased sales were due to the merits of the invention are entitled to little weight); In re Noznick, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973).
In ex parte proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of nonobviousness is to be accorded substantial weight. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention.). Merely showing that there was commercial success of an article which embodied the invention is not sufficient. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-02 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (In civil litigation, a patentee does not have to prove that the commercial success is not due to other factors. “A requirement for proof of the negative of all imaginable contributing factors would be unfairly burdensome, and contrary to the ordinary rules of evidence.”).
See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product); In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 690, 176 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1973) (success of invention could be due to recent changes in related technology or consumer demand; here success of claimed voting ballot could be due to the contemporary drive toward greater use of automated data processing techniques); EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 225 USPQ 20 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (evidence of licensing is a secondary consideration which must be carefully appraised as to its evidentiary value because
licensing programs may succeed for reasons unrelated to the unobviousness of the product or process, e.g., license is mutually beneficial or less expensive than defending infringement suits); Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Evidence of commercial success supported a conclusion of nonobviousness of claims to an immunometric “sandwich” assay with monoclonal antibodies. Patentee’s assays became a market leader with 25% of the market within a few years. Evidence of advertising did not show absence of a nexus between commercial success and the merits of the claimed invention because spending 25-35% of sales on marketing was not inordinate (mature companies spent 17-32% of sales in this market), and advertising served primarily to make industry aware of the product because this is not kind of merchandise that can be sold by advertising hyperbole.).
II. COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MUST FLOW FROM THE FUNCTIONS AND ADVANTAGES DISCLOSED OR INHERENT IN THE SPECIFICATION DESCRIPTION
To be pertinent to the issue of nonobviousness, the commercial success of devices falling within the claims of the patent must flow from the functions and advantages disclosed or inherent in the description in the specification. Furthermore, the success of an embodiment within the claims may not be attributable to improvements or modifications made by others. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
III. IN DESIGN CASES, ESTABLISHMENT OF NEXUS IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT
Establishing a nexus between commercial success and the claimed invention is especially difficult in design cases. Evidence of commercial success must be clearly attributable to the design to be of probative value, and not to brand name recognition, improved performance, or some other factor. Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 221 USPQ 97 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (showing of commercial success was not accompanied by evidence attributing commercial success of Litton microwave oven to the design thereof).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-329
§ 716.03(b)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
IV. SALES FIGURES MUST BE ADEQUATELY DEFINED
Gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).
716.04 Long-Felt Need and Failure of Others [R-08.2012]
I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MUST SATISFY A LONG-FELT NEED WHICH WAS RECOGNIZED, PERSISTENT, AND NOT SOLVED BY OTHERS
Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. The relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness depends on several factors. First, the need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ 602, 605 (CCPA 1967) (“Since the alleged problem in this case was first recognized by appellants, and others apparently have not yet become aware of its existence, it goes without saying that there could not possibly be any evidence of either a long felt need in the . . . art for a solution to a problem of dubious existence or failure of others skilled in the art who unsuccessfully attempted to solve a problem of which they were not aware.”); Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic
Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Although the claimed invention achieved the desirable result of reducing inventories, there was no evidence of any prior unsuccessful attempts to do so.).
Second, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by applicant. Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Although at one time there was a long-felt need for a “do-it-yourself” window shade material
which was adjustable without the use of tools, a prior art product fulfilled the need by using a scored plastic material which could be torn. “[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved”.)
Third, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need. In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971).
II. LONG-FELT NEED IS MEASURED FROM THE DATE A PROBLEM IS IDENTIFIED AND EFFORTS ARE MADE TO SOLVE IT
Long-felt need is analyzed as of the date the problem is identified and articulated, and there is evidence of efforts to solve that problem, not as of the date of the most pertinent prior art references. Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1179, 26 USPQ2d 1018, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
III. OTHER FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE PRESENCE OF A LONG-FELT NEED MUST BE CONSIDERED
The failure to solve a long-felt need may be due to factors such as lack of interest or lack of appreciation of an invention’s potential or marketability rather than want of technical know-how. Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America, 570 F.2d 355, 196 USPQ 657 (1st. Cir. 1977).
See also Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 698, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (presence of legislative regulations for controlling sulfur dioxide emissions did not militate against existence of long-felt need to reduce the sulfur content in the air); In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 344, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971) (fact that affidavit supporting contention of fulfillment of a long-felt need was sworn by a licensee adds to the weight to be accorded the affidavit, as long as there is a bona fide licensing agreement entered into at arm’s length).
716.05 Skepticism of Experts [R-08.2012]
“Expressions of disbelief by experts constitute strong evidence of nonobviousness.” Environmental
700-330Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 716.04
Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 698, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52, 148 USPQ 479, 483-484 (1966)) (The patented process converted all the sulfur compounds in a certain effluent gas stream to hydrogen sulfide, and thereafter treated the resulting effluent for removal of hydrogen sulfide. Before learning of the patented process, chemical experts, aware of earlier failed efforts to reduce the sulfur content of effluent gas streams, were of the opinion that reducing sulfur compounds to hydrogen sulfide would not adequately solve the problem.).
“The skepticism of an expert, expressed before these inventors proved him wrong, is entitled to fair evidentiary weight, . . . as are the five to six years of research that preceded the claimed invention.” In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 5 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Burlington Industries Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (testimony that the invention met with initial incredulity and skepticism of experts was sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness based on the prior art).
716.06 Copying [R-08.2012]
Another form of secondary evidence which may be presented by applicants during prosecution of an application, but which is more often presented during litigation, is evidence that competitors in the marketplace are copying the invention instead of using the prior art. However, more than the mere fact of copying is necessary to make that action significant because copying may be attributable to other factors such as a lack of concern for patent property or contempt for the patentee’s ability to enforce the patent. Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Evidence of copying was persuasive of nonobviousness when an alleged infringer tried for a substantial length of time to design a product or process similar to the claimed invention, but failed and then copied the claimed invention instead. Dow Chem. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 816 F.2d 617, 2 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Alleged copying is not persuasive of nonobviousness when the copy is not identical to the claimed product, and the other manufacturer had not expended great effort
to develop its own solution. Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1568, 224 USPQ 195, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of copying not found persuasive of nonobviousness) and Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 1098-99, 227 USPQ 337, 348, 349 (Fed. Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 809, 229 USPQ 478 (1986), on remand, 810 F.2d 1561, 1 USPQ2d 1593 (Fed.
Cir. 1987) (evidence of copying found persuasive of nonobviousness where admitted infringer failed to satisfactorily produce a solution after 10 years of effort and expense).
716.07 Inoperability of References [R-08.2012]
Since every patent is presumed valid (35 U.S.C. 282), and since that presumption includes the presumption of operability (Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe, 78 F.2d 199, 25 USPQ 216 (D.C. Cir. 1935), examiners should not express any opinion on the operability of a patent. Affidavits or declarations attacking the operability of a patent cited as a reference must rebut the presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980).
Further, since in a patent it is presumed that a process if used by one skilled in the art will produce the product or result described therein, such presumption is not overcome by a mere showing that it is possible to operate within the disclosure without obtaining the alleged product. In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1969). It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950).
Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts inoperability in features of the reference which are not relied upon, the reference is still effective as to other features which are operative. In re Shepherd, 172 F.2d 560, 80 USPQ 495 (CCPA 1949).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-331
§ 716.07EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts that the reference relied upon is inoperative, the claims represented by applicant must distinguish from the alleged inoperative reference disclosure. In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198, 71 USPQ 73 (CCPA
1946). See also In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (lack of diagrams, flow charts, and other details in the prior art references did not render them nonenabling in view of the fact that applicant’s own specification failed to provide such detailed information, and that one skilled in the art would have known how to implement the features of the references).
If a patent teaches or suggests the claimed invention, an affidavit or declaration by patentee that he or she did not intend the disclosed invention to be used as claimed by applicant is immaterial. In re Pio, 217 F.2d 956, 104 USPQ 177 (CCPA 1954). Compare In re Yale, 434 F.2d 66, 168 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1970) (Correspondence from a co-author of a literature article confirming that the article misidentified a compound through a typographical error that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art was persuasive evidence that the erroneously typed compound was not put in the possession of the public.).
716.08 Utility and Operability of Applicant’s Disclosure [R-08.2012]
See MPEP § 2107.02, for guidance on when it is proper to require evidence of utility or operativeness, and how to evaluate any evidence which is submitted to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility. See MPEP § 2107 - § 2107.03 generally for utility examination guidelines and an overview of legal precedent relevant to the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101.
716.09 Sufficiency of Disclosure [R-11.2013]
See MPEP § 2164 - § 2164.08(c) for guidance in determining whether the specification provides an enabling disclosure in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Once the examiner has established a prima facie case of lack of enablement, the burden falls on the
applicant to present persuasive arguments, supported by suitable proofs where necessary, that one skilled in the art would have been able to make and use the claimed invention using the disclosure as a guide. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286
(CCPA 1973). Evidence to supplement a specification which on its face appears deficient under 35 U.S.C. 112 must establish that the information which must be read into the specification to make it complete would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 210 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1981) (copies of patent specifications which had been opened for inspection in Rhodesia, Panama, and Luxembourg prior to the U.S. filing date of the applicant were not sufficient to overcome a rejection for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph).
Affidavits or declarations presented to show that the disclosure of an application is sufficient to one skilled in the art are not acceptable to establish facts which the specification itself should recite. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 18 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Expert described how he would construct elements necessary to the claimed invention whose construction was not described in the application or the prior art; this was not sufficient to demonstrate that such construction was well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.); In re Smyth, 189 F.2d 982, 90 USPQ 106 (CCPA 1951).
Affidavits or declarations purporting to explain the disclosure or to interpret the disclosure of a pending application are usually not considered. In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974, 62 USPQ 297 (CCPA 1944). But see Glaser v. Strickland, 220 USPQ 446 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1983) which reexamines the rationale on which In re Oppenauer was based in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Board stated as a general proposition “Opinion testimony which merely purports to state that a claim or count, is ‘disclosed’ in an application involved in an interference . . . should not be given any weight. Opinion testimony which purports to state that a particular feature or limitation of a claim or count is disclosed in an application involved in an interference and which explains the underlying factual basis for the opinion may be helpful and can be admitted. The weight to which the latter testimony
700-332Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 716.08
may be entitled must be evaluated strictly on a case-by-case basis.”
716.10 Attribution Affidavit or Declaration to Overcome Rejection Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA unless being relied upon to overcome a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For a discussion of 37 CFR 1.130, affidavits or declarations of attribution or prior public disclosure in applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA, see MPEP § 717]
Under certain circumstances an affidavit or declaration may be submitted which attempts to attribute an activity, a reference or part of a reference to the applicant to overcome a rejection based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 prior art. If successful, the activity or the reference is no longer applicable. When subject matter, disclosed in a patent or patent application filed jointly by S and another is claimed in a later application filed by S, the joint patent or joint patent application publication is a valid reference available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (e), or (f) unless overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing prior invention (see MPEP § 715) or by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. An unequivocal declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by S that he/she conceived or invented the subject matter that was disclosed but not claimed in the patent or patent application publication and relied on in the rejection would be sufficient to overcome the rejection. In re DeBaun , 687 F.2d 459, 214 USPQ 933 (CCPA 1982). Where the reference is a U.S. patent or patent application publication which includes a claim reciting the subject matter relied upon in a rejection and that subject matter anticipates or would render obvious the subject matter of a claim in the application under examination, a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must also explain the presence of the additional inventor in the reference (e.g., the disclosure in claim 1 of the reference is relied upon to reject the claims; the affidavit or declaration explains that S is the sole inventor of claim 1, and the additional inventor and S are joint inventors of
claim 2 of the reference). Disclaimer by the other patentee or other applicant of the published application should not be required but, if submitted, may be accepted by the examiner.
Note that an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) cannot be used to overcome a rejection based on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication naming another inventor which claims interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a). See MPEP § 715.05.
For applications subject to current 35 U.S.C. 102, see MPEP §§ 717, 2153 and 2154.
Where there is a published article identifying the authorship (MPEP § 715.01(c)) or a patent or an application publication identifying the inventorship (MPEP § 715.01(a)) that discloses subject matter being claimed in an application undergoing examination, the designation of authorship or inventorship does not raise a presumption of inventorship with respect to the subject matter disclosed in the article or with respect to the subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the patent or published application so as to justify a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
However, it is incumbent upon the inventors named in the application, in response to an inquiry regarding the appropriate inventorship under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or to rebut a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e), to provide a satisfactory showing by way of affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 that the inventorship of the application is correct in that the reference discloses subject matter derived from the applicant rather than invented by the author, patentee, or applicant of the published application notwithstanding the authorship of the article or the inventorship of the patent or published application. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455, 215 USPQ 14,
18 (CCPA 1982) (inquiry is appropriate to clarify any ambiguity created by an article regarding inventorship and it is then incumbent upon the applicant to provide “a satisfactory showing that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that [applicant] is the ... inventor” of the subject matter disclosed in the article and claimed in the application).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-333
§ 716.10EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
An uncontradicted “unequivocal statement” from the applicant regarding the subject matter disclosed in an article, patent, or published application will be accepted as establishing inventorship. In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982). However, a statement by the applicants regarding their inventorship in view of an article, patent, or published application may not be sufficient where there is evidence to the contrary. Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. App. 1982) (a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) was affirmed notwithstanding declarations by the alleged actual inventors as to their inventorship in view of a nonapplicant author submitting a letter declaring the author’s inventorship); In re Carreira, 532 F.2d 1356, 189 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976) (disclaiming declarations from patentees were directed at the generic invention and not at the claimed species, hence no need to consider derivation of the subject matter).
A successful 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration establishing derivation by the author, patentee, or applicant of the published application of a first reference does not enable an applicant to step into the shoes of that author, patentee, or applicant of the published application in regard to its date of publication so as to defeat a later second reference. In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1350, 219 USPQ
389, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 are affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 because these are not otherwise provided for in the rules of practice. The Office will treat affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 as affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130, and affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 as affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132, regardless of whether the affidavit or declaration is designated as an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131, or 37 CFR 1.132.
EXAMPLES
The following examples demonstrate the application of an attribution affidavit or declaration.
Example 1
During the search the examiner finds a reference fully describing the claimed invention. The applicant is the author or patentee and it was published or patented less than one year prior to the filing date of the application. The reference cannot be used against applicant since it does not satisfy the 1-year time requirement of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Example 2
Same facts as above, but the author or patentee is an entity different from applicant. Since the entities are different, the reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e).
In the situation described in Example 2, an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 may be submitted to show that the relevant portions of the reference originated with or were obtained from applicant. Thus the affidavit attempts to convert the fact situation from that described in Example 2 to the situation described in Example 1.
717 Prior Art Exceptions under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (2) [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 715 et seq. for affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(a), MPEP § 718 for affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), and MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with respect to the claimed invention if: (1) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (2) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) and (B) provide that a disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed
700-334Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717
invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if: (1) The subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (2) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
The Office has provided a mechanism in 37 CFR 1.130 for filing an affidavit or declaration to establish that a disclosure made no earlier than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) due to an exception in 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See MPEP § 717.01 et seq. for more information on declarations filed under 37 CFR 1.130.
Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) provides that a disclosure made in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. This provision replaces the exception in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) that applied only in the context of an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 to prior art that was commonly owned at the time the claimed invention was made, and which qualified as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f), and/or (g). Thus, the AIA provides that certain prior patents and published patent applications of co-workers and collaborators are not prior art either for purposes of determining novelty (35 U.S.C. 102) or nonobviousness (35 U.S.C. 103). See MPEP § 717.02 et seq. for more information on the prior art exclusion under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
The AIA does not define the term “disclosure,” and 35 U.S.C. 102(a) does not use the term “disclosure.” 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2). Thus, the Office is treating the term “disclosure” as a generic expression intended to
encompass the documents and activities enumerated in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (i.e., being patented, described in a printed publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public, or being described in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application).
For more information on the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102 in general, see MPEP § 2150 et seq. For more information on the prior art exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), see MPEP § 2153 et seq. For more information on the prior art exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2), see MPEP § 2154.02 et seq.
717.01 Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.130 [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 715 et seq. for affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(a), MPEP § 718 for affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(c), and MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
37 CFR 1.130 Affidavit or declaration of attribution or prior public disclosure under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
(a) Affidavit or declaration of attribution. When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(b) Affidavit or declaration of prior public disclosure. When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. An affidavit or declaration under this paragraph must identify the subject matter publicly disclosed and provide the date such subject matter was publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-335
§ 717.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(1) If the subject matter publicly disclosed on that date was in a printed publication, the affidavit or declaration must be accompanied by a copy of the printed publication.
(2) If the subject matter publicly disclosed on that date was not in a printed publication, the affidavit or declaration must describe the subject matter with sufficient detail and particularity to determine what subject matter had been publicly disclosed on that date by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(c) When this section is not available . The provisions of this section are not available if the rejection is based upon a disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The provisions of this section may not be available if the rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication of a patented or pending application naming another inventor, the patent or pending application claims an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention, and the affidavit or declaration contends that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication derived the claimed invention from the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application or patent, in which case an applicant or a patent owner may file a petition for a derivation proceeding pursuant to § 42.401 et seq. of this title
(d) Applications and patents to which this section is applicable. The provisions of this section apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains, or contained at any time:
(1) A claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013; or
(2) A specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to any patent or application that contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is on or after March 16, 2013.
*****
37 CFR 1.130 provides a mechanism for filing an affidavit or declaration to establish that a disclosure is not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In other words, 37 CFR 1.130, like 37 CFR 1.131 and 37 CFR 1.132, provides a mechanism for the submission of evidence to disqualify a disclosure as prior art or otherwise traverse a rejection. An applicant’s or patent owner’s compliance with 37 CFR 1.130 means that the applicant or patent owner is entitled to have the evidence considered in determining the patentability of the claim(s) at issue. It does not mean that the applicant or patent owner is entitled as a matter of right to have the rejection of, or objection to, the claim(s) withdrawn. See Changes To Implement the Patent Business Goals,
65 FR 54604, 54640 (Sept. 8, 2000) (discussing procedural nature of 37 CFR 1.131 and 37 CFR 1.132).
37 CFR 1.130(a) provides that when any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 37 CFR 1.130(a) pertains to the provisions of subparagraph (A) of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2).
37 CFR 1.130(b) provides that when any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 37 CFR 1.130(b) pertains to the provisions of subparagraph (B) of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2).
37 CFR 1.130(c) provides that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.130 are not available if the rejection is based upon a disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and may not be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
37 CFR 1.130(d) provides that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.130 apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that is subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
I. SITUATIONS WHERE 37 CFR 1.130 AFFIDAVITS OR DECLARATIONS CAN BE USED
Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 may be used, for example:
700-336Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.01
(A) When a claim is under a prior art rejection, to disqualify a disclosure (e.g., reference, activity, or portion thereof) that is relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (2) by establishing that the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor, subject to certain restrictions, as discussed below in subsection II.
(B) When a claim is under a prior art rejection, to disqualify a disclosure (e.g., reference, activity, or portion thereof) that is relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (2) by establishing that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor, subject to certain restrictions, as discussed below in subsection II.
If effective, the disqualification of the disclosure as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) will make the disclosure unavailable to be applied in a rejection under either 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 35 U.S.C. 103. For example, an applicant or patent owner may overcome a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on a combination of references by disqualifying only one of the references (or portion thereof) applied in the rejection. The U.S. patents or U.S. patent application publications may continue to be applied under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting, statutory double patenting and may serve as evidence of the level of ordinary skill or evidence relevant to an enablement inquiry.
II. SITUATIONS WHERE 37 CFR 1.130 AFFIDAVITS OR DECLARATIONS ARE INAPPROPRIATE
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 is not appropriate in the following situations:
(A) When the disclosure that is applied in a rejection is:
(1) a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication that
(a) claims an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention, and
(b) the affidavit or declaration contends that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication derived the claimed invention from the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application or patent under examination. In this case, an applicant or patent owner may file a petition for a derivation proceeding pursuant to 37 CFR 42.401 et seq.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.130, however, would be available if:
(1) The rejection is based upon a disclosure other than a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication (such as non-patent literature or a foreign patent document);
(2) the rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application and the patent or pending application did not claim an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s claimed invention; or
(3) the rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application and while the patent or pending application does claim an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s claimed invention, the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 does not contend that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication derived the claimed invention from the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application or patent under examination (e.g., an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 would be available if instead of alleging derivation, the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 contends that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor).
(B) If the rejection is based upon a disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and may not be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1). Note that the provisions of 37
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-337
§ 717.01EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
CFR 1.130 are available to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) which is based on subject matter in an application or patent that was effectively filed, but not published or made publicly available, more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention under examination, where the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. See also, MPEP § 2155.06.
III. SITUATIONS WHERE 37 CFR 1.130(a) AFFIDAVITS OR DECLARATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED
(A) A declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) is not required when a public disclosure, subject to the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A), is by one or more joint inventor(s) or the entire inventive entity of the application under examination and does not name anyone else. For example, if an application names A, B, and C as the inventive entity, a journal publication names as authors A and B, and the publication date is one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, then the publication should not be applied in a prior art rejection because it is apparent that the disclosure is a grace period disclosure. Where a disclosure involves a patent document, a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) is not required where the inventive entity of the patent document, subject to the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A), only includes one or more joint inventor(s) or the entire inventive entity of the application under examination. For example, if the application names A, B, and C as the inventive entity, the patent document names A and B as the inventive entity, and the public availability date of the patent document is one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention under examination, then the patent document should not be applied in a prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because it is apparent that the patent document disclosure is a grace period disclosure.
(B) A declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) is not required when the inventive entity of a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication or a WIPO publication that designates the United States, subject to the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A), only includes one or more joint inventor(s), but not the entire inventive entity, of the application under examination. For example, if the application under examination names as the inventive entity A, B, and
C, and the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) reference names A and B as the inventive entity, then the reference should not be applied in a prior art rejection because it is apparent that the subject matter disclosed was obtained from one or more members of the inventive entity, either directly or indirectly. The exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) and 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) both have to do with disclosures of material that originated with the inventor or a joint inventor. However, the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) exception is not limited to the grace period.
(C) A declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) is not required if the specification of the application under examination identifies the disclosure or the subject matter disclosed, that is subject to the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) or 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) as having been made by or having originated from one or more members of the inventive entity of the application under examination. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(6) and MPEP § 2153.01(a).
IV. PRIOR ART DATE OF THE DISCLOSURE UNDER AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)
For determining the prior art date of a disclosure under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), see MPEP § 2152.02(a) et seq.
For determining the prior art date of a disclosure under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), see MPEP § 2154.01 et seq.
V. FORM PARAGRAPHS
¶ 7.67.aia Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.130: Effective to Disqualify a Reference as Prior Art Via 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
The [1] under 37 CFR 1.130 [2] filed on [3] is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [4] based on [5]. [6]
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.
3. In bracket 2, insert either --(a)-- or --(b)--.
4. In bracket 3, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration
5. In bracket 4, insert the affected claim or claims.
700-338Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.01
6. In bracket 5, insert the specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 that the affidavit or declaration has disqualified as prior art.
7. In bracket 6, insert the explanation of how the affidavit/declaration provides evidence of reliance on one of the exception provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) or 102(b)(2).
¶ 7.68.aia Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.130: Ineffective to Disqualify a Reference as Prior Art Via 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
The [1] under 37 CFR 1.130 [2] filed [3] is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [4] based upon [5] as set forth in the last Office action because [6]:
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia .
2. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.
3. In bracket 2, insert either --(a)-- or --(b)--.
4. In bracket 3, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.
5. In bracket 4, insert the affected claim or claims.
6. In bracket 5, insert the rejection that has not been overcome, including statutory grounds.
7. In bracket 6, insert the explanation of how the affidavit or declaration fails to provide evidence of reliance on one of the exception provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) or 102(b)(2).
717.01(a) Declarations or Affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130(a) – Attribution [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
37 CFR 1.130(a) provides that when any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 37 CFR 1.130(a) pertains to the
provisions of subparagraph (A) of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)) and 102(b)(2). 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor, and 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) provides that a disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
717.01(a)(1) Evaluation of Declarations or Affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130(a) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
In making a submission under 37 CFR 1.130(a), the applicant or patent owner is attempting to show that: (1) the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor; or (2) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. In other words, the affidavits or declarations are seeking to attribute an activity, a reference, or part of a reference to the inventor(s) to show that the disclosure is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Such declarations or affidavits will be similar to affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 for application subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(e). See MPEP § 716.10 and In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455, 215 USPQ 14, 18 (CCPA 1982). Affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 remain as affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.32. Thus, the Office will treat affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to the current 35 U.S.C. 102 as affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130, and affidavits or declarations of attribution for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 as affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.132,
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-339
§ 717.01(a)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
regardless of whether the affidavit or declaration is designated as an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131, or 1.132.
In evaluating whether a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) is effective, Office personnel will consider the following criteria:
(A) Whether the disclosure, which was applied in the rejection and is addressed in the affidavit or declaration, is subject to the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) or 102(b)(2)(A). The provision of 37 CFR 1.130(a) is not available:
(1) If the disclosure was made (e.g., patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public) more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2152.01 to determine the effective filing date. For example, if a public disclosure by the inventor or which originated with the inventor is not within the grace period of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), it would qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and could not be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
(2) When the disclosure that is applied in a rejection is
(a) a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication that
(b) claims an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention, and
(c) the affidavit or declaration contends that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication derived the claimed invention from the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application or patent.
See MPEP § 717.01, subsection II., for more information on when declarations or affidavits pursuant to 37 CFR 1.130(a) are not available.
(B) Whether the affidavit or declaration shows sufficient facts, in weight and character, to establish that
(1) the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or
(2) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
Some factors to consider are the following:
(1) Where the authorship of the prior art disclosure includes the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application, an “unequivocal” statement from the inventor or a joint inventor that he/she (or some specific combination of named joint inventors) invented the subject matter of the disclosure, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors, may be acceptable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982).
(2) A mere statement from the inventor or a joint inventor, without any accompanying reasonable explanation, may not be sufficient where there is evidence to the contrary, such as a contrary statement from another named author that was filed in another application on behalf of another party. See Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. App. 1982) (affirming rejection notwithstanding declarations by the alleged actual inventors as to their inventorship in view of a non-applicant author submitting a letter declaring the non-applicant author’s inventorship).
(C) Whether the formal requirements of a declaration or affidavit are met. See MPEP § 717.01(c)
(D) Whether the affidavit or declaration is timely presented. See MPEP § 717.01(f) .
There is no requirement that the affidavit or declaration demonstrate that the disclosure by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from an inventor or a joint inventor was an “enabling” disclosure of the subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2155.04.
The evidence necessary to show that the disclosure is by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed from the inventor or a joint inventor requires case-by-case analysis, depending upon whether it is apparent from the disclosure itself or the patent application specification that the disclosure is an inventor originated disclosure. See MPEP §§ 2155.01 and 2155.03 for more information. This determination is similar to the current process for disqualifying a publication as not being by “others” discussed in
700-340Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.01(a)(1)
MPEP § 2132.01, except that 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) requires only that the disclosure originated from an inventor or a joint inventor.
37 CFR 1.130 does not contain a provision that “[o]riginal exhibits of drawings or records, or photocopies thereof, must accompany and form part of the affidavit or declaration or their absence must be satisfactorily explained” in contrast to the requirement for such exhibits in 37 CFR 1.131(b), because in some situations an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 does not necessarily need to be accompanied by such exhibits (e.g., a statement by the inventor or a joint inventor may be sufficient). However, in situations where additional evidence is required, such exhibits must accompany an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130. In addition, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 must be accompanied by any exhibits that the applicant or patent owner wishes to rely upon. See MPEP § 717.01(c) for more information on the formal requirements for a declaration or affidavit and any attached exhibits.
717.01(b) Declarations or Affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130(b) – Prior Public Disclosure [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
37 CFR 1.130(b) provides that when any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 37 CFR 1.130(b) pertains to the provisions of subparagraph (B) of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2). 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) provides that a disclosure made one
year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) provides that a disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
717.01(b)(1) Evaluation of Declarations or Affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130(b) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
In making a submission under 37 CFR 1.130(b), the applicant or patent owner is attempting to show that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by: (1) the inventor or a joint inventor; or (2) another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
In evaluating whether a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) is effective to disqualify a disclosure on which the rejection is based, Office personnel will consider the following criteria:
(A) Whether the disclosure, which was applied in the rejection and is addressed in the affidavit or declaration, is subject to the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B). The provision of 37 CFR 1.130(b) is not available:
(1) If the disclosure was made (e.g., patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public) more
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-341
§ 717.01(b)(1)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2152.01 to determine the effective filing date.
(2) When the disclosure that is applied in a rejection is (1) a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication that (2) claims an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention, and (3) the affidavit or declaration contends that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication derived the claimed invention from the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application or patent.
See MPEP § 717.01, subsection II., for more information on when the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B) are not available.
In the situation where the previous public disclosure by the inventor (or which originated with the inventor) was not within the grace period but was effective to disqualify an intervening disclosure as prior art by invoking the exception of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B), the previous public disclosure by, or originating with, the inventor would qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and could not be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A).
(B) Whether the affidavit or declaration shows sufficient facts, in weight and character, to establish that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by: (1) the inventor or a joint inventor; or (2) another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. Some factors to consider are the following:
(1) The declaration or affidavit must identify the subject matter publicly disclosed and provide the date of the public disclosure of such subject matter by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) If the subject matter publicly disclosed on the earlier date by the inventor or a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor, was in a printed publication, the affidavit or declaration must be accompanied by a copy of the printed publication. See 37 CFR
1.130(b)(1). The Office requires a copy to determine not only whether the inventor is entitled to disqualify the disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), but also because if the rejection is based on a U.S. patent application publication or WIPO publication of an international application to another and such application is also pending before the Office, this prior disclosure may be prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) to the other earlier filed application, and this information may be useful in examination of both applications.
(3) If the subject matter publicly disclosed on the earlier date was not in a printed publication, the affidavit or declaration must describe the subject matter with sufficient detail and particularity to determine what subject matter had been publicly disclosed on the earlier date by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(4) If the subject matter publicly disclosed on the earlier date is the same as the subject matter in the disclosure applied in a prior art rejection. See MPEP § 717.01(b)(2).
(C) Whether the formal requirements of a declaration or affidavit are met. See MPEP § 717.01(c).
(D) Whether the affidavit or declaration is timely presented. See MPEP § 717.01(f).
There is no requirement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) that the mode of disclosure by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor (e.g., patenting, publication, public use, sale activity) be the same as the mode of disclosure of the intervening grace period disclosure.
There is also no requirement that the disclosure by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor be a verbatim or ipsissimis verbis disclosure of the intervening grace period disclosure. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066, 98 UQPQ2d 1799, 1806 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (subject matter does not change as a function of how one chooses to describe it).
700-342Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.01(b)(1)
There is no requirement that the affidavit or declaration demonstrate that the disclosure by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from an inventor or a joint inventor was an enabling disclosure of the subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2155.04.
Any remaining portion of an intervening grace period disclosure that was not previously publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). For example, if the inventor or a joint inventor had publicly disclosed elements A, B, and C, and a subsequent intervening grace period disclosure discloses elements A, B, C, and D, then only element D of the intervening grace period disclosure is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
The evidence necessary to show that the subject matter of a disclosure was previously disclosed by, or originated with, an inventor or a joint inventor requires case-by-case analysis.
37 CFR 1.130 does not contain a provision that “[o]riginal exhibits of drawings or records, or photocopies thereof, must accompany and form part of the affidavit or declaration or their absence must be satisfactorily explained” in contrast to the requirement for such exhibits in 37 CFR 1.131(b), because in some situations an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 does not necessarily need to be accompanied by such exhibits (e.g., a statement by the inventor or a joint inventor may be sufficient). However, in situations where additional evidence is required, such exhibits must accompany an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130. In addition, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 must be accompanied by any exhibits that the applicant or patent owner wishes to rely upon. See MPEP § 717.01(d) for more information on the formal requirements for a declaration or affidavit and any attached exhibits.
Finally, neither 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) nor 102(b)(2)(B) discusses " the claimed invention" with respect to either the subject matter of the previous inventor-originated disclosure or the subject matter
of the subsequent intervening disclosure.Any inquiry with respect to the claimed invention is whether or not the subject matter in the prior art disclosure being relied upon anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention. A determination of whether the exception in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B) is applicable to subject matter in an intervening disclosure does not involve a comparison of the subject matter of the claimed invention to either the subject matter of the previous inventor-originated disclosure or to the subject matter of the subsequent intervening disclosure.
717.01(b)(2) Determining if the Subject Matter of the Intervening Disclosure is the Same as the Subject Matter of the Inventor–Originated Prior Public Disclosure [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
I. “SAME” IS NOT “OBVIOUS”
The exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B) are only applicable when the subject matter of the intervening disclosure is the same as the subject matter of the earlier inventor-originated prior public disclosure (e.g., a disclosure by an inventor or joint inventor, or another who obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor). In other words, even if an intervening disclosure by a third party is obvious over an inventor-originated prior public disclosure, it would NOT be a disclosure of the same subject matter and the exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B) do not apply. Any showing that the intervening disclosure is the same subject matter as earlier disclosed by the inventor, joint inventor, of another who obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor(s) must be sufficient, in character and weight, to establish that the two disclosures are to the same subject matter.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-343
§ 717.01(b)(2)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
II. ONLY A PORTION MAY BE DISQUALIFIED AS PRIOR ART
Only the portion of the third party’s intervening disclosure that was previously in an inventor-originated disclosure (i.e., the same subject matter ) is disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In other words, any portion of the third party’s intervening disclosure that was not part of the previous inventor-originated disclosure is still available for use in a prior art rejection. Therefore, examiners should be aware that a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) may only disqualify a portion of a disclosure that was applied in a rejection in an Office action, and that other portions of the disclosure may still be available as prior art. For example, if the inventor or a joint inventor had publicly disclosed elements A, B, and C, and a subsequent intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application discloses elements A, B, C, and D, then element D of the intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application is still available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
III. MANNER OR MODES OF DISCLOSURESARE NOT RELEVANT
The manner of disclosure of subject matter referenced in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) is not critical. Just as the prior art provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) encompasses any disclosure that renders a claimed invention available to the public, any manner of disclosure may be evidenced in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b). That is, when using an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) to disqualify an intervening disclosure as prior art based on a prior public disclosure by an inventor or a joint inventor, it is not necessary for the subject matter to have been disclosed in the same manner or using the same words. In other words, there is no requirement that the disclosure by the inventor or a joint inventor be a verbatim or ipsissimis verbis disclosure of an intervening disclosure in order for the exception based on a previous public disclosure of subject matter by the inventor or a joint inventor to apply.
There is also no requirement that the mode (e.g., patenting, publication, public use, sale activity) of
disclosure by an inventor or joint inventor be the same as the mode of disclosure of an intervening disclosure. For example, the inventor or a joint inventor may have publicly disclosed the subject matter in question via a slide presentation at a scientific meeting, while the intervening disclosure of the subject matter may have been made in a journal article.
A difference in the mode of disclosure or differences in the words used to describe the subject matter will not preclude the inventor from submitting an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) to disqualify the intervening disclosure as prior art.
IV. SPECIES/GENUS, GENUS/SPECIES, AND SPECIES/SPECIES DISCLOSURES
The exception to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) applies to subject matter of the intervening disclosure that is simply a more general description of the subject matter previously publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. Specifically, if subject matter of an intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application is simply a more general description of the subject matter previously publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor, the exception in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) applies to such subject matter of the intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application disclosure. For example, if the inventor or a joint inventor had publicly disclosed a species, and a subsequent intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application discloses a genus (i.e., provides a more generic disclosure of the species), the disclosure of the genus in the intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Conversely, the exception may not apply to subject matter of the intervening disclosure that is more specific than the subject matter previously publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or that is directed to a different species. For example, if the inventor or a joint
700-344Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.01(b)(2)
inventor had publicly disclosed a genus, and a subsequent intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application discloses a species, the disclosure of the species in the subsequent intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application would be available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Likewise, if the inventor or a joint inventor had publicly disclosed a species, and a subsequent intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application discloses an alternative species not also disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor, the disclosure of the alternative species in the intervening U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application would be available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
717.01(c) Who May Make Affidavit or Declaration; Formal Requirements of Affidavits and Declarations [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
I. WHO MAY MAKE AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION
Anyone who has knowledge of the facts discussed in the declaration may sign a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.130, however, it is the applicant or patent owner who may submit (i.e., file) an affidavit or declaration. When an assignee, obligated assignee, or person showing sufficient proprietary interest is the applicant under 35 U.S.C. 118 rather than the inventor, the inventor may sign an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 to disqualify a disclosure of the invention as prior art, but the declaration must be filed by a party having authority to take action in the application. Authority to file papers in an application generally does not lie with the inventor if the inventor is not the applicant.
II. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS
An affidavit is a statement in writing made under oath before a notary public, magistrate, or officer authorized to administer oaths. See MPEP § 602 et seq. for additional information regarding formal requirements of affidavits.
37 CFR 1.68 permits a declaration to be used instead of an affidavit. The declaration must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Exhibits, such as those filed as part of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130, must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 to be entered into an application file. Exhibits that do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 will be disposed of or returned to applicant at the discretion of the Office. See also MPEP § 608.03(a).
717.01(d) U.S. Patent or Application Publication Claiming Same Invention [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. See 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 716.10 for affidavits or declarations of attribution under 37 CFR 1.132.]
When a rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication of a patented or pending application naming another inventor, the patent or pending application claims an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s or patent owner’s claimed invention, and the affidavit or declaration contends that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-345
§ 717.01(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
publication derived the claimed invention from the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application or patent, in which case an applicant or patent owner may file a petition for a derivation proceeding pursuant to 37 CFR 42.401 et seq . of this title. See 37 CFR 1.130(c). Permitting two different applicants to each aver or declare that an inventor named in the other application derived the claimed invention without a derivation proceeding to resolve who the true inventor is could result in the Office issuing two patents containing patentably indistinct claims to two different parties. Thus, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.130 are not available in certain situations to avoid the issuance of two patents containing patentably indistinct claims to two different parties. See In re Deckler, 977 F.2d 1449, 1451–52, 24 USPQ2d 1448, 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 135 “clearly contemplate—where different inventive entities are concerned—that only one patent should issue for inventions which are either identical to or not patentably distinct from each other”) (quoting Aelony v. Arni, 547 F.2d 566, 570, 192 USPQ 486,
490 (CCPA 1977)). See the Trial Practice Guide for information on derivation proceedings.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.130, however, would be available if: (1) The rejection is based upon a disclosure other than a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication (such as non-patent literature or a foreign patent document); (2) the rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application and the patent or pending application did not claim an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s claimed invention; or (3) the rejection is based upon a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application and the patent or pending application that does claim an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the applicant’s claimed invention, but the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 does not contend that an inventor named in the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication derived the claimed invention from the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application or patent (e.g., an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 would be available if instead of alleging derivation the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 contends that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or
another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor).
717.01(e) Passed Upon (or Decided by) by Primary Examiner [R-11.2013]
The question of sufficiency of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 should be reviewed and decided by a primary examiner.
Review of questions of formal sufficiency and propriety are by petition filed under 37 CFR 1.181. Such petitions are answered by the Technology Center Directors (MPEP § 1002.02(c)).
Review on the merits of a 37 CFR 1.130 affidavit or declaration is by appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See MPEP §1201.
717.01(f) Seasonable (or Timely) Presentation [R-11.2013]
Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 must be timely presented in order to be admitted. Affidavits and declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.130 and other evidence traversing rejections are considered timely if submitted:
(A) prior to a final rejection;
(B) before appeal in an application not having a final rejection;
(C) after final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e); or
(D) after the prosecution is closed (e.g., after a final rejection, after appeal, or after allowance) if applicant files the affidavit or other evidence with a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 in a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995; or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a design application.
All admitted affidavits and declarations are acknowledged and commented upon by the examiner in his or her next succeeding action.
700-346Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.01(e)
For affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 filed after appeal, see 37 CFR 41.33(d) and MPEP § 1206 and § 1211.03.
Review of an examiner’s refusal to enter an affidavit as untimely is by petition and not by appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In re Deters, 515 F.2d 1152, 185 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1975); Ex parte Hale, 49 USPQ 209 (Bd. App. 1941).
717.02 Prior Art Exception for Commonly Owned or Joint Research Agreement Subject Matter under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(l) et seq. for the examination of applications not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) provides that disclosures shall not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. If the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) is properly invoked, the commonly owned or joint research agreement reference is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) for both anticipation and obviousness rejections. See MPEP § 717.02(a) for more information on invoking this prior art exception and MPEP § 717.02(b) for more information on evaluating when the exception applies and is properly invoked.
35 U.S.C. 102(c) provides that a joint research agreement can establish common ownership if the following three conditions are satisfied in order to apply the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C):
A. The subject matter disclosed must have been developed and the claimed invention must have been made by, or on behalf of, one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. 102(c)(1). The AIA defines the term “joint research agreement” as a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. 100(h).
B. The claimed invention must have been made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement. See 35 U.S.C. 102(c)(2).
C. The application for patent for the claimed invention must disclose, or be amended to disclose, the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. See 35 U.S.C. 102(c)(3).
Joint research agreement subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) is treated under 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii), and joint research agreement subject matter under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) is treated under 37 CFR 1.104(c)(5)(ii).
The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) generally track those of the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1). The major differences between 35 U.S.C. 102(c)) and the CREATE Act are the following:
A. The new provision (35 U.S.C. 102(c)) is keyed to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while the CREATE Act (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)) focused on the date that the claimed invention was made; and
B. The CREATE Act provisions (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)) only applied to obviousness rejections and not to anticipation rejections.
717.02(a) Invoking the Prior Art Exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(l) et seq. for the examination of applications not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-347
§ 717.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
I. COMMON OWNERSHIP
In order to invoke common ownership to disqualify a disclosure as prior art, the applicant (or the patent owner) must provide a statement that the disclosure of the subject matter on which the rejection is based and the claimed invention were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The statement should either be on or begin on a separate sheet and must not be directed to other matters (37 CFR 1.4(c)). The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b).
A. Definition of Common Ownership
The term “commonly owned” is intended to mean that the subject matter which would otherwise be prior art to the claimed invention and the claimed invention are entirely or wholly owned by, or under an obligation to assign to, the same person(s) or organization(s)/business entity(ies). If the person(s) or organization(s) owned less than 100 percent of the subject matter which would otherwise be prior art to the claimed invention, or less than 100 percent of the claimed invention, then common ownership would not exist. Common ownership requires that the person(s) or organization(s)/business entity(ies) own 100 percent of the subject matter and 100 percent of the claimed invention.
Specifically, if an invention claimed in an application is owned by more than one entity and those entities seek to invoke the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), then the disclosure to which the exception applies must be owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entities that owned the application not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, assume Company A owns twenty percent of patent Application X and Company B owns eighty percent of patent Application X at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Application X. In addition, assume that Companies A and B seek to invoke the prior art exception for a disclosure in Patent Z under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). The relevant disclosure in Patent Z must have been co-owned, or have been under an obligation of assignment to both companies, not later than the effective filing date of
the claimed invention in Application X in order for the prior art exception to be properly invoked. A statement such as “Application X and Patent Z were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Application X, commonly owned by Companies A and B” would be sufficient to establish common ownership.
There is no requirement that the entire disclosure in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) reference be commonly owned. If subject matter disclosed that was relied upon as the basis for the rejection(s) was commonly owned, then it may be proper to invoke the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). For example, if the rejections in an Office action are only based upon the disclosure for the first embodiment, then only the first embodiment of the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) reference needs to be commonly owned. Therefore, using the facts from the example in the above paragraph, the statement establishing common ownership could state, “Application X and the first embodiment of Patent Z were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Application X, commonly owned by Companies A and B.” This statement would be sufficient to establish common ownership of Application X and the first embodiment of Patent Z. In this case, the examiner may still apply Patent Z’s disclosure that is not applicable to the first embodiment (e.g., disclosure unique to another embodiment) as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
For applications owned by a joint venture of two or more entities, both the application and the disclosure to which the exception applies must have been owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the joint venture not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the application. For example, if Company A and Company B formed a joint venture, Company C, both Application X and the relevant disclosure in Patent Z must have been owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, Company C not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Application X in order for the relevant disclosure in Patent Z to be properly disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). If Company A by itself always owned the relevant disclosure in Patent Z and Company C by itself always owned Application X, then the 35
700-348Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.02(a)
U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception would not apply to the relevant disclosure in Patent Z.
As long as principal ownership rights to either the disclosed subject matter or the claimed invention under examination reside in different persons or organizations, common ownership does not exist. A license of the claimed invention under examination to another by the owner where basic ownership rights are retained would not defeat ownership.
B. Evidence Required to Establish Common Ownership
The requirement for common ownership not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention is intended to preclude obtaining ownership of the disclosed subject matter after the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to disqualify that subject matter as prior art by invoking a prior art exception. A statement of present common ownership is not sufficient.
The question of whether common ownership exists not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention is to be determined on the facts of the particular case in question. Actual ownership of the disclosed subject matter and the claimed invention by the same individual(s) or organization(s) or a legal obligation to assign both the disclosed subject matter and the claimed invention to the same individual(s) or organization(s)/business entity(ies) must be in existence not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order for the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception to apply to the disclosed subject matter. A moral or unenforceable obligation would not evidence common ownership.
Applications and references (whether patents, patent applications, or patent application publications) will be considered by the examiner to be owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, if the applicant(s) or patent owner(s) make(s) a statement to the effect that the application and the disclosed subject matter were, not later than the effective filing date for the claimed invention, owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person. Such a statement is sufficient to establish common ownership of, or an obligation for assignment to, the same person(s) or
organizations(s) for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). The applicant(s), patent owner(s), or the representative(s) of record have the best knowledge of the ownership of their application(s) and reference(s), and their statement of such is sufficient because of their paramount obligation of candor and good faith to the USPTO.
The statement concerning common ownership should be clear and conspicuous (e.g., on a separate paper) to ensure the examiner notices the statement. For example, an attorney or agent of record receives an Office action for Application X in which all the claims are rejected based upon subject matter disclosed in Patent A (either alone or in combination with other references) wherein Patent A is only available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). In her response to the Office action, the attorney or agent of record for Application X states, in a clear and conspicuous manner, that:
“Application X and Patent A were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention inApplication X, owned by Company Z.”
This statement alone is sufficient to invoke the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). Once common ownership is established, the subject matter disclosed in Patent A may not be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 against the claims of Application X. Patent A, however, could still be used as the basis for a double patenting rejection, if appropriate. See MPEP § 804 for more information on double patenting rejections.
The applicant may, but is not required to, present evidence (e.g., assignment records, affidavits or declarations by the common owner, or court decisions) supporting the existence of the common ownership, in addition to the above-mentioned statement concerning common ownership.
In rare instances, the examiner may have independent evidence that raises a material doubt as to the accuracy of applicant’s or patent owner’s representation. For example, the independent evidence may show the lack of common ownership of (or the existence of an obligation to commonly
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-349
§ 717.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
assign) the application being examined and the applied subject matter in the U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication reference, or international patent application publication under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In such cases, the examiner should explain why the accuracy of the representation is doubted. In addition, the examiner may require objective evidence of common ownership of (or the existence of an obligation to assign) the application being examined and the applied subject matter not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the application being examined. Examiners should note that the execution dates in assignment documents may not reflect the date a party was under an obligation to assign the claimed invention.
Applicant(s) or patent owner(s) may submit, in addition to the statement regarding common ownership, the following objective evidence:
(A) Reference to assignments, which are recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in accordance with 37 CFR Part 3, and which convey the entire rights in the applications or patents to the same person(s) or organization(s);
(B) Copies of unrecorded assignments, which convey the entire rights in the applications or patents to the same person(s) or organization(s), and which are filed in each of the applications;
(C) An affidavit or declaration by the common owner, which is filed in the application or patent, and which states that there is common ownership, states facts which explain why the affiant or declarant believes there is common ownership, and is properly signed (i.e., affidavit or declaration may be signed by an official of the corporation or organization empowered to act on behalf of the corporation or organization when the common owner is a corporation or other organization); and
(D) Other evidence, which is submitted in the application or patent, and which establishes common ownership.
II. JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT
In order to invoke a joint research agreement to establish that the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception applies to a disclosure, the applicant (or patent owner) must provide a statement that the disclosure
of the subject matter on which the rejection is based and the claimed invention were made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c). The statement must also assert that the agreement was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement. The statement should either be on or begin on a separate sheet and must not be directed to other matters (37 CFR 1.4(c)). The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b).
If the names of the parties to the joint research agreement are not already stated in the application, it is necessary to amend the application to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement in accordance with 37 CFR 1.71(g).
Specifically, 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) provides that the specification may disclose or be amended to disclose the name of each party to the joint research agreement as required by 35 U.S.C. 102(c).
37 CFR1.71(g)(2) provides that an amendment under 37 CFR1.71(g)(1) must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) if it is not filed within one of the following time periods: (1) within three months of the filing date of a national application; (2) within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 in an international application; (3) before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits; or (4) before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114.
37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) provides that if an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent as issued may not necessarily include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. 37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) also provides that if the patent as issued does not include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, the patent must be corrected to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 for the amendment to be effective. The requirements of 37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) (correction of the patent by a certificate
700-350Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.02(a)
of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323) also apply in the situation in which such an amendment is not filed until after the date the patent was granted. It is unnecessary to file a reissue application or request for reexamination of the patent to submit the amendment and other information necessary to establish that the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) applies in view of a joint research agreement.
The submission of such an amendment remains subject to the rules of practice: e.g., 37 CFR 1.116, 1.121, and 1.312. For example, if an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) is submitted in an application under final rejection to overcome a rejection based upon a U.S. patent which qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), the examiner may refuse to enter the amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) if it is not accompanied by an appropriate terminal disclaimer (37 CFR 1.321(d)). This is because such an amendment may necessitate the reopening of prosecution (e.g., for entry of a double patenting rejection).
If an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) is submitted to overcome a rejection based upon a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or international patent application publication under the PCT, which qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), and the examiner withdraws the rejection, the examiner may need to issue an Office action containing a new double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified patent or patent application publication. In these situations, such Office action can be made final, provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). The Office action is properly made final because the new double patenting rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant. This is the case regardless of whether the claims themselves have been amended.
In addition to amending the specification to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, applicant must submit the required statement to invoke the prior art exception under 35
U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4) sets forth the requirement for the statement, which includes a statement to the effect that the prior art and the claimed invention were made by or on the behalf of parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(c), which was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement. The statement should either be on or begin on a separate sheet and must not be directed to other matters (37 CFR 1.4(c)). The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). As is the case with establishing common ownership, the applicant or patent owner may, but is not required to, present evidence supporting the existence of the joint research agreement.
If the applicant disqualifies the subject matter relied upon by the examiner by invoking the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and by following the procedures set forth in the rules, the examiner will treat the application under examination and the disqualified subject matter in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) reference as if they are “owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person” for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
The following examples are provided for illustration only:
Example 1
Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA) in place prior to the effective filing date of claimed invention X’, which is owned by Company A. Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. University B filed a patent application on invention X, which has an effective filing date of November 12, 2014. Company A filed a patent application disclosing and claiming invention X’, which is an obvious variant of invention X. The effective filing date of the claimed invention in Company A’s application is December 12, 2014. Invention X’ was made as a result of the activities undertaken within the scope of the JRA. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X’, without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could invoke the joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) to disqualify the subject matter disclosed in University B’s application as prior art by invoking the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71(g).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-351
§ 717.02(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
Example 2
Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. University B filed a patent application on invention X, which has an effective filing date of November 12, 2014. Company A filed a patent application disclosing and claiming invention X’, which is an obvious variant of invention X. The effective filing date of claimed invention X’ in Company A’s application is December 12, 2014. Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA), which goes into effect on January 2, 2015. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X’, without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could not invoke the joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) to disqualify the subject matter disclosed in University B’s application as prior art by invoking the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) because the JRA was not in effect until January 2, 2015, which is after the effective filing date of Company A’s invention (December 12, 2014).
Example 3
Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA) in place prior to the effective filing date of claimed invention X’. The JRA is limited to activities for invention Y and invention X’ was not made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the JRA. Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. University B filed a patent application on invention X, which has an effective filing date of November 12, 2014. Company A filed a patent application disclosing and claiming invention X’, which is an obvious variant of invention X. The effective filing date of claimed invention X’ in Company A’s application is December 12, 2014. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X’, without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could not invoke the joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) to disqualify University B’s application as prior art by invoking the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) because claimed invention X’was not made as a result of the activities undertaken within the scope of the JRA.
For invoking the joint research agreement provisions in pre-AIA applications, see MPEP § 706.02(l) et seq.
717.02(b) Evaluating Whether the Prior Art Exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) is Properly Invoked [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(l) et seq. for the examination of applications not subject to the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
37 CFR 1.104 Nature of examination. *****
(c) Rejection of claims.
*****
(4)(i) Subject matter which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and a claimed invention will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) if the applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(ii) Subject matter which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and a claimed invention will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) on the basis of a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) if:
(A) The applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h) and § 1.9(e), that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(B) The application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
*****
37 CFR 1.104(c)(4) includes the provisions that pertain to commonly owned or joint research agreement subject matter for applications and patents subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. Specifically, 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4) implements the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 102(c) in the AIA. Thus, 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4) is applicable to applications and patents that are subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103.
37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) provides that subject matter which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and a claimed invention will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) if the applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were
700-352Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.02(b)
owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) addresses joint research agreements and provides that subject matter which would otherwise qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and a claimed invention will be treated as commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) on the basis of a joint research agreement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) if: (1) The applicant or patent owner provides a statement to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, one or more parties to a joint research agreement (within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h) and 37 CFR 1.9(e)) that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and (2) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
I. WHEN THE EXCEPTION CAN BE USED
It is important to recognize that the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception can only be invoked in regard to a disclosure that is applied in a rejection as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) (disclosures in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application, or WIPO published international application effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). It is also important to recognize that the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception applies when the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) (anticipation) or 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness). In other words, the AIA expanded the previous commonly owned prior art exception under the CREATE Act to now apply to anticipation rejections and not just obviousness rejections.
II. WHEN THE EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY
The 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception does not apply to a disclosure that qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (disclosures publicly made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). In other words, the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) only disqualifies the disclosure
as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Thus, if the issue date of a U.S. patent or publication date of a U.S. patent application publication or WIPO published international application is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it may be prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), regardless of the fact that the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention are commonly owned or resulted from a joint research agreement.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception is not effective to remove a disclosure applied as a basis for a double patenting rejection. In other words, disclosures disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) could be the basis for statutory double patenting or nonstatutory (sometimes referred to as obviousness-type) double patenting rejections. See MPEP § 717.02(c), subsection III.
In addition, the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) is not effective to remove a disclosure as evidence of enablement or inherency. See MPEP § 2131.01.
III. EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH COMMON OWNERSHIP
It is important to recognize what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish common ownership. The common ownership must be shown to exist not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.A statement of present common ownership is not sufficient (unless such statement was filed on the effective filing date of the claimed invention). In re Onda, 229 USPQ 235 (Comm’r Pat. 1985).
The following statement is sufficient evidence to establish common ownership of, or an obligation for assignment to, the same person(s) or organizations(s):
Application [the application serial number] and reference(s) [the patent identifier of the commonly owned applied art] (whether U.S. patents, U.S. patent applications, U.S. patent application publications, or WIPO patent publication were, at the time the invention was effectively filed, owned by [the name of the person(s), organization(s), and/or business
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-353
§ 717.02(b)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
entity(ies) that own the application and the commonly owned applied art].
The applicant(s) or the representative(s) of record have the best knowledge of the ownership of their application(s) and reference(s), and their statement of such is sufficient evidence because of their paramount obligation of candor and good faith to the USPTO.
The statement concerning common ownership should be clear and conspicuous (e.g., on a separate piece of paper or in a separately labeled section) in order to ensure that the examiner quickly notices the statement. Applicants may, but are not required to, submit further evidence, such as assignment records, affidavits or declarations by the common owner, or court decisions, in addition to the above-mentioned statement concerning common ownership.
For example, an attorney or agent of record receives an Office action for Application X in which all the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 using Patent A in view of Patent B wherein Patent A is only available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). In her response to the Office action, the attorney or agent of record for Application X states, in a clear and conspicuous manner, that:
Application X and Patent A were, at the time the invention of Application X was effectively filed, owned by Company Z.
This statement alone is sufficient evidence to disqualify Patent A from being used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 against the claims of Application X. Note that such a statement would also be effective to disqualify Patent A from being used in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). It would not, however, be effective to disqualify Patent A from being used in either an anticipation or obviousness rejection if Patent A was prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (e.g., the patent issued before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and is not subject to any exception in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)).
In rare instances, the examiner may have independent evidence that raises a material doubt as
to the accuracy of applicant’s representation of either (1) the common ownership of, or (2) the existence of an obligation to commonly assign, the application being examined and the applied U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication reference. In such cases, the examiner may explain why the accuracy of the representation is doubted, and require objective evidence of common ownership of, or the existence of an obligation to assign, the application being examined and the applied reference as of the effective filing date of the application being examined. As mentioned above, applicant(s) may submit, in addition to the above-mentioned statement regarding common ownership, the following objective evidence:
(A) Reference to assignments recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in accordance with 37 CFR Part 3 which convey the entire rights in the application and the commonly owned applied art to the same person(s) or organization(s);
(B) Copies of unrecorded assignments which convey the entire rights in the application and the commonly owned applied art to the same person(s) or organization(s) are filed in each of the applications;
(C) An affidavit or declaration by the common owner which states that there is common ownership and states facts which explain why the affiant or declarant believes there is common ownership, which affidavit or declaration may be signed by an official of the corporation or organization empowered to act on behalf of the corporation or organization when the common owner is a corporation or other organization; and
(D) Other evidence which establishes common ownership of the application and the commonly owned applied art.
IV. EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT
Once an examiner has established a prima facie case of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103, the burden of overcoming the rejection by invoking the joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 102(c) is on the applicant or the patentee.
700-354Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.02(b)
To overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 based upon subject matter (whether a U.S. patent document or publication or WIPO publication) which qualifies as prior art under only 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), the applicant must amend the specification of the application under examination to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, if not already disclosed, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.71(g). The requirements of 37 CFR 1.71(g) are further discussed below. In addition to amending the specification to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, the applicant must submit the required statement to invoke the prior art disqualification of 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 102(c). 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4) sets forth the requirements for the statement, which includes a statement to the effect that the prior art and the claimed invention were made by or on the behalf of parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h), which was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement. The statement should either be on or begin on a separate sheet and must not be directed to other matters (37 CFR 1.4(c)). The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Like the common ownership or assignment provision, the joint research agreement must be shown to be in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The joint research agreement is NOT required to be in effect on or before the prior art date of the reference that is sought to be disqualified. As is the case with establishing common ownership, the applicant or patent owner may, but is not required to, present evidence supporting the existence of the joint research agreement. Furthermore, the Office will not request corroborating evidence in the absence of independent evidence which raises doubt as to the existence of the joint research agreement.
37 CFR 1.71 Detailed description and specification of the invention.
*****
(g)(1) The specification may disclose or be amended to disclose the names of the parties to a joint research agreement as defined in § 1.9(e).
(2) An amendment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth § 1.17(i) if not filed within one of the following time periods:
(i) Within three months of the filing date of a national application;
(ii) Within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in § 1.491 in an international application;
(iii) Before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits; or
(iv) Before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under § 1.114.
(g)(3) If an amendment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent as issued may not necessarily include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. If the patent as issued does not include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, the patent must be corrected to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323 for the amendment to be effective.
*****
37 CFR 1.71(g) provides for the situation in which an application discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to a joint research agreement to invoke the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 102(c). 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) specifically provides that the specification may disclose or be amended to disclose the name of each party to the joint research agreement because this information is required by 35 U.S.C. 102(c)(3).
37 CFR 1.71(g)(2) provides that an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i) if it is not filed within one of the following time periods: (1) within three months of the filing date of a national application; (2) within three months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 in an international application; (3) before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits; or (4) before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114.
37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) provides that if an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent as issued may not necessarily include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. 37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) also
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-355
§ 717.02(b)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
provides that if the patent as issued does not include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, the patent must be corrected to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 for the amendment to be effective. The requirements of 37 CFR 1.71(g)(3) (correction of the patent by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323) also apply in the situation in which such an amendment is not filed until after the date the patent was granted. It is unnecessary to file a reissue application or request for reexamination of the patent to submit the amendment and other information necessary to take advantage of 35 U.S.C. 102(c).
The submission of such an amendment remains subject to the rules of practice (e.g., 37 CFR 1.116, 1.121, and 1.312). For example, if an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) is submitted in an application under final rejection to overcome a prior art rejection based upon a U.S. patent which qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), the examiner may refuse to enter the amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) if it is not accompanied by an appropriate terminal disclaimer (37 CFR 1.321(d)). This is because such an amendment may necessitate the reopening of prosecution (e.g., for entry of a double patenting rejection).
If an amendment under 37 CFR 1.71(g) is submitted to overcome a prior art rejection based upon a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication which qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), and the examiner withdraws the prior art rejection, the examiner may need to issue an Office action containing a new double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified patent or patent application publication. In these situations, such Office action can be made final, provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). The Office action is properly made final because the new double patenting rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant. This is the case regardless of whether the claims themselves have been amended.
If the applicant disqualifies the subject matter relied upon by the examiner in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c) and the procedures set forth in the rules, the examiner will treat the application under examination and the disclosure applied in the prior art rejection as if they are commonly owned for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
The following examples are provided for illustration only:
Example 1
Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA) in place prior to the effective filing date of invention X’. Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. On November 12, 2012, University B filed a U.S. patent application on invention X. On April 13, 2013, Company A filed a U.S. patent application disclosing and claiming invention X’, which is an obvious variant of invention X. Invention X’ was made as a result of the activities undertaken within the scope of the JRA. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X’, without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could invoke the joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c) to disqualify University B’s application as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103.
Example 2
Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. On November 12, 2012, University B filed a U.S. patent application on invention X. On April 13, 2013, Company A filed a U.S. patent application disclosing and claiming invention X’, which is an obvious variant of invention X. Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA), which goes into effect on May 1, 2013. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X’, without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could not invoke the joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c) to disqualify University B’s application as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 because the JRA was not in effect until after the claimed invention was effectively filed.
Example 3
Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. On November 12, 2012, University B filed a U.S. patent application on invention X. On April 13, 2013, Company A filed a provisional U.S. patent application disclosing invention X’. On June 13, 2013, Company A filed a U.S. patent application claiming the benefit of the prior provisional application and also disclosing and claiming invention X’, which is an obvious variant of invention X. Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA), which goes into effect on May 1, 2013. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X’, without any
700-356Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.02(b)
obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could not invoke the joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c) to disqualify University B’s application as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 because the JRA was not in effect until after the claimed invention was effectively filed as the relied upon provisional application which was filed before the JRA fully supported the invention X’ and therefore the invention was effectively filed before the JRA.
Example 4
Company A and University B have a joint research agreement (JRA) in place prior to the effective filing date of invention X’ but the JRA is limited to activities for invention Y, which is distinct from invention X. Professor BB from University B communicates invention X to Company A. On November 12, 2012, University B filed a U.S. patent application on invention X. On April 13, 2013, Company A filed a U.S. patent application disclosing and claiming invention X’, which is an obvious variant of invention X. University B retains ownership of invention X and Company A retains ownership of invention X’, without any obligation to assign the inventions to a common owner. Company A could not invoke the joint research agreement provisions 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c) to disqualify University B’s application as prior art in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 because the claimed invention was not made as a result of the activities undertaken within the scope of the JRA.
717.02(c) Examination Procedure With Respect to the Prior Art Exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(l) et seq. for the examination of applications not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
Examiners are reminded that a disclosure that is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is not disqualified as prior art even if evidence is provided to show that the reference is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Generally, a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication reference that is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is only disqualified when:
(A) proper evidence is filed (see MPEP § 717.02(b) for more information) establishing:
(1) Common ownership. Proper evidence may be a clear and conspicuous a statement to the effect that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person; or
(2) A joint research agreement. Proper evidence may be (a) amendment to the specification of the application under examination to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement, if not already disclosed, in accordance with )37 CFR 1.71(g), and (b) a clear and conspicuous statement to the effect that subject matter disclosed in the prior art was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on the behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 100(h), which was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and that the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement;
(B) the reference only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) (e.g., not under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)); and
(C) the reference was used in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (e.g., not a double patenting rejection).
See MPEP § 717.02(b) for additional information pertaining to establishing common ownership or a joint research agreement.
I. EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT INVENTIVE ENTITIES WHERE COMMON OWNERSHIP ORA JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED
If the application file being examined has not established that the reference is disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), the examiner will:
(A) assume the reference is not disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C);
(B) examine the application on all grounds other than any possible disqualification of the reference patent(s) or application(s) arising from a possible prior art rejection based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2);
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-357
§ 717.02(c)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(C) consider the applicability of any references under either 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 103 based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), including provisional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on provisional prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2); and
(D) apply the best references against the claimed invention by rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, including any rejections based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), until such time that the reference is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). When applying any disclosures that only qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) in a prior art rejection against the claims, the examiner should anticipate that the reference may be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and consider whether other rejections based on alternative prior art should be made in case the reference is disqualified. See MPEP § 717.02(b) . If the disclosure applied in the rejection is properly disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the claims are not amended, the examiner may not make the next Office action final if a new rejection is made, except as provided in MPEP § 706.07(a) and this section. If the reference is disqualified under the joint research agreement provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(c)and a new subsequent double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified reference is applied, the next Office action, which contains the new double patenting rejection, may be made final even if applicant did not amend the claims (provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)). The Office action is properly made final because the new double patenting rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant.
II. EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT INVENTIVE ENTITIES WHERE COMMON OWNERSHIP ORA JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
If the application being examined has established that the disclosure is disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) the examiner will:
(A) examine the applications as to all grounds, except the disclosure that is disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2);
(B) examine the applications for double patenting, including statutory and nonstatutory double patenting, and make a provisional rejection, if appropriate in view of the disqualified reference; and
(C) invite the applicant to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome any provisional or actual nonstatutory double patenting rejection, if appropriate (see 37 CFR 1.321).
III. DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS
Commonly owned applications of different inventive entities may be rejected on the ground of double patenting, even if the later filed application claims 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit to the earlier application, subject to the conditions discussed in MPEP § 804 et seq. In addition, double patenting rejection may arise as a result of the joint research agreement exception. Congress recognized that deeming a joint research agreement as common ownership would result in situations in which there would be double patenting rejections between applications not owned by the same party (see H.R. Rep. No. 108-425, at 5-6 (2003)). For purposes of double patenting analysis, the U.S. application or patent and the subject matter disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 102(c) will be treated as if commonly owned.
A rejection based on a pending U.S. application would be a provisional double patenting rejection. The practice of rejecting claims on the ground of double patenting in commonly owned applications of different inventive entities is in accordance with existing case law and prevents an organization from obtaining two or more patents with different expiration dates covering nearly identical subject matter. See MPEP § 804 for guidance on double patenting issues. In accordance with established patent law doctrines, double patenting rejections can be overcome in certain circumstances by disclaiming, pursuant to the existing provisions of 37 CFR 1.321, the terminal portion of the term of the reference patent and including in the disclaimer a provision that the patent shall be enforceable only for and during the period the patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis
700-358Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 717.02(c)
for the rejection, thereby eliminating the problem of extending patent term. For a double patenting rejection based on a non-commonly owned U.S. patent (treated as if commonly owned, which is similar to treatment under the CREATE Act), the nonstatutory double patenting rejection may be obviated by filing a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(d). See MPEP §§ 804 and 804.02.
717.02(d) Form Paragraphs With Respect to the Prior Art Exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) [R-11.2013]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 706.02(l) et seq. for the examination of applications not subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA involving, inter alia, commonly owned subject matter or a joint research agreement.]
The following form paragraphs should be used in addressing the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C):
¶ 7.20.01.aia 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Excepted Under 102(b)(2)(C) Because Reference is Prior Art Under 102(a)(1)
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference [2] has been disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20.aia or 7.15.aia where the 103 rejection is based on a reference that has since been disqualified under 102(b)(2)(C), but still qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
3. In bracket 1, identify the common assignee.
4. In bracket 2, identify the reference which has been disqualified.
¶ 7.20.02.aia Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This paragraph must be used in all applications with joint inventors (unless the claims are clearly restricted to only one claimed invention, e.g., only a single claim is presented in the application).
¶ 7.20.04.aia 102 or 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Under 102(a)(2) That Is Attempted To Be Disqualified Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) Using the Common Ownership or Assignment Provision
Applicant has attempted to disqualify reference [1] under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [2] at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed. However, applicant has failed to provide a statement that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a conspicuous manner, and therefore, the reference is not disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Applicant must file the required evidence in order to properly disqualify the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See generally MPEP § 706.02(l).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-359
§ 717.02(d)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
In addition, applicant may rely upon the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A)to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph should be included in all actions containing rejections using 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art, whether anticipation or obviousness rejections, where an attempt has been made to disqualify the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), but where the applicant has not provided a proper statement indicating common ownership or assignment not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. In bracket 1, identify the commonly owned applied art (e.g., patent or co-pending application).
4. In bracket 2, identify the common assignee.
¶ 7.20.05.aia 102 or 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Under 102(a)(2) That Is Attempted To Be Disqualified Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) Using the Joint Research Agreement Provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c)
Applicant has attempted to disqualify reference [1] under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was subject to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, applicant has failed to [2]. Applicant must file the missing requirements in order to properly disqualify the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) and1.104(c)(4)(ii).
In addition, applicant may overcome the rejection either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained, either directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be included in all actions containing obviousness or anticipation rejections where an
attempt has been made to disqualify the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) using the joint research agreement provisions but the disqualification attempt is ineffective.
3. In bracket 1, identify the reference which is sought to be disqualified via 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
4. In bracket 2, identify the reason(s) why the disqualification attempt is ineffective. The reason(s) could be noncompliance with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or rule requirements relating to the CREATE Act, such as failure to submit the required statement or failure to amend the specification to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. See 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) and 1.104(c)(4)(ii).
Use form paragraph 7.38.01 or 7.38.02 where the submission is persuasive. See MPEP § 707.07(f).
718 Affidavit or Declaration to Disqualify Commonly Owned Patent as Prior Art, 37 CFR 1.131(c) [R-07.2015]
[Editor Note: This MPEP section is not applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) and MPEP § 2159.]
37 CFR 1.131 Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art.
*****
(c) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as in effect on March 15, 2013, on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication which is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as in effect on March 15, 2013, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent or published application are not identical but are not patentably distinct, and the inventions are owned by the same party, the applicant or owner of the patent under reexamination may disqualify the patent or patent application publication as prior art. The patent or patent application publication can be disqualified as prior art by submission of:
(1) A terminal disclaimer in accordance with § 1.321(c); and
(2) An oath or declaration stating that the application or patent under reexamination and patent or published application are currently owned by the same party, and that the inventor named in the application or patent under reexamination is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013.
(d) The provisions of this section apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains, or contained at any time:
700-360Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 718
(1) A claim to an invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is before March 16, 2013; or
(2) A specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to any patent or application that contains, or contained at any time, a claim to an invention that has an effective filing date as defined in § 1.109 that is before March 16, 2013.
(e) In an application for patent to which the provisions of § 1.130 apply, and to any patent issuing thereon, the provisions of this section are applicable only with respect to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in effect on March 15, 2013.
See MPEP § 804.03 and § 706.02(l) through § 706.02(l)(3) for subject matter disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
37 CFR 1.131(c) addresses those situations in which the rejection in an application or patent under reexamination to be overcome is a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (based on prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) in view of a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication which is not prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) due to the requirement in 37 CFR 1.131(a) that any U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication to be antedated not claim interfering subject matter (as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a)) as the application or patent under reexamination. The applicant or patent owner is also prevented from proceeding in an interference due to the provision in 37 CFR 41.206 that an interference will not normally be declared or continued between applications that are commonly owned, or an application and an unexpired patent that are commonly owned.
As 37 CFR 1.131(c) addresses those situations in which the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the U.S. patent or patent application publication are not patentably distinct, 37 CFR 1.131(c)(1) requires a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c), and 37 CFR 1.131(c)(2) requires an oath or declaration stating, inter alia, that the inventor named in the application or patent under reexamination is the prior inventor under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104. The inventor named in the application or patent under reexamination must
have invented the claimed subject matter before the actual date of invention of the subject matter of the reference claims. The affidavit or declaration may be signed by the inventor(s), the attorney or agent of record, or assignee(s) of the entire interest. It is noted that a terminal disclaimer is only effective in overcoming a nonstatutory double patenting rejection and cannot be used to overcome statutory double patenting. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.2.
The phrase “prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013” requires that the inventor named in the application or patent be the prior inventor within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104, in that an applicant or patent owner may not:
(A) establish a date of invention in a foreign country other than a NAFTA or WTO member country;
(B) establish a date of invention in a WTO member country other than a NAFTA country earlier than January 1, 1996; or
(C) establish a date of invention in a NAFTA country other than the U.S. earlier than December 8, 1993.
A U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication that anticipates the claimed subject matter cannot be disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) or 37 CFR 1.131(c).
719 File Wrapper [R-07.2015]
The electronic file record in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office maintains the application papers is referred to as an image file wrapper. The electronic file record is the official record of the application.
See MPEP § 202 for appropriate notations to be made in the file history with regard to claims for
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-361
§ 719EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
priority to, or the benefit of, earlier filed applications under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, 365, and 386.
719.01 Papers in Image File Wrapper [R-11.2013]
Papers that do not become a permanent part of the record should not be entered as a paper in the image file wrapper. No paper legally entered in the image file wrapper should ever be withdrawn or expunged from the application file, especially a part of the original disclosure of the application, without special authority of the Director. However, 37 CFR 1.59 provides that certain documents may be expunged if they were unintentionally submitted or contain proprietary information which has not been made public and is not important to a decision of patentability. See MPEP § 724. Form paragraph 7.214 may be used to notify applicant that papers in an application that has received a filing date ordinarily will not be returned.
¶ 7.214 Papers Not Returned, Pro Se
Papers in an application that has received a filing date pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53 ordinarily will not be returned. If applicant has not preserved copies of the papers, the Office will furnish copies at applicant’s expense. See 37 CFR 1.19 for a list of the current fees. See MPEP § 724.05 for information pertaining to petitions to expunge information.
719.02 Residence of Inventor Changed [R-07.2015]
The distinction between “residence” and mailing address should not be lost sight of. See MPEP § 602.08(a).
Unless specifically requested by applicant, the residence(s) associated with the inventor(s) will not be changed. For example, if a new oath gives a different residence from the original, the file will not be changed.
For a patent application publication to be published with residence information that differs from that originally filed, the revised information must be entered into the Office electronic records at least nine weeks before the publication date of the application. For patent applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, in order for a patent to issue
with the new residence, applicants must file a corrected Application Data Sheet (37 CFR 1.76(c)) showing the new residence information with underlining for insertions and strike-through or brackets for text removed. See MPEP § 601.05(a). For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, applicants are strongly encouraged to file a Supplemental Application Data Sheet showing the new residence information preferably with underlining for insertions and strike-through or brackets for text removed. See MPEP § 601.05(b).
719.03 Classification During Examination [R-08.2012]
When a new application is received in a Technology Center, the classification of the application and the initials or name of the examiner who will examine it or other assigned docket designation are noted in the application file. See also MPEP § 903.08(b).
719.04 Index of Claims [R-11.2013]
The “Index of Claims” found in the image file wrapper of an application is frequently referenced. It should be updated with each Office action to maintain a reliable index of all claims in the application.
The claim numbers appearing on the Index of Claims refer to the claim numbers during prosecution while the adjacent columns refer to the status of each of the claims and the final column refers to the final numbering of the allowed claims (if applicable).
A space is provided above each adjacent column for completion by the examiner to indicate the date of each Office action together with the resulting status of each claim. At the time of allowance, the examiner places the final patent claim numbers in the column marked “Final.”
719.05 Field of Search [R-07.2015]
In the first action on the merits of an application, the examiner must record in the appropriate sections of the OACS “Search Notes” page the areas in which the search for prior art was made. The examiner must also indicate the date(s) on which the search was
700-362Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 719.01
conducted and provide his/her initials. In subsequent actions, where the search is brought up to date and/or where a further search is made, the examiner must indicate that the search has been updated and/or identify the additional field of search and include the date and the examiner’s initials in the appropriate sections of the OACS “Search Notes” page. Any search updates should include the appropriate databases and the search queries and classifications employed in the original search. See MPEP § 904. Great care should be taken so as to clearly indicate the places searched and the date(s) on which the search was conducted and/or updated.
In order to provide a complete, accurate, and uniform record of what has been searched and considered by the examiner for each application, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has established procedures for recording search data in the application file. Such a record is of importance to anyone evaluating the strength and validity of a patent, particularly if the patent is involved in litigation.
Searches are listed in the “SEARCHED” boxes and/or “SEARCH NOTES” box of the OACS “Search Notes” page.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-363
§ 719.05EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
700-364Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 719.05
I. “SEARCHED” BOXES ENTRIES
The OACS Search Notes Page includes three “SEARCHED” boxes for recording searches in Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), CPC Combination Sets and U.S. Patent Classification (USPC). When documenting a classification search, as described below, the examiner should ensure the proper box(es) is/are used.
A classification search is defined as a search of the documents in a particular classification location, whether classified by CPC or USPC, and may be limited by a text query, filters or other means. When a classification search is performed, the classification symbol must be recorded in the appropriate “SEARCHED” box section of the OACS “Search Notes” page along with the date that the search was performed (or updated) and the examiner’s initials. The examiner must identify the manner in which the search was limited in the “Search Notes,” by providing an appropriate annotation, as illustrated in the examples below. Unless a search of all the documents for a particular classification location was performed, it would be improper to merely record the classification symbol in the “SEARCHED” box without any indication that the search was limited in the "Search Notes" box.
Examples of classification searches where all documents were searched:
CPC-SEARCHED ExaminerDateSymbol [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYA01B 01/02 [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYG01F 1/84, 8409, 845,
8459
CPC COMBINATION SETS - SEARCHED
ExaminerDateSymbol [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYC07C 1/20 rank 1/2,
C07C 11/04 rank 2/2
Examples of a classification search limited by a text query, filters, or other means, requiring entry into both the "SEARCHED" and "SEARCH NOTES" boxes:
CPC-SEARCHED ExaminerDateSymbol
CPC-SEARCHED [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYD03D 1/0005 [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYB02C 19/0081 [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYG01F 1/84 [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYH02H 3/20 to H02H
3/22 [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYA61K 9/20
SEARCH NOTES ExaminerDateSearch Notes [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYD03D 1/0005 (See
search history printout) [INITIALS]MM/DD/YYB02C 19/0081 (See
search history printout(s))
[INITIALS]MM/DD/YYG01F 1/84 (See search history printout(s))
[INITIALS]MM/DD/YYH02H 3/20 to H02H 3/22 (See search history printout)
[INITIALS]MM/DD/YYA61K 9/20 (Family ID-based filtering on)
II. “SEARCH NOTES” BOX ENTRIES
Entries made in the “SEARCH NOTES” box are of equal importance to those placed in the “SEARCHED” box. They are intended to complete the application file record of areas and/or documents considered by the examiner in his or her search.
A. Format of Entries in the "SEARCH NOTES" Section
The examiner will record the following types of information in the "SEARCH NOTES" box and in the manner indicated, with each entry dated and initialed.
(A) Annotations associated with classification searches, as shown in the examples in subsection I above.
(B) Text search performed in a particular database where no classification search was performed. If a text search was performed in a particular database and no classification search was performed, the following entry or its equivalent must be recorded in the “SEARCH NOTES” section of the OACS “Search Notes” page: “See search history
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-365
§ 719.05EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
printout(s)” along with the date or dates that the search was performed (or updated) and the examiner’s initials. A search history printout must also be included in the file. See subsection II.B below.
(C) Searches made within the International Patent Classification System (IPC).
(D) Searches performed by the Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC).
The staff of the STIC provide non-patent literature (NPL) and foreign patent searches to examiners on request through the Electronic Information Center (EIC) located in each Technology Center. STIC staff use commercially available databases to provide text, chemical structure, sequence, litigation, inventor, and other types of searches. To request a search, the examiner must fill out and submit a search request form via the STIC NPL Web page. It is important to provide as much relevant information as possible to assure that the search meets the examiner’s needs. Examiners are encouraged to fill out the request form completely and/or to discuss their search needs with the EIC search staff. The full text of any citations included in the search results will be provided at the examiner’s request. The search conducted by the EIC will include a complete search history. The complete search history in the form of a printout must be included in the application file. The following entry or its equivalent must be recorded in the “SEARCH NOTES” box section of the OACS “Search Notes” page: “See search history printout(s)” along with the date that the search was performed (or updated) and the examiner’s initials. EIC search staff can also assist examiners in conducting their own search of NPL databases.
(E) A consultation with other examiners to determine if relevant search fields exist in their areas of expertise. If the subclass is not searched, record the class and subclass, if any, discussed, followed by “(consulted).” This entry may also include the name of the examiner consulted and the art unit.
Examples
F16B fasteners (consulted)
F16B fasteners (consulted J. Doe A.U. 3501)
F16B 2/00 (consulted)
(F) Searches performed in electronic journals and electronic books available to examiners on their desktop through the STIC NPL website. Examiners should contact their EIC if they need assistance using these tools and creating a search history printout.
(G) Searches performed in other media collections or databases (e.g., CD-ROM databases, specialized databases, etc.), record data as necessary to provide unique identification of material searched and sufficient information as to the search query or request so that the search can be updated. The record should also document the location of the database and its form (CD-ROM, etc.).
Example: Citing a biotech CD-ROM database
Entrez: Sequences, National Center for Biotechnology Information, Version 7.19.91b (CD-ROM, TC 1600) Searched HIV and vaccine; neighbored Galloway article dated 6/5/91 on April 1, 1990.
Example: Citing a nonbiotech CD-ROM database
Computer Select, (November, 1991), Ziff Davis Communications Co., (CD-ROM, STIC), Searched Unix and emulation on December 1, 1991.
(H) Searches performed on the Internet.
For Internet search engines, such as
Google®, Yahoo®, and Bing®, print out the first page and any of the following pages that include names of any Web pages reviewed during the search. Use the print icon on the Microsoft Internet
Explorer® toolbar or use the file-print command. Review the printout to determine if the Internet search engine name, the search logic, and the date of the search are present. If any of these are missing, write the missing information on the printout. Indicate all Web pages reviewed.
(I) Nonelectronic searches of publications in paper form, e.g., searches of the print books or journals in an EIC. Record according to the following for each type of literature search:
(1) Abstracting publications, such as Chemical Abstracts, record name of publications, list terms consulted in index, and indicate period covered.
Examples
Chem. Abs, Palladium hydride Jan.-June 1975
Eng. Index, Data Conversion Analog to Digital 1975
700-366Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 719.05
(2) Periodicals — list by title, volume, issue, pages and date, as appropriate.
Examples
Popular Mechanics, June-Dec. 1974
Lubrication Engineering, vols. 20-24
(3) Books — list by title, author, edition or date, pages, as appropriate.
Example
Introduction to Hydraulic Fluids, Roger E. Hatton, 1962
(4) Other types of literature not specifically mentioned herein (i.e., catalogs, manufacturer’s literature, private collections, etc.).
Record data as necessary to provide unique identification of material searched.
Example
Sears Roebuck catalog, Spring-Summer, 1973.
A cursory or browsing search through a number of materials that are not found to be of significant relevance may be indicated in a collective manner, e.g., “Browsed STIC shelves under QA 76.5” or “Browsed text books in STIC relating to......................” More detailed reviews or searches through books and periodicals or any search of terms in abstracting publications should be specifically recorded, however.
(J) A review of art cited in a parent application or an original patent, as required for all continuation and continuation-in-part applications, divisional applications, reissue applications and reexamination proceedings, or a review of art cited in related applications.
Record the application number of a parent application that is still pending or abandoned, followed by “refs. checked” or “refs. ck’ed.” If for any reason not all of the references have been checked because they are not available or clearly not relevant, such exceptions should be noted.
Examples
S. N. XX/495,123 refs. checked
S. N. XX/490,000 refs. checked
S. N. XX/480,111 refs. checked except for Greek patent to Kam
S. N. XX/410,113 refs. not checked since the file was not available
Record the patent number of a parent or related application that is now patented or of an original patent now being reissued with “refs. checked” or “refs. ck’ed.”
Examples
Pat. 3,900,000 refs. checked
Pat. 3,911,111 refs. ck’ed
B. Search History Printouts
Any time that an electronic search was performed (e.g., limited classified search or text search), a complete search history in the form of a printout must be included in the application file. The search history must include the following minimum information:
(A) all the search logic or chemical structure or sequence(s) used as a database query;
(B) all the name(s) of the file(s) searched and the database service;
(C) the date the search was made or updated; and
(D) an indication of the examiner who performed the search (e.g. a user ID or the examiner’s initials).
It would be improper to merely list the tool/database, e.g., “EAST” or identify the search queries in the “SEARCH NOTES” box section of the OACS “Search Notes” page. A search history printout should be devoid of result printouts to limit the “bulk search printouts.”
Regarding nucleotide and peptide sequence searches, these searches must be documented by printout(s). A copy of a printout for each database source searched must be included in the application file. Each printout must include all the information up to the “ALIGNMENTS” section.
Most of the database services accessed in application searches provide a command to display or print the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-367
§ 719.05EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
search history which includes most, if not all, of the minimum required information for documenting database searches. Table 1 below lists the history command for each database service and the required minimum documentation elements included when the history command is entered. Any missing elements may be documented by writing them on
the printout of the search history or by supplying further portions of the search transcript which do include the missing elements.
If there are several search statements in the history, the statement or statements of which the results were reviewed should be indicated.
TABLE 1 History Commands and Included Elements by Database Service (“Yes” below indicates the element is present)
Date of SearchName of File(s) Searched
Search LogicName of Database Service
History Command
Database Service
YesYesYesYesClick on Export All Searches
ProQuest Dialog
YesYesYesYesD his fullSTN YesYesYesYesSelect History
from the Saved SciFinder
Searches drop-down menu, Print to PDF or Export to Microsoft Word
YesYesYesYesClick Search History from the My session menu
Questel-Orbit
YesYesYesYesClick History; print page
Lexis/Nexis
YesYesYesYesNoneABSS System YesYesYesYesView, Search
History EAST*
YesYesYesYesYesWEST* YesYesYesYesOption 1: Print out
search results page IEEE Xplore
Option 2: Sign In (personal account available as part of USPTO subscription), click Search History
YesYesYesYesPrint out search results page
Knovel
YesYesYesYesClick Search History, then Print Search History
EBSCOHost
YesYesYesYesPrint out search results page
IP.com
700-368Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 719.05
YesYesYesYesPrint out search results page
ACM Digital Library
YesYesYesYesClick on Export All Searches
INSPEC (ProQuest Dialog)
YesYesYesYesPrint out search results page
SPIE Digital Library
YesYesYesYesPrint out search results page
Research Disclosure
*Examiners may acquire user’s manuals for EAST and WEST through the Office of Patent Automation website. Assistance for other electronic database searches may be acquired from the staff of the STIC-Electronic Information Centers (EIC).
Explanation of Table Terminology
History Command - Generally, a display of what the user has asked the search software to do will display the search logic entered by the user. Some histories are limited to display of the searches done only in the current file while others deliver a complete record of what file or files were accessed and all searches done since sign on.
Name of Database Service - This is the name of the database service (i.e., EAST, IEEE Xplore) used to perform the search.
Search Logic - Generally, a display of the search commands executed by the search software. For a structure or sequence search, this can be a printout of the structure or sequence used to query the system.
Name of File(s) Searched - The name of the collection(s) of data accessed.
Date of Search - Dialog and Questel-Orbit do not display the date of search as part of the history command. Dialog and Questel-Orbit supply the date of search during log off. For WEST examiners should use the eRF search history options.
III. INTERFERENCE SEARCH HISTORY
When an application is in condition for allowance, an interference search must be made by performing a text search of the “US-PGPUB” database in EAST or WEST directed to the comprehensive inventive features in the broadest claim. If the application
contains a claim directed to a nucleotide or peptide sequence, the examiner must submit a request to STIC to perform an interference search of the sequence.
Completion of the interference search should be recorded in the “INTERFERENCE SEARCH” section of the OACS “Search Notes” page with an identification of the manner in which the interference search was limited (if any) in the “Search Notes” by providing an appropriate annotation.
A printout of only the database(s) searched, the query(ies) used in the interference search, and the date the interference search was performed must be made of record in the application file. The result printouts of the interference search must not be placed in the application file.
IV. INFORMATION NOT RECORDED IN THE APPLICATION FILE
For an indication of consideration or nonconsideration of prior art citations submitted by applicant in Information Disclosure Statements (37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98), see MPEP § 609 et seq.
720 Public Use Proceedings [R-07.2015]
Effective September 16, 2012, former 37 CFR. 1.292 authorizing petitions seeking institution of public use proceedings was removed from title 37. For information necessary regarding the former process, the August 2012 revision of the MPEP
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-369
§ 720EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
(www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/mpep_E8R9.htm) may be consulted.
721-723 [Reserved]
724 Trade Secret, Proprietary, and Protective Order Materials [R-08.2012]
Situations arise in which it becomes necessary, or desirable, for parties to proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office relating to pending patent applications or reexamination proceedings to submit to the Office trade secret, proprietary, and/or protective order materials. Such materials may include those which are subject to a protective or secrecy order issued by a court or by the International Trade Commission (ITC). While one submitting materials to the Office in relation to a pending patent application or reexamination proceeding must generally assume that such materials will be made of record in the file and be made public, the Office is not unmindful of the difficulties this sometimes imposes. The Office is also cognizant of the sentiment expressed by the court in In re Sarkar, 575 F.2d 870, 872, 197 USPQ 788, 791 (CCPA 1978), which stated:
[T]hat wherever possible, trade secret law and patent laws should be administered in such manner that the former will not deter an inventor from seeking the benefit of the latter, because, the public is most benefited by the early disclosure of the invention in consideration of the patent grant. If a patent applicant is unwilling to pursue his right to a patent at the risk of certain loss of trade secret protection, the two systems will conflict, the public will be deprived of knowledge of the invention in many cases, and inventors will be reluctant to bring unsettled legal questions of significant current interest . . . for resolution.
Parties bringing information to the attention of the Office for use in the examination of applications and reexaminations are frequently faced with the prospect of having legitimate trade secret, proprietary, or protective order material disclosed to the public.
Inventors and others covered by 37 CFR 1.56(c) and 1.555 have a duty to disclose to the Office information they are aware of which is material to patentability. 37 CFR 1.56(b) states that
information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability. A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.
It is incumbent upon patent applicants, therefore, to bring “material” information to the attention of the Office. It matters not whether the “material” information can be classified as a trade secret, or as proprietary material, or whether it is subject to a protective order. The obligation is the same; it must be disclosed if “material to patentability” as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b). The same duty rests upon a patent owner under 37 CFR 1.555 whose patent is undergoing reexamination.
Somewhat the same problem faces a protestor under 37 CFR 1.291(a) who believes that trade secret, proprietary, or protective order material should be considered by the Office during the examination of an application.
In some circumstances, it may be possible to submit the information in such a manner that legitimate trade secrets, etc., will not be disclosed, e.g., by appropriate deletions of nonmaterial portions of the
700-370Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 721-723
information. This should be done only where there will be no loss of information material to patentability under 37 CFR 1.56 or 1.555.
The provisions of this section do not relate to material appearing in the description of the patent application.
724.01 Completeness of the Patent File Wrapper [R-08.2012]
It is the intent of the Office that the patent file wrapper be as complete as possible insofar as “material” information is concerned. The Office attempts to minimize the potential conflict between full disclosure of “material” information as required by 37 CFR 1.56 and protection of trade secret, proprietary, and protective order material to the extent possible.
The procedures set forth in the following sections are designed to enable the Office to ensure as complete a patent file wrapper as possible while preventing unnecessary public disclosure of trade secrets, proprietary material, and protective order material.
724.02 Method of Submitting Trade Secret, Proprietary, and/or Protective Order Materials [R-11.2013]
Information which is considered by the party submitting the same to be either trade secret material or proprietary material, and any material subject to a protective order, must be clearly labeled as such and be filed in a sealed, clearly labeled, envelope or container. Each document or item must be clearly labeled as a “Trade Secret” document or item, a “Proprietary” document or item, or as an item or document “Subject To Protective Order.” It is essential that the terms “Confidential,” “Secret,” and “Restricted” or “Restricted Data” not be used when marking these documents or items in order to avoid confusion with national security information documents which are marked with these terms (note also MPEP § 121). If the item or document is “Subject to Protective Order” the proceeding, including the tribunal, must be set forth on each document or item. Of course, the envelope or
container, as well as each of the documents or items, must be labeled with complete identifying information for the file to which it is directed, including the Office or area to which the envelope or container is directed.
Examples of appropriate labels for such an envelope or container addressed to an application are as follows: (Appropriate changes would be made for papers filed in a reexamination file.)
A. “TRADE SECRET MATERIAL NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC. TO BE OPENED ONLY BY EXAMINER OR OTHER AUTHORIZED U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE EMPLOYEE.
DO NOT SCAN
In re Application of
Application No.
Filed:
For: (Title of Invention)
TC Art Unit:
Examiner:
B. “PROPRIETARY MATERIAL NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC. TO BE OPENED ONLY BY EXAMINER OR OTHER AUTHORIZED U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE EMPLOYEE.
DO NOT SCAN
In re Application of
Application No.
Filed:
For: (Title of Invention)
TC Art Unit:
Examiner:
C. “MATERIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER — NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC. TO BE OPENED ONLY BY EXAMINER OR OTHER AUTHORIZED U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE EMPLOYEE.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-371
§ 724.02EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
DO NOT SCAN
Tribunal Issuing Protective Order:
Civil Action or Other Identification No.:
Date of Order:
Current Status of Proceeding: (Pending, Stayed, etc.)
In re application of:
Application No.
Filed:
For: (Title of Invention)
TC Art Unit:
Examiner:
The envelope or container must be accompanied by a transmittal letter which also contains the same identifying information as the envelope or container. The transmittal letter must also state that the materials in the envelope or container are considered trade secrets or proprietary, or are subject to a protective order, and are being submitted for consideration under MPEP § 724. A petition under 37 CFR 1.59 and fee therefor (37 CFR 1.17(g)) to expunge the information, if found not to be material to patentability, should accompany the envelope or container.
In order to ensure that such an envelope or container is not mishandled, either prior to reaching the Office, or in the Office, the envelope or container should be hand-carried to the Customer Window located at:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314
The envelope or container may also be mailed to the Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Upon receipt of the envelope or container, the Office will place the envelope or container in an Artifact folder.
724.03 Types of Trade Secret, Proprietary, and/or Protective Order Materials Submitted Under MPEP § 724.02 [R-11.2013]
The types of materials or information contemplated for submission under MPEP § 724.02 include information “material to patentability” but does not include information favorable to patentability. Thus, any trade secret, proprietary, and/or protective order materials which are required to be submitted on behalf of a patent applicant under 37 CFR 1.56 or patent owner under 37 CFR 1.555 can be submitted in accordance with MPEP § 724.02. Neither 37 CFR 1.56 nor 1.555 require the disclosure of information favorable to patentability, e.g., evidence of commercial success of the invention (see 42 FR 5590). Such information should not be submitted in accordance with MPEP § 724.02. If any trade secret, proprietary, and/or protective order materials are submitted in amendments, arguments in favor of patentability, or affidavits under 37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 or 1.132, they will be made of record in the file and will not be given any special status.
Insofar as protestors under 37 CFR 1.291(a) are concerned, submissions can be made in accordance with MPEP § 724.02 before the patent application is published, if protestor or petitioner has access to the application involved. After the patent application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(1), no protest may be filed without the express consent of the applicant. Any submission filed by a protestor must follow the requirements for service. The Office cannot ensure that the party or parties served will maintain the information secret. If the party or parties served find it necessary or desirable to comment on material submitted under MPEP § 724 before it is, or without its being, found “material to patentability,” such comments should either (A) not
700-372Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 724.03
disclose the details of the material or (B) be submitted in a separate paper under MPEP § 724.02.
724.04 Office Treatment and Handling of Materials Submitted Under MPEP § 724.02 [R-07.2015]
The exact methods of treating and handling materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 will differ slightly depending upon whether the materials are submitted in an original application subject to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122 or whether the submission is made in a reissue application or reexamination file open to the public under 37 CFR 1.11(b) or (d). Prior to publication, an original application is not open to the public under 35 U.S.C. 122(a). After the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(1), copies of the file wrapper of the pending application are available to any member of the public who has filed a request under 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(ii) or (a)(1)(iii). See MPEP § 103.
If the application file and contents are available to the public pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or 1.14, any materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 will only be released to the public with any other application papers if no petition to expunge (37 CFR 1.59) was filed prior to the mailing of a notice of allowability or notice of abandonment, or if a petition to expunge was filed and the petition was denied. Prior to the mailing of the notice of allowability or notice of abandonment, the examiner will review the patent application file and determine if a petition to expunge is in the application file but not acted upon. If the application is being allowed, if the materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 are found not to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be granted and the materials will be expunged. If the materials are found to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be denied and the materials will become part of the application record and will be available to the public upon issuance of the application as a patent. With the mailing of the notice of abandonment, if a petition to expunge has been filed, irrespective of whether the materials are found to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be granted and the materials expunged.
Upon receipt of the submission, the transmittal letter and the envelope or container will be date stamped
and brought to the attention of the examiner or other Office employee responsible for evaluating the submission. The receipt of the transmittal letter and envelope or container will be noted on the “Contents” of the application or reexamination file. In addition, the face of the application or reexamination file will have the notation placed thereon to indicate that trade secret, proprietary, or protective order material has been filed. The location of the material will also be specified. The words “TRADE SECRET MATERIALS FILED WHICH ARE NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC” on the face of the file are sufficient to indicate the presence of trade secret material. Similar notations will be made for either proprietary or protective order materials.
724.04(a) Materials Submitted in an Application Covered by 35 U.S.C. 122 [R-08.2012]
Any materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 in an application covered by 35 U.S.C. 122 will be treated in the following manner:
(A) The submitted material will be maintained in the original envelope or container (clearly marked “Not Open To The Public”) and will not be publicly available until a determination has been made as to whether or not the information is material to patentability. Prior to publication, an original application is not available to the public under 35 U.S.C. 122(a). After publication of the application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(1), where the application file and contents are available to the public pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or 1.14, any materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 will only be released to the public with any other application papers if no petition to expunge (37 CFR 1.59) was filed prior to the mailing of a notice of allowability or notice of abandonment, or if a petition to expunge was filed and the petition was denied.
(B) If the application is to be abandoned, prior to the mailing of a notice of abandonment, the examiner will review the patent application file and determine if a petition to expunge is in the application file but not acted upon. If a petition to expunge has been filed, irrespective of whether the materials are found to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be granted and the materials expunged. If no petition to expunge has
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-373
§ 724.04(a)EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
been filed, the materials will be available to the public under 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(ii) or (a)(1)(iv).
(C) If the application is being allowed, prior to the mailing of a notice of allowability, the examiner will review the patent application file and determine if a petition to expunge is in the application file but not acted upon. The examiner, or other appropriate Office official who is responsible for considering the information, will make a determination as to whether or not any portion or all of the information submitted is material to patentability.
(D) If any portion or all of the submitted information is found to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be denied and the information will become a part of the file history (and scanned, if the application is an Image File Wrapper (IFW) application), which upon issuance of the application as a patent would become available to the public.
(E) If any portion or all of the submitted information is found not to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be granted and the information expunged.
(F) If a petition to expunge is not filed prior to the mailing of the notice of allowability, the materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 will be released to the public upon the issuance of the application as a patent and upon the filing of a request and the appropriate fee (37 CFR 1.14).
(G) Any petition to expunge the submitted information or any portion thereof under 37 CFR 1.59(b) will be treated in accordance with MPEP § 724.05.
724.04(b) Materials Submitted in Reissue Applications Open to the Public Under 37 CFR 1.11(b) [R-08.2012]
Any materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 in a reissue application open to the public under 37 CFR 1.11(b) will be treated in the following manner:
(A) Materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 will only be released to the public with any other application papers if no petition to expunge (37 CFR 1.59) was filed prior to the mailing of a notice of allowability or notice of abandonment, or if a petition to expunge was filed and the petition was denied. The submitted information will be maintained
separate from the reissue application file and will not be publicly available until a determination has been made as to whether or not the information is material to patentability.
(B) If the reissue application is to be abandoned, prior to the mailing of a notice of abandonment, the examiner will review the reissue application file and determine if a petition to expunge is in the reissue application file but not acted upon. If a petition to expunge has been filed, irrespective of whether the materials are found to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be granted and the materials expunged. If no petition to expunge has been filed, the materials will be available to the public under 37 CFR 1.11(b).
(C) If the reissue application is being allowed, prior to the mailing of a notice of allowability, the examiner will review the reissue application file and determine if a petition to expunge is in the reissue application file but not acted upon. The examiner, or other appropriate Office official who is responsible for considering the information, will make a determination as to whether or not any portion or all of the information submitted is material to patentability.
(D) If any portion or all of the submitted information is found to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be denied and the information will thereafter become a permanent part of the reissue application file and open to the public. Where a submission containing protected material is found to be material to patentability, it still may be possible to redact the submission to eliminate the protected material while retaining the important material (e.g., where a confidential identifying number, such as a serial number or social security number, is included, which is not needed for the context of the submission). If so, the redacted version may be submitted to the Office along with a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting that the unredacted version be sealed and be replaced with the redacted version.
(E) If any portion or all of the submitted information is found not to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be granted and the information expunged.
(F) If a petition to expunge is not filed prior to the mailing of the notice of allowability, the materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 will
700-374Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 724.04(b)
become a permanent part of the reissue application file and open to the public under 37 CFR 1.11(b).
(G) Any petition to expunge a portion or all of the submitted information will be treated in accordance with MPEP § 724.05.
724.04(c) Materials Submitted in Reexamination File Open to the Public Under 37 CFR 1.11(d) [R-08.2012]
Any materials, i.e., information, submitted under MPEP § 724.02 in a reexamination file open to the public under 37 CFR 1.11(d) will be treated in the following manner:
(A) Any materials, i.e., information, properly submitted under MPEP § 724.02 in a reexamination proceeding will be sealed from public view. The submitted information will be maintained separate from the reexamination file and will not be publicly available until a determination has been made as to whether or not the information is material to patentability. A petition to expunge (37 CFR 1.59) should accompany the submission of proprietary materials, and in any event, must be filed prior to, or shortly after (i.e., in time to be addressed before the reexamination proceeding enters the reexamination certificate printing process), the mailing of a Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC). If the petition to expunge is not filed in time to be addressed before the reexamination proceeding enters the reexamination certificate printing process, or the petition is filed, and denied/dismissed, then the materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 will be released to the public with any other papers in the reexamination file.
(B) Prior to the mailing of a NIRC, the examiner will review the reexamination file and determine if a petition to expunge is in the reexamination file but not acted upon. The examiner, or other appropriate Office official who is responsible for considering the information, will make a determination as to whether or not any portion or all of the information submitted is material to patentability.
(C) If any portion or all of the submitted information is found to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be denied and the information will thereafter become a permanent part of the reexamination file and open to the public. Where a submission containing protected material
is found to be material to patentability, it still may be possible to redact the submission to eliminate the protected material while retaining the important material (e.g., where a confidential identifying number, such as a serial number or social security number, is included, which is not needed for the context of the submission). If so, the redacted version may be submitted to the Office along with a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting that the unredacted version be sealed and be replaced with the redacted version.
(D) If all of the submitted information is found not to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be granted and the information expunged. If a portion of the submitted information is found not to be material to patentability, and a portion is found to be material to patentability, the petition to expunge will be dismissed, and patent owner (or the requester, in limited instances where appropriate) provided with an opportunity to separate the material and non-material information, such that the non-material information can be expunged. See item (C) above.
(E) If a petition to expunge is not filed prior to, or shortly after (i.e., in time to be addressed before the reexamination proceeding enters the reexamination certificate printing process), the mailing of the NIRC, the materials submitted under MPEP § 724.02 will become a permanent part of the reexamination file and open to the public under 37 CFR 1.11(d). In the event materials have already been made of record by a party, and it is subsequently determined that the materials are protected, the proper petition to submit would be a petition to seal the protected material under 37 CFR 1.182, with the requisite fee.
(F) Any petition to expunge a portion or all of the submitted information under 37 CFR 1.59(b) will be treated in accordance with MPEP § 724.05.
724.05 Petition To Expunge Information or Copy of Papers in Application File [R-07.2015]
I. INFORMATION SUBMITTED UNDER MPEP § 724.02
A petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b) to expunge information submitted under MPEP § 724.02, or that
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-375
§ 724.05EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
should have been submitted under MPEP § 724.02 (as where proprietary information is submitted in an information disclosure statement but inadvertently not submitted in a sealed envelope as discussed in MPEP § 724.02) will be entertained only if the petition fee (37 CFR 1.17(g)) is filed and the information has been found not to be material to patentability. If the information is found to be material to patentability, any petition to expunge the information will be denied. Any such petition to expunge information submitted under MPEP § 724.02 should be submitted at the time of filing the information under MPEP § 724.02 and directed to the Technology Center (TC) to which the application is assigned. Such petition must contain:
(A) a clear identification of the information to be expunged without disclosure of the details thereof;
(B) a clear statement that the information to be expunged is trade secret material, proprietary material, and/or subject to a protective order, and that the information has not been otherwise made public;
(C) a commitment on the part of the petitioner to retain such information for the period of enforceability of any patent with regard to which such information is submitted;
(D) a statement that the petition to expunge is being submitted by, or on behalf of, the party in interest who originally submitted the information;
(E) the fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) for a petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b).
Any such petition to expunge should accompany the submission of the information and, in any event, must be submitted in sufficient time that it can be acted on prior to the mailing of a notice of allowability or a notice of abandonment for original and reissue applications, or prior to, or shortly after (i.e., in time to be addressed before the reexamination proceeding enters the reexamination certificate printing process), the mailing of a Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) for reexamination proceedings. Timely submission of the petition is, accordingly, extremely important. If the petition does not accompany the information when it is initially submitted, the petition should be submitted while the application or reexamination is pending in the Technology Center (TC) and before
it is transmitted to the Publishing Division. If a petition to expunge is not filed prior to the mailing of a notice of allowability or a notice of abandonment for original and reissue applications, or prior to, or shortly after (i.e., in time to be addressed before the reexamination proceeding enters the reexamination certificate printing process), the mailing of a NIRC for reexamination proceedings, any material then in the file will remain therein and be open to the public in accordance with 37 CFR 1.14. Accordingly, it is important that both the submission of any material under MPEP § 724.02 and the submission of any petition to expunge occur as early as possible during the examination process. The decision will be held in abeyance and be decided upon the close of prosecution on the merits.
II. INFORMATION UNINTENTIONALLY SUBMITTED IN APPLICATION
A petition to expunge information unintentionally submitted in an application (other than information forming part of the original disclosure) may be filed under 37 CFR 1.59(b), provided that:
(A) the Office can effect such return prior to the issuance of any patent on the application in issue;
(B) it is stated that the information submitted was unintentionally submitted and the failure to obtain its return would cause irreparable harm to the party who submitted the information or to the party in interest on whose behalf the information was submitted;
(C) the information has not otherwise been made public;
(D) there is a commitment on the part of the petitioner to retain such information for the period of any patent with regard to which such information is submitted;
(E) it is established to the satisfaction of the Director that the information to be returned is not material information under 37 CFR 1.56; and
(F) the petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) is included.
A request to expunge information that has not been clearly identified as information that may be later subject to such a request by marking and placement in a separate sealed envelope or container shall be
700-376Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 724.05
treated on a case-by-case basis. Applicants should note that unidentified information that is a trade secret, proprietary, or subject to a protective order that is submitted in an Information Disclosure Statement may inadvertently be placed in an Office prior art search file by the examiner due to the lack of such identification and may not be retrievable.
III. INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN INCORRECT APPLICATION
37 CFR 1.59(b) also covers the situation where an unintended heading has been placed on papers so that they are present in an incorrect application file. In such a situation, a petition should request that the papers be expunged rather than transferred to the correct application file. The grant of such a petition will be governed by the factors enumerated in paragraph II of this section in regard to the unintentional submission of information. Where the Office can determine the correct application file that the papers were actually intended for, based on identifying information in the heading of the papers (e.g., application number, filing date, title of invention and inventor(s) name(s)), the Office will transfer the papers to the correct application file for which they were intended without the need of a petition. However, if the papers are correctly matched with the application serial number given in an electronic filing via EFS-WEB, the information is not considered to have been submitted in the incorrect application even if the identifying information in the heading of the papers is directed toward a different application.
IV. INFORMATION FORMING PART OF THE ORIGINAL DISCLOSURE
A petition to expunge a part of the original disclosure must be filed under 37 CFR 1.183, since such a request requires a waiver of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.59(a). Petitions under 37 CFR 1.183 should be directed to the Office of Petitions. The petition must explain why justice requires waiver of the rules to permit the requested material to be expunged. It should be noted that petitions to expunge information which is a part of the original disclosure, such as the specification and drawings, will ordinarily not be favorably entertained. The original disclosures of applications are scanned for
record keeping purposes. Accordingly, the grant of a petition to expunge information which is part of the original disclosure would require that the USPTO record of the originally filed application be changed, which may not be possible.
724.06 Handling of Petitions To Expunge Information or Copy of Papers inApplication File [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.59 Expungement of information or copy of papers in application file.
(a)
(1) Information in an application will not be expunged, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section or § 41.7(a) or § 42.7(a) of this title.
(2) Information forming part of the original disclosure ( i.e., written specification including the claims, drawings, and any preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application) will not be expunged from the application file.
(b) An applicant may request that the Office expunge information, other than what is excluded by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, by filing a petition under this paragraph. Any petition to expunge information from an application must include the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) and establish to the satisfaction of the Director that the expungement of the information is appropriate in which case a notice granting the petition for expungement will be provided.
(c) Upon request by an applicant and payment of the fee specified in § 1.19(b), the Office will furnish copies of an application, unless the application has been disposed of (see §§ 1.53(e), (f) and (g)). The Office cannot provide or certify copies of an application that has been disposed of.
37 CFR 1.59 provides that information, other than the original disclosure of the application, may be expunged from the file wrapper provided a petition to expunge under 37 CFR 1.59(b) and the required fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) are filed, and further that petitioner has established to the satisfaction of the Director that the return of the information is appropriate. Expungement of information that was originally submitted to the Office under MPEP § 724.02, or that should have been submitted in a sealed envelope as discussed in MPEP § 724.02, is appropriate when the petitioner complies with items (A)-(E) set forth in MPEP § 724.05, paragraph I, and the examiner or other appropriate Office official who is responsible for considering the information has determined that the information is not material to patentability. Expungement of information that was inadvertently submitted to the Office is
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-377
§ 724.06EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
appropriate provided that items (A)-(F) set forth in MPEP § 724.05, paragraph II, are satisfied. See also MPEP § 724.
Where the information to be expunged was not submitted pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or as part of an Information Disclosure Statement, the petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision.
The decision on the petition to expunge should be held in abeyance until the application is allowed or an Ex parte Quayle action, or a Notice of Abandonment is mailed, at which time the petition will be decided. However, where it is clear that the information was submitted in the wrong application, then the decision on the petition should not be held in abeyance. See MPEP § 724.05, paragraph III. In a pending application that has not been allowed or in which an Ex parte Quayle action has not been mailed, the examiner may not have finally considered what is material to a decision of patentability of the claims. Petitioner may be notified that the decision on the petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b) to expunge information in an application will be held in abeyance and be decided upon allowance of the application, or the mailing of an Ex parte Quayle action or a Notice of Abandonment using form paragraph 7.204.
¶ 7.204 Petition Under 37 CFR 1.59(b) To Expunge Information: Decision Held in Abeyance
In re Application of [1]: Appl. No.: [2]: RESPONSE TO PETITION Filed: [3] : UNDER 37 CFR 1.59 For: [4]:
This is a response to the petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b), filed [5], to expunge information from the above identified application.
The decision on the petition will be held in abeyance until allowance of the application or mailing of an Ex parte Quayle action or a Notice of Abandonment, at which time the petition will be decided.
Petitioner requests that a document entitled [6], filed [7], be expunged from the record. Petitioner states either: (A) that the information contains trade secret material, proprietary material and/or material that is subject to a protective order which has not been made public; or (B) that the information submitted was unintentionally submitted and the failure to obtain its return would cause irreparable harm to the party who submitted the information or to the party in interest on whose behalf the information was submitted, and the information has not otherwise been made public. The petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) has been paid.
The decision on the petition is held in abeyance because prosecution on the merits is not closed. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to make a final determination of whether or not the material requested to be expunged is “material,” with “materiality” being defined as any information which the examiner considers as being important to a determination of patentability of the claims. Thus, the decision on the petition to expunge must be held in abeyance at this time.
During prosecution on the merits, the examiner will determine whether or not the identified document is considered to be “material.” If the information is not considered by the examiner to be material, the information will be removed from the official file.
Examiner Note:
1. A Technology Center Director decides this petition only if the information was submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement.
2. The petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision if:
(a) the information was not submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement. Information which is part of the original disclosure (specification including any claims, drawings, and any preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application) cannot be expunged under 37 CFR 1.59. Some papers entered into the application file, e.g., arguments made in an amendment, may be expunged under appropriate circumstance, however, the petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision; or
(b) the petition is also accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of one of the requirements explicitly set forth in 37 CFR 1.59 (e.g., requesting expungement of part of the original disclosure).
3. This decision is printed with the USPTO letterhead.
4. In bracket 6, clearly identify the document which petitioner requests to expunge. For example, refer to the author and title of the document.
5. Mail with PTO-90C cover sheet.
When an application has been allowed, an Ex parte Quayle action has been mailed, or an application is abandoned, a petition to expunge should be decided by a TC Director (see MPEP § 1002.02(c)). At this time a determination must be made as to whether the information in question is material. Form paragraph 7.205 should be used to grant a petition to expunge, whereas form paragraphs 7.206 - 7.213 should be used to dismiss such a petition.
¶ 7.205 Petition Under 37 CFR 1.59(b) To Expunge Information Granted
In re Application of [1]: Appl. No.: [2]: DECISION ON PETITION Filed: [3]: UNDER 37 CFR 1.59 For: [4]:
700-378Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 724.06
This is a decision on the petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b), filed [5], to expunge information from the above identified application.
The petition is granted.
Petitioner requests that a document entitled [6], filed [7], be expunged from the record. Petitioner states that either (A) that the information contains trade secret material, proprietary material and/or material that is subject to a protective order which has not been made public; or (B) that the information submitted was unintentionally submitted and the failure to obtain its return would cause irreparable harm to the party who submitted the information or to the party in interest on whose behalf the information was submitted, and the information has not otherwise been made public. The petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) has been paid.
The information in question has been determined by the undersigned to not be material to the examination of the instant application.
Applicant is required to retain the expunged material(s) for the life of any patent which issues on the above-identified application.
The expunged material has been removed from the official file.
Enclosure: [8]
Examiner Note:
1. A Technology Center Director decides this petition only if the information was submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement. Furthermore, a petition to expunge may not be granted unless the application has been allowed or is abandoned, or an Ex Parte Quayle action has been mailed.
2. The petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision if:
(a) the information was not submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement. Information which is part of the original disclosure (specification including any claims, drawings, and any preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application) cannot be expunged under 37 CFR 1.59. Some papers entered into the application file, e.g., arguments made in an amendment, may be expunged under appropriate circumstance, however, the petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision; or
(b) the petition is also accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of one of the requirements explicitly set forth in 37 CFR 1.59 (e.g., requesting expungement of part of the original disclosure).
3. This decision is printed with the USPTO letterhead.
4. In brackets 6 and 8, clearly identify the expunged document. For example, refer to the author and title of the document.
5. Mail with PTO-90C cover sheet.
¶ 7.206 Petition Under 37 CFR 1.59(b) To Expunge Information Dismissed
In re Application of [1]: Appl. No.: [2]: DECISION ON PETITION Filed: [3]: UNDER 37 CFR 1.59 For: [4]:
This is a decision on the petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b), filed [5], to expunge information from the above identified application.
The petition is dismissed.
Petitioner requests that a document entitled [6], filed [7], be expunged from the record.
“Materiality” is defined as any information which the examiner considers as being important to a determination of patentability of the claims.
The petition is deficient because: [8]
Examiner Note:
1. A Technology Center Director decides this petition only if the information was submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement. However, the petition should not be granted until the application has been allowed or abandoned, or an Ex parte Quayle action has been mailed.
2. The petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision if:
(a) the information was not submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement. Information which is part of the original disclosure (specification including any claims, drawings, and any preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application) cannot be expunged under 37 CFR 1.59. Some papers entered into the application file, e.g., arguments made in an amendment, may be expunged under appropriate circumstance, however, the petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision; or
(b) the petition is also accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of one of the requirements explicitly set forth in 37 CFR 1.59 (e.g., requesting expungement of part of the original disclosure).
3. This decision is printed with the USPTO letterhead.
4. In bracket 6, clearly identify the document which petitioner requests to expunge. For example, refer to the author and title of the document.
5. This form paragraph must be followed with one or more of form paragraphs 7.207 through 7.213.
¶ 7.207 Petition To Expunge, Conclusion, Lacks Fee
the petition was not accompanied by the required fee under 37 CFR1.17(g).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015700-379
§ 724.06EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
¶ 7.208 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, Material to Determination of Patentability
the information that petitioner requests to expunge is considered to be material to the determination of patentability because [1].
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, provide an explanation of basis for conclusion that information is material to the determination of patentability.
¶ 7.209 Petition To Expunge, Conclusion, Information Made Public
the information has been made public. [1]
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, provide explanation of basis for conclusion that information has been made public.
¶ 7.210 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, No Commitment to Retain Information
the petition does not contain a commitment on the part of petitioner to retain the information to be expunged for the period of any patent with regard to which such information is submitted.
¶ 7.211 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, No Clear Statement That Information is Trade Secret, Proprietary, and/or Subject to Protective Order, or that Submission Was Unintentional
the petition does not contain a clear statement that the information requested to be expunged is either: (1) a trade secret, proprietary, and/or subject to a protective order; or (2) was unintentionally submitted and failure to obtain its return would cause irreparable harm to the party who submitted the information or to the party in interest on whose behalf the information was submitted. [1]
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, indicate whether any such statement was provided and, if so, explain why such statement is not clear.
¶ 7.212 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, No Clear Identification of Information to be Expunged
the petition does not clearly identify the information requested to be expunged. [1]
Examiner Note:
In bracket 1, explain why the identification of the information requested to be expunged is not clear.
¶ 7.213 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, No Statement That Petition Is Submitted By, or on Behalf of, Party in Interest Who Originally Submitted the Information
the petition does not contain a statement that the petition is being submitted by, or on behalf of, the party in interest who originally submitted the information.
700-380Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 724.06
Chapter 800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
Introduction801 Basis for Restriction Practice in Statute and Rules
802
Meaning of “Independent” and “Distinct”
802.01
Definition of Restriction802.02 Restriction — When Proper803
Review by Examiner with at Least Partial Signatory Authority
803.01
Markush Claims803.02 Transitional Applications803.03
Transitional Application — Linking Claim Allowable
803.03(a)
Transitional Application — Generic Claim Allowable
803.03(b)
Nucleotide Sequences803.04 Reissue Application Practice803.05
Definition of Double Patenting804 Prohibition of Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 121
804.01
Avoiding a Double Patenting Rejection
804.02
Commonly Owned Inventions of Different Inventive Entities;
804.03
Non-Commonly Owned Inventions Subject to a Joint Research Agreement Submission to Technology Center Director
804.04
Effect of Improper Joinder in Patent805 Determination of Distinctness or Independence of Claimed Inventions
806
Compare Claimed Subject Matter806.01 [Reserved]806.02 Single Embodiment, Claims Defining Same Essential Features
806.03
Genus and/or Species Inventions806.04 [Reserved]806.04(a) Species May Be Independent or Related Inventions
806.04(b)
[Reserved]806.04(c) Definition of a Generic Claim806.04(d) Claims Limited to Species806.04(e) Restriction Between Mutually Exclusive Species
806.04(f)
[Reserved]806.04(g) Species Must Be Patentably Distinct From Each Other
806.04(h)
Generic Claims Presented In a Separate Application After Issuance of Species Claims
806.04(i)
Related Inventions806.05 Combination and Subcombination806.05(a) [Reserved]806.05(b) Criteria of Distinctness Between Combination and Subcombination
806.05(c)
Subcombinations Usable Together
806.05(d)
Process and Apparatus for Its Practice
806.05(e)
Process of Making and Product Made
806.05(f)
Apparatus and Product Made806.05(g) Product and Process of Using806.05(h) Product, Process of Making, and Process of Using
806.05(i)
Related Products; Related Processes
806.05(j)
Independent Inventions806.06 Patentability Report Practice Has No Effect on Restriction Practice
807
Reasons for Insisting Upon Restriction808 Reasons for Holding of Independence or Distinctness
808.01
Species808.01(a) Establishing Burden808.02
Linking Claims809 [Reserved]809.01 [Reserved]809.02
Election of Species Required809.02(a) Restriction Between Linked Inventions
809.03
Action on the Merits810 Time for Making Requirement811
[Reserved]811.01 New Requirement After Compliance With Preceding Requirement
811.02
Repeating After Withdrawal Proper811.03 Proper Even Though Grouped Together in Parent Application
811.04
Who Should Make the Requirement812 Telephone Restriction Practice812.01
[Reserved]813 Indicate Exactly How Application Is To Be Restricted
814
Make Requirement Complete815 [Reserved]816
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-1
Outline of Letter for Restriction Requirement
817
Election and Reply818 Election in Reply to a Restriction Requirement: Express
818.01
Reply Must be Complete818.01(a) Election is Required, Even When Requirement Is Traversed
818.01(b)
Traverse is Required To Preserve Right of Petition
818.01(c)
Traverse of Restriction Requirement With Linking Claims
818.01(d)
Election Other Than Express818.02 Election By Originally Presented Claims
818.02(a)
Generic Claims Only — No Election of Species; Linking
818.02(b)
Claims Only – No Election of Invention Election By Optional Cancellation of Claims
818.02(c)
Election By Cancellation of Claims, Lacking Express Election Statement
818.02(d)
Office Generally Does Not Permit Shift819 [Reserved]820 Treatment of Claims Held To Be Drawn to Nonelected Inventions
821
After Election With Traverse821.01 After Election Without Traverse821.02 Claims for Different Invention Added After an Office Action
821.03
Rejoinder821.04 Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions
821.04(a)
Rejoinder of Process Requiring an Allowable Product
821.04(b)
Claims to Inventions That Are Not Patentably Distinct in Plural
822
Applications of Same Applicant or Assignee
Unity of Invention Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
823
801 Introduction [R-07.2015]
This chapter is limited to a discussion of the subjects of restriction and double patenting under Title 35 of the United States Code and Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as it relates to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty Articles and Rules as it is applied as an International Searching Authority, International Preliminary Examining Authority, and in applications entering the National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 as a Designated or Elected Office in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is covered in MPEP Chapter 1800.
See MPEP § 823 for a summary of the guidance set forth in this chapter with regard to other substantive and procedural matters that generally apply to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371.
The general principles set forth in this chapter apply to design applications, except as identified in MPEP § 1504.05 and § 1504.06. The general principles set forth in this chapter apply to reissue applications, however see MPEP § 803.05 and § 1450 for a discussion of the prerequisites to making a restriction requirement in reissue applications. With regard to reexamination proceedings, restriction is not permitted. Basic principles of double patenting apply to reexamination proceedings, as explained in this chapter and in MPEP Chapters 2200 and 2600 (see especially MPEP § 2258).
802 Basis for Restriction Practice in Statute and Rules [R-07.2015]
The basis for restriction practice is found in the following statute and rules:
35 U.S.C. 121 Divisional applications.
[ Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 121 for the law otherwise applicable.]
800-2Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 801
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 121 Divisional applications.
[ Editor Note: Not applicable to any patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See 35 U.S.C. 121 for the law otherwise applicable.]
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Director may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
37 CFR 1.141 Different inventions in one national application.
(a) Two or more independent and distinct inventions may not be claimed in one national application, except that more than one species of an invention, not to exceed a reasonable number, may be specifically claimed in different claims in one national application, provided the application also includes an allowable claim generic to all the claimed species and all the claims to species in excess of one are written in dependent form (§ 1.75) or otherwise include all the limitations of the generic claim.
(b) Where claims to all three categories, product, process of making, and process of use, are included in a national application, a three way requirement for restriction can only be made where the process of making is distinct from the product. If the process of making and the product are not distinct, the process of using may be joined with the claims directed to the
product and the process of making the product even though a showing of distinctness between the product and process of using the product can be made.
37 CFR 1.142 Requirement for restriction.
(a) If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in a single application, the examiner in an Office action will require the applicant in the reply to that action to elect an invention to which the claims will be restricted, this official action being called a requirement for restriction (also known as a requirement for division). Such requirement will normally be made before any action on the merits; however, it may be made at any time before final action.
(b) Claims to the invention or inventions not elected, if not canceled, are nevertheless withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner by the election, subject however to reinstatement in the event the requirement for restriction is withdrawn or overruled.
The pertinent Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Articles and Rules are cited and discussed in MPEP Chapter 1800. Sections 1850, 1875, and 1893.03(d) should be consulted for discussions on unity of invention:
(A) before the International Searching Authority;
(B) before the International Preliminary Examining Authority; and
(C) in the National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
802.01 Meaning of “Independent” and “Distinct” [R-08.2012]
35 U.S.C. 121 quoted in the preceding section states that the Director may require restriction if two or more “independent and distinct” inventions are claimed in one application. In 37 CFR 1.141, the statement is made that two or more “independent and distinct inventions” may not be claimed in one application.
This raises the question of the inventions as between which the Director may require restriction. This, in turn, depends on the construction of the expression “independent and distinct” inventions.
“Independent”, of course, means not dependent, or unrelated. If “distinct” means the same thing, then its use in the statute and in the rule is redundant. If “distinct” means something different, then the question arises as to what the difference in meaning between these two words may be. The hearings
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-3
§ 802.01RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
before the committees of Congress considering the codification of the patent laws indicate that 35 U.S.C. 121: “enacts as law existing practice with respect to division, at the same time introducing a number of changes.”
The report on the hearings does not mention as a change that is introduced, the inventions between which the Director may properly require division.
The term “independent” as already pointed out, means not dependent, or unrelated. A large number of inventions between which, prior to the 1952 Act, division had been proper, are dependent inventions, such as, for example, combination and a subcombination thereof; as process and apparatus used in the practice of the process; as composition and the process in which the composition is used; as process and the product made by such process, etc. If section 121 of the 1952 Act were intended to direct the Director never to approve division between dependent inventions, the word “independent” would clearly have been used alone. If the Director has authority or discretion to restrict independent inventions only, then restriction would be improper as between dependent inventions, e.g., the examples used for purpose of illustration above. Such was clearly not the intent of Congress. Nothing in the language of the statute and nothing in the hearings of the committees indicate any intent to change the substantive law on this subject. On the contrary, joinder of the term “distinct” with the term “independent”, indicates lack of such intent. The law has long been established that dependent inventions (frequently termed related inventions) such as used for illustration above may be properly divided if they are, in fact, “distinct” inventions, even though dependent.
I. INDEPENDENT
The term “independent” (i.e., unrelated) means that there is no disclosed relationship between the two or more inventions claimed, that is, they are unconnected in design, operation, and effect. For example, a process and an apparatus incapable of being used in practicing the process are independent inventions. See also MPEP § 806.06 and § 808.01.
II. RELATED BUT DISTINCT
Two or more inventions are related (i.e., not independent) if they are disclosed as connected in at least one of design (e.g., structure or method of manufacture), operation (e.g., function or method of use), or effect. Examples of related inventions include combination and part (subcombination) thereof, process and apparatus for its practice, process and product made, etc. In this definition the term related is used as an alternative for dependent in referring to inventions other than independent inventions.
Related inventions are distinct if the inventions as claimed are not connected in at least one of design, operation, or effect (e.g., can be made by, or used in, a materially different process) and wherein at least one invention is PATENTABLE (novel and nonobvious) OVER THE OTHER (though they may each be unpatentable over the prior art). See MPEP § 806.05(c) (combination and subcombination) and § 806.05(j) (related products or related processes) for examples of when a two-way test is required for distinctness.
It is further noted that the terms “independent” and “distinct” are used in decisions with varying meanings. All decisions should be read carefully to determine the meaning intended.
802.02 Definition of Restriction [R-08.2012]
Restriction is the practice of requiring an applicant to elect a single claimed invention (e.g., a combination or subcombination invention, a product or process invention, a species within a genus) for examination when two or more independent inventions and/or two or more distinct inventions are claimed in an application.
803 Restriction — When Proper [R-08.2012]
Under the statute, the claims of an application may properly be required to be restricted to one of two or more claimed inventions only if they are able to support separate patents and they are either independent (MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, and § 808.01) or distinct (MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)).
800-4Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 802.02
If the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine them on the merits, even though they include claims to independent or distinct inventions.
I. CRITERIA FOR RESTRICTION BETWEEN PATENTABLY DISTINCT INVENTIONS
There are two criteria for a proper requirement for restriction between patentably distinct inventions:
(A) The inventions must be independent (see MPEP § 802.01, § 806.06, § 808.01) or distinct as claimed (see MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j)); and
(B) There would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required (see MPEP § 803.02, § 808, and § 808.02).
II. GUIDELINES
Examiners must provide reasons and/or examples to support conclusions, but need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases.
Where plural inventions are capable of being viewed as related in two ways, both applicable criteria for distinctness must be demonstrated to support a restriction requirement.
If there is an express admission that the claimed inventions would have been obvious over each other within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, restriction should not be required. In re Lee, 199 USPQ 108 (Comm’r Pat. 1978).
For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant. Insofar as the criteria for restriction practice relating to Markush-type claims is concerned, the criteria is set forth in MPEP § 803.02. Insofar as the criteria for restriction or election practice relating to claims to
genus-species, see MPEP § 806.04 - § 806.04(i) and § 808.01(a).
803.01 Review by Examiner with at Least Partial Signatory Authority [R-07.2015]
Since requirements for restriction under 35 U.S.C. 121 are discretionary with the Director, it becomes very important that the practice under this section be carefully administered. Notwithstanding the fact that this section of the statute apparently protects the applicant against the dangers that previously might have resulted from compliance with an improper requirement for restriction, IT STILL REMAINS IMPORTANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT NO REQUIREMENT BE MADE WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF TWO PATENTS FOR THE SAME INVENTION. See MPEP § 804.01. Therefore, to guard against this possibility, only an examiner with permanent full signatory authority or temporary full signatory authority may sign final Office actions containing a final requirement for restriction. An examiner with permanent partial signatory authority or temporary partial signatory authority may sign non-final Office actions containing a final requirement for restriction.
803.02 Markush Claims [R-08.2012]
A Markush-type claim recites alternatives in a format such as “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” See Ex parte Markush, 1925 C.D. 126 (Comm’r Pat. 1925). The members of the Markush group (A, B, and C in the example above) ordinarily must belong to a recognized physical or chemical class or to an art-recognized class. However, when the Markush group occurs in a claim reciting a process or a combination (not a single compound), it is sufficient if the members of the group are disclosed in the specification to possess at least one property in common which is mainly responsible for their function in the claimed relationship, and it is clear from their very nature or from the prior art that all of them possess this property. Inventions in metallurgy, refractories, ceramics, pharmacy, pharmacology and biology are most frequently claimed under the Markush formula but purely mechanical features or process steps may also be
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-5
§ 803.02RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
claimed by using the Markush style of claiming. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
If the members of the Markush group are sufficiently few in number or so closely related that a search and examination of the entire claim can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine all the members of the Markush group in the claim on the merits, even though they may be directed to independent and distinct inventions. In such a case, the examiner will not follow the procedure described below and will not require provisional election of a single species. See MPEP § 808.02.
Since the decisions in In re Weber, 580 F.2d 455, 198 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1978) and In re Haas, 580 F.2d 461, 198 USPQ 334 (CCPA 1978), it is improper for the Office to refuse to examine that which applicants regard as their invention, unless the subject matter in a claim lacks unity of invention. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 206 USPQ 300
(CCPA 1980); and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). Broadly, unity of invention exists where compounds included within a Markush group (1) share a common utility, and (2) share a substantial structural feature essential to that utility.
This subsection deals with Markush-type generic claims which recite a plurality of alternatively usable substances or members. In most cases, a recitation by enumeration is used because there is no appropriate or true generic language. A Markush-type claim may include independent and distinct inventions. This is true where two or more of the members are so unrelated and diverse that a prior art reference anticipating the claim with respect to one of the members would not render the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to the other member(s). In applications containing a Markush-type claim that encompasses at least two independent or distinct inventions, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species prior to examination on the merits. An examiner should set forth a requirement for election of a single disclosed species in a Markush-type claim using form paragraph 8.01 when claims limited to species are present or using form paragraph 8.02 when no species claims are present. See MPEP § 808.01(a) and § 809.02(a). Following election, the
Markush-type claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability. If the Markush-type claim is not allowable, the provisional election will be given effect and examination will be limited to the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species, with claims drawn to species patentably distinct from the elected species held withdrawn from further consideration.
As an example, in the case of an application with a Markush-type claim drawn to the compound X-R, wherein R is a radical selected from the group consisting of A, B, C, D, and E, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species, XA, XB, XC, XD, or XE. The Markush-type claim would then be examined fully with respect to the elected species and any species considered to be clearly unpatentable over the elected species. If on examination the elected species is found to be anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species shall be rejected, and claims to the nonelected species would be held withdrawn from further consideration. A second action on the rejected claims can be made final unless the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). See MPEP § 706.07(a).
On the other hand, should the examiner determine that the elected species is allowable, the examination of the Markush-type claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the Markush-type claim with respect to a nonelected species, the Markush-type claim shall be rejected and claims to the nonelected species held withdrawn from further consideration. The prior art search, however, will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species. Should applicant, in response to this rejection of the Markush-type claim, overcome the rejection, as by amending the Markush-type claim to exclude the species anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art, the amended Markush-type claim will be reexamined. The examination will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the
800-6Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 803.02
Markush-type claim. In the event prior art is found during the reexamination that anticipates or renders obvious the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action can be made final unless the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). See MPEP § 706.07(a). Amendments submitted after the final rejection further restricting the scope of the claim may be denied entry if they do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116. See MPEP § 714.13.
If a Markush claim depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of another generic or linking claim, see MPEP § 809.
803.03 Transitional Applications [R-08.2012]
PRACTICE RE TRANSITIONAL APPLICATION
37 CFR 1.129 Transitional procedures for limited examination after final rejection and restriction practice.
*****
(b)(1) In an application, other than for reissue or a design patent, that has been pending for at least three years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference made in the application to any earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 and 365(c), no requirement for restriction or for the filing of divisional applications shall be made or maintained in the application after June 8, 1995, except where:
(i) The requirement was first made in the application or any earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 and 365(c) prior to April 8, 1995;
(ii) The examiner has not made a requirement for restriction in the present or parent application prior to April 8, 1995, due to actions by the applicant; or
(iii) The required fee for examination of each additional invention was not paid.
(2) If the application contains more than one independent and distinct invention and a requirement for restriction or for the filing of divisional applications cannot be made or maintained pursuant to this paragraph, applicant will be so notified and given a time period to:
(i) Elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined, if no election has been made prior to the notice, and pay the fee set forth in 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects;
(ii) Confirm an election made prior to the notice and pay the fee set forth in § 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in addition to the one invention which applicant previously elected; or
(iii) File a petition under this section traversing the requirement. If the required petition is filed in a timely manner, the original time period for electing and paying the fee set forth in § 1.17(s) will be deferred and any decision on the petition affirming or modifying the requirement will set a new time period to elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined and to pay the fee set forth in § 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects.
(3) The additional inventions for which the required fee has not been paid will be withdrawn from consideration under § 1.142(b). An applicant who desires examination of an invention so withdrawn from consideration can file a divisional application under 35 U.S.C. 121.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any application filed after June 8, 1995.
“Restriction” under 37 CFR 1.129(b) applies to both restriction requirements under 37 CFR 1.142 and election of species requirements under 37 CFR 1.146.
37 CFR 1.129(b)(1) provides for examination of more than one independent and distinct invention in certain applications pending for 3 years or longer as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference to any earlier application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c). Applicant will not be permitted to have such additional invention(s) examined in an application if:
(A) the requirement was made in the application or in an earlier application relied on under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) prior to April 8, 1995;
(B) no restriction requirement was made with respect to the invention(s) in the application or earlier application prior to April 8, 1995, due to actions by the applicant; or
(C) the required fee for examination of each additional invention was not paid.
Only if one of these exceptions applies is a normal restriction requirement appropriate and telephone restriction practice may be used.
Examples of what constitute “actions by the applicant” in 37 CFR 1.129(b)(1) are:
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-7
§ 803.03RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
(A) applicant abandoned the application and continued to refile the application such that no Office action could be issued in the application,
(B) applicant requested suspension of prosecution under 37 CFR 1.103(a) such that no Office action could be issued in the application,
(C) applicant disclosed a plurality of independent and distinct inventions in the present or parent application, but delayed presenting claims to more than one of the disclosed independent and distinct inventions in the present or parent application such that no restriction requirement could be made prior to April 8, 1995, and
(D) applicant combined several applications, each of which claimed a different independent and distinct invention, into one large “continuing” application, but delayed filing the continuing application first claiming more than one independent and distinct invention such that no restriction requirement could be made prior to April 8, 1995.
In examples (A) and (B), the fact that the present or parent application claiming independent and distinct inventions was on an examiner’s docket for at least 3 months prior to abandonment or suspension, or in examples (C) and (D), the fact that the amendment claiming independent and distinct inventions was first filed, or the continuing application first claiming the additional independent and distinct inventions was on an examiner’s docket, at least 3 months prior to April 8, 1995, is prima facie evidence that applicant’s actions did not prevent the Office from making a requirement for restriction with respect to those independent and distinct inventions prior to April 8, 1995. Furthermore, an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) does not constitute such “actions by the applicant” under 37 CFR 1.129(b)(1).
NOTE: If an examiner believes an application falls under the exception that no restriction could be made prior to April 8, 1995, due to applicant’s action, the application must be brought to the attention of the Technology Center (TC) Special Program Examiner for review.
Under 37 CFR 1.129(b)(2), if the application contains claims to more than one independent and distinct invention, and no requirement for restriction or for the filing of divisional applications can be
made or maintained, applicant will be notified and given a time period to:
(A) elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined, if no election has been made prior to the notice, and pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects,
(B) in situations where an election was made in reply to a requirement for restriction that cannot be maintained, confirm the election made prior to the notice and pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in addition to the one invention which applicant previously elected, or
(C) file a petition under 37 CFR 1.129(b)(2) traversing the requirement without regard to whether the requirement has been made final. No petition fee is required.
37 CFR 1.129(b)(2) also provides that if the petition is filed in a timely manner, the original time period for electing and paying the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) will be deferred and any decision on the petition affirming or modifying the requirement will set a new time period to elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined and to pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention claimed in the application in excess of one which applicant elects.
Under 37 CFR 1.129(b)(3), each additional invention for which the required fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) has not been paid will be withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142(b). An applicant who desires examination of an invention so withdrawn from consideration can file a divisional application under 35 U.S.C. 121.
37 CFR 1.129(c) clarifies that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.129(a) and (b) are not applicable to any application filed after June 8, 1995. However, any application filed on June 8, 1995, would be subject to a 20-year patent term.
Form paragraph 8.41 may be used to notify applicant that the application is a transitional application and is entitled to consideration of additional inventions upon payment of the required fee.
800-8Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 803.03
¶ 8.41 Transitional Restriction or Election of Species Requirement – pre-GATT Filing
This application is subject to the transitional restriction provisions of Public Law 103-465, which became effective on June 8, 1995, because:
1. the application was filed on or before June 8, 1995, and has an effective U.S. filing date of June 8, 1992, or earlier;
2. a requirement for restriction was not made in the present or a parent application prior to April 8, 1995; and
3. the examiner was not prevented from making a requirement for restriction in the present or a parent application prior to April 8, 1995, due to actions by the applicant.
The transitional restriction provisions permit applicant to have more than one independent and distinct invention examined in the same application by paying a fee for each invention in excess of one.
Final rules concerning the transition restriction provisions were published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 20195 (April 25, 1995) and in the Official Gazette at 1174 OG 15 (May 2, 1995). The final rules at 37 CFR 1.17(s) include the fee amount required to be paid for each additional invention as set forth in the following requirement for restriction. See the current fee schedule for the proper amount of the fee.
Applicant must either: (1) elect the invention or inventions to be searched and examined and pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for each independent and distinct invention in excess of one which applicant elects; or (2) file a petition under 37 CFR 1.129(b) traversing the requirement.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used in all restriction or election of species requirements made in applications subject
to the transition restriction provisions set forth in 37 CFR 1.129(b). The procedure is NOT applicable to any design or reissue application.
803.03(a) Transitional Application — Linking Claim Allowable [R-08.2012]
Whenever divided inventions in a transitional application are rejoined because a linking claim is allowable (MPEP § 809, § 821.04, and § 821.04(a)) and applicant paid the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) for the additional invention, applicant should be notified that he or she may request a refund of the fee paid for that additional invention.
803.03(b) Transitional Application — Generic Claim Allowable [R-08.2012]
Whenever claims drawn to an additional species in a transitional application for which applicant paid the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(s) are no longer withdrawn from consideration because they are fully embraced by an allowable generic claim, applicant should be notified that he or she may request a refund of the fee paid for that additional species.
The determination of when claims to a nonelected species would no longer be withdrawn from consideration should be made as indicated in MPEP § 806.04(d), § 821.04, and § 821.04(a).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-9
§ 803.03(b)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
803.04 Nucleotide Sequences [R-07.2015] Polynucleotide molecules defined by their nucleic acid sequence (hereinafter “nucleotide sequences”) that encode different proteins are structurally distinct
800-10Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 803.04
chemical compounds. These sequences are thus deemed to normally constitute independent and distinct inventions within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 121. Absent evidence to the contrary, each such nucleotide sequence is presumed to represent an independent and distinct invention, subject to a restriction requirement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 121 and 37 CFR 1.141 et seq.
In 1996, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks decided sua sponte to partially waive the requirements of 37 CFR 1.141 et seq. and permit a reasonable number of such nucleotide sequences to be claimed in a single application. See Examination of Patent Applications Containing
Nucleotide Sequences, 1192 OG 68 (November 19, 1996).
In 2007, the Commissioner for Patents rescinded the waiver. See Examination of Patent Applications Containing Nucleotide Sequences, 1316 OG 123 (March 27, 2007). All pending applications are subject to the 2007 OG notice. Note, however, that supplemental restriction requirements will not be advanced in applications that have already received an action on their merits for multiple nucleotide sequences in the absence of extenuating circumstances. For national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), polynucleotide inventions will be considered for restriction, rejoinder, and examination practice in accordance with the standards set forth in MPEP Chapter 800. Claims to polynucleotide molecules will be considered for independence, relatedness, distinction and burden in the same manner as claims to any other type of molecule.
See MPEP § 1850 for treatment of claims containing independent and distinct nucleotide sequences in international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and national stage applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371.
803.05 Reissue Application Practice [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.176 Examination of reissue. *****
(b) Restriction between subject matter of the original patent claims and previously unclaimed subject matter may be required (restriction involving only subject matter of the original patent
claims will not be required). If restriction is required, the subject matter of the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected unless a disclaimer of all the patent claims is filed in the reissue application, which disclaimer cannot be withdrawn by applicant.
Restriction practice relating to reissue applications is governed by 37 CFR 1.176(b) which specifies that restriction may only be required between the invention(s) of the original patent claims and previously unclaimed invention(s) set forth in new claims added in the reissue application. The claims of the original patent must not be restricted as being directed to two or more independent and distinct inventions and must be examined together. Where restriction is required by the examiner, the invention(s) set forth by the original patent claims and any newly added claims that are directed to the same invention(s) will be held as constructively elected. Any new claim that is directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from the invention(s) of the original patent claims will be withdrawn from consideration. See MPEP § 1450 for a detailed explanation of this practice. Note that applicant may initiate a division of the claims by filing more than one reissue application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.177. See MPEP § 1451 for a detailed explanation of this practice.
Where a restriction (or an election of species) requirement was made in an application and applicant permitted the elected invention to issue as a patent without filing a divisional application on the non-elected invention(s) or on non-claimed subject matter distinct from the elected invention, the non-elected invention(s) and non-claimed, distinct subject matter cannot be recovered by filing a reissue application. Once an applicant acquiesces to a restriction (or an election of species) requirement, any invention distinct from that elected and prosecuted to allowance—whether originally claimed or not—can only be pursued in a timely-filed divisional application. A reissue applicant’s failure to timely file a divisional application is not considered to be error causing a patent granted on the elected claims to be partially inoperative by reason of claiming less than the applicant had a right to claim. Accordingly, this is not correctable by reissue of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 251. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Weiler, 790
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-11
§ 803.05RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
F.2d 1576, 229 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See MPEP § 1412.01.
804 Definition of Double Patenting [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions Patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 121 Divisional Applications.
[ Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 121 for the law otherwise applicable.]
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 121 Divisional Applications.
[ Editor Note: Not applicable to any patent application filed on or after September 16, 2012. See 35 U.S.C. 121 for the law otherwise applicable.]
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Director may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent
shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
The doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent. The public policy behind this doctrine is that:
The public should . . . be able to act on the assumption that upon the expiration of the patent it will be free to use not only the invention claimed in the patent but also modifications or variants which would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, taking into account the skill in the art and prior art other than the invention claimed in the issued patent.
In re Zickendraht, 319 F.2d 225, 232, 138 USPQ 22, 27 (CCPA 1963) (Rich, J., concurring). Double patenting results when the right to exclude granted by a first patent is unjustly extended by the grant of a later issued patent or patents. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982). Note that in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 753 F.3d 1208, 110 USPQ2d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found an earlier-expiring patent, which was issued after the later-expiring patent, may be used to invalidate the later-expiring patent.
Before consideration can be given to the issue of double patenting, two or more patents or applications must have at least one common inventor, common applicant, and/or be commonly assigned/owned or non-commonly assigned/owned but subject to a joint research agreement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3). For purposes of a double patenting analysis, the application or patent and the subject matter disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) will be treated as if commonly owned. SeeMPEP § 804.03. Since the doctrine of double patenting seeks to avoid unjustly extending patent rights at the expense of the public, the focus of any double patenting analysis necessarily is on the claims in the multiple patents or patent applications involved in the analysis.
800-12Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
There are generally two types of double patenting rejections. One is the “same invention” type double patenting rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 101 which states in the singular that an inventor “may obtain a patent.” The second is the “nonstatutory-type” double patenting rejection based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy and which is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from claims in a first patent.
The doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting also seeks to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of patents claiming patentably indistinct variations of the same invention. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944-48, 214 USPQ 761, 767-70 (CCPA 1982). The submission of a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b) to overcome a double patenting rejection ensures that a patent owner with multiple patents claiming obvious variations of one invention retains all those patents or sells them as a group. Van Ornum, 686 F.2d at 944-45, 214 USPQ at 767.
Nonstatutory double patenting includes rejections based on anticipation, a one-way determination of “obviousness,” or a two-way determination of “obviousness.” It is important to note that the “obviousness” analysis for “obviousness-type” double-patenting is “similar to, but not necessarily the same as, that undertaken under 35 U.S.C. 103.” In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592-93, 19 USPQ2d
1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4, 225 USPQ 645, 648 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 349 F.3d 1373, 1378 n.1, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1869 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In addition, nonstatutory double patenting also includes rejections based on the equitable principle against permitting an unjustified timewise extension of patent rights. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968); see also subsection II.B.3, below.
The charts below are an overview of the treatment of applications having conflicting claims (e.g., where a claim in an application is not patentably distinct from a claim in a patent or another application). Specifically, the charts cover when two applications have claims to the same invention (Charts I-A) or
to patently indistinct inventions (Charts I-B) and when an application and a patent have claims to the same invention (Charts II-A) or to patently indistinct inventions (Charts II-B). The charts also include first to invent (FTI) versions (i.e., Charts I-A_FTI, I-B_FTI, II-A_FTI, and II-B_FTI) for use when examining an application that is subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in effect on March 15, 2013 (e.g., pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) and America Invents Act (AIA) versions (i.e., Charts I-A_AIA, I-B_AIA, II-A_AIA, and II-B_AIA) for use when examining an application that is subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in effect on March 16, 2013 (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103). Therefore, in certain situations, examiners may have to use the FTI versions of the charts for an earlier-filed application that is subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 and the AIA versions of the charts for the later-filed application that is subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 or vice versa. The charts show possible rejections based upon an earlier-filed application or patent that may be applicable if the record supports such rejections. For example, examiners should determine if an earlier-filed application or patent is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) before making an anticipation or obviousness rejection based upon the earlier-filed application or patent.
The AIA versions of the charts provide that a (provisional) rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) should not be applied if the earlier-filed application or patent is not prior art in view of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) or (B). The evidence necessary to show that the disclosure is by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed from the inventor or a joint inventor requires a case-by-case analysis, depending upon whether it is apparent from the disclosure itself or the patent application specification that the disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure. In the situation where the previous public disclosure by the inventor (or which originated with the inventor) was not within the grace period but was effective to disqualify an intervening disclosure as prior art by invoking the exception of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) or 102(b)(2)(B), the previous public disclosure by, or originating with, the inventor would qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and could not be disqualified under 35 U.S.C.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-13
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
102(b)(1)(A). See MPEP §§ 717 et seq. and 2155 et seq. for more information about the prior art exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2).
The AIA versions of the charts do not address the transition cases in which pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) applies to applications subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. See MPEP § 2159.03 to determine if an application is a transition application. Examiners should consult with a Technology Center Practice Specialist if an application is a transition application and the examiner finds potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) issues.
Finally, the AIA versions of the charts also do not address rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115 for
improper naming of inventor. Although the AIA eliminated pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f), the patent laws still require the naming of the actual inventor or joint inventors of the claimed subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. 115(a). In the rare situation where there is evidence on the record that the application does not name the correct inventorship, examiners should consult MPEP § 706.03(a), subsection IV., to determine if a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115 should be made.
See MPEP § 2258 for information pertaining to double patenting rejections in reexamination proceedings.
800-14Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-15
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
800-16Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-17
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
800-18Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-19
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
800-20Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-21
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
800-22Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
I. INSTANCES WHERE DOUBLE PATENTING ISSUE CAN BE RAISED
A double patenting issue may arise between two or more pending applications, or between one or more pending applications and a patent. A double patenting issue may likewise arise in a reexamination proceeding between the patent claims being reexamined and the claims of one or more applications and/or patents. Double patenting does not relate to international applications which have not yet entered the national stage in the United States.
A. Between Issued Patent and One or More Applications
Double patenting may exist between an issued patent and an application filed by the same inventive entity, a different inventive entity having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee. See In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1146-47, 106 USPQ2d 1032, 1037-38 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(in the context of an application and a patent that had two inventors in common, but different inventive entities and no common owners or assignees, the court held that complete identity of ownership or inventive entities is not a prerequisite to a nonstatutory double patenting rejection). Double patenting may also exist where the inventions claimed in a patent and an application were made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3). Since the inventor/applicant/patent owner has already secured the issuance of a first patent, the examiner must determine whether the grant of a second patent would give rise to an unjustified extension of the rights granted in the first patent.
B. Between Copending Applications—Provisional Rejections
Occasionally, the examiner becomes aware of two copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, a different inventive entities having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope
of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. Where this issue can be addressed without violating the confidential status of applications (35 U.S.C. 122), the courts have sanctioned the practice of making applicant aware of the potential double patenting problem if one of the applications became a patent by permitting the examiner to make a “provisional” rejection on the ground of double patenting. In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 190 USPQ 536 (CCPA 1976); In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966). The merits of such a provisional rejection can be addressed by both the applicant and the examiner without waiting for the first patent to issue.
The “provisional” double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner in each application as long as there are conflicting claims in more than one application except as noted below.
1. Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting rejection (also called an “obviousness-type” or ODP rejection) is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
If a “provisional” nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application having the earliest effective U.S. filing date (including any benefit claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)) compared to the reference application(s), the examiner should withdraw the rejection in the application having the earliest effective U.S. filing date and permit that application to issue as a patent, thereby converting the “provisional” nonstatutory double patenting rejection in the other application(s) into a nonstatutory double patenting rejection when the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-23
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
application with the earliest U.S. effective filing date issues as a patent.
Where there are two applications with conflicting claims, a terminal disclaimer need not be filed in the application with the earliest effective U.S. filing date, i.e., the "earlier-filed application," which is identified as follows:
(A) Where there is no benefit claim in the two applications, the earlier-filed application is the one having the earlier actual filing date;
(B)(1) Where at least one of the two applications is entitled to the benefit of a U.S. nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the earlier-filed application is the one having the earliest date to which it is entitled benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), and/or 386(c).
(2) Where two applications are entitled to the benefit of the same U.S. nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), if all the conflicting claims of one of the applications are not appropriately supported in the parent application (and therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application), while the conflicting claims of the other application are appropriately supported in the parent application (and therefore, entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application), then the other application is the earlier-filed application. If none of the conflicting claims of either application are appropriately supported in the parent application, then the actual filing dates of the two applications govern.
(C) A 35 U.S.C. 119(e) benefit claim is NOT taken into account in determining which is the earlier-filed application.
(D) A foreign priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) is NOT taken into account in determining which is the earlier-filed application.
For items (C) and (D), it is to be noted that the patent term does not begin from the date of the 35 U.S.C. 119 filing. Thus, if patent # 1 has a 35 U.S.C. 119 filing date prior to patent # 2, but has a U.S. application filing date after patent # 2, then patent # 1 will expire later than patent # 2, and patent # 2
will be determined to be the “earlier-filed” application. See 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) and (a)(3).
If a “provisional” nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application, and that application has an effective U.S. filing date (including any benefit claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)) that is later than, or the same as, the effective U.S. filing date of at least one of the reference application(s), the rejection should be maintained until applicant overcomes the rejection. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.111(b), applicant’s reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. Alternatively, a reply that includes the filing of a compliant terminal disclaimer in the later-filed application under 37 CFR 1.321 will overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection and is a sufficient reply pursuant to 37 CFR 1.111(b). Upon the filing of a compliant terminal disclaimer in a pending application, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection will be withdrawn in that application.
If both applications are filed on the same day, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection made in each of the applications should be maintained until applicant overcomes the rejections by either filing a reply showing that the claims subject to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections are patentably distinct or filing a terminal disclaimer in each of the pending applications.
If both applications are entitled to the benefit of the same U.S. nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), and (B)(2) above does not apply, then the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection made in each of the applications should be maintained until applicant overcomes the rejections by either filing a reply showing that the claims subject to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections are patentably distinct or filing a terminal disclaimer in each of the pending applications.
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably
800-24Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI., for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995.
2. Provisional Statutory Double Patenting Rejections (35 U.S.C. 101)
A terminal disclaimer cannot be filed to obviate a statutory double patenting rejection. A statutory double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. A complete response to a statutory double patenting rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are not the same as the reference claims or by amending or canceling the conflicting claims. Such a response is required even when the statutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
If a “provisional” statutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application having the earliest effective U.S. filing date (including any benefit claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c)) than the reference application(s), the examiner should withdraw the rejection in the application having the earliest effective U.S. filing date and permit that application to issue as a patent, thereby converting the “provisional” statutory double patenting rejection in the other application(s) into a statutory double patenting rejection when the application with the earliest U.S. effective filing date issues as a patent.
If a “provisional” statutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in an application, and that application has an effective U.S. filing date (including any benefit claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120,
121, 365(c), or 386(c)) that is later than, or the same as, the effective U.S. filing date of at least one of the reference application(s), the rejection should be maintained until applicant overcomes the rejection. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.111(b), applicant’s reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any amended or newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.
C. Between One or More Applications and a Published Application - Provisional Rejections
Double patenting may exist where a published patent application and an application are filed by the same inventive entity, different inventive entities having a common inventor, a common applicant, and/or a common owner/assignee. Double patenting may also exist where a published application and an application claim inventions resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3). If the published application has not yet issued as a patent, the examiner is permitted to make a “provisional” rejection on the ground of double patenting when the published application has not been abandoned and claims pending therein conflict with claims of the application being examined. See the discussion regarding “provisional” double patenting rejections in subsection B. above.
D. Reexamination Proceedings
A double patenting issue may raise a substantial new question of patentability of a claim of a patent, and thus can be addressed in a reexamination proceeding. In re Lonardo, 119 F.3d 960, 966, 43 USPQ2d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (In giving the Director authority under 35 U.S.C. 303(a) in determining the presence of a substantial new question of patentability, “Congress intended that the phrases ‘patents and publications’ and ‘other patents or publications’ in section 303(a) not be limited to prior art patents or printed publications.”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, if the same issue of double patenting was not addressed during original prosecution, it may be considered during reexamination.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-25
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
Double patenting may exist where a reference patent or application and the patent under reexamination are filed by inventive entities that have at least one inventor in common, by a common applicant, and/or by a common owner/assignee. Where the patent under reexamination was granted on or after December 10, 2004, double patenting may also exist where the inventions claimed in the reference and reexamination proceeding resulted from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), as applicable, and if evidence of the joint research agreement has been made of record in the patent being reexamined or in the reexamination proceeding. A double patenting rejection may NOT be made on this basis if the patent under reexamination issued before December 10, 2004. See MPEP § 804.04. The prior art exclusion under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) cannot be used to overcome a double patenting rejection, whether statutory or nonstatutory. See MPEP §§ 717.02 et seq. and 2154.02(c) for more information on 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and MPEP § 706.02(l) for more information on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 2258 for more information on making double patenting rejections in reexamination proceedings. Subsection II., below, describes situations wherein a double patenting rejection would be appropriate. In particular, see paragraph II.B. for the analysis required to determine the propriety of a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
II. REQUIREMENTS OF A DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION (INCLUDING PROVISIONAL REJECTIONS)
When a double patenting rejection is appropriate, it must be based either on statutory grounds or nonstatutory grounds. The ground of rejection employed depends upon the relationship of the inventions being claimed. Generally, a double patenting rejection is not permitted where the claimed subject matter is presented in a divisional application as a result of a restriction requirement made in a parent application under 35 U.S.C. 121.
Where the claims of an application are the same as those of a first patent, they are barred under 35 U.S.C. 101 - the statutory basis for a double
patenting rejection. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ...” (emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
Where the claims of an application are not the “same” as those of a first patent, but the grant of a patent with the claims in the application would unjustly extend the rights granted by the first patent, a double patenting rejection under nonstatutory grounds is proper.
In determining whether a proper basis exists to enter a double patenting rejection, the examiner must determine the following:
(A) Whether a statutory basis exists;
(B) Whether a nonstatutory basis exists; and
(C) Whether a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is prohibited by the third sentence of 35 U.S.C. 121 (see MPEP § 804.01; if such a prohibition applies, a nonstatutory double patenting rejection cannot be made).
Each determination must be made on the basis of all the facts in the application before the examiner. The charts in MPEP § 804 illustrate the methodology of making such a determination.
Domination and double patenting should not be confused. They are two separate issues. One patent or application “dominates” a second patent or application when the first patent or application has a broad or generic claim which fully encompasses or reads on an invention defined in a narrower or more specific claim in another patent or application. Domination by itself, i.e., in the absence of statutory or nonstatutory double patenting grounds, cannot support a double patenting rejection. In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 1577-78, 229 USPQ 678, 681 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 1014-15, 140 USPQ 474, 482 (CCPA 1964). However, the presence of domination does not preclude a double
800-26Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
patenting rejection. See, e.g., In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968); see also AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology
Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A. Statutory Double Patenting — 35 U.S.C. 101
In determining whether a statutory basis for a double patenting rejection exists, the question to be asked is: Is the same invention being claimed twice? 35 U.S.C. 101 prevents two patents from issuing on the same invention. “Same invention” means identical subject matter. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1984); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A reliable test for double patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 is whether a claim in the application could be literally infringed without literally infringing a corresponding claim in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). Is there an embodiment of the invention that falls within the scope of one claim, but not the other? If there is such an embodiment, then identical subject matter is not defined by both claims and statutory double patenting would not exist. For example, the invention defined by a claim reciting a compound having a “halogen” substituent is not identical to or substantively the same as a claim reciting the same compound except having a “chlorine” substituent in place of the halogen because “halogen” is broader than “chlorine.” On the other hand, claims may be differently worded and still define the same invention. Thus, a claim reciting a widget having a length of “36 inches” defines the same invention as a claim reciting the same widget having a length of “3 feet.”
If it is determined that the same invention is being claimed twice, 35 U.S.C. 101 precludes the grant of the second patent regardless of the presence or absence of a terminal disclaimer. Id.
Form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.31 (between an issued patent and one or more applications) or 8.32 (provisional rejections) may be used to make statutory double patenting rejections.
¶ 8.30 35 U.S.C. 101, Statutory Basis for Double Patenting “Heading” Only
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner Note:
The above form paragraph must be used as a heading for all subsequent double patenting rejections of the statutory (same invention) type using either of form paragraphs 8.31 or 8.32.
¶ 8.31 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Double Patenting
Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim [2] of prior U.S. Patent No. [3]. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 8.30 and is used only for double patenting rejections of the same invention claimed in an earlier patent; that is, the “scope” of the inventions claimed is identical.
2. If the claims directed to the same invention are in another copending application, do not use this form paragraph. A provisional double patenting rejection should be made using form paragraph 8.32.
3. Do not use this form paragraph for nonstatutory-type double patenting rejections. If nonstatutory type, use appropriate form paragraphs 8.33 to 8.39.
4. This form paragraph may be used where the patent and the application under examination:
a. name the same inventive entity, or
b. name different inventive entities but are commonly assigned, or
c. are not commonly assigned but name at least one joint inventor in common, or
d. are filed by a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or
e. claim patentably indistinct inventions made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) for applications examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law, or
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-27
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
f. claim patentably indistinct inventions and the claimed invention and the patent were commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or deemed to be commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention, for applications examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA.
5. In bracket 3, insert the number of the patent.
6. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the patent is to a different inventive entity and is commonly assigned with the application, form paragraph 8.27.fti should additionally be used to require the assignee to name the first inventor.
7. If evidence is of record to indicate that the patent is prior art under either pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), a rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 7.15.fti and/or 7.19.fti, if applicable, in addition to this double patenting rejection.
8. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the patent is to a different inventive entity from the application and the effective U.S. filing date of the patent antedates the effective filing date of the application, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) should additionally be made using form paragraph 7.15.02.fti.
9. For applications being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA: If the patent is to a different inventive entity and is commonly assigned with the application, form paragraph 8.27.aia should additionally be used to request that the applicant take action to amend or cancel claims such that the application no longer contains claims directed to the same invention. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) should also be made if appropriate.
¶ 8.32 Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Double Patenting
Claim [1] provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim [2] of copending Application No. [3] (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 8.30 and is used only for double patenting rejections of the same invention claimed in another copending application; that is, the scope of the claimed inventions is identical.
2. If the claims directed to the same invention are in an issued patent, do not use this paragraph. See form paragraph 8.31.
3. Do not use this paragraph for nonstatutory-type double patenting rejections. See form paragraphs 8.33 to 8.39.
4. This form paragraph may be used where the reference application and the application under examination:
a. name the same inventive entity, or
b. name different inventive entities but are commonly assigned, or
c. are not commonly assigned but name at least one joint inventor in common, or
d. are filed by a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or
e. claim patentably indistinct inventions made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), for applications examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law, or
f. claim patentably indistinct inventions and the claimed invention and the reference application were commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or deemed to be commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention, for applications examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA.
5. Form paragraph 8.28.fti or 8.28.aia, as appropriate, should also be used.
6. In bracket 3, insert the number of the reference application.
7. A provisional double patenting rejection should also be made in the reference application.
8. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the reference application is by a different inventive entity and is commonly assigned, form paragraph 8.27.fti should additionally be used to require the assignee to name the first inventor.
9. If evidence is also of record to show that either application is prior art unto the other under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), a rejection should also be made in the reference application using form paragraphs 7.15.fti and/or 7.19.fti, if applicable, in addition to this provisional double patenting rejection.
10. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the applications do not have the same inventive entity and effective U.S. filing date, a provisional pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection should additionally be made in the later-filed application using form paragraph 7.15.01.fti. If the earlier-filed application has been published, use form paragraph 7.15.02.fti instead.
11. For applications being examined under first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA: If the reference application is to a different inventive entity and is commonly assigned with the instant application, form paragraph 8.27.aia should additionally be used to request that the applicant take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications no longer contain claims directed to the same invention. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) should also be made if appropriate.
If the “same invention” is not being claimed twice, an analysis must be made to determine whether a nonstatutory basis for double patenting exists.
800-28Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
B. Nonstatutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); In re White, 405 F.2d 904, 160 USPQ 417 (CCPA 1969); In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968); In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 140 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1964). A double patenting rejection also serves public policy interests by preventing the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of patents claiming patentably indistinct variations of the same invention. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944-48, 214 USPQ 761, 767-70 (CCPA 1982).
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In determining whether a nonstatutory basis exists for a double patenting rejection, the first question to be asked is: is any invention claimed in the application anticipated by, or an obvious variation of, an invention claimed in the patent? If the answer is yes, then a nonstatutory double patenting rejection may be appropriate. Nonstatutory double patenting requires rejection of an application claim when the claimed subject matter is not patentably distinct from the subject matter claimed in a commonly owned patent, or a non-commonly owned patent but subject to a joint research agreement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), when the issuance of a second patent would provide unjustified extension of the term of the right to exclude granted
by a patent. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ex parte Davis, 56 USPQ2d 1434, 1435-36 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Inter. 2000).
1. Anticipation Analysis
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where a claim in an application under examination claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter claimed in a prior patent or a copending application. The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus. In this type of nonstatutory double patenting situation, an obviousness analysis is not required for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection in this case should explain the fact that the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent or application anticipates the claimed genus in the application being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
The analysis required is different in situations where the claim in the application being examined (1) is directed to a species or sub-genus covered by a generic claim in a potentially conflicting patent or application, or (2) overlaps in scope with a claim in a potentially conflicting patent or application but the potentially conflicting claims cannot be said to anticipate the examined claims. Both of these situations require an obviousness analysis unless one of ordinary skill in the art would, on reading the potentially conflicting patent or application, at once
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-29
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
envisage the invention claimed in the examined application. See AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For example, in the genus-species situation, the examiner typically should explain why it would have been obvious to select the claimed species or sub-genus given the genus claimed in the potentially conflicting patent or application. See MPEP § 2131.02 and MPEP § 2144.08 for discussions of genus-species situations with respect to anticipation and obviousness, respectively. Note that the genus-species and overlapping subject matter scenarios discussed in this paragraph may result in nonstatutory double-patenting rejections based on the principle against unjustified timewise extension of patent rights, discussed below in paragraph II.B.3.
2. Obviousness Analysis
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection, if not based on an anticipation rationale or an “unjustified timewise extension” rationale, is “analogous to [a failure to meet] the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103” except that the patent disclosure principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art. In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 154 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1967). Even though the specification of the applied patent or copending application is not technically considered to be prior art, it may still be used to interpret the applied claims. See paragraph II.B.2.a, below. The analysis employed with regard to nonstatutory double patenting is “similar to, but not necessarily the same as that undertaken under 35 USC § 103.” In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592-93, 19 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4, 225 USPQ 645, 648 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see also Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 349 F.3d at 1378 n.1, 68 USPQ2d at 1869 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Basell Poliolefine, 547 F.3d 1371, 1379, 89
USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
In view of the similarities, the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 should typically be considered when making a nonstatutory double patenting analysis based on “obviousness.” See MPEP § 2141 for
guidelines for determining obviousness. These factual inquiries are summarized as follows:
(A) Determine the scope and content of a patent claim relative to a claim in the application at issue;
(B) Determine the differences between the scope and content of the patent claim as determined in (A) and the claim in the application at issue;
(C) Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
(D) Evaluate any objective indicia of nonobviousness.
Any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis should make clear:
(A) The differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims — a claim in the patent compared to a claim in the application; and
(B) The reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent.
(a) Construing the Claim Using the Reference Patent or Application Disclosure
When considering whether the invention defined in a claim of an application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claim of a patent or copending application, the disclosure of the patent may not be used as prior art. General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle
mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1279, 23 USPQ2d 1839, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1992). This does not mean that one is precluded from all use of the reference patent or application disclosure.
The specification can be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(“[W]ords in patent claims are given their ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the invention, unless the text of the patent makes clear that a word was used with a special meaning.”); Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Where there are several common meanings for a claim term, the
800-30Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
patent disclosure serves to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings.”). “The Patent and Trademark Office (‘PTO’) determines the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’ ” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also MPEP § 2111.01. Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the reference patent or application (as distinguished from an obvious variation of the subject matter disclosed in the reference patent or application). In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). The court in Vogel recognized “that it is most difficult, if not meaningless, to try to say what is or is not an obvious variation of a claim,” but that one can judge whether or not the invention claimed in an application is an obvious variation of an embodiment disclosed in the patent or application which provides support for the claim. According to the court, one must first “determine how much of the patent disclosure pertains to the invention claimed in the patent” because only “[t]his portion of the specification supports the patent claims and may be considered.” The court pointed out that “this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined.” In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court explained that it is also proper to look at the disclosed utility in the reference disclosure to determine the overall question of obviousness in a nonstatutory double patenting context. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 86 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F3d 1373, 1385-86, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
To avoid improper reliance on the disclosure of a reference patent or copending application as prior art in the context of a nonstatutory double patenting analysis, the examiner must properly construe the scope of the reference claims. The portion of the reference disclosure that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claim. However, subject matter disclosed in the reference patent or application that does not fall within the scope of a reference claim cannot be used to construe the claim in the context of a nonstatutory double patenting analysis as this would effectively be treating the disclosure as prior art.
Relying on the disclosure to construe the reference claims does not complete the nonstatutory double patenting analysis. It merely provides a determination as to how the earlier issued claim should be construed in making a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. To do a full analysis to determine whether a nonstatutory double patenting rejection should be made, one must go through the “anticipation analysis” and “obviousness analysis” noted above, and consider the “nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on equitable principles” discussed in subsection II.B.3 below.
In analyzing the disclosure of the reference patent or application, a determination is made as to whether a portion of the disclosure is directed to subject matter that is encompassed by the scope of a reference claim. For example, assume that the claim in a reference patent is directed to a genus of compounds, and the application being examined is directed to a species within the reference patent genus. If the reference patent includes a disclosure of several species within the scope of the reference genus claim, that portion of the disclosure should be analyzed to determine whether the reference patent claim, as properly construed in light of that disclosure, anticipates or renders obvious the claim in the application being examined. Because that portion of the disclosure of the reference patent is an embodiment of the reference patent claim, it may be helpful in determining obvious variations of the reference patent claim. As an alternative example, assume that the claim in the reference patent is directed to a genus of compounds, and the application being examined is directed to a method
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-31
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
of making compounds within the genus. Further assume that the reference patent discloses a nearly identical method of making compounds within the genus. Here, the disclosed method of making the compounds in the reference patent does not fall within the scope of the genus of compounds claimed in the reference. Thus the reference disclosure directed to the method of making the compounds cannot be used to construe the claim to the genus of compounds in the context of a nonstatutory double patenting analysis. This would effectively result in treating the reference disclosure as prior art. Nevertheless, there may be cases in which permitting claims to a method of making a compound could essentially result in an unjustified timewise extension of the period of exclusivity for the compound itself. In such cases, the “Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection Based on Equitable Principles” discussed in paragraph II.B.3 below should be considered. Cf. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F3d 1373, 1385-86, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting claims to methods of use over claims to compound based on unjustified timewise extension rationale).
The result in In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968) is consistent with the analysis set forth above. In Schneller, the examined claims were directed to a clip comprising ABCY and a clip comprising ABCXY; the reference patent claimed a clip comprising ABCX and disclosed an embodiment of a clip having ABCXY. The ABCXY clip disclosed in the reference patent falls within the scope of the reference patent claim to a clip “comprising ABCX.” Thus the disclosed embodiment of ABCXY may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of the reference claim and determine the propriety of a nonstatutory double patenting rejection against the examined claim. However, nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on Schneller will be rare. The Technology Center (TC) Director must approve any nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on Schneller. If an examiner determines that a double patenting rejection based on Schneller is appropriate in his or her application, the examiner should first consult with his or her supervisory patent examiner (SPE). If the SPE agrees with the examiner then approval of the TC Director must be obtained before such a nonstatutory double patenting rejection can be made.
See subsection II.B.3. below for a more detailed discussion.
Each nonstatutory double patenting situation must be decided on its own facts.
(b) One-Way Test for Distinctness
If the application under examination is the later-filed application, or both applications are filed on the same day, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed in resolving the issue of double patenting, i.e., whether the invention claimed in the application would have been anticipated by, or an obvious variation of, the invention claimed in the patent. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1438, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (the court applied a one-way test where both applications were filed the same day). If a claimed invention in the application would have been obvious over a claimed invention in the patent, there would be an unjustified timewise extension of the patent and a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is proper. See MPEP § 804, subsection II.B.2.(a) above.
Similarly, even if the application under examination is the earlier-filed application, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed to support a double patenting rejection in the absence of a finding: (A) that "the PTO is solely responsible for any delays" in prosecution of the earlier-filed application ( In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1150, 106 USPQ2d 1032, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2013); and (B) that the applicant could not have filed the conflicting claims in a single (i.e., the earlier-filed) application ( In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In Kaplan, a generic invention (use of solvents) was invented by Kaplan, and a species thereof (i.e., use of a specific combination of solvents) was invented by Kaplan and Walker. Multiple applications were necessary to claim both the broad and narrow inventions because at the time the applications were filed, 35 U.S.C. 116 did not expressly authorize filing a patent application in the name of joint inventors who did not make a contribution to the invention defined in each claim in the patent.). Compare In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998), wherein the genus and species claims could have been filed in the same application.
800-32Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
Form paragraph 8.33 and the appropriate one of form paragraphs 8.34 - 8.37 may be used to make nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on anticipation or obviousness analyses. See subsection II.B.3, below, and form paragraphs 8.38 and 8.39 if the basis for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is equitable principles.
¶ 8.33 Basis for Nonstatutory Double Patenting, “Heading” Only
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal D i s c l a i m e r s , r e f e r t o www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ eTD-info-I.jsp.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph is to be used as a heading before a nonstatutory double patenting rejection using any of form
paragraphs 8.34 - 8.39. Although nonstatutory double patenting is sometimes called obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”), an obviousness analysis is required only if the examined application claim(s) is not anticipated by the reference claim(s).
¶ 8.34 Rejection, Nonstatutory Double Patenting - No Secondary Reference(s)
Claim [1] rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim [2] of U.S. Patent No. [3]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because [4].
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 8.33 must precede any one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.39 and must be used only ONCE in an Office action.
2. This form paragraph is used for nonstatutory double patenting rejections based upon a patent.
3. If the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based upon another application, do not use this form paragraph. A provisional double patenting rejection should be made using form paragraph 8.33 and either form paragraph 8.35 or 8.37.
4. This form paragraph may be used where the patent and the application under examination:
a. name the same inventive entity, or
b. name different inventive entities but are commonly assigned, or
c. are not commonly assigned but name at least one joint inventor in common, or
d. are filed by a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or
e. claim patentably indistinct inventions made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103, for applications examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law, or
f. claim patentably indistinct inventions and the claimed invention and the patent were commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or deemed to be commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention, for applications examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA.
5. In bracket 3, insert the number of the patent.
6. In bracket 4, provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of the claims being rejected over the claims of the cited patent.
7. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the patent is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-33
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
b. the patent has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
8. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the patent is to a different inventive entity and has an earlier effective U.S. filing date, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) may be made using form paragraph 7.21.02.fti. Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) should not be made or maintained if the patent is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.
9. For applications being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 should also be made if appropriate.
¶ 8.35 Provisional Rejection, Nonstatutory Double Patenting - No Secondary Reference(s)
Claim [1] provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim [2] of copending Application No. [3] (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because [4].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 8.33 must precede any one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.39 and must be used only ONCE in an Office action.
2. This form paragraph should be used when the patentably indistinct claims are in another copending application.
3. If the patentably indistinct claims are in a patent, do not use this form paragraph. Use form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.34.
4. This form paragraph may be used where the reference application and the application under examination:
a. name the same inventive entity, or
b. name different inventive entities but are commonly assigned, or
c. are not commonly assigned but name at least one joint inventor in common, or
d. are filed by a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or
e. claim patentably indistinct inventions made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), for applications examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law, or
f. claim patentably indistinct inventions and the claimed invention and the reference application were commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or deemed to be commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention, for applications
examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA.
5. If the reference application is currently commonly assigned but the file does not establish that the patentably indistinct inventions were commonly owned at the time the later invention was made, form paragraph 8.28.fti may be used in addition to this form paragraph to resolve any issues relating to priority under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) and/or (g).
6. In bracket 3, insert the number of the reference application.
7. A provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection should also be made in the reference application.
8. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the reference application is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and
b. the reference application has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
9. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the applications have different inventive entities and different U.S. filing dates, and the disclosure of the earlier-filed application may be used to support a rejection of the later-filed application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti to additionally make a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) in the later-filed application. Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) should not be made or maintained if the patent is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.
10. See MPEP § 1490 for guidance regarding terminal disclaimers and withdrawal of nonstatutory double patenting rejections when these are the only rejections remaining. Note especially that priority or benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) and (e) are not taken into account in determining which is the earlier-filed application for double patenting purposes.
11. For applications being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 should also be made if appropriate.
12. In bracket 4, provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of the claims being rejected over the claims of the cited application.
¶ 8.36 Rejection, Nonstatutory Double Patenting - With Secondary Reference(s)
Claim [1] rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim [2] of U.S. Patent No. [3] in view of [4]. [5]
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 8.33 must precede any one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.39 and must be used only ONCE in an Office action.
800-34Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
2. This form paragraph is used for nonstatutory double patenting rejections where the primary reference is a patent that includes claims patentably indistinct from those in the application under examination.
3. If the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on another application, do not use this form paragraph. A provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection should be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and either 8.35 or 8.37.
4. This form paragraph may be used where the patentably indistinct invention is claimed in a patent where the patent and the application under examination:
a. name the same inventive entity, or
b. name different inventive entities but are commonly assigned, or
c. are not commonly assigned but have at least one joint inventor in common, or
d. are filed by a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or
e. claim patentably indistinct inventions made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), for applications examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law, or
f. claim patentably indistinct inventions and the claimed invention and the patent were commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or deemed to be commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention, for applications examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA.
5. In bracket 3, insert the number of the primary reference patent.
6. In bracket 4, insert the secondary reference.
7. In bracket 5, insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis.
8. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the primary reference patent is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and
b. the primary reference patent has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
9. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the primary reference patent issued to a different inventive entity and has an earlier effective U.S. filing date, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) may be made using form paragraph 7.21.02.fti. Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) should not be made or maintained if the patent is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.
10. For applications being examined under first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 should also be made if appropriate.
¶ 8.37 Provisional Rejection, Nonstatutory Double Patenting - With Secondary Reference(s)
Claim [1] provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim [2] of copending Application No. [3] in view of [4]. [5]
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 8.33 must precede any one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.39 and must be used only ONCE in an Office action.
2. This form paragraph is used for nonstatutory double patenting rejections requiring an obviousness analysis where the primary reference is a copending application.
3. If the patentably indistinct claims are in a patent, do not use this form paragraph, use form paragraph 8.36.
4. This form paragraph may be used where the patentably indistinct claims are in a copending application where the copending application and the application under examination:
a. name the same inventive entity, or
b. name different inventive entities but are commonly assigned, or
c. are not commonly assigned but name at least one joint inventor in common, or
d. are filed by a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or
e. claim patentably indistinct inventions made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), for applications examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law, or
f. claim patentably indistinct inventions and the claimed invention and the primary reference application were commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or deemed to be commonly owned under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention, for applications examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA.
5. If the application under examination and primary reference application are currently commonly assigned but the application under examination does not establish that the patentably indistinct inventions were commonly owned at the time the later invention was made, form paragraph 8.28.fti may be used in addition to this form paragraph to also resolve any issues relating to priority under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) and/or (g).
6. For applications being examined under first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA: If the primary reference application is to a different inventive entity and is commonly assigned with the application under examination, form paragraph
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-35
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
8.28.aia should additionally be used if there is no evidence of common ownership as of the effective filing date of the invention claimed in the examined application. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 should also be made if appropriate.
7. In bracket 3, insert the number of the primary reference application.
8. In bracket 4, insert the secondary reference.
9. In bracket 5, insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis.
10. A provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection should also be made in the primary reference application.
11. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the primary reference application is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti) ; and
b. the primary reference application has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
12. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the disclosure of one application may be used to support a rejection of the other and the applications have different inventive entities and different U.S. filing dates, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti to additionally make a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) in the application with the later effective U.S. filing date. Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) should not be made or maintained if the primary reference application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.
13. See MPEP § 1490 for guidance regarding terminal disclaimers and withdrawal of nonstatutory double patenting rejections when these are the only rejections remaining. Note especially that priority or benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) and (e) are not taken into account in determining which is the earlier-filed application for double patenting purposes.
(c) Two-Way Test for Distinctness
If the patent is the later-filed application, the question of whether the timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent is justified or unjustified must be addressed. A two-way test is to be applied only when the applicant could not have filed the claims in a single application and the Office is solely responsible for any delays. In re Berg, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The two-way exception can only apply when the applicant could not avoid separate filings, and even then, only if the PTO controlled the rates of prosecution to cause the later filed species claims to issue before the claims
for a genus in an earlier application . . . In Berg’s case, the two applications could have been filed as one, so it is irrelevant to our disposition who actually controlled the respective rates of prosecution.”); In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 106 USPQ2d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2013)("[P]rosecution choices resulted in the foreseeable consequence that the 685 patent issued before the application claims on appeal. Given these circumstances, and because it is undisputed that the PTO was not solely responsible for the delay, Hubbell is not entitled to a two-way obviousness analysis." 709 F.3d at 1150, 106 USPQ2d at 1039.); see also In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (applicant’s voluntary decision to obtain early issuance of claims directed to a species and to pursue prosecution of previously rejected genus claims in a continuation is a considered election to postpone by the applicant and not administrative delay). Unless the record clearly shows administrative delay caused solely by the Office and that applicant could not have avoided filing separate applications, the examiner may use the one-way distinctness determination and shift the burden to applicant to show why a two-way distinctness determination is required.
When making a two-way distinctness determination, where appropriate, it is necessary to apply the obviousness analysis twice, first analyzing the obviousness of the application claims in view of the patent claims, and then analyzing the obviousness of the patent claims in view of the application claims. Where a two-way distinctness determination is required, a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on obviousness is appropriate only where each analysis leads to a conclusion that the claimed invention is an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the other application/patent. If either analysis does not lead to a conclusion of obviousness, no double patenting rejection of the obviousness-type is made, but this does not necessarily preclude a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on equitable principles. In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968).
Although a delay in the processing of applications before the Office that causes patents to issue in an order different from the order in which the applications were filed is a factor to be considered
800-36Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
in determining whether a one-way or two-way distinctness determination is necessary to support a double patenting rejection, it may be very difficult to assess whether the administrative process is solely responsible for a delay in the issuance of a patent. On the one hand, it is applicant who presents claims for examination and pays the issue fee. On the other hand, the resolution of legitimate differences of opinion that must be resolved in an appeal process or the time spent in an interference proceeding can significantly delay the issuance of a patent. Nevertheless, the reasons for the delay in issuing a patent have been considered in assessing the propriety of a double patenting rejection. Thus, in Pierce v. Allen B. DuMont Laboratories, Inc., 297 F.2d 323, 131 USPQ 340 (3d. Cir. 1961), the court found that administrative delay may justify the extension of patent rights beyond 17 years but “a considered election to postpone acquisition of the broader [patent after the issuance of the later filed application] should not be tolerated.” In Pierce, the patentee elected to participate in an interference proceeding [after all claims in the application had been determined to be patentable] whereby the issuance of the broader patent was delayed by more than 7 years after the issuance of the narrower patent. The court determined that the second issued patent was invalid on the ground of double patenting. Similarly, in In re Emert, 124 F.3d 1458, 44 USPQ2d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the court found that the one-way test is appropriate where applicants, rather than the Office, had significant control over the rate of prosecution of the application at issue. In support of its finding that the applicants were responsible for delaying prosecution of the application during the critical period, the court noted that the applicants had requested and received numerous time extensions in various filings. More importantly, the court noted, after initially receiving an obviousness rejection of all claims, applicants had waited the maximum period to reply (6 months), then abandoned the application in favor of a substantially identical continuation application, then received another obviousness rejection of all claims, again waited the maximum period to reply, and then again abandoned the application in favor of a second continuation application substantially identical to the original filing. On the other hand, in General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the
court did not hold the patentee accountable for a delay in issuing the first-filed application until after the second-filed application issued as a patent, even where the patentee had intentionally refiled the first-filed application as a continuation-in-part after receiving a Notice of Allowance indicating that all claims presented were patentable. Where, through no fault of the applicant, the claims in a later-filed application issue first, an obvious-type double patenting rejection is improper, in the absence of a two-way distinctness determination, because the applicant does not have complete control over the rate of progress of a patent application through the Office. In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1991). While acknowledging that allowance of the claims in the earlier-filed application would result in the timewise extension of an invention claimed in the patent, the court in
Braat was of the view that the extension was justified under the circumstances, indicating that a double patenting rejection would be proper only if the claimed inventions were obvious over each other — a two-way distinctness determination.
See, however, In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998), wherein the claims at issue could have been filed in the same application. The Berg court explained, “Braat was an unusual case; moreover, its factual situation is not likely to be repeated since the 1984 Act [amending 35 U.S.C. 116, and permitting joint inventorship even though not all inventors contributed to each claim] went into effect.” 140 F.3d at 1433-34, 46 USPQ2d at 1230.
Form paragraph 8.33 and the appropriate one of form paragraphs 8.34-8.37 may be used to make nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on anticipation or obviousness analyses. See MPEP § 804, paragraph II.B.2.(b), above. See paragraph II.B.3, below, and form paragraphs 8.38 and 8.39 if the basis for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is equitable principles.
3. Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection Based on Equitable Principles
In some circumstances a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is applicable based on equitable principles. Occasionally the fundamental reason for
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-37
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
nonstatutory double patenting – to prevent unjustified timewise extension of patent rights – is itself enforceable no matter how the extension is brought about. Examples of this occurred in In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968); and Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1385-86, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210, 216 (CCPA 1968), the court affirmed a double patenting rejection after summing up the situation as follows:
[I]n appellant’s own terms: The combination ABC was old. He made two improvements on it, (1) adding X and (2) addingY, the result still being a unitary clip of enhanced utility. While his invention can be practiced in the forms ABCX or ABCY, the greatest advantage and best mode of practicing the invention as disclosed is obtained by using both inventions in the combination ABCXY. His first application disclosed ABCXY and other matters. He obtained a patent claiming [a clip comprising] BCX and ABCX, . . . so claiming these combinations as to cover them no matter what other feature is incorporated in them, thus covering effectively ABCXY. He now, many
years later, seeks more claims directed to ABCY and ABCXY. Thus, protection he already had would be extended, albeit in somewhat different form, for several years beyond the expiration of his patent, were we to reverse.
397 F.2d at 355-56, 158 USPQ at 216 (emphasis in original).
The court recognized that “there is no double patenting in the sense of claiming the same invention because ABCX and ABCY are, in the technical patent law sense, different inventions. The rule against ‘double patenting,’ however, is not so circumscribed. The fundamental reason for the rule is to prevent unjustified timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent no matter how the extension is brought about. To . . . prevail here,
appellant has the burden of establishing that the invention claimed in his patent is ‘independent and distinct’ from the invention of the appealed claims…. [A]ppellant has clearly not established the independent and distinct character of the inventions of the appealed claims.” 397 F.2d at 354-55, 158 USPQ at 214-15 (emphasis in original). The court observed:
The controlling fact is that patent protection for the clips, fully disclosed in and covered by the claims of the patent, would be extended by allowance of the appealed claims. Under the circumstance of the instant case, wherein we find no valid excuse or mitigating circumstances making it either reasonable or equitable to make an exception, and wherein there is no terminal disclaimer, the rule against “double patenting” must be applied.
397 F.2d at 355, 158 USPQ at 215.
The decision in In re Schneller did not establish a rule of general application and thus is limited to the particular set of facts set forth in that decision. The court in Schneller cautioned “against the tendency to freeze into rules of general application what, at best, are statements applicable to particular fact situations.” Schneller, 397 F.2d at 355, 158 USPQ at 215. Nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on Schneller will be rare. The Technology Center (TC) Director must approve any nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on Schneller. If an examiner determines that a double patenting rejection based on Schneller is appropriate in his or her application, the examiner should first consult with his or her supervisory patent examiner (SPE). If the SPE agrees with the examiner then approval of the TC Director must be obtained before such a nonstatutory double patenting rejection can be made.
A fact situation similar to that in Schneller was presented to a Federal Circuit panel in In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kaplan had been issued a patent on a process of making chemicals in the presence of an organic solvent. Among the organic solvents disclosed and claimed as being useful were tetraglyme and sulfolane. One unclaimed example in the patent was
800-38Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
specifically directed to a mixture of these two solvents. The claims in the application to Kaplan and Walker, the application before the Office, were directed to essentially the same chemical process, but requiring the use of the solvent mixture of tetraglyme and sulfolane. In reversing the double patenting rejection, the court stated that the mere fact that the broad process claim of the patent requiring an organic solvent reads on or “dominates” the narrower claim directed to basically the same process using a specific solvent mixture does not, per se, justify a double patenting rejection. The court also pointed out that the double patenting rejection improperly used the disclosure of the joint invention (solvent mixture) in the Kaplan patent specification as though it were prior art.
A significant factor in the Kaplan case was that the broad invention was invented by Kaplan, and the narrow invention (i.e., using a specific combination of solvents) was invented by Kaplan and Walker. Since these applications (as the applications in
Braat) were filed before the Patent Law Amendments Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-622, November 8, 1984) amending 35 U.S.C. 116 to expressly authorize filing a patent application in the names of joint inventors who did not necessarily make a contribution to the invention defined in each claim in the patent, it was necessary to file multiple applications to claim both the broad and narrow inventions. Accordingly, there was a valid reason, driven by statute, why the claims to the specific solvent mixture were not presented for examination in the Kaplan patent application.
More recently, in Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1385-86, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the court applied nonstatutory double patenting to invalidate a claim without analyzing anticipation or obviousness. In this case, the earlier patent claimed a compound and the written description disclosed a single utility of that compound as administration to a human in amounts effective for inhibiting ß-lactamase. The later patent claimed nothing more than the earlier patent’s disclosed utility as a method of using the compound. Thus, the court found that the claims of the later patent and the claims of the earlier patent were not patentably distinct. The Geneva court relied on equitable principles, not an
obviousness-type analysis, in reaching its conclusion. Id. at 1386, 68 USPQ2d at 1875 (quoting In re
Byck, 48 F.2d 665, 666 (CCPA 1931)).
Each double patenting situation must be decided on its own facts.
Form paragraph 8.38 (between an issued patent and one or more applications) or 8.39 (provisional rejection) may be used to make this type of nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
¶ 8.38 Double Patenting - Nonstatutory (Based Solely on Improper Timewise Extension of Patent Rights) With a Patent
Claim [1] rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim [2] of U.S. Patent No. [3] since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: [4]
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 8.33 must precede any one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.39 and must be used only ONCE in an Office action.
2. This form paragraph should only be used where approval from the TC Director to make a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on In re Schneller has been obtained.
3. Use this form paragraph only when the subject matter of the claim(s) is fully disclosed in, and covered by at least one claim of, an issued U.S. Patent which is commonly owned or where there is at least one joint inventor in common or a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118).
4. In bracket 3, insert the number of the patent.
5. In bracket 4, insert a description of the subject matter being claimed which is covered in the patent.
6. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the patent is also prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-39
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
b. the patent has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
7. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the patent is to another inventive entity and has an earlier U.S. filing date, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) may be made using form paragraph 7.21.02.fti. Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) should not be made or maintained if the patent is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.
8. For applications being examined under first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 should also be made if appropriate.
¶ 8.39 Double Patenting - Nonstatutory (Based Solely on Improper Timewise Extension of Patent Rights) With Another Application
Claim [1] provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim [2] of copending Application No. [3]. This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: [4]
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other copending application. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968).
See also MPEP § 804.
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 8.33 must precede any one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.39 and must be used only ONCE in an Office action.
2. This form paragraph should only be used where approval from the TC Director to make a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on In re Schneller has been obtained.
3. Use this form paragraph only when the subject matter of the claim(s) is fully disclosed in, and covered by at least one claim of, another copending application (reference application) which is commonly owned, or where there is at least one joint inventor in common or a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118).
4. In bracket 3, insert the number of the reference application.
5. In bracket 4, insert a description of the subject matter being claimed which is covered in the reference application.
6. If the reference application is currently commonly assigned but the prosecution file of the application under examination does not establish that the patentably indistinct inventions were commonly owned at the time the later invention was made, form paragraph 8.28.fti may be used in addition to this form paragraph
to resolve any issues relating to priority under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) and/or (g).
7. For applications being examined under first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA: If the reference application is to a different inventive entity and is commonly assigned with the application under examination, form paragraph 8.28.aia should additionally be used if there is no evidence of common ownership as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 35 U.S.C. 103 should also be made if appropriate.
8. A provisional double patenting rejection should also be made in the reference application.
9. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the reference application is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and
b. the reference application has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
10. For applications being examined under pre-AIA (first to invent) law: If the disclosure of one application may be used to support a rejection of the other and the applications have different inventive entities and different U.S. filing dates, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti to additionally make a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) in the application with the later effective U.S. filing date. Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) should not be made or maintained if the reference application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.
11. See MPEP § 1490 for guidance regarding terminal disclaimers and withdrawal of nonstatutory double patenting rejections when these are the only rejections remaining. Note especially that priority or benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) and (e) are not taken into account in determining which is the earlier-filed application for double patenting purposes.
4. Design/Plant — Utility Situations
Double patenting issues may be raised where an applicant has filed both a utility patent application (35 U.S.C. 111) and either an application for a plant patent (35 U.S.C. 161) or an application for a design patent (35 U.S.C. 171). In general, the same double patenting principles and criteria that are applied in utility-utility situations are applied to utility-plant or utility-design situations. Double patenting rejections in utility-plant situations may be made in appropriate circumstances.
Although double patenting is rare in the context of utility versus design patents, a double patenting
800-40Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
rejection of a pending design or utility application can be made on the basis of a previously issued utility or design patent, respectively. Carman Indus. Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932, 220 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The rejection is based on the public policy preventing the extension of the term of a patent. Double patenting may be found in a design-utility situation irrespective of whether the claims in the reference patent/application and the claims in the application under examination are directed to the same invention, or whether they are directed to inventions which are obvious variations of one another. In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
In Carman Indus., the court held that no double patenting existed between a design and utility patent since the claims in the utility patent, drawn to the interior construction of a flow promoter, were not directed to the same invention or an obvious variation of the invention claimed in a design patent directed to the visible external surface configuration of a storage bin flow promoter. The majority opinion in this decision appears to indicate that a two-way distinctness determination is necessary in design-utility cases. 724 F.2d at 940-41, 220 USPQ at 487-88.
In Thorington, the court affirmed a double patenting rejection of claims for a fluorescent light bulb in a utility patent application in view of a previously issued design patent for the same bulb. In another case, a double patenting rejection of utility claims for a finger ring was affirmed in view of an earlier issued design patent, where the drawing in both the design patent and the utility application illustrated the same article. In re Phelan, 205 F.2d 183, 98 USPQ 156 (CCPA 1953). A double patenting rejection of a design claim for a flashlight cap and hanger ring was affirmed over an earlier issued utility patent. In re Barber, 81 F.2d 231, 28 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1936). A double patenting rejection of claims in a utility patent application directed to a balloon tire construction was affirmed over an earlier issued design patent. In re Hargraves, 53 F.2d 900, 11 USPQ 240 (CCPA 1931).
III. CONTRAST BETWEEN DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION AND REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Rejections over a patent or another copending application based on double patenting or under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 are similar in the sense that both require comparison of the claimed subject matter with at least part of the content of another patent or application, and both may require that an anticipation or obviousness analysis be made. However, there are significant differences between a rejection based on double patenting and one based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “[O]bvious-type double patenting and [pre-AIA] §102(e)/§103 rejections may be analogous in the sense that an obviousness analysis is performed in both cases, but they are not analogous in terms of what is analyzed.” In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 1453, 17 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
One significant difference is that a double patenting rejection must rely on a comparison with the claims in an issued patent or pending application, whereas an anticipation or obviousness rejection based on the same patent or application under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 relies on a comparison with what is disclosed (whether or not claimed) in the same issued patent or pending application. In a 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 rejection over a prior art patent, the reference patent is available for all that it fairly discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art, regardless of what is claimed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
A second significant difference is that a terminal disclaimer cannot be used to obviate a rejection based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 prior art, even though it may overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The purpose of a terminal disclaimer is to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection by removing the potential harm to the public by issuing a second patent, and not to remove a patent as prior art. See, for example, Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344, 86 USPQ2d 1110, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-41
§ 804RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
IV. DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART EXCLUSION UNDER PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)
For pre-AIA applications filed on or after November 29, 1999 and for pre-AIA applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, a commonly assigned/owned patent or application may be disqualified as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1). For pre-AIA applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, a patent or application may be disqualified as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection if evidence of a joint research agreement pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3) is made of record in the application (or patent) being examined (or reexamined), and the conflicting claims resulted from a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the later claimed invention was made. See MPEP § 706.02(l) et seq. for more information. The prior art exclusion under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) may also be applicable in post-grant Office proceedings if the application, which matured into the patent under reexamination or review, meets the above-mentioned conditions.
An examiner should make both a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection and a double patenting rejection over the same reference when the facts support both rejections. See the charts in MPEP § 804 for an overview of possible rejections based on prior art as well as double patenting. Note that even if an earlier patent or application to another is disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection based on common ownership or a joint research agreement as discussed above, that patent or application is available as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and may form the basis of an anticipation rejection. If the examiner makes only one of these rejections when each is separately applicable, and if the next Office action includes the previously omitted rejection, then the next Office action cannot be made final. A prior art reference that anticipates or renders claimed subject matter obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) does not support a double patenting rejection where that subject matter is not claimed in the reference patent or application. For pre-AIA applications pending on
or after December 10, 2004, rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) should not be made or maintained if the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) for information regarding when prior art is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) based on common ownership or as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
As an alternative to invoking the prior art exclusion under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1), the assignee could have taken some preemptive measures to avoid having a commonly assigned/owned copending application become prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The applications could have been filed on the same day, or copending applications could have been merged into a single continuation-in-part application and the parent applications abandoned. If these steps are undesirable or the first patent has issued, the prior art effect of the first patent may be avoided by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any unclaimed invention disclosed in the first patent was derived from the inventor of the application before the examiner in which the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection was made. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). See also MPEP § 716.10. It may also be possible for applicant to respond to a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) rejection by showing, under 37 CFR 1.131(a), that the date of invention of the claimed subject matter was prior to the effective filing date of the reference patent which has been relied upon for its unclaimed disclosure. See MPEP § 715. See also 37 CFR 1.131(c) and MPEP § 718 for affidavits or declarations to disqualify a commonly owned patent as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
V. DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART EXCEPTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c)
For AIA applications, a commonly assigned/owned patent or application may be excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). See 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). Also, if the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) are met, common ownership can be established by a joint research agreement. This prior
800-42Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804
art exception also applies in post-grant Office proceedings of patents if the patent under reexamination or review is subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. See, e.g., MPEP § 2258, subsection I, for more information about which prior art regime applies in an ex parte reexamination. See also MPEP § 717.02 et seq. for more information on the prior art exception for commonly owned or joint research agreement subject matter.
An examiner should make both a prior art rejection under either 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 103 and a double patenting rejection over the same reference when the facts support both rejections. See the charts in MPEP § 804 for an overview of possible rejections based on prior art as well as double patenting. A prior art reference that anticipates or renders claimed subject matter obvious under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 103 does not support a double patenting rejection where that subject matter is not claimed in the reference patent or application. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or 103 should not be made or maintained if the reference is not prior art because of the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See MPEP § 717.02 et seq. for information regarding when prior art meets the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 102(c) based on common ownership or a joint research agreement.
VI. DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS ONCE A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT IS ESTABLISHED
Under both pre-AIA and AIA law, until applicant establishes the existence of a joint research agreement, the examiner cannot apply a double patenting rejection based upon a reference that was made by or on behalf of parties to the joint research agreement. If in reply to an Office action applying a prior art rejection, applicant disqualifies the relied upon reference as prior art under the joint research agreement provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and a subsequent nonstatutory double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified reference is applied, the next Office action may be made final even if applicant did not amend the claims (provided the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set
forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)). The Office action is properly made final because the new nonstatutory double patenting rejection was necessitated by the applicant’s amendment of the application.
804.01 Prohibition of Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 121 [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 121 authorizes the Director to restrict the claims in a patent application to a single invention when independent and distinct inventions are presented for examination. The third sentence of 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibits the use of a patent issuing on an application in which a requirement for restriction has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, as a reference against any divisional application in a nonstatutory double patenting rejection, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent. The 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition applies only where the Office has made a requirement for restriction. The prohibition does not apply where the divisional application was voluntarily filed by the applicant and not in response to an Office requirement for restriction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the protection of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not extend to all types of continuing applications, stating that “the protection afforded by section 121 to applications (or patents issued therefrom) filed as a result of a restriction requirement is limited to divisional applications.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 1362, 86 USPQ2d 1001, 1007-1008 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
This apparent nullification of nonstatutory double patenting as a ground of rejection or invalidity in divisional applications imposes a heavy burden on the Office to guard against erroneous requirements for restrictions where the claims define essentially the same invention in different language and where acquiescence to the restriction requirement might result in the issuance of several patents for the same invention. “[I]f an examiner issues a restriction requirement between patentably indistinct claims, two patents may issue and prolong patent protection beyond the statutory term on obvious variants of the same invention. This prolongation would occur because § 121 would immunize the restricted
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-43
§ 804.01RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
application against nonstatutory double patenting rejections.” Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1379, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “[W]hen the existence of multiple patents is due to the administrative requirements imposed by the Patent and Trademark Office, 35 U.S.C. Section 121 provides that the inventor shall not be prejudiced by having complied with those requirements. Thus when two or more patents result from a PTO restriction requirement, whereby aspects of the original application must be divided into separate applications, Section 121 insulates the ensuing patents from the charge of double patenting.” Applied Materials Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials, 98 F.3d 1563, 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Northern Petrochemical Co., 784 F.2d 351, 354, 228 USPQ 837, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
The prohibition against holdings of nonstatutory double patenting applies to requirements for restriction between independent or distinct inventions, such as the related subject matter treated in MPEP § 806.04 through § 806.05(j), namely, between a combination and a subcombination thereof, between subcombinations disclosed as usable together, between a process and an apparatus for its practice, between a process and a product made by such process and between an apparatus and a product made by such apparatus, etc., so long as the claims in each application are filed as a result of such requirement.
The following are situations where the prohibition against nonstatutory double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply:
(A) The applicant voluntarily files two or more applications without a restriction requirement by the examiner. In order to obtain the benefit of 35 U.S.C. 121, claims must be formally entered, restricted in, and removed from an earlier application before they are filed in a divisional application . Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1379, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (For claims that were not in the original application and are first formally entered in a later divisional application, 35 U.S.C. 121 “does not suggest that the original application merely needs to provide some support for claims that are first entered
formally in the later divisional application.” Id.); In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968).
(B) The claims of the application under examination and claims of the other application/patent are not consonant with the restriction requirement made by the examiner, since the claims have been changed in material respects from the claims at the time the requirement was made. For example, the divisional application filed includes additional claims not consonant in scope with the original claims subject to restriction in the parent. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Gerber Garment Technology, Inc. v. Lectra Systems, Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 16 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In order for consonance to exist, the line of demarcation between the independent and distinct inventions identified by the examiner in the requirement for restriction must be maintained. 916 F.2d at 688, 16 USPQ2d at 1440.
(C) The restriction requirement was withdrawn because the requirement was written in a manner which made it clear to applicant that the requirement was made subject to the nonallowance of generic or other linking claims and such generic or linking claims are subsequently allowed.
(D) The requirement for restriction (holding of lack of unity of invention) was only made in an international application by the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority. However, the prohibition against nonstatutory double patenting rejections does apply to requirements for restriction (lack of unity of invention holdings) made in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371.
(E) The requirement for restriction was withdrawn, in its entirety or in part, by the examiner before the patent issues. With the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, the non-elected claims that are no longer withdrawn from consideration become subject to examination. “The restriction requirement disappears; it is as though it had not been made. With the disappearance of the restriction requirement, the need for a divisional application and the need for the [double patenting] prohibition also disappear.” In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 132 (CCPA 1971). Note that a restriction requirement in an earlier-filed application does not
800-44Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.01
carry over to claims of a continuation application in which the examiner does not reinstate or refer to the restriction requirement in the parent application. Reliance on a patent issued from such a continuation application to reject claims in a later-filed divisional application is not prohibited under 35 U.S.C. 121. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Pharmachemie BV, 361 F.3d 1343, 1348, 70 USPQ2d 1097, 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
(F) The claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Northern Petrochemical Co., 784 F.2d 351, 228 USPQ 837 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be made, thus it is not necessary to determine whether the 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition against making double patenting rejections is applicable. “Same invention” means identical subject matter. See, e.g., Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1984); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). The 35 U.S.C. 121 prohibition against certain nonstatutory double patenting rejections does not apply to statutory double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims to the “same invention.”
(G) Where a requirement for restriction between a product, a process of making the product, and a process of using the product was made subject to the non-allowance of the product and the product is subsequently allowed. In this situation if any process claims are rejoined, the restriction requirement between the elected product and any rejoined process should be withdrawn in accordance with 37 CFR 1.141(b) and MPEP § 821.04 .
(H) The second application is a continuation-in-part (CIP) application that includes claims restricted from the original application. A CIP, by definition, is an application filed during the lifetime of an earlier application by at least one common inventor that repeats some substantial portion or all of the earlier application and adds matter not disclosed in the earlier application, i.e., the application in which the restriction requirement was originally made. 35 U.S.C. 121 refers specifically and only to divisional and original applications, and does not afford protection to CIP applications. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 1362, 86 USPQ2d 1001, 1007-08 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
35 U.S.C. 121 does not prevent a double patenting rejection when the identical invention is claimed in the divisional application and the application/patent in which a restriction requirement was made. While identical claims should not arise if appropriate care is exercised in defining the independent and distinct inventions in a restriction requirement, if they do, the Office will make the statutory (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection because the patentee is entitled only to a single patent for an invention. As expressed in Studiengesellschaft Kohle, 784 F.2d at 361, 228 USPQ at 844, (J. Newman, concurring), “35 U.S.C. 121 of course does not provide that multiple patents may be granted on the identical invention.”
804.02 Avoiding a Double Patenting Rejection [R-07.2015]
I. STATUTORY
A rejection based on the statutory type of double patenting can be avoided by amending the conflicting claims so that they are not coextensive in scope. Where the conflicting claims are in one or more pending applications and a patent, a rejection based on statutory type double patenting can also be avoided by canceling the conflicting claims in all the pending applications. Where the conflicting claims are in two or more pending applications, a provisional rejection based on statutory type double patenting can also be avoided by canceling the conflicting claims in all but one of the pending applications. A terminal disclaimer is not effective in overcoming a statutory double patenting rejection.
The use of a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit in overcoming a statutory double patenting rejection is inappropriate. In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965). Knell v. Muller, 174 USPQ 460 (Comm’r. Pat. 1971) (citing the CCPA decisions in In re Ward, 236 F.2d 428, 111 USPQ 101 (CCPA 1956); In re Teague, 254 F.2d 145, 117 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1958); and In re Hidy, 303 F.2d 954, 133 USPQ 650 (CCPA 1962)).
II. NONSTATUTORY
A rejection based on a nonstatutory type of double patenting can be avoided by filing a terminal
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-45
§ 804.02RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
disclaimer in the application or proceeding in which the rejection is made. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Knohl, 386 F.2d 476, 155 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1967); and In re Griswold, 365 F.2d 834, 150 USPQ 804 (CCPA 1966). The use of a terminal disclaimer in overcoming a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is in the public interest because it encourages the disclosure of additional developments, the earlier filing of applications, and the earlier expiration of patents whereby the inventions covered become freely available to the public. In re Jentoft, 392 F.2d 633, 157 USPQ 363 (CCPA 1968); In re Eckel, 393 F.2d 848, 157 USPQ 415 (CCPA 1968); In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 154 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1967).
The use of a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit in overcoming a double patenting rejection is inappropriate because the claim or claims in the application are being rejected over a patent which claims the rejected invention. In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965). 37 CFR 1.131(a) is inapplicable if the claims of the application and the patent are “directed to substantially the same invention.” It is also inapplicable if there is a lack of “patentable distinctness” between the claimed subject matter. Knell v. Muller, 174 USPQ 460 (Comm’r. Pat. 1971) (citing the court decisions in In re Ward, 236 F.2d 428, 111 USPQ 101 (CCPA
1956); In re Teague, 254 F.2d 145, 117 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1958); and In re Hidy, 303 F.2d 954, 133 USPQ 65 (CCPA 1962)).
A patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 253. The statute does not provide for a terminal disclaimer of only a specified claim or claims. The terminal disclaimer must operate with respect to all claims in the patent.
The filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate a rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting is not an admission of the propriety of the rejection. Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union
Sanitary District, 946 F.2d 870, 20 USPQ2d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Quad Environmental Technologies, The court indicated that the “filing of a terminal disclaimer simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double
patenting, and raises neither a presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection.”
A terminal disclaimer filed to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is effective only with respect to the application identified in the disclaimer, unless by its terms it extends to continuing applications. If an appropriate “provisional” nonstatutory double patenting rejection is made in each of two or more pending applications, the examiner should follow the practice set forth in MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. and subsection VI. below.
35 U.S.C. 101 prevents two patents from issuing on the same invention. “Same invention” means identical subject matter. See, e.g., Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1984); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). Claims that differ from each other (aside from minor differences in language, punctuation, etc.), whether or not the difference would have been obvious, are not considered to be drawn to the same invention for double patenting purposes under 35 U.S.C. 101. In cases where the difference in claims would have been obvious, terminal disclaimers are effective to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections. Such terminal disclaimers must include a provision that the patent shall be unenforceable if it ceases to be commonly owned or enforced with the other application or patent. Note 37 CFR 1.321(c) and (d). 37 CFR 1.321(d) sets forth the requirements for a terminal disclaimer where the claimed invention resulted from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. It should be emphasized that a terminal disclaimer cannot be used to overcome a prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection may also be avoided if consonance between the originally restricted inventions is maintained in a divisional application. “Section 121 shields claims against a double patenting challenge if consonance exists between the divided groups of claims and an earlier restriction requirement.” Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1381, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1871 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Consonance requires that the line of demarcation
800-46Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.02
between the ‘independent and distinct inventions’ that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained ... Where that line is crossed the prohibition of the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply.” Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1579, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting Gerber Garment Technology Inc. v. Lectra Systems Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 688, 16 USPQ2d 1436, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “However, even if such consonance is lost, double patenting does not follow if the requirements of Section 121 are met or if the claims are in fact patentably distinct … The purpose of Section 121 is to accommodate administrative convenience and to protect the patentee from technical flaws based on this unappealable examination practice.” Applied Materials Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials, 98 F.3d 1563, 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
III. TERMINAL DISCLAIMER REQUIRED DESPITE REQUEST TO ISSUE ON COMMON ISSUE DATE
Applicants are cautioned that reliance upon a common issue date cannot effectively substitute for the filing of one or more terminal disclaimers in order to overcome a proper nonstatutory double patenting rejection, particularly since a common issue date alone does not avoid the potential problems of dual ownership by a common assignee, or by parties to a joint research agreement, of patents to patentably indistinct inventions. In any event, the Office cannot ensure that two or more applications will have a common issue date.
IV. DISCLAIMING MULTIPLE DOUBLE PATENTING REFERENCES
If multiple conflicting patents and/or pending applications are applied in nonstatutory double patenting rejections made in a single application, then prior to issuance of that application, it is necessary to disclaim the terminal part of any patent granted on the application which would extend beyond the expiration date of each one of the conflicting patents and/or applications. A terminal disclaimer fee is required for each terminal disclaimer filed. To avoid paying multiple terminal disclaimer fees, a single terminal disclaimer based
on common ownership may be filed, for example, in which the term disclaimed is based on all the conflicting, commonly owned nonstatutory double patenting references. Similarly, a single terminal disclaimer based on a joint research agreement may be filed, in which the term disclaimed is based on all the conflicting nonstatutory double patenting references.
Each one of the commonly owned conflicting nonstatutory double patenting references must be included in the terminal disclaimer to avoid the problem of dual ownership of patents to patentably indistinct inventions in the event that the patent issuing from the application being examined ceases to be commonly owned with any one of the double patenting references that have issued or may issue as a patent. Note that 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3) requires that a terminal disclaimer for commonly owned conflicting claims “[i]nclude a provision that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the judicially created double patenting.”
Filing a terminal disclaimer including each one of the conflicting nonstatutory double patenting references is also necessary to avoid the problem of separate enforcement of patents to patentably indistinct inventions by parties to a joint research agreement. 37 CFR 1.321(d) sets forth the requirements for a terminal disclaimer where the claimed invention resulted from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
V. REQUIREMENTS OF A TERMINAL DISCLAIMER
A terminal disclaimer is a statement filed by an owner (in whole or in part) of a patent or a patent to be granted that is used to disclaim or dedicate a portion of the entire term of all the claims of a patent. The requirements for a terminal disclaimer are set forth in 37 CFR 1.321. Sample forms of a terminal disclaimer, and guidance as to the filing and treatment of a terminal disclaimer, are provided in MPEP § 1490.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-47
§ 804.02RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
VI. TERMINAL DISCLAIMERS REQUIRED TO OVERCOME NONSTATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS IN APPLICATIONS FILED ON OR AFTER JUNE 8, 1995
Public Law 103-465 (1994) amended 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) to provide that any patent issuing on a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995 will expire 20 years from its filing date, or, if the application claims the benefit of an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), 20 years from the earliest filing date for which a benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is claimed. Therefore, any patent issuing on a continuing utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995 will expire 20 years from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 154(b) and 156 (providing for certain patent term adjustments and extensions). Thus, situations will often arise in which two copending applications subject to a provisional double patenting rejection will have the same effective filing date, and thus, potentially will have the same patent term.
There are at least two reasons for insisting upon a terminal disclaimer to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection in an application subject to a 20-year term under 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2). First, 35 U.S.C. 154(b) includes provisions for patent term adjustment based upon prosecution delays during the application process. Thus, 35 U.S.C. 154 does not ensure that any patent issuing on a continuing utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995 will necessarily expire 20 years from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) , or 386(c). However, 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(B) states that no patent the term of which has been disclaimed beyond a specified date may be adjusted under this section beyond the expiration date specified in the disclaimer. As the presence of a terminal disclaimer affects whether the patent is granted an adjustment, it is necessary that the terminal disclaimer be filed in the application in order to accurately determine whether the patent is entitled to a term adjustment. Second, 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3) requires that a terminal disclaimer filed to obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on commonly owned
conflicting claims include a provision that any patent granted on that application be enforceable only for and during the period that the patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the rejection. 37 CFR 1.321(d) sets forth the requirements for a terminal disclaimer where the claimed invention resulted from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement and limits enforcement of the patent to only when the patent and the reference application or patent are not separately enforced. These requirements serve to avoid the potential for harassment of an accused infringer by multiple parties with patents covering the same patentable invention. See, e.g., In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944-48, 214 USPQ 761, 767-70 (CCPA 1982). Not insisting upon a terminal disclaimer to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection in an application subject to a 20-year term under 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) would result in the potential for the problem that 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3) was promulgated to avoid. Further, as a terminal disclaimer is only effective in the application in which it is filed, it is necessary to require that the terminal disclaimer be filed in each application and/or patent that is subject to the common ownership requirement in order to provide complete notice to the public of this obligation.
Accordingly, a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 is required in an application to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection, even if the application was filed on or after June 8, 1995 and even if the application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) of the filing date of the patent or application which forms the basis for the rejection. Examiners should respond to arguments that a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 should not be required in a continuing application filed on or after June 8, 1995 to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection due to the change to 35 U.S.C. 154 by citing to this section of the MPEP. See Terminal Disclaimers Required to Overcome Judicially-Created Double Patenting Rejections in Utility and Plant Applications Filed on or After June 8, 1995,1202 OG 112 (September 30, 1997). See also AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
800-48Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.02
If a terminal disclaimer is filed in an application in which the claims are then canceled or otherwise shown to be patentably distinct from the reference claims, the terminal disclaimer may be withdrawn before issuance of the patent by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer may not be withdrawn after issuance of the patent. See MPEP § 1490, subsection VII., for a complete discussion of withdrawal of a terminal disclaimer.
804.03 Commonly Owned Inventions of Different Inventive Entities; Non-Commonly Owned Inventions Subject to a Joint Research Agreement [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[ Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). See pre AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 for the law otherwise applicable.]
*****
(b) Exceptions.-
*****
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
*****
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(c) COMMON OWNERSHIP UNDER JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENTS.—Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if—
(1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
(2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(3) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
*****
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
[ Editor Note: Not applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note)). See 35 U.S.C. 103 for the law otherwise applicable.]
*****
(c)(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if —
(A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(B) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term “joint research agreement” means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.
37 CFR 1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.
*****
(g) Applications or patents under reexamination naming different inventors and containing patentably indistinct claims. If an application or a patent under reexamination and at least one other application naming different inventors are owned by the same person and contain patentably indistinct claims, and there is no statement of record indicating that the claimed inventions were commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on the effective filing date (as defined in § 1.109), or on the date of the invention, as applicable, of the later claimed invention, the Office may require the applicant or assignee to state whether the claimed inventions were commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on such date, and if not, indicate which named inventor is the prior inventor, as applicable. Even if the claimed inventions were commonly owned, or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person on the effective filing date (as defined in § 1.109), or on the date of the invention, as applicable, of the later claimed invention, the patentably indistinct claims may be rejected under the doctrine of double patenting in view of such commonly owned or assigned applications or patents under reexamination.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-49
§ 804.03RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
37 CFR 1.131 Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art.
*****
(c) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as in effect on March 15, 2013, on a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication which is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as in effect on March 15, 2013, and the inventions defined by the claims in the application or patent under reexamination and by the claims in the patent or published application are not identical but are not patentably distinct, and the inventions are owned by the same party, the applicant or owner of the patent under reexamination may disqualify the patent or patent application publication as prior art. The patent or patent application publication can be disqualified as prior art by submission of:
(1) A terminal disclaimer in accordance with § 1.321(c); and
(2) An oath or declaration stating that the application or patent under reexamination and patent or published application are currently owned by the same party, and that the inventor named in the application or patent under reexamination is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013.
*****
I. DOUBLE PATENTING
Claims in commonly owned applications of different inventive entities may be rejected on the ground of double patenting. This is in accordance with existing case law and prevents an organization from obtaining two or more patents with different expiration dates covering nearly identical subject matter. See In re Zickendraht, 319 F.2d 225, 138 USPQ 22 (CCPA 1963) (the doctrine is well established that claims in different applications need be more than merely different in form or content and that patentable distinction must exist to entitle applicants to a second patent); see also In re Christensen, 330 F.2d 652, 141 USPQ 295 (CCPA 1964).
Claims may also be rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting in certain non-commonly owned applications that claim inventions resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2). This prevents the parties to the joint research agreement from obtaining two or more patents with different expiration dates covering nearly identical subject matter.
Nonstatutory double patenting rejections can be overcome in certain circumstances by disclaiming, pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.321(c), the terminal portion of the term of the later patent and including in the disclaimer a provision that the patent shall be enforceable only for and during the period the patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the rejection, thereby eliminating the problem of extending patent life. Nonstatutory double patenting rejections can also be overcome in cases subject to a joint research agreement, under certain circumstances, by disclaiming the terminal portion of the term of the later patent and including in the disclaimer the provisions of 37 CFR 1.321(d).
See MPEP § 717.02 et seq. for information pertaining to establishment of common ownership and the existence of a joint research agreement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(c), as well as examination practice relating to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See MPEP § 706.02(l) - § 706.02(l)(3) for information pertaining to establishment of common ownership and the existence of a joint research agreement pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), as well as examination practice relating to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
II. IDENTIFYING COMMONLY OWNED AND NON-COMMONLY OWNED INVENTIONS SUBJECT TOA JOINT RESEARCHAGREEMENT
A. Common Ownership by the Same Person(s) or Organization(s)
Applications or patents are “commonly owned” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) if they were wholly or entirely owned by the same person(s), or organization(s)/business entity(ies), at the time the claimed invention was filed or made, respectively. If the person(s) or organization(s) owned less than 100 percent of the subject matter which would otherwise be prior art to the claimed invention, or less than 100 percent of the claimed invention, then common ownership would not exist. Common ownership requires that the person(s) or organization(s)/business entity(ies) own 100 percent of the subject matter and 100 percent of the claimed
800-50Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.03
invention. See MPEP § 717.02(a), subsection I, and MPEP § 706.02(l)(2) for a detailed definition of common ownership. 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) provides that disclosures shall not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. If the prior art exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) is properly invoked, the commonly owned or joint research agreement reference is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) for both anticipation and obviousness rejections. See MPEP § 717.02(a) for more information on invoking this prior art exception and MPEP § 717.02(b) for more information on evaluating when the exception applies and is properly invoked.
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1), two inventions of different inventive entities come within the common ownership provisions when:
(A) the later invention is not anticipated by the earlier invention under 35 U.S.C. 102;
(B) the earlier invention qualifies as prior art for purposes of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 against the later invention only under subsections (f) or (g) of 35 U.S.C. 102, or under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, for reexamination proceedings in which the patent under reexamination was granted on or after December 10, 2004, and for reexamination proceedings in which the patent under reexamination was filed on or after November 29, 1999; and
(C) the inventions were, at the time the later invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
B. Non-Commonly Owned Inventions Subject to a Joint Research Agreement
The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act) (Public Law 108-453; 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)), which amended pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), was enacted on December 10, 2004. The CREATE Act permits an applicant or patentee, who is a party to a joint research agreement, to disqualify prior art that is
applied in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and that is otherwise available as prior art only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g). Congress recognized that this amendment to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) would result in situations in which there would be double patenting between patents or applications not owned by the same party. See H.R. Rep. No. 108-425, at 5-6 (2003).
Pursuant to the CREATEAct, non-commonly owned applications or patents that are subject to a joint research agreement may be treated as if they are “commonly owned,” i.e., owned or subject to assignment by the same person, for the purposes of determining obviousness if certain conditions are met. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2). The term “joint research agreement” means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(3). See also MPEP § 706.02(l)(2).
Two inventions come within the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2), for pre-AIA applications pending on or after December 10, 2004, and for reexamination proceedings in which the patent under reexamination issued after December 10, 2004 and is subject to pre-AIA law, when:
(A) the later invention is not anticipated by the earlier invention under 35 U.S.C. 102;
(B) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(C) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(D) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
The current joint research agreement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) generally track those of the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1). The major differences between 35
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-51
§ 804.03RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
U.S.C. 102(c) and the CREATE Act are the following:
A. The new provision (35 U.S.C. 102(c)) is keyed to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while the CREATE Act (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)) focused on the date that the claimed invention was made; and
B. The CREATE Act provisions (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)) only applied to obviousness rejections and not to anticipation rejections.
C. Timing of Double Patenting Rejections
The examiner should make both a double patenting rejection based on common ownership and a rejection based on prior art when the facts support both rejections. Until applicant has established that a reference is disqualified as prior art under the joint research agreement defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), the examiner should NOT apply a double patenting rejection based on a joint research agreement. See MPEP §§ 706.07(a), 717.02(c), and 804, subsection VI., for information regarding when an Office action that includes a new subsequent double patenting rejection based upon a reference subject to a joint research agreement defined in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3) may be made final.
III. DETERMINING INVENTION PRIORITY
A determination of priority is not required when two inventions are commonly owned as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1).
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(g), where an application or a patent under reexamination and at least one other application by different inventive entities are owned by the same party and contain conflicting claims, the examiner may require the assignee to state whether the claimed inventions come within the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) (i.e., indicate whether common ownership or an obligation of assignment to the same person existed on the effective filing date) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) (i.e., indicate whether common ownership or an obligation of assignment to the same person existed at the time the later invention was made). For example, if the assignee states that the provisions of
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) do not apply to the conflicting claimed inventions, the assignee is required to indicate which named inventor is the prior inventor. Form paragraphs 8.27.aia, 8.27.fti, 8.28.aia, 8.28.fti, 8.28.01.aia and 8.28.01.fti may be used to require the applicant to identify the prior inventor under 37 CFR 1.78(g) or to take certain actions. In order to avoid abandonment, the assignee must comply with the requirements under 37 CFR 1.78(g) unless the conflicting claims are eliminated in all but one application. If, however, the two inventions come within the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), it is not necessary to determine priority of invention since the earlier invention is disqualified as prior art against the later invention and since double patenting rejections can be used to ensure that the patent terms expire together. Accordingly, a response to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.78(g) which states that the inventions of different inventive entities come within the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) is complete.
Before making a requirement to identify the prior inventor in an application subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), and threatening to hold the application abandoned if the statement is not made by the assignee, the examiner must make sure that claims in the application under examination or patent under reexamination and the claims in the other application(s) are conflicting as defined in MPEP § 804. See In re Rekers, 203 USPQ 1034 (Comm’r Pat. 1979).
In some situations the prosecution file histories may reflect which invention is the prior invention, e.g., by reciting that one invention is an improvement of the other invention. See Margolis v. Banner, 599 F.2d 435, 202 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1979) (Court refused to uphold a holding of abandonment for failure to name the prior inventor since the record showed what was invented by the different inventive entities and who was the prior inventor.).
An application in which a requirement to name the prior inventor has been made will not be held abandoned where a timely response indicates that the other application is abandoned or will be permitted to become abandoned and will not be filed as a continuing application. Such a response will be
800-52Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.03
considered sufficient since it renders the requirement to identify the prior inventor moot because the existence of conflicting claims is eliminated. Also, any conflict between two or more pending applications can be avoided by abandoning the applications and filing a continuation-in-part application merging the conflicting inventions into a single application.
IV. REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102 AND 103 AND DOUBLE PATENTING
Form paragraphs 8.27.aia, 8.27.fti, 8.28.aia, 8.28.fti, 8.28.01.aia, and 8.28.01.fti may be used to require the applicant to resolve issues that may arise in applications that have different inventors but a common assignee and claim the same or patentably indistinct inventions.
¶ 8.27.aia Different Inventors, Common Assignee, Same Invention, Examined under First Inventor To File (FITF) Provisions of the AIA
Claim [1] directed to the same invention as that of claim [2] of commonly assigned [3]. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the applications no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 7.03.aia must be included in any Office action that contains this paragraph.
2. In bracket 3, insert the U.S. patent number or the copending application number.
3. The claims listed in brackets 1 and 2 must be for the same invention. If one invention would have been obvious in view of the other, do not use this form paragraph; see form paragraph 8.28.aia.
4. A provisional or actual statutory double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraph 8.31 or 8.32.
5. If the commonly assigned application or patent has an earlier effective filing date in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 100(i), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may also be made using form paragraph 7.15.01.aia or 7.15.02.aia.
¶ 8.27.fti Different Inventors, Common Assignee, Same Invention, Examined Under Pre-AIA (First to Invent) Provisions
Claim [1] directed to the same invention as that of claim [2] of commonly assigned [3]. The issue of priority under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and possibly pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) of this single invention must be resolved.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see MPEP Chapter 2300). Either the applicant must amend or cancel the claims directed to the same invention, or the assignee must state which entity is the prior inventor of the commonly claimed subject matter. A terminal disclaimer has no effect in this situation since the basis for refusing more than one patent is priority of invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) and not an extension of monopoly.
Failure to comply with this requirement will result in a holding of abandonment of this application.
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 7.03.fti must be included in any Office action that contains this paragraph.
2. In bracket 3, insert the U.S. patent number or the copending application number.
3. The claims listed in brackets 1 and 2 must be for the same invention. If one invention would have been obvious in view of the other, do not use this form paragraph; see form paragraph 8.28.fti.
4. A provisional or actual statutory double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraph 8.31 or 8.32.
5. If the commonly assigned application or patent has an earlier U.S. filing date, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) may also be made using form paragraph 7.15.01.fti or 7.15.02.fti.
¶ 8.28.aia Different Inventors, CommonAssignee, Inventions Not Patentably Distinct, No Evidence of Common Ownership as of the Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Invention, Examined Under First Inventor to File (FITF) Provisions of the AIA
Claim [1] directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim [2] of commonly assigned [3]. Specifically, [4].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used when the application being examined is commonly assigned with an application or patent that includes claims patentably indistinct from those in the present application, but it has not been established that they were commonly owned or deemed to have been commonly owned as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 102(c).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-53
§ 804.03RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
2. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)/103 using form paragraph 7.21.aia, 7.21.01.aia or 7.21.02.aia also should be made, as appropriate.
3. In bracket 3, insert the number of the patent or application that includes claims patentably indistinct from those in the present application.
4. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection should also be included in the action using one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.37.
5. In bracket 4, explain why the claims in the present application and the reference patent or application are patentably indistinct.
6. Form paragraph 8.28.01.aia MUST follow this paragraph.
¶ 8.28.fti Different Inventors, Common Assignee, Inventions Not Patentably Distinct, No Evidence of Common Ownership at Time of Invention, Examined Under Pre-AIA (First To Invent) Provisions
Claim [1] directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim [2] of commonly assigned [3]. Specifically, [4].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used when the application being examined is commonly assigned with an application or patent that includes claims patentably indistinct from those in the present application, but there is no indication that they were commonly assigned at the time the invention was made.
2. A rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti, 7.21.01.fti or 7.21.02.fti also should be made, as appropriate. Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103(a) should not be made or maintained if the patent is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection.
3. In bracket 3, insert the number of the reference patent or application.
4. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection should also be included in the action using one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.37.
5. In bracket 4, explain why the claims in the present application and the reference patent or application are patentably indistinct.
6. Form paragraph 8.28.01.fti MUST follow this paragraph.
¶ 8.28.01.aia Advisory Information Relating to Form Paragraph 8.28.aia
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned [1], discussed above, would be prior art to the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should follow form paragraph 8.28.aia and should only be used ONCE in an Office action.
¶ 8.28.01.fti Advisory Information Relating to Form Paragraph 8.28.fti
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application of common ownership (see MPEP Chapter 2300). Commonly assigned [1], discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103(a) if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned at the time the claimed invention in this application was made. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the assignee can, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(g), either show that the patentably indistinct inventions were commonly owned at the time the claimed invention in this application was made, or name the prior inventor of the subject matter at issue.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned at the time the claimed invention in this application was made will preclude a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon the commonly assigned application that qualifies as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g). Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
800-54Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.03
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should follow form paragraph 8.28.fti and should only be used ONCE in an Office action.
If the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) apply to the commonly owned conflicting inventions of different inventive entities or if the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) apply to non-commonly owned inventions subject to a joint research agreement and thereby obviate the rejection(s), double patenting rejection(s) should be made (or maintained) as appropriate. If, however, it is determined that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) do NOT apply because the inventions were not commonly owned or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person at the time the later invention was filed or made, or because the claimed invention did NOT result from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as required by 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), and there is evidence of record to indicate that a patent or application is prior art against the application being examined, the examiner should make (A) any appropriate double patenting rejection(s), and (B) the appropriate prior art rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 in the application being examined. See the charts in MPEP § 804. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 cannot be obviated solely by filing a terminal disclaimer.
¶ 7.15.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 [2] as being [3] by [4].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
3. In bracket 2, insert either “(a)(1)” or “(a)(2)” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
5. In bracket 4, insert the prior art relied upon.
6. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07.aia and form paragraphs 7.08.aia, and 7.12.aia as appropriate, or by form paragraph 7.103.
7. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.15.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b) Patent or Publication, and (g)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 [2] as being [3] by [4].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter or letters of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 in parentheses. If paragraph (e) of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.fti, 7.15.02.fti or 7.15.03.fti.
2. In bracket 3, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
3. In bracket 4, insert the prior art relied upon.
4. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07.fti and form paragraphs 7.08.fti, 7.09.fti, and 7.14.fti as appropriate, or by form paragraph 7.103.
5. If pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is also being applied, this form paragraph must be followed by either form paragraph 7.15.01.fti, 7.15.02.fti or 7.15.03.fti.
6. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.19.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f), Applicant Not the Inventor
Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) because the applicant did not invent the claimed subject matter. [2]
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph must be preceded either by paragraphs 7.07.fti and 7.13.fti or by paragraph 7.103.
2. In bracket 2, insert an explanation of the supporting evidence establishing that applicant was not the inventor. See MPEP § 2137.
¶ 7.21.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103
Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [2].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-55
§ 804.03RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.20.aia or form paragraph 7.103.
3. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.
4. If this rejection is a provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based upon a copending application that would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if patented or published, use form paragraph 7.21.01.aia instead of this paragraph.
5. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
6. In bracket 2, insert the prior art relied upon.
7. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.21.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2].
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.20.fti or form paragraph 7.103.
2. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.
3. If the rejection relies upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
4. If the applicability of this rejection (e.g., the availability of the prior art as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)) prevents the reference from being disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), form paragraph 7.20.01.fti must follow this form paragraph.
5. If this rejection is a provisional pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection based upon a copending application that would comprise prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if patented or published, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti instead of this paragraph.
6. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
7. In bracket 2, insert the prior art relied upon.
Further, if the conflicting applications have different effective U.S. filing dates, the examiner should consider making a provisional rejection in the later filed application, based on the earlier filed application, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), using form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, under 35 U.S.C. 103 using form paragraph 7.21.01.aia, or under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) or 102(e)/103(a), using form paragraph 7.15.01.fti or 7.21.01.fti. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 cannot be obviated solely by the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
¶ 7.15.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim(s) [1] is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effective filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented under 35 U.S.C. 151. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].
This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier effective filing date that discloses the claimed invention and has not been published under
800-56Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.03
35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee, common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118) or at least one common joint inventor.
3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference names another inventor (i.e., a different inventive entity) and is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effectively filed date earlier than the application;
b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the application; or
c. a WIPO publication of an international application (PCT) or international design application that designates the United States where the WIPO publication has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the application. If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) issued or was published before the effective filing date of the application under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
4. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.aia.
5. In bracket 1, insert claim number(s) under rejection.
6. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
7. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
8. In bracket 4, provide an appropriate explanation of the examiner’s position on anticipation.
9. If the claims of the copending application are directed to the same invention as the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32.
10. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.21.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a
showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention either were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier effectively filed date and also having either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor.
3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
8. If the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the copending application, a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.
¶ 7.15.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim(s) [1] is/are provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.
Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].
This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-57
§ 804.03RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention which has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor.
2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12.fti) to determine the copending application’s prior art date, unless the copending application is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01.fti). See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
3. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti.
4. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
5. In bracket 4, an appropriate explanation may be provided in support of the examiner’s position on anticipation, if necessary.
6. If the claims of the copending application are directed to the same invention as the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32.
7. If evidence is additionally of record to show that either invention is prior art to the other under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), a rejection using form paragraphs 7.13.fti and/or 7.14.fti should also be made.
8. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.21.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending
application, it would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application under 37 CFR 1.131(a). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the copending application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2).
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier U.S. filing date and also having either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used when the copending application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the copending application's prior art date, unless the copending application is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) to determine the copending application’s prior art date. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s pre-AIA and pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates, respectively.
3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use paragraph 7.15.01.fti.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
8. If the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the copending application, a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.
800-58Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.03
9. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the copending application is also prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and
b. the copending application has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
¶ 7.15.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Common Assignee, Applicant, or Joint Inventor(s)
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being [2] by [3].
The applied reference has a common [4] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph is used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication with an earlier effectively filed date. These references must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor.
3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference names another inventor (i.e., a different inventive entity) and is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
c. a WIPO publication of an international application (PCT) or international design application that designates the United
States where the WIPO publication has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) was published before the effective filing date of the claimed invention under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.
6. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.
7. In bracket 4, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
8. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.12.aia.
9. If the claims of the copending application are directed to the same invention as the claims of the instant application, a provisional double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32, and applicant should be required to amend or cancel patentably indistinct claims using form paragraph 8.27.aia.
10. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
¶ 7.15.02.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Common Assignee, Applicant, or Joint Inventor
Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or if the same invention is not being claimed, by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is used to reject over a patent or patent application publication with an earlier effective filing date. The patent or patent application publication must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or a common joint inventor.
2. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12.fti) must be applied if the reference is by another and is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-59
§ 804.03RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
b. a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (PCT) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;
c. a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.
See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01.fti) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
4. In determining the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and to earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional applications and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application’s disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). A benefit claim to a U.S. patent of an earlier-filed international application, which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, may only result in an effective U.S. filing date as of the date the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. Do NOT consider any benefit claims to U.S. applications which are filed before an international application that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
5. If the reference is a publication of an international application (PCT), including voluntary U.S. publication under 35 U.S.C. 122 of the national stage or a WIPO PCT publication, that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, did not designate the United States or was not published in English by WIPO, do not use this form paragraph. Such a reference is not a prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. This form paragraph must be preceded by either of form paragraphs 7.12.fti or 7.12.01.fti.
8. Patent application publications may only be used if this form paragraph was preceded by form paragraph 7.12.fti.
9. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.
10. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, two patents are not permitted to issue on identical subject matter. Any claims in the instant application directed to the same invention claimed in the
reference should be rejected (or provisionally rejected if the reference has not yet issued as a patent) using form paragraphs 8.30 - 8.32. Additionally, the applicant should be required to resolve any issue of priority under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and possibly pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) using form paragraph 8.27.fti. See MPEP § 804, subsection II.A.
¶ 7.21.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention either were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier effectively filed date and also having either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor.
3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
8. If the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the copending application, a provisional
800-60Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.03
nonstatutory double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.
¶ 7.21.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application under 37 CFR 1.131(a). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the copending application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2).
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier U.S. filing date and also having either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used when the copending application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the copending application's prior art date, unless the copending application is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) to determine the copending application’s prior art date. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s pre-AIA and pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates, respectively.
3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use paragraph 7.15.01.fti.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the application number.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
8. If the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the copending application, a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.
9. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:
a. evidence indicates that the copending application is also prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and
b. the copending application has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).
¶ 7.21.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Common Assignee, CommonApplicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). [4]
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This paragraph is used to reject over a reference (patent or published application) with an earlier effectively filed date that discloses the claimed invention, and that ONLY qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). If the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), then this form paragraph should not be used (form paragraph 7.21.aia should be used instead). The reference must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-61
§ 804.03RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
applications when the reference is not prior art in view of the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception.
3. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
4. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
¶ 7.22.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Further in View Of
Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [2] as applied to claim [3] above, and further in view of [4].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.21.aia.
3. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.
¶ 7.21.02.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor
Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not an invention “by another”; (2) a showing of a date of invention for the claimed subject matter of the application which corresponds to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the reference, prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a); or (3) an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) stating that the application and reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) named in the application is the prior inventor under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013, together with a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) and 706.02(l)(2). [4]
Examiner Note:
1. This paragraph is used to reject over a reference (patent or published application) with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention, and that only qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If the reference qualifies as prior art
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b), then this form paragraph should not be used (form paragraph 7.21.fti should be used instead). The reference must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications when the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) must be applied if the reference is by another and is one of the following:
a. a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);
b. a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (PCT) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;
c. a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.
See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.
4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.
5. In bracket 2, insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection.
6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.
7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.
804.04 Submission to Technology Center Director [R-07.2015]
In order to promote uniform practice, every Office action containing a rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting which relies on the parent application to reject the claims in a divisional application where the divisional application was filed because of a requirement to restrict made by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. 121, including a requirement to elect species, must be submitted to the Technology Center Director for approval prior to mailing. If the rejection on the ground of double patenting is disapproved, it shall not be mailed but
800-62Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 804.04
other appropriate action shall be taken. Note MPEP § 1003.
When a claimed invention that was the subject of a restriction requirement in one application is presented in a divisional application, a nonstatutory double patenting rejection cannot be applied to that claimed invention unless the restriction requirement was withdrawn. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection may be appropriate in situations in which the invention presented in the divisional is not the same invention that was the subject of the restriction requirement. “When the PTO requires an applicant to withdraw claims to a patentably distinct invention (a restriction requirement), § 121 shields those withdrawn claims in a later divisional application against rejection over a patent that issues from the original application…. [I]f an examiner issues a restriction requirement between patentably indistinct claims, two patents may issue and prolong patent protection beyond the statutory term on obvious variants of the same invention. This prolongation would occur because section 121 would immunize the restricted application against nonstatutory double patenting rejections.” Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1381, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
“[W]hen the existence of multiple patents is due to the administrative requirements imposed by the Patent and Trademark Office, 35 U.S.C. Section 121 provides that the inventor shall not be prejudiced by having complied with those requirements. Thus when two or more patents result from a PTO restriction requirement, whereby aspects of the original application must be divided into separate applications, Section 121 insulates the ensuing patents from the charge of double patenting.” Applied Materials Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials, 98 F.3d 1563, 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Northern Petrochemical Co., 784 F.2d 351, 354, 228 USPQ 837, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
“Section 121 shields claims against a double patenting challenge if consonance exists between the divided groups of claims and an earlier restriction requirement. If a restriction requirement does not clearly set forth the line of demarcation, then challenged claims could not satisfy the consonance
requirement.” Geneva Pharm, 349 F.3d at 1381, 68 USPQ2d at 1871.
“Consonance requires that the line of demarcation between the ‘independent and distinct inventions’ that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained ... Where that line is crossed the prohibition -[against double patenting in] the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply.” Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1579, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting Gerber Garment Technology Inc. v. Lectra Systems Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 688, 16 USPQ2d 1436, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also MPEP § 804.01. “ However, even if such consonance is lost, double patenting does not follow if the requirements of Section 121 are met or if the claims are in fact patentably distinct.… The purpose of Section 121 is to accommodate administrative convenience and to protect the patentee from technical flaws based on this unappealable examination practice.” Applied Materials, 98 F.3d at 1568, 40 USPQ at 1484.
805 Effect of Improper Joinder in Patent [R-07.2015]
35 U.S.C. 121, last sentence, provides “the validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.” In other words, under this statute, no patent can be held invalid for improper joinder of inventions claimed therein.
806 Determination of Distinctness or Independence of Claimed Inventions [R-08.2012]
The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows:
(A) Where inventions are independent (i.e., no disclosed relation therebetween), restriction to one thereof is ordinarily proper, MPEP § 806.06.
(B) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are distinct as claimed, restriction may be proper.
(C) Where inventions are related as disclosed but are not distinct as claimed, restriction is never proper.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-63
§ 806RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
(D) A reasonable number of species may be claimed when there is an allowable claim generic thereto. 37 CFR 1.141, MPEP § 806.04.
Where restriction is required by the Office double patenting cannot be held, and thus, it is imperative the requirement should never be made where related inventions as claimed are not distinct. For (B) and (C) see MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j) and § 809.03. See MPEP § 802.01 for criteria for patentably distinct inventions.
806.01 Compare Claimed Subject Matter [R-08.2012]
In passing upon questions of double patenting and restriction, it is the claimed subject matter that is considered and such claimed subject matter must be compared in order to determine the question of distinctness or independence. However, a provisional election of a single species may be required where only generic claims are presented and the generic claims recite such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search is necessary. See MPEP § 803.02 and § 808.01(a).
806.02 [Reserved]
806.03 Single Embodiment, Claims Defining Same Essential Features [R-08.2012]
Where the claims of an application define the same essential characteristics of a single disclosed embodiment of an invention, restriction therebetween should never be required. This is because the claims are not directed to distinct inventions; rather they are different definitions of the same disclosed subject matter, varying in breadth or scope of definition.
Where such claims are voluntarily presented in different applications having at least one common inventor or a common assignee (i.e., no restriction
requirement was made by the Office), disclosing the same embodiments, see MPEP § 804 - § 804.02.
806.04 Genus and/or Species Inventions [R-08.2012]
Where an application includes claims directed to different embodiments or species that could fall within the scope of a generic claim, restriction between the species may be proper if the species are independent or distinct. However, 37 CFR 1.141 provides that an allowable generic claim may link a reasonable number of species embraced thereby. The practice is set forth in 37 CFR 1.146.
37 CFR 1.146 Election of species.
In the first action on an application containing a generic claim to a generic invention (genus) and claims to more than one patentably distinct species embraced thereby, the examiner may require the applicant in the reply to that action to elect a species of his or her invention to which his or her claim will be restricted if no claim to the genus is found to be allowable. However, if such application contains claims directed to more than a reasonable number of species, the examiner may require restriction of the claims to not more than a reasonable number of species before taking further action in the application.
See MPEP § 806.04(d) for the definition of a generic claim, and MPEP § 806.04(e) for a discussion of claims that include one or more species.
806.04(a) [Reserved]
806.04(b) Species May Be Independent or Related Inventions [R-08.2012]
Species may be either independent or related under the particular disclosure. Where species under a claimed genus are not connected in any of design, operation, or effect under the disclosure, the species are independent inventions. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. Where inventions as disclosed and claimed are both (A) species under a claimed genus and (B) related, then the question of restriction must be determined by both the practice applicable to election of species and the practice applicable to other types of restrictions such as those covered in MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.05(j). If restriction is improper under either practice, it should not be required.
800-64Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 806.01
For example, two different subcombinations usable with each other may each be a species of some common generic invention. If so, restriction practice under election of species and the practice applicable to restriction between combination and subcombinations must be addressed.
As a further example, species of carbon compounds may be related to each other as intermediate and final product. Thus, these species are not independent and in order to sustain a restriction requirement, distinctness must be shown. Distinctness is proven if the intermediate and final products do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants and it can be shown that the intermediate product is useful other than to make the final product. Otherwise, the disclosed relationship would preclude their being issued in separate patents. See MPEP § 806.05(j) for restriction practice pertaining to related products, including intermediate-final product relationships.
806.04(c) [Reserved]
806.04(d) Definition of a Generic Claim [R-08.2012]
In an application presenting three species illustrated, for example, in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively, a generic claim should read on each of these views; but the fact that a claim does so read is not conclusive that it is generic. It may define only an element or subcombination common to the several species.
In general, a generic claim should require no material element additional to those required by the species claims, and each of the species claims must require all the limitations of the generic claim.
Once a generic claim is allowable, all of the claims drawn to species in addition to the elected species which require all the limitations of the generic claim will ordinarily be allowable over the prior art in view of the allowability of the generic claim, since the additional species will depend thereon or otherwise require all of the limitations thereof. When all or some of the claims directed to one of the species in addition to the elected species do not require all the
limitations of the generic claim, see MPEP § 821.04(a).
806.04(e) Claims Limited to Species [R-08.2012]
Claims are definitions or descriptions of inventions. Claims themselves are never species. The scope of a claim may be limited to a single disclosed embodiment (i.e., a single species, and thus be designated a specific species claim). Alternatively, a claim may encompass two or more of the disclosed embodiments (and thus be designated a generic or genus claim).
Species always refer to the different embodiments of the invention.
Species may be either independent or related as disclosed (see MPEP § 806.04 and § 806.04(b)).
806.04(f) Restriction Between Mutually Exclusive Species [R-08.2012]
Where two or more species are claimed, a requirement for restriction to a single species may be proper if the species are mutually exclusive. Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first. This may also be expressed by saying that to require restriction between claims limited to species, the claims must not overlap in scope.
806.04(g) [Reserved]
806.04(h) Species Must Be Patentably Distinct From Each Other [R-08.2012]
In making a requirement for restriction in an application claiming plural species, the examiner should group together species considered clearly unpatentable over each other.
Where generic claims are allowable, applicant may claim in the same application additional species as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. See MPEP § 806.04.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-65
§ 806.04(h)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
Where an applicant files a divisional application claiming a species previously claimed but nonelected in the parent case pursuant to and consonant with a requirement to restrict a double patenting rejection of the species claim(s) would be prohibited under 35 U.S.C. 121. See MPEP § 821.04(a) for rejoinder of species claims when a generic claim is allowable.
Where, however, claims to a different species, or a species disclosed but not claimed in a parent case as filed and first acted upon by the examiner, are voluntarily presented in a different application having at least one common inventor or a common assignee (i.e., no requirement for election pertaining to said species was made by the Office) there should be close investigation to determine whether a double patenting rejection would be appropriate. See MPEP § 804.01 and § 804.02.
806.04(i) Generic Claims Presented In a Separate Application After Issuance of Species Claims [R-07.2015]
If a generic claim is presented in a separate application after the issuance of a patent claiming one or more species within the scope of the generic claim, the Office may reject the generic claim on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting when the patent and application have at least one common inventor and/or are either (1) commonly assigned/owned or (2) non-commonly assigned/owned but subject to a joint research agreement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(c) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3). See MPEP § 804. Applicant may overcome such a rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1053, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2016 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 154 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1967).
806.05 Related Inventions [R-08.2012]
Where two or more related inventions are claimed, the principal question to be determined in connection with a requirement to restrict or a rejection on the ground of double patenting is whether or not the inventions as claimed are distinct. If they are distinct, restriction may be proper. If they are not distinct, restriction is never proper. If nondistinct inventions
are claimed in separate applications or patents, double patenting must be held, except where the additional applications were filed consonant with a requirement to restrict.
Various pairs of related inventions are noted in the following sections. In applications claiming inventions in different statutory categories, only one-way distinctness is generally needed to support a restriction requirement. See MPEP § 806.05(c) (combination and subcombination) and § 806.05(j) (related products or related processes) for examples of when a two-way test is required for distinctness. Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention
806.05(a) Combination and Subcombination [R-08.2012]
A combination is an organization of which a subcombination or element is a part.
806.05(b) [Reserved]
806.05(c) Criteria of Distinctness Between Combination and Subcombination [R-08.2012]
To support a requirement for restriction between combination and subcombination inventions, both two-way distinctness and reasons for insisting on restriction are necessary, i.e., there would be a serious search burden if restriction were not required as evidenced by separate classification, status, or field of search. See MPEP § 808.02.
The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that a combination as claimed:
(A) does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability (to show novelty and unobviousness), and
(B) the subcombination can be shown to have utility either by itself or in another materially different combination.
800-66Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 806.04(i)
When these factors cannot be shown, such inventions are not distinct.
The following examples are included for general guidance.
I. SUBCOMBINATION ESSENTIAL TO COMBINATION
ABsp/Bsp No Restriction
Where a combination as claimed requires the details of a subcombination as separately claimed, there is usually no evidence that combination ABsp is
patentable without the details of Bsp. The inventions
are not distinct and a requirement for restriction must not be made or maintained, even if the subcombination has separate utility. This situation can be diagrammed as combination ABsp (“sp” is
an abbreviation for “specific”), and subcombination Bsp. Thus the specific characteristics required by
the subcombination claim Bsp are also required by
the combination claim. See MPEP § 806.05(d) for situations where two or more subcombinations are separately claimed.
II. SUBCOMBINATION NOT ESSENTIAL TO COMBINATION
A. ABbr/Bsp Restriction Proper
Where a combination as claimed does not require the details of the subcombination as separately claimed and the subcombination has separate utility, the inventions are distinct and restriction is proper if reasons exist for insisting upon the restriction, i.e., there would be a serious search burden if restriction were not required as evidenced by separate classification, status, or field of search.
This situation can be diagramed as combination ABbr (“br” is an abbreviation for “broad”), and
subcombination Bsp (“sp” is an abbreviation for
“specific”). Bbr indicates that in the combination
the subcombination is broadly recited and that the specific characteristics required by the
subcombination claim Bsp are not required by the
combination claim.
Since claims to both the subcombination and combination are presented, the omission of details of the claimed subcombination Bsp in the
combination claim ABbr is evidence that the
combination does not rely upon the specific limitations of the subcombination for its patentability. If subcombination Bsp has separate
utility, the inventions are distinct and restriction is proper if reasons exist for insisting upon the restriction.
In applications claiming plural inventions capable of being viewed as related in two ways, for example, as both combination-subcombination and also as species under a claimed genus, both applicable criteria for distinctness must be demonstrated to support a restriction requirement. See also MPEP § 806.04(b).
Form paragraph 8.15 may be used in combination-subcombination restriction requirements.
¶ 8.15 Combination-Subcombination
Inventions [1] and [2] are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because [3]. The subcombination has separate utility such as [4].
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-67
§ 806.05(c)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both combination(s) and subcombination(s) (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
2. In bracket 3, specify the limitations of the claimed subcombination that are not required by the claimed combination, or the evidence that supports the conclusion that the combination does not rely upon the specific details of the subcombination for patentability. See MPEP § 806.05(c), subsection II and § 806.05(d).
3. In bracket 4, suggest utility other than used in the combination.
4. Conclude restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
The burden is on the examiner to suggest an example of separate utility. If applicant proves or provides an argument, supported by facts, that the utility suggested by the examiner cannot be accomplished, the burden shifts to the examiner to document a viable separate utility or withdraw the requirement.
B. ABsp/ABbr/Bsp Restriction Proper
The presence of a claim to combination ABsp does
not alter the propriety of a restriction requirement properly made between combination ABbr and
subcombination Bsp. Claim ABbr is an evidence
claim which indicates that the combination does not rely upon the specific details of the subcombination for its patentability. If a restriction requirement can be properly made between combination ABbr and
subcombination Bsp, any claim to combinationABsp would be grouped with combination ABbr.
If the combination claims are amended after a restriction requirement such that each combination, as claimed, requires all the limitations of the subcombination as claimed, i.e., if the evidence claim ABbr is deleted or amended to require Bsp, the
restriction requirement between the combination and subcombination should not be maintained.
If a claim to Bsp is determined to be allowable, any
claims requiring Bsp, including any combination
claims of the format ABsp, must be considered for
rejoinder. See MPEP § 821.04.
III. PLURAL COMBINATIONS REQUIRING A SUBCOMBINATION COMMON TO EACH COMBINATION
When an application includes a claim to a single subcombination, and that subcombination is required by plural claimed combinations that are properly restrictable, the subcombination claim is a linking claim and will be examined with the elected combination (see MPEP § 809.03). The subcombination claim links the otherwise restrictable combination inventions and should be listed in form paragraph 8.12. The claimed plural combinations are evidence that the subcombination has utility in more than one combination. Restriction between plural combinations may be made using form paragraph 8.14.01. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
806.05(d) Subcombinations Usable Together [R-08.2012]
Two or more claimed subcombinations, disclosed as usable together in a single combination, and which can be shown to be separately usable, are usually restrictable when the subcombinations do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants.
To support a restriction requirement where applicant separately claims plural subcombinations usable together in a single combination and claims a combination that requires the particulars of at least one of said subcombinations, both two-way distinctness and reasons for insisting on restriction are necessary. Each subcombination is distinct from the combination as claimed if:
(A) the combination does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability (e.g., to show novelty and unobviousness), and
(B) the subcombination can be shown to have utility either by itself or in another materially different combination.
See MPEP § 806.05(c). Furthermore, restriction is only proper when there would be a serious burden if restriction were not required, as evidenced by separate classification, status, or field of search.
800-68Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 806.05(d)
Where claims to two or more subcombinations are presented along with a claim to a combination that includes the particulars of at least two subcombinations, the presence of the claim to the second subcombination is evidence that the details of the first subcombination are not required for patentability (and vice versa). For example, if an application claims ABC/B/C wherein ABC is a combination claim and B and C are each subcombinations that are properly restrictable from each other, the presence of a claim to C provides evidence that the details of B are not required for the patentability of combination ABC.
Upon determining that all claims directed to an elected combination invention are allowable, the examiner must reconsider the propriety of the restriction requirement. Where the combination is allowable in view of the patentability of at least one of the subcombinations, the restriction requirement between the elected combination and patentable subcombination(s) will be withdrawn; furthermore, any subcombinations that were searched and determined to be allowable must also be rejoined. If a subcombination is elected and determined to be allowable, nonelected claims requiring all the limitations of the allowable claim will be rejoined in accordance with MPEP § 821.04.
Form paragraph 8.16 may be used in restriction requirements between subcombinations.
¶ 8.16 Subcombinations, Usable Together
Inventions [1] and [2] are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case subcombination [3] has separate utility such as [4]. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to subcombinations usable together (MPEP § 806.05(d)).
2. In bracket 3, insert the appropriate group number or identify the subcombination.
3. In bracket 4, suggest utility other than with the other subcombination.
4. Conclude restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
The examiner must show, by way of example, that one of the subcombinations has utility other than in the disclosed combination.
Care must be taken to determine if the subcombinations are generically claimed.
Where subcombinations as disclosed and claimed are both (a) species under a claimed genus and (b) related, then the question of restriction must be determined by both the practice applicable to election of species and the practice applicable to related inventions. If restriction is improper under either practice, it should not be required (MPEP § 806.04(b)).
If applicant proves or provides an argument, supported by facts, that the other use, suggested by the examiner, cannot be accomplished or is not reasonable, the burden is on the examiner to document a viable alternative use or withdraw the requirement.
806.05(e) Process and Apparatus for Its Practice [R-08.2012]
Process and apparatus for its practice can be shown to be distinct inventions, if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) that the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand; or (B) that the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process.
Form paragraph 8.17 may be used to make restriction requirements between process and apparatus.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-69
§ 806.05(e)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
¶ 8.17 Process and Apparatus
Inventions [1] and [2] are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both a process and apparatus for its practice (MPEP § 806.05(e)).
2. In bracket 3, use one or more of the following reasons:
(a) --the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus such as......--,
(b) --the process as claimed can be practiced by hand--,
(c) --the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process such as......--.
3. A process can be practiced by hand if it can be performed without using any apparatus.
4. Conclude restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
5. All restriction requirements between a process and an apparatus (or product) for practicing the process should be followed by form paragraph 8.21.04 to notify the applicant that if an apparatus claim is found allowable, process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the patentable apparatus may be rejoined.
The burden is on the examiner to provide reasonable examples that recite material differences.
If applicant proves or provides convincing argument that there is no material difference or that a process cannot be performed by hand (if examiner so argued), the burden is on the examiner to document another materially different process or apparatus or withdraw the requirement.
806.05(f) Process of Making and Product Made [R-08.2012]
A process of making and a product made by the process can be shown to be distinct inventions if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) that the process as claimed is not an obvious process of making the product and the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product; or (B) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process.
Allegations of different processes or products need not be documented.
A product defined by the process by which it can be made is still a product claim ( In re Bridgeford, 357 F.2d 679, 149 USPQ 55 (CCPA 1966)) and can be restricted from the process if the examiner can demonstrate that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process; defining the product in terms of a process by which it is made is nothing more than a permissible technique that applicant may use to define the invention.
If applicant convincingly traverses the requirement, the burden shifts to the examiner to document a viable alternative process or product, or withdraw the requirement.
Form paragraphs 8.18 and 8.21.04 should be used in restriction requirements between product and process of making.
¶ 8.18 Product and Process of Making
Inventions [1] and [2] are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both a product and the process of making the product (MPEP § 806.05(f)).
2. In bracket 3, use one or more of the following reasons:
(a) --the process as claimed can be used to make a materially different product such as......--,
(b) --the product as claimed can be made by a materially different process such as......--.
3. Conclude the basis for the restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
4. All restriction requirements between a product and a process of making the product should be followed by form paragraph 8.21.04 to notify the applicant that if a product claim is found allowable, process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the patentable product may be rejoined.
¶ 8.21.04 Notice of Potential Rejoinder of Process Claims
The examiner has required restriction between product and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the
800-70Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 806.05(f)
product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should appear at the end of any requirement for restriction between a process and a product/apparatus for practicing the process (see form paragraph 8.17), a product/apparatus and a process of making the product/apparatus (see form paragraph 8.18) or between a product/apparatus and a process of using the product/apparatus (see form paragraph 8.20). See MPEP § 821.04 for rejoinder practice.
806.05(g) Apparatus and Product Made [R-08.2012]
An apparatus and a product made by the apparatus can be shown to be distinct inventions if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus as claimed can be used to make another materially different product; or (B) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different apparatus.
Form paragraph 8.19 may be used for restriction requirements between apparatus and product made.
¶ 8.19 Apparatus and Product Made
Inventions [1] and [2] are related as apparatus and product made. The inventions in this relationship are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus can be used for making a materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different apparatus (MPEP § 806.05(g)). In this case [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both the apparatus and product made (MPEP § 806.05(g)).
2. In bracket 3, use one or more of the following reasons:
(a) --the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus as claimed can be used to make a different product such as......--,
(b) --the product can be made by a materially different apparatus such as......--.
3. Conclude restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
The examiner must show by way of example either (A) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus as claimed can be used to make another materially different product or (B) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different apparatus.
The burden is on the examiner to provide an example, but the example need not be documented.
If applicant either proves or provides convincing argument that the alternative example suggested by the examiner is not workable, the burden is on the examiner to suggest another viable example or withdraw the restriction requirement.
806.05(h) Product and Process of Using [R-08.2012]
A product and a process of using the product can be shown to be distinct inventions if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) the process of using as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product; or (B) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-71
§ 806.05(h)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
The burden is on the examiner to provide an example, but the example need not be documented.
If the applicant either proves or provides a convincing argument that the alternative use suggested by the examiner cannot be accomplished, the burden is on the examiner to support a viable alternative use or withdraw the requirement.
Form paragraphs 8.20 and 8.21.04 should be used in restriction requirements between the product and method of using.
¶ 8.20 Product and Process of Using
Inventions [1] and [2] are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case [3].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both the product and process of using the product (MPEP § 806.05(h). If claims to a process specially adapted for (i.e., not patentably distinct from) making the product are also presented such process of making claims should be grouped with the product invention. See MPEP § 806.05(i).
2. In bracket 3, use one or more of the following reasons:
(a) --the process as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product such as......--,
(b) --the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process such as......--.
3. Conclude the basis for the restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
4. All restriction requirements between a product and a process of using the product should be followed by form paragraph 8.21.04 to notify the applicant that if a product claim is found allowable, process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the patentable product may be rejoined.
¶ 8.21.04 Notice of Potential Rejoinder of Process Claims
The examiner has required restriction between product and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should appear at the end of any requirement for restriction between a process and a product/apparatus for practicing the process (see form paragraph 8.17), a product/apparatus and a process of making the product/apparatus (see form paragraph 8.18) or between a product/apparatus and a process of using the product/apparatus (see form paragraph 8.20). See MPEP § 821.04 for rejoinder practice.
806.05(i) Product, Process of Making, and Process of Using [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 1.141 Different inventions in one national application.
*****
(b) Where claims to all three categories, product, process of making, and process of use, are included in a national application, a three way requirement for restriction can only be made where the process of making is distinct from the product. If the process of making and the product are not distinct, the process of using may be joined with the claims directed to the product and the process of making the product even though a showing of distinctness between the product and process of using the product can be made.
Where an application contains claims to a product, claims to a process specially adapted for (i.e., not patentably distinct from, as defined in MPEP § 806.05(f)) making the product, and claims to a process of using the product, applicant may be required to elect either (A) the product and process of making it; or (B) the process of using. If the examiner cannot make a showing of distinctness between the process of using and the product (MPEP § 806.05(h)), restriction cannot be required.
800-72Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 806.05(i)
Form paragraph 8.20 (See MPEP § 806.05(h)) may be used in product, process of making and process of using situations where the product cannot be restricted from the process of making the product.
See MPEP § 821.04(b) for rejoinder practice pertaining to product and process inventions.
806.05(j) Related Products; Related Processes [R-08.2012]
To support a requirement for restriction between two or more related product inventions, or between two or more related process inventions, both two-way distinctness and reasons for insisting on restriction are necessary, i.e., separate classification, status in the art, or field of search. See MPEP § 808.02. See MPEP § 806.05(c) for an explanation of the requirements to establish two-way distinctness as it a p p l i e s t o i n v e n t i o n s i n a combination/subcombination relationship. For other related product inventions, or related process inventions, the inventions are distinct if
(A) the inventions as claimed do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive;
(B) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants; and
(C) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. See MPEP § 802.01.
The burden is on the examiner to provide an example to support the determination that the inventions are distinct, but the example need not be documented. If applicant either proves or provides convincing evidence that the example suggested by the examiner is not workable, the burden is on the examiner to suggest another viable example or withdraw the restriction requirement.
As an example, an intermediate product and a final product can be shown to be distinct inventions if the intermediate and final products are mutually exclusive inventions (not overlapping in scope) that are not obvious variants, and the intermediate product as claimed is useful to make other than the final product as claimed. Typically, the intermediate
loses its identity in the final product. See also MPEP § 806.05(d) for restricting between combinations disclosed as usable together. See MPEP § 809 - § 809.03 if a generic claim or claim linking multiple products or multiple processes is present.
Form paragraph 8.14.01 may be used to restrict between related products or related processes; form paragraph 8.14 may be used in intermediate-final product restriction requirements; form paragraph 8.16 may be used to restrict between subcombinations.
¶ 8.14.01 Distinct Products or Distinct Processes
Inventions [1] and [2] are directed to related [3]. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed [4]. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph may be used when claims are presented to two or more related product inventions, or two or more related process inventions, wherein the inventions as claimed are mutually exclusive, i.e., there is no product (or process) that would infringe both of the identified inventions. Use form paragraph 8.15 to restrict between combination(s) and subcombination(s).
2. If a generic claim or claim linking multiple product inventions or multiple process inventions is present, see MPEP § 809 - § 809.03.
3. In bracket 3, insert --products -- or --processes--.
4. In bracket 4, explain why the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect.
5. Conclude restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
¶ 8.14 Intermediate-Final Product
Inventions [1] and [2] are related as mutually exclusive species in an intermediate-final product relationship. Distinctness is proven for claims in this relationship if the intermediate product is useful to make other than the final product and the species are patentably distinct (MPEP § 806.05(j)). In the instant case, the intermediate product is deemed to be useful as [3] and the inventions are deemed patentably distinct because there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-73
§ 806.05(j)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to both an intermediate and final product (MPEP § 806.05(j)).
2. Conclude restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
¶ 8.16 Subcombinations, Usable Together
Inventions [1] and [2] are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case subcombination [3] has separate utility such as [4]. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used when claims are presented to subcombinations usable together (MPEP § 806.05(d)).
2. In bracket 3, insert the appropriate group number or identify the subcombination.
3. In bracket 4, suggest utility other than with the other subcombination.
4. Conclude restriction requirement with form paragraph 8.21.
806.06 Independent Inventions [R-08.2012]
Inventions as claimed are independent if there is no disclosed relationship between the inventions, that is, they are unconnected in design, operation, and effect. If it can be shown that two or more inventions are independent, and if there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required, applicant should be required to restrict the claims presented to one of such independent inventions. For example:
(A) Two different combinations, not disclosed as capable of use together, having different modes of operation, different functions and different effects are independent. An article of apparel and a locomotive bearing would be an example. A process
of painting a house and a process of boring a well would be a second example.
(B) Where the two inventions are process and apparatus, and the apparatus cannot be used to practice the process or any part thereof, they are independent. A specific process of molding is independent from a molding apparatus that cannot be used to practice the specific process.
Form paragraph 8.20.02 may be used to restrict between independent, unrelated inventions. Form paragraph 8.20.03 may be used to restrict between an unrelated product and process.
¶ 8.20.02 Unrelated Inventions
Inventions [1] and [2] are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together, and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects. (MPEP § 802.01 and MPEP § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions [3] .
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is to be used only when claims are presented to unrelated inventions, e. g., a necktie and a locomotive bearing not disclosed as capable of use together.
2. In bracket 3, insert reasons for concluding that the inventions are unrelated.
3. This form paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 8.21.
¶ 8.20.03 Unrelated Product and Process Inventions
Inventions [1] and [2] are directed to an unrelated product and process. Product and process inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that the product cannot be used in, or made by, the process. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. In the instant case, [3] .
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 3, insert reasons for concluding that the inventions are unrelated.
2. This form paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 8.21.
807 Patentability Report Practice Has No Effect on Restriction Practice [R-08.2012]
Patentability report practice (MPEP § 705), has no effect upon, and does not modify in any way, the practice of restriction, being designed merely to
800-74Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 806.06
facilitate the handling of cases in which restriction cannot properly be required.
808 Reasons for Insisting Upon Restriction [R-08.2012]
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required, i.e., the reasons for insisting upon restriction therebetween as set forth in the following sections.
808.01 Reasons for Holding of Independence or Distinctness [R-08.2012]
The particular reasons relied on by the examiner for holding that the inventions as claimed are either independent or distinct should be concisely stated. A mere statement of conclusion is inadequate. The reasons upon which the conclusion is based should be given.
For example, relative to a combination and a subcombination thereof, the examiner should point out the reasons why he or she considers the subcombination to have utility by itself or in other combinations, and why he or she considers that the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed.
Each relationship of claimed inventions should be similarly treated and the reasons for the conclusions of distinctness or independence set forth. Form paragraphs 8.01, 8.02, and 8.14 - 8.20.02 may be used as appropriate to explain why the inventions as claimed are independent or distinct. See MPEP § 806.05 - § 806.06.
808.01(a) Species [R-08.2012]
Where there is no disclosure of a relationship between species (see MPEP § 806.04(b)), they are independent inventions. A requirement for restriction is permissible if there is a patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would be
a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. See MPEP § 803 and § 808.02.
Where there is a relationship disclosed between species, such disclosed relation must be discussed and reasons advanced leading to the conclusion that the disclosed relation does not prevent restriction, in order to establish the propriety of restriction.
When a requirement for restriction between either independent or distinct species is made, applicant must elect a single disclosed species even if applicant disagrees with the examiner’s restriction requirement.
Election of species should not be required between claimed species that are considered clearly unpatentable (obvious) over each other. In making a requirement for restriction in an application claiming plural species, the examiner should group together species considered clearly unpatentable over each other.
Election of species may be required prior to a search on the merits (A) in applications containing claims to a plurality of species with no generic claims, and (B) in applications containing both species claims and generic or Markush claims.
In applications where only generic claims are presented, restriction cannot be required unless the generic claims recite or encompass such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search would be necessary to search the entire scope of the claim. See MPEP § 803.02 and § 809.02(a). If applicant presents species claims to more than one patentably distinct species of the invention after an Office action on only generic claims, with no restriction requirement, the Office may require the applicant to elect a single species for examination.
In all applications where a generic claim is found allowable, the application should be treated as indicated in MPEP § 809 and § 821.04(a). See MPEP
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-75
§ 808.01(a)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
§ 803.02 and § 809.02(a) for guidance regarding how to require restriction between species.
808.02 Establishing Burden [R-08.2012]
Where, as disclosed in the application, the several inventions claimed are related, and such related inventions are not patentably distinct as claimed, restriction under 35 U.S.C. 121 is never proper (MPEP § 806.05). If applicant voluntarily files claims to such related inventions in different applications, double patenting may be held.
Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
Where, however, the classification is the same and the field of search is the same and there is no clear
indication of separate future classification and field of search, no reasons exist for dividing among independent or related inventions.
809 Linking Claims [R-08.2012]
There are a number of situations which arise in which an application has claims to two or more properly divisible inventions, so that a requirement to restrict the claims of the application to one would be proper, but presented in the same case are one or more claims (generally called “linking” claims) which, if allowable, would require rejoinder of the otherwise divisible inventions. See MPEP § 821.04 for information pertaining to rejoinder practice.
Linking claims and the inventions they link together are usually either all directed to products or all directed to processes (i.e., a product claim linking properly divisible product inventions, or a process claim linking properly divisible process inventions). The most common types of linking claims which, if allowable, act to prevent restriction between inventions that can otherwise be shown to be divisible, are
(A) genus claims linking species claims; and
(B) subcombination claims linking plural combinations.
Where an application includes claims to distinct inventions as well as linking claims, restriction can nevertheless be required.
The linking claims must be examined with, and thus are considered part of, the invention elected. When all claims directed to the elected invention are allowable, should any linking claim be allowable, the restriction requirement between the linked inventions must be withdrawn. Any claim(s) directed to the nonelected invention(s), previously withdrawn from consideration, which depends from or requires all the limitations of the allowable linking claim must be rejoined and will be fully examined for patentability. Where the requirement for restriction in an application is predicated upon the nonallowability of generic or other type of linking claims, applicant is entitled to retain in the application claims to the nonelected invention or inventions. Where such withdrawn claims have been
800-76Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 808.02
canceled by applicant pursuant to the restriction requirement, upon the allowance of the linking claim(s), the examiner must notify applicant that any canceled, nonelected claim(s) which depends from or requires all the limitations of the allowable linking claim may be reinstated by submitting the claim(s) in an amendment. Upon entry of the amendment, the amended claim(s) will be fully examined for patentability. See MPEP § 821.04 for additional information regarding rejoinder.
809.01 [Reserved]
809.02 [Reserved]
809.02(a) Election of Species Required [R-08.2012]
Where restriction between species is appropriate (see MPEP § 808.01(a)) the examiner should send a letter including only a restriction requirement or place a telephone requirement to restrict (the latter being encouraged). See MPEP § 812.01 for telephone practice in restriction requirements.
Action as follows should be taken:
(A) Identify generic claims or indicate that no generic claims are present. See MPEP § 806.04(d) for definition of a generic claim.
(B) Clearly identify each (or in aggravated cases at least exemplary ones) of the disclosed species, to which claims are to be restricted. The species are preferably identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3 or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively. In the absence of distinct figures or examples to identify the several species, the mechanical means, the particular material, or other distinguishing characteristic of the species should be stated for each species identified. If the species cannot be conveniently identified, the claims may be grouped in accordance with the species to which they are restricted. Provide reasons why the species are independent or distinct.
(C) Applicant should then be required to elect a single disclosed species under 35 U.S.C. 121, and
advised as to the requisites of a complete reply and his or her rights under 37 CFR 1.141.
To be complete, a reply to a requirement made according to this section should include a proper election along with a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added.
In those applications wherein a requirement for restriction is accompanied by an action on the elected claims, such action will be considered to be an action on the merits and the next action may be made final where appropriate in accordance with MPEP § 706.07(a).
For treatment of claims held to be drawn to nonelected inventions, see MPEP § 821 et seq.
¶ 8.01 Election of Species; Species Claim(s) Present
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species [1]. The species are independent or distinct because [2].
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, [3] generic.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: [4].
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-77
§ 809.02(a)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, identify the species and/or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species from which an election is to be made. The species may be identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3, for example, or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively. Where the election requirement identifies a grouping of patentably indistinct species, applicant should not be required to elect a specific species within that grouping.
2. In bracket 2 insert the reason(s) why the species or grouping(s) of species are independent or distinct. See MPEP § 806.04(b), § 806.04(f) and § 806.04(h). For example, insert --the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species--, and provide a description of the mutually exclusive characteristics of each species or grouping of species.
3. In bracket 3 insert the appropriate generic claim information.
4. In bracket 4 insert the applicable reason(s) why there is a search and/or examination burden:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
5. This form paragraph does not need to be followed by form paragraph 8.21.
¶ 8.02 Requiring an Election of Species; No Species Claim Present
Claim(s) [1] is/are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species: [2]. The species are independent or distinct because [3]. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: [4]
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used for the election of species requirement described in MPEP § 803.02 (Markush group) and MPEP § 808.01(a) where only generic claims are presented.
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s).
3. In bracket 2, clearly identify the species and/or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species from which an election is to be made. The species may be identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3, for example, or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively. Where the election requirement identifies a grouping of patentably indistinct species, applicant should not be required to elect a specific species within that grouping.
4. In bracket 3 insert the reason(s) why the species or groupings of species as disclosed are independent or distinct. See MPEP § 806.04(b), § 806.04(f) and MPEP § 806.04(h). For example, insert --as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species--, and
800-78Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 809.02(a)
provide a description of the mutually exclusive characteristics of each species or grouping of species.
5. In bracket 4 insert the applicable reason(s) why there is a search and/or examination burden:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
6. This form paragraph does not need to be followed by form paragraph 8.21.
809.03 Restriction Between Linked Inventions [R-07.2015]
Where an application includes two or more otherwise properly divisible inventions that are linked by a claim which, if allowable, would require rejoinder (See MPEP § 809 and § 821.04), the examiner should require restriction, either by a written Office action that includes only a restriction requirement or by a telephoned requirement to restrict (the latter being encouraged). Examiners should use form paragraph 8.12 to make restrictions involving linking claims when the linking claim is other than a genus claim linking species inventions. When the linking claim is a genus claim linking species inventions, examiners should use form paragraph 8.01 or 8.02 (see MPEP § 809.02(a)).
¶ 8.12 Restriction, Linking Claims
Claim [1] link(s) inventions [2] and [3]. The restriction requirement [4] the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claim(s), claim [5]. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or
includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph must be included in any restriction requirement with at least one linking claim present.
2. In bracket 4, insert either --between-- or --among--.
3. In bracket 5, insert the claim number(s) of the linking claims.
4. See related form paragraphs 8.45, 8.46 and 8.47.
Where the requirement for restriction in an application is predicated upon the nonallowability of generic or other type of linking claims, applicant is entitled to retain in the application claims to the nonelected invention or inventions.
For traverse of a restriction requirement with linking claims, see MPEP § 818.01(d).
For treatment of claims held to be drawn to nonelected inventions, see MPEP § 821 et seq.
810 Action on the Merits [R-07.2015]
In general, in an application when only a nonfinal written requirement to restrict is made, no action on the merits is given. A 2-month shortened statutory period will be set for reply when a written restriction requirement is made without an action on the merits. This period may be extended under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). The Office action making the restriction requirement final also ordinarily includes an action on the merits of the claims of the elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.143. In those applications wherein a requirement for restriction is made via telephone and applicant makes an oral election of a single invention, the written record of the restriction requirement will be accompanied by a complete action on the merits of the elected claims. See MPEP § 812.01. The restriction requirement, should be made final as soon as reasonably possible. If the election is made with traverse, it is proper to make
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-79
§ 810RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
the restriction requirement final after consideration of the reasons for traversal. See MPEP § 821.01.
811 Time for Making Requirement [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.142(a), second sentence, indicates that a restriction requirement “will normally be made before any action upon the merits; however, it may be made at any time before final action.” This means the examiner should make a proper requirement as early as possible in the prosecution, in the first action if possible, otherwise, as soon as the need for a proper requirement develops.
Before requiring restriction of claims previously examined on the merits, the examiner must consider whether there will be a serious burden if restriction is not required.
811.01 [Reserved]
811.02 New Requirement After Compliance With Preceding Requirement [R-08.2012]
Since 37 CFR 1.142(a) provides that restriction is proper at any stage of prosecution up to final action, a second requirement may be made when it becomes proper, even though there was a prior requirement with which applicant complied. Ex parte Benke, 1904 C.D. 63, 108 OG 1588 (Comm’r Pat. 1904).
811.03 Repeating After Withdrawal Proper [R-08.2012]
Where a requirement to restrict is made and thereafter withdrawn as improper, if restriction becomes proper at a later stage in the prosecution, restriction may again be required.
811.04 Proper Even Though Grouped Together in Parent Application [R-08.2012]
Even though inventions are grouped together in a requirement in a parent application, restriction or
election among the inventions may be required in the divisional applications, if proper.
812 Who Should Make the Requirement [R-08.2012]
The requirement should be made by an examiner who would examine at least one of the inventions.
An examiner should not require restriction in an application if none of the claimed inventions is classifiable in his or her Technology Center. Such an application should be transferred to a Technology Center wherein at least one of the claimed inventions would be examined.
812.01 Telephone Restriction Practice [R-07.2015]
If an examiner determines that a requirement for restriction should be made in an application, the examiner should formulate a draft of such restriction requirement including an indication of those claims considered to be linking and/or generic. Thereupon, the examiner should telephone the attorney or agent of record and request an oral election, with or without traverse. The examiner should arrange for a second telephone call within a reasonable time, generally within 3 working days, to provide time for the attorney or agent to consider the requirement. If the attorney or agent objects to making an oral election, or fails to respond, a restriction requirement will be mailed, and should contain reference to the unsuccessful telephone call. When an oral election is made, the examiner will then proceed to incorporate into the next Office action a formal restriction requirement including the date of the election, the attorney’s or agent’s name, and a complete record of the telephone interview, followed by a complete action on the elected invention as claimed, including linking and/or generic claims if present. However, no telephone communication need be made where the requirement for restriction is complex, the application is being prosecuted by the applicant pro se, or the examiner knows from past experience that an election will not be made by telephone.
800-80Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 811
Form paragraphs 8.23 or 8.23.01 should be used to make a telephone election of record.
¶ 8.23 Requirement, When Elected by Telephone
During a telephone conversation with [1] on [2] a provisional election was made [3] traverse to prosecute the invention of [4], claim [5]. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim [6] withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 3, insert --with-- or --without--, whichever is applicable.
2. In bracket 4, insert either the elected group or species.
3. An action on the merits of the claims to the elected invention should follow.
¶ 8.23.01 Requirement, No Election by Telephone
A telephone call was made to [1] on [2] to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, but did not result in an election being made.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the name of the applicant or attorney or agent contacted.
2. In bracket 2, insert the date(s) of the telephone contact(s).
3. This form paragraph should be used in all instances where a telephone election was attempted and the applicant’s representative did not or would not make an election.
4. This form paragraph should not be used if no contact was made with applicant or applicant’s representative.
If, on examination, the examiner finds the claims to an invention elected without traverse to be allowable and no nonelected invention is eligible for rejoinder (see MPEP § 821.04), the restriction requirement should be attached to the Notice of Allowability form PTOL-37 and should include cancellation of the nonelected claims, a statement that the prosecution is closed, and that a notice of allowance will be sent in due course. Correction of formal matters in the above-noted situation which cannot be handled by a telephone call and thus requires action by the applicant should be handled under the
Ex parte Quayle practice, using Office Action Summary form PTOL-326.
Should the elected invention as claimed be found allowable in the first action, and an oral traverse was noted, the examiner should include in his or her
action a statement under MPEP § 821.01, making the restriction requirement final and giving applicant two months to either cancel the claims drawn to the nonelected invention or take other appropriate action. (37 CFR 1.144). Failure to take action will be treated as an authorization to cancel the nonelected claims by an examiner’s amendment and pass the application to issue. Prosecution of the application is otherwise closed.
In either situation (traverse or no traverse), caution should be exercised to determine if any of the allowable claims are linking and/or generic claims, or if any nonelected inventions are eligible for rejoinder (see MPEP § 821.04), before canceling claims drawn to the nonelected invention.
Where the respective inventions would be examined in different Technology Centers (TCs), the requirement for restriction should be made only after consultation with and approval by all TCs involved. If an oral election would cause the application to be examined in another TC, the initiating TC should transfer the application with appropriate documentation of the restriction requirement and a record of the interview. The receiving TC will incorporate the substance of this documentation in the next Office action as indicated above. Differences as to restriction should be settled by the existing chain of command, e.g., supervisory patent examiner or TC director.
This practice is limited to use by examiners who have at least negotiation authority. Other examiners must have the prior approval of their supervisory patent examiner.
813 [Reserved]
814 Indicate Exactly How Application Is To Be Restricted [R-07.2015]
The examiner must provide a clear and detailed record of the restriction requirement to provide a clear demarcation between restricted inventions so that it can be determined whether inventions claimed in a continuing application are consonant with the restriction requirement and therefore subject to the
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-81
§ 814RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
prohibition against double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121. Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1381, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1871 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also MPEP § 804.01.
I. SPECIES
The mode of indicating how to require restriction between species is set forth in MPEP § 809.02(a).
The particular limitations in the claims and the reasons why such limitations are considered to support restriction of the claims to a particular disclosed species should be mentioned if necessary to make the requirement clear. Form paragraph 8.01 or 8.02 may be used to require an election of species.
II. INVENTIONS OTHER THAN SPECIES
It is necessary to read all of the claims to determine what the claims cover. When doing this, the claims directed to each separate invention should be noted along with a statement of the invention to which they are drawn.
In setting forth the restriction requirement, separate inventions should be identified by a grouping of the claims with a short description of the total extent of the invention claimed in each group, specifying the type or relationship of each group as by stating the group is drawn to a process, or to a subcombination, or to a product, etc., and should indicate the classification or separate status of each group, as for example, by class and subclass. See MPEP § 817 for additional guidance.
While every claim should be accounted for, the omission to group a claim, or placing a claim in the wrong group will not affect the propriety of a final requirement where the requirement is otherwise proper and the correct disposition of the omitted or erroneously grouped claim is clear.
III. LINKING CLAIMS
The generic or other linking claims should not be associated with any one of the linked inventions
since such claims must be examined with the elected linked invention. See MPEP § 809.
815 Make Requirement Complete [R-08.2012]
When making a restriction requirement every effort should be made to have the requirement complete. If some of the claimed inventions are classifiable in another art unit and the examiner has any doubt as to the proper line among the same, the application should be referred to the examiner of the other art unit for information on that point and such examiner should render the necessary assistance.
816 [Reserved]
817 Outline of Letter for Restriction Requirement [R-07.2015]
The following outline should be used to set forth a requirement to restrict.
OUTLINE OF RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT
(A) Statement of the requirement to restrict and that it is being made under 35 U.S.C. 121.
(1) Identify each group by Roman numeral.
(2) List claims in each group. Check accuracy of numbering of the claims; look for same claims in two groups; and look for omitted claims.
(3) Give short description of total extent of the subject matter claimed in each group, pointing out critical claims of different scope and identifying whether the claims are directed to a combination, subcombination, process, apparatus, or product.
(4) Classify each group.
Form paragraphs 8.08-8.11 should be used to group inventions.
¶ 8.08 Restriction, Two Groupings
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim [1], drawn to [2], classified in [3].
II. Claim [4], drawn to [5], classified [6].
800-82Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 815
Examiner Note:
In brackets 3 and 6, insert USPC class and subclass if classified in the United States Patent Classification or CPC subclass and main group/subgroup if classified in the Cooperative Patent Classification. For example, if examined in USPC, enter USPC Class xxx, subclass yyy.
¶ 8.09 Restriction, 3rd Grouping
III. Claim [1], drawn to [2], classified in [3].
Examiner Note:
In bracket 3, insert USPC class and subclass if classified in the United States Patent Classification or CPC subclass and main group/subgroup if classified in the Cooperative Patent Classification. For example, if examined in USPC, enter USPC Class xxx, subclass yyy.
¶ 8.10 Restriction, 4th Grouping
IV. Claim [1], drawn to [2], classified in [3].
Examiner Note:
In bracket 3, insert USPC class and subclass if classified in the United States Patent Classification or CPC subclass and main group/subgroup if classified in the Cooperative Patent Classification. For example, if examined in USPC, enter USPC Class xxx, subclass yyy.
¶ 8.11 Restriction, Additional Groupings
[1]. Claim [2], drawn to [3], classified in [4].
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the appropriate roman numeral, e.g., --V--, --VI--, etc.
2. In bracket 4, insert USPC class and subclass if classified in the United States Patent Classification or CPC subclass and main group/subgroup if classified in the Cooperative Patent Classification. For example, if examined in USPC, enter USPC Class xxx, subclass yyy.
If restriction is required between species, form paragraph 8.01 or 8.02 should be used to set forth the species from which applicant is required to elect and the reasons for holding the species to be independent or distinct. See MPEP § 809.02(a).
(B) Take into account claims not grouped, indicating their disposition.
(1) Linking claims
(i) Identify
(ii) Statement of groups to which linking claims may be assigned for examination
(2) Other ungrouped claims
(3) Indicate disposition, e.g., improperly dependent, canceled, etc.
(C) Allegation of independence or distinctness
(1) Point out facts which show independence or distinctness
(2) Treat the inventions as claimed, don’t merely state the conclusion that inventions in fact are independent or distinct, e.g.,
(i) Subcombination - Subcombination disclosed as usable together
Each usable alone or in other identified combination
Demonstrate by examiner’s suggestion
(ii) Combination - Subcombination
Combination as claimed does not require subcombinationAND subcombination usable alone or in other combination
(iii) Process - Apparatus
Process can be carried out by hand or by other apparatus
Demonstrate by examiner’s suggestion OR Demonstrate apparatus can be used in other process (rare)
(iv) Process of making and/or Apparatus for making - Product made
Claimed product can be made by other process (or apparatus)
Demonstrate by examiner’s suggestion OR Demonstrate process of making (or apparatus for making) can produce other product (rare)
(v) Process of making - Process of using
Product used in claimed process can be made by process materially different from that claimed
Demonstrate by examiner’s suggestion
OR
Product made by claimed process of making can be used in a process materially different from that claimed
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-83
§ 817RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
Demonstrate by examiner’s suggestion.
(D) Provide reasons for insisting upon restriction
(1) Separate status in the art
(2) Different classification
(3) Same classification but recognition of divergent subject matter
(4) Divergent fields of search, or
(5) Search required for one group not required for the other
(E) Summary statement
(1) Summarize (i) independence or distinctness and (ii) reasons for insisting upon restriction
(2) Include paragraph advising as to reply required
(3) Indicate effect of allowance of linking claims, if any present
(4) Indicate effect of cancellation of evidence claims (see MPEP § 806.05(c))
(5) Indicate effect of allowance of product claims if restriction was required between a product and a process of making and/or using the product.
Form paragraphs 8.14-8.20.02 may be used as appropriate to set forth the reasons for the holding of independence or distinctness. Form paragraph 8.13 may be used as a heading.
¶ 8.13 Distinctness (Heading)
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should be followed by one of form paragraphs 8.14-8.20.02 to show independence or distinctness.
Form paragraph 8.21 must be used at the conclusion of all restriction requirements other than those containing only election of species, with or without an action on the merits.
¶ 8.21 To Establish Burden AND Requirement for Election and Means for Traversal for all Restrictions, other than an Election of Species
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
[1].
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Examiner Note:
1. THIS FORM PARAGRAPH MUST BE ADDED TO ALL RESTRICTION REQUIREMENTS other than those containing only election of species, with or without an action on the merits. This form paragraph only needs to be used once, after all restriction requirements are set out.
2. In bracket 1 insert the applicable reason(s) why there is a search and/or examination burden:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
800-84Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 817
¶ 8.27.aia Different Inventors, Common Assignee, Same Invention, Examined under First Inventor To File (FITF) Provisions of the AIA
Claim [1] directed to the same invention as that of claim [2] of commonly assigned [3]. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the applications no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
Examiner Note:
1. Form paragraph 7.03.aia must be included in any Office action that contains this paragraph.
2. In bracket 3, insert the U.S. patent number or the copending application number.
3. The claims listed in brackets 1 and 2 must be for the same invention. If one invention would have been obvious in view of the other, do not use this form paragraph; see form paragraph 8.28.aia.
4. A provisional or actual statutory double patenting rejection should also be made using form paragraph 8.31 or 8.32.
5. If the commonly assigned application or patent has an earlier effective filing date in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 100(i), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may also be made using form paragraph 7.15.01.aia or 7.15.02.aia.
¶ 8.28.aia Different Inventors, CommonAssignee, Inventions Not Patentably Distinct, No Evidence of Common Ownership as of the Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Invention, Examined Under First Inventor to File (FITF) Provisions of the AIA
Claim [1] directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim [2] of commonly assigned [3]. Specifically, [4].
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph should be used when the application being examined is commonly assigned with an application or patent that includes claims patentably indistinct from those in the present application, but it has not been established that they were commonly owned or deemed to have been commonly owned as of the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 35 U.S.C. 102(c).
2. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)/103 using form paragraph 7.21.aia, 7.21.01.aia or 7.21.02.aia also should be made, as appropriate.
3. In bracket 3, insert the number of the patent or application that includes claims patentably indistinct from those in the present application.
4. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection should also be included in the action using one of form paragraphs 8.34 to 8.37.
5. In bracket 4, explain why the claims in the present application and the reference patent or application are patentably indistinct.
6. Form paragraph 8.28.01.aia MUST follow this paragraph.
Form paragraph 8.23.02 must be included in all restriction requirements for applications having joint inventors.
¶ 8.23.02 Joint Inventors, Correction of Inventorship
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be included in all restriction requirements for applications having joint inventors.
818 Election and Reply [R-07.2015]
Election is the designation by applicant of the one of two or more disclosed inventions that will be prosecuted in the application.
When two or more independent and distinct inventions are presented for examination, the examiner may make a restriction requirement if a serious burden exists. In the reply to the restriction requirement, applicant must elect one invention for examination. If applicant wishes to traverse the restriction requirement, the reply must also include a traversal with specific reasons why applicant believes the restriction requirement is in error. See 37 CFR 1.111 and MPEP § 818.01. Applicant must make his or her own election; the examiner will not make the election for the applicant.
Election becomes fixed when the claims in an application have received an action on their merits by the Office. If, after receiving an action on the merits of an invention, one or more properly divisible additional inventions are subsequently presented for examination, the examiner may deem the examined
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-85
§ 818RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
invention to be the invention elected by original presentation. See MPEP § 818.02(a).
818.01 Election in Reply to a Restriction Requirement: Express [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.143 Reconsideration of requirement.
If the applicant disagrees with the requirement for restriction, he may request reconsideration and withdrawal or modification of the requirement, giving the reasons therefor. (See § 1.111). In requesting reconsideration the applicant must indicate a provisional election of one invention for prosecution, which invention shall be the one elected in the event the requirement becomes final. The requirement for restriction will be reconsidered on such a request. If the requirement is repeated and made final, the examiner will at the same time act on the claims to the invention elected.
Election in reply to a requirement for restriction may be made either with or without an accompanying traverse of the requirement. A complete reply to a restriction requirement must include an election even if applicant traverses the requirement.
A traverse is a request for reconsideration of a requirement to restrict that must include a written statement of the reasons for traverse, distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse.
Where a rejection or objection is included with a restriction requirement, applicant, besides making a proper election, must also distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s rejection or objection, or amend and argue that as amended the objection or rejection is moot. See 37 CFR 1.111.
Applicant must make his or her own election; the examiner will not make the election for the applicant. See 37 CFR 1.142 and 37 CFR 1.143.
818.01(a) Reply Must be Complete [R-07.2015]
As indicated in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement for restriction must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b). Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which he or she bases his or her conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction.
818.01(b) Election is Required, Even When Requirement Is Traversed [R-07.2015]
As noted in the second sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, a provisional election must be made even if the requirement is traversed.
All requirements for restriction, other than those containing only an election of species, should include form paragraph 8.21. For election of species, form paragraph 8.01 or 8.02 should be used. These form paragraphs include the above notice.
818.01(c) Traverse is Required To Preserve Right of Petition [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.144 Petition from requirement for restriction.
After a final requirement for restriction, the applicant, in addition to making any reply due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Director to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested (see § 1.181).
To preserve the right to petition from the requirement for restriction, all errors to be relied upon in the petition must be distinctly and specifically pointed out in a timely filed traverse by the applicant. The petition may be deferred until after final action on
800-86Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 818.01
or allowance of the claims to the elected invention. In any event, the petition must not be filed later than the filing date of the notice of appeal. If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant by use of form paragraph 8.25.02.
¶ 8.25.02 Election Without Traverse Based on Incomplete Reply
Applicant’s election of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
818.01(d) Traverse of Restriction Requirement With Linking Claims [R-07.2015]
Regardless of the presence of a linking claim, a proper traverse must include a written statement of the reasons for traverse, distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. If restriction is made final following consideration of a traverse, the right to petition is preserved even if all linking claims are canceled. When a final restriction requirement is contingent on the nonallowability of the linking claims, applicant may petition from the requirement under 37 CFR 1.144 without waiting for a final action on the merits of the linking claims or applicant may defer his or her petition until the linking claims have been finally rejected, but not later than the notice of appeal. See 37 CFR 1.144 and MPEP § 818.01(c).
An election combined with an argument that the linking claim is allowable is not a traversal of the restriction requirement. The Office considers such a response to be a concession that restriction is proper if the linking claim is not allowable. If the linking claim is allowable, the restriction is improper and should be withdrawn. If the Office allows the linking claim, the restriction requirement must be withdrawn and claims to all linked inventions that
depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the allowable linking claim must be acted upon.
818.02 Election Other Than Express [R-07.2015]
Election may be made in ways other than by explicitly or expressly identifying the elected invention or in reply to a requirement as set forth in MPEP § 818.02(a) and § 818.02(d).
818.02(a) Election By Originally Presented Claims [R-07.2015]
Where claims to another invention are properly added and entered in the application before the earlier of the mailing of a first restriction requirement or the mailing of a first Office action on the merits, those claims, along with the ones presented upon filing the application, will be considered originally presented claims for purposes of restriction only.
The claims originally presented and acted upon by the Office on their merits determine the invention elected by an applicant in the application, and in any request for continued examination (RCE) filed for the application. Subsequently presented claims to an invention other than that acted upon should be treated as provided in MPEP § 821.03.
For reissue practice, see MPEP Chapter 1400.
818.02(b) Generic Claims Only — No Election of Species; Linking Claims Only – No Election of Invention [R-07.2015]
Where only generic claims are first presented and prosecuted in an application in which no election of a single species of that genus has been required, and applicant later presents species claims to two or more independent or distinct species of the invention, the examiner may require applicant to elect a single species. The practice of requiring election of species in cases with only generic claims is discussed in MPEP § 808.01(a). Where only linking claims are first presented and prosecuted in an application in which no election of a single linked invention has been made, and applicant later presents claims to two or more linked, independent or distinct
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-87
§ 818.02(b)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
inventions, the examiner may require applicant to elect a single invention.
818.02(c) Election By Optional Cancellation of Claims [R-07.2015]
Where applicant claims two or more independent or distinct inventions and as a result of amendment to the claims, he or she cancels the claims to one or more of such inventions, leaving claims to one invention, and such claims are acted upon by the examiner, the claimed invention thus acted upon is elected.
818.02(d) Election By Cancellation of Claims, Lacking Express Election Statement [R-07.2015]
If applicant’s reply to a requirement for restriction does not expressly state the invention elected, but cancels claims to all but one of the inventions, the remaining invention will be deemed to be the elected invention.
819 Office Generally Does Not Permit Shift [R-07.2015]
The general policy of the Office is that applicants are not permitted to shift to claim another invention after an election is made and an Office action on the merits is made on the elected invention. The applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) on claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right). See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection VI.(B). When claims are presented which the examiner finds are drawn to an invention other than the one elected, he or she should treat the claims as outlined in MPEP § 821.03.
A restriction requirement (and election thereto) made in a parent application does not carry over to a continuation, CIP, or divisional application. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Pharmachemie BV, 361 F.3d 1343, 1348, 70 USPQ2d 1097, 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(An original restriction requirement in an earlier filed application does not carry over to claims
of a continuation application in which the examiner does not reinstate or refer to the restriction requirement in the parent application.). In design applications, but not international design applications, where a continued prosecution application (CPA) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is a continuation of its parent application and not a divisional, an express election made in the prior (parent) application in reply to a restriction requirement does carry over to the CPA unless otherwise indicated by applicant.
While applicant, as a matter of right, may not shift from claiming one invention to claiming another, the examiner is not precluded from permitting a shift. The examiner is most likely to do so where the shift results in no additional burden, and particularly where the shift reduces work by simplifying the issues.
820 [Reserved]
821 Treatment of Claims Held To Be Drawn to Nonelected Inventions [R-07.2015]
Claims found to be drawn to nonelected inventions, including claims drawn to nonelected species or inventions that may be eligible for rejoinder, are treated as indicated in MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04.
All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04. The examiner should clearly set forth in the Office action the reasons why the claims withdrawn from consideration are not readable on the elected invention. Applicant may traverse the requirement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.143. If a final requirement for restriction is made by the examiner, applicant may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 for review of the restriction requirement if the applicant made a timely
800-88Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 818.02(c)
traversal. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 169 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1971).
821.01 After Election With Traverse [R-07.2015]
Where the initial requirement is traversed, the examiner should reconsider it. If, upon reconsideration, the examiner is still of the opinion that restriction is proper, the examiner should maintain the restriction requirement and make it final in the next Office action. See MPEP § 803.01. In doing so, the examiner should reply to the reasons or arguments advanced by applicant in the traverse. Form paragraph 8.25 should be used to make a restriction requirement final.
¶ 8.25 Answer to Arguments With Traverse
Applicant’s election with traverse of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that [3]. This is not found persuasive because [4].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner Note:
1. In bracket 1, insert the invention elected.
2. In bracket 3, insert in summary form, the ground(s) on which traversal is based.
3. In bracket 4, insert the reasons why the traversal was not found to be persuasive.
If the requirement is made final, the claims to the nonelected invention should be clearly indicated as being withdrawn from consideration. In this situation, the examiner should use form paragraph 8.05.
¶ 8.05 Claims Stand Withdrawn With Traverse
Claim [1] withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected [2], there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on [3].
Examiner Note:
In bracket 2, insert --invention-- or --species--.
This form paragraph will show that applicant has retained the right to petition from the requirement under 37 CFR 1.144. See MPEP § 818.01(c).
If the examiner, upon reconsideration, is of the opinion that the requirement for restriction is improper in whole or in part, he or she should clearly state in the next Office action that the requirement for restriction is withdrawn in whole or in part, specify which groups have been reinstated, and give an action on the merits of all the claims directed to the elected invention and any invention reinstated with the elected invention.
When the application is otherwise in condition for allowance, the examiner should contact applicant and advise him or her of his or her options with regard to any pending claims withdrawn from consideration. Alternatively, applicant may be notified using form paragraph 8.03.
¶ 8.03 In Condition for Allowance, Non-elected Claims Withdrawn with Traverse
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim [1] directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on [2]. Applicant is given TWO MONTHS from the date of this letter to cancel the noted claims or take other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144). Failure to take action during this period will be treated as authorization to cancel the noted claims by Examiner’s Amendment and pass the case to issue. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted since this application will be passed to issue.
The prosecution of this case is closed except for consideration of the above matter.
See also MPEP § 821.04 for rejoinder of certain nonelected inventions when the claims to the elected invention are allowable.
When preparing a final action in an application where there has been a traversal of a requirement for restriction, the examiner should indicate in the Office action which claims, if any, remain withdrawn from consideration.
Note that the petition under 37 CFR 1.144 must be filed not later than appeal. This is construed to mean on or before the date the notice of appeal is filed. See MPEP § 1204. If the application is ready for allowance on or after the date of the notice of appeal and no petition has been filed, the examiner should simply cancel nonelected claims that are not eligible
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-89
§ 821.01RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
for rejoinder by examiner’s amendment, calling attention to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.144.
821.02 After Election Without Traverse [R-07.2015]
Where the initial requirement is not traversed (either expressly or by virtue of an incomplete reply), the examiner should take appropriate action on the elected claims including determining whether the restriction requirement should be withdrawn in whole or in part. See MPEP § 821.04. Form paragraphs 8.25.01 or 8.25.02 should be used by the examiner to acknowledge the election without traverse.
¶ 8.25.01 Election Without Traverse
Applicant’s election without traverse of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged.
¶ 8.25.02 Election Without Traverse Based on Incomplete Reply
Applicant’s election of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims to the nonelected invention should be treated by using form paragraph 8.06.
¶ 8.06 Claims Stand Withdrawn Without Traverse
Claim [1] withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected [2], there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on [3].
Examiner Note:
In bracket 2, insert --invention--, or --species--.
This form paragraph will show that applicant has not retained the right to petition from the requirement under 37 CFR 1.144.
When applicant has not retained the right to petition the restriction requirement and the application is otherwise ready for allowance, the claims to the nonelected invention, except for claims directed to nonelected species and nonelected inventions eligible
for rejoinder, may be canceled by an examiner’s amendment, and the application passed to issue.
The examiner should use form paragraph 8.07 in this situation.
See also MPEP § 821.01 and § 821.04 et seq.
¶ 8.07 Ready for Allowance, Non-elected Claims Withdrawn Without Traverse
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim [1] directed to [2] nonelected without traverse. Accordingly, claim [3] been canceled.
Examiner Note:
In bracket 2, insert --an invention--, --inventions--, --a species--, or --species--.
Note that even if an election was made without traverse, claims directed to nonelected species and nonelected inventions that are eligible for rejoinder should be rejoined; if not rejoined, such claims may only be cancelled by examiner’s amendment when the cancellation is expressly authorized by applicant.
821.03 Claims for Different Invention Added After an Office Action [R-07.2015]
Claims added by amendment following action by the examiner, as explained in MPEP § 818.02(a), and drawn to an invention other than the one previously claimed, should be treated as indicated in 37 CFR 1.145.
37 CFR 1.145 Subsequent presentation of claims for different invention.
If, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed, the applicant will be required to restrict the claims to the invention previously claimed if the amendment is entered, subject to reconsideration and review as provided in §§ 1.143 and 1.144
The action should include form paragraph 8.04.
¶ 8.04 Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claim [1] directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: [2]
800-90Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 821.02
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim [3] withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
A complete action on all claims to the elected invention should be given.
An amendment canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to the nonelected invention should not be entered. Such an amendment is nonresponsive. Applicant should be notified by using form paragraph 8.26.
¶ 8.26 Canceled Elected Claims, Non-Responsive
The amendment filed on [1] canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to a non-elected invention is non-responsive (MPEP § 821.03). The remaining claims are not readable on the elected invention because [2].
Since the above-mentioned amendment appears to be a bona fide attempt to reply, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) ARE AVAILABLE.
Examiner Note:
This form paragraph should not be used for an application filed on or after August 25, 2006 that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or other provisions under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d). Form paragraph 8.26.AE should be used instead. See MPEP § 708.02, subsection IX.
The practice set forth in this section is not applicable where a provisional election of a single species was made in accordance with MPEP § 803.02 and applicant amends the claims such that the elected species is cancelled, or where applicant presents claims that could not have been restricted from the claims drawn to the elected invention had they been presented earlier.
821.04 Rejoinder [R-08.2012]
The propriety of a restriction requirement should be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. Rejoinder involves withdrawal of a
restriction requirement between an allowable elected invention and a nonelected invention and examination of the formerly nonelected invention on the merits.
In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined. Furthermore, where restriction was required between a product and a process of making and/or using the product, and the product invention was elected and subsequently found allowable, all claims to a nonelected process invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim for the claims directed to that process invention to be eligible for rejoinder. See MPEP § 821.04(b). In order to retain the right to rejoinder, applicant is advised that the claims to the nonelected invention(s) should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the elected invention. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder.
Rejoined claims must be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112.
The requirement for restriction between the rejoined inventions must be withdrawn. Any claim(s) presented in a continuation or divisional application that are anticipated by, or rendered obvious over, the claims of the parent application may be subject to a double patenting rejection when the restriction requirement is withdrawn in the parent application. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
The provisions of MPEP § 706.07 govern the propriety of making an Office action final in rejoinder situations. If rejoinder occurs after the first Office action on the merits, and if any of the rejoined claims are unpatentable, e.g., if a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is made, then the next Office action may be made final where the new ground of rejection was necessitated by applicant’s amendment (or based on information submitted in
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-91
§ 821.04RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
an IDS filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)). See MPEP § 706.07(a).
If restriction is required between product and process claims, for example, and all the product claims would be allowable in the first Office action on the merits, upon rejoinder of the process claims, it would not be proper to make the first Office action on the merits final if the rejoined process claim did not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. This is because the rejoinder did not occur after the first Office action on the merits. Note that the provisions of MPEP § 706.07(b) govern the propriety of making a first Office action on the merits final.
Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116.
Where applicant voluntarily presents claims to the product and process, for example, in separate applications (i.e., no restriction requirement was made by the Office), and one of the applications issues as a patent, the remaining application may be rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, where appropriate (see MPEP § 804 - § 804.03), and applicant may overcome the rejection by the filing of a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(c) where appropriate. Similarly, if copending applications separately present product and process claims, provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections should be made where appropriate. However, once a determination as to the patentability of the product has been reached any process claim directed to making or using an allowable product should not be rejected over prior art without consultation with a Technology Center Director.
See MPEP § 706.02(n) for the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(b) to biotechnological processes and compositions of matter.
See MPEP § 2116.01 for guidance on the treatment of process claims which make or use a novel, nonobvious product.
821.04(a) Rejoinder Between Product Inventions; Rejoinder Between Process Inventions [R-07.2015]
Where restriction was required between independent or distinct products, or between independent or distinct processes, and all claims directed to an elected invention are allowable, any restriction requirement between the elected invention and any nonelected invention that depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations of an allowable claim should be withdrawn. For example, a requirement for restriction should be withdrawn when a generic claim, linking claim, or subcombination claim is allowable and any previously withdrawn claim depends from or otherwise requires all the limitations thereof. Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable claim will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Claims that do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim remain withdrawn from consideration. However, in view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, if any claim presented in a continuing application includes all the limitations of a claim that is allowable in the parent application, such claim may be subject to a double patenting rejection over the claims of the parent application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
An amendment presenting additional claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
When all claims to the nonelected invention(s) depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, applicant must be advised that claims drawn to the nonelected invention have
800-92Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 821.04(a)
been rejoined and the restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Form paragraph 8.45 may be used.
¶ 8.45 Elected Invention Allowable, Rejoinder of All Previously Withdrawn Claims
Claim [1] allowable. Claim [2 ], previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement [4] inventions [5], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [6], is hereby withdrawn and claim [7] hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. Where the elected invention is directed to a product and previously nonelected process claims are rejoined, form paragraph 8.43 should be used instead of this paragraph.
2. This form paragraph should be used whenever ALL previously withdrawn claims depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim (e.g., a generic claim, linking claim, or subcombination claim) and wherein the non-elected claims have NOT been canceled. Use form paragraph 8.46, 8.47, or 8.47.01 as appropriate where the nonelected claims HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.49 or 8.50 as appropriate when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn at least in part.
3. In bracket 2, insert the number(s) of the rejoined claim(s) followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
4. In bracket 3 insert-- requires-- or -- require--.
5. In bracket 4, insert either --between-- or --among--.
6. In bracket 5, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) being rejoined.
7. In bracket 7, insert the number(s) of the rejoined claim(s) followed by either --is-- or --are--.
When no claims directed to the nonelected invention(s) depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, form paragraph 8.49 should be used to explain why all nonelected claims are withdrawn from further consideration.
¶ 8.49 Elected Invention Allowable, Claims Stand Withdrawn as Not In Required Form
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [3], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [4] is [5]. Claim [6], directed to [7] withdrawn from further consideration because [8] require all the limitations of an allowable generic linking claim as required by 37 CFR 1.141.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.50) should be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim when none of the nonelected claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
3. In bracket 2, insert -- between-- or --among-- followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
4. In bracket 4, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
5. In bracket 5, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
6. In bracket 7, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species not being rejoined followed by -- remains-- or --remain--.
7. In bracket 8, insert --it does not-- or --they do not all--.
Note that each additional invention is considered separately. When claims to one nonelected invention depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim, and claims to another nonelected invention do not, applicant must be advised as to which claims have been rejoined and
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-93
§ 821.04(a)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
which claims remain withdrawn from further consideration. Form paragraph 8.50 may be used.
¶ 8.50 Elected Invention Allowable, Some Claims No Longer Considered Withdrawn
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [3], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [4] is [5]. Claim [6], directed to [7] no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim [8], directed to [9] withdrawn from consideration because [10] require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph should be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim when, some, but not all, of the nonelected claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
3. In bracket 2, insert -- between-- or --among-- followed by identification of the inventions (i.e., groups or species) restricted.
4. In bracket 4, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
5. In bracket 5, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
6. In bracket 7, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species being rejoined followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
7. In bracket 9, insert the subject matter of the claimed invention or species not being rejoined followed by -- remains-- or --remain--.
8. In bracket 10, insert --it does not-- or --they do not all--.
9. If all of the claims are in proper form, i.e., they include all the limitations of an allowable claim, one of form paragraphs 8.45, 8.46 or 8.47must be used.
Where the application claims an allowable invention and discloses but does not claim an additional invention that depends on or otherwise requires all the limitations of the allowable claim, applicant may add claims directed to such additional invention by way of amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121. Amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312; amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116.
Form paragraph 8.46 (or form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01 if appropriate) must be used to notify applicant when nonelected claim(s) which depended from or required all the limitations of an allowable claim were canceled by applicant and may be reinstated by submitting the claim(s) in an amendment.
¶ 8.46 Elected Invention Allowable, Non-elected Claims Canceled, Other Issues Remain Outstanding
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. Claim [7], which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9]. The canceled, nonelected claim(s) may be reinstated by applicant if submitted in a timely filed amendment in reply to this action. Upon entry of the amendment, such amended claim(s) will be examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as set forth above, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or
800-94Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 821.04(a)
between related process inventions. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a).
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.49 or 8.50 as appropriate when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn at least in part.
3. If no issues remain outstanding and application is otherwise ready for allowance, use form paragraph 8.47 or 8.47.01 instead of this form paragraph.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
8. In bracket 7, insert the number of each claim that required all the limitations of an allowable claim but was canceled as a result of the restriction requirement.
9. In bracket 8, insert either --was-- or --were--.
¶ 8.47 Elected Invention Allowable, Non-elected Claims Canceled, Before Final Rejection, No Outstanding Issues Remaining
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3] , as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4] , has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. Claim [7], which required all the limitations of an allowable claim, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of the restriction requirement, [8] canceled by applicant in the reply filed on [9]. The canceled, nonelected claim(s) may be reinstated by applicant if submitted in an amendment, limited to the addition of such claim(s), filed within a time period of TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Upon entry of the amendment, such amended claim(s) will be examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. If NO such amendment is submitted within the set time period, the application will be passed to issue. PROSECUTION ON THE MERITS IS OTHERWISE CLOSED.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is
anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions and the application has not been finally rejected. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a). After final rejection, use form paragraph 8.47.01 instead of this form paragraph.
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.46 or 8.47.01) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.49 or 8.50 as appropriate when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn at least in part.
3. This form paragraph should be used only when there are no outstanding issues remaining and is to be used with only a PTO-90C cover sheet.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
8. In bracket 7, insert the number of each claim that required all the limitations of an allowable claim but was canceled as a result of the restriction requirement.
9. In bracket 8, insert either --was-- or --were--.
¶ 8.47.01 Elected Invention Allowable, Non-elected Claims Canceled, After Final Rejection, No Outstanding Issues Remaining
Claim [1] allowable. The restriction requirement [2] inventions [3], as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4], has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-95
§ 821.04(a)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
Specifically, the restriction requirement of [5] is [6]. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as set forth above, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. This form paragraph is applicable where a restriction requirement was made between related product inventions or between related process inventions and the application has been finally rejected. See MPEP §§ 806.05(j) and 821.04(a). Before final rejection, use form paragraph 8.47 instead of this form paragraph.
2. This form paragraph (or form paragraph 8.46) must be used upon the allowance of a linking claim, generic claim, or subcombination claim following a restriction requirement with at least one of these claim types present and wherein the non-elected claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim HAVE BEEN canceled. Use form paragraph 8.45 where the nonelected claims have NOT been canceled and all previously withdrawn claims are rejoined. Use form paragraph 8.49 or 8.50 as appropriate when the elected invention is allowable and the restriction requirement is withdrawn at least in part.
3. This form paragraph should be used only when there are no outstanding issues remaining and is to be used with only a PTO-90C cover sheet.
4. In bracket 2, insert either --between-- or --among--.
5. In bracket 3, insert the group(s), species, or subject matter of the invention(s) that were restricted.
6. In bracket 5, insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn.
7. In bracket 6, insert “withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is no longer in effect at all or “partially withdrawn” if the restriction requirement is still partially in effect. If the restriction requirement is still partially in effect, state the claim(s) to which it still applies.
If the election is traversed, an additional paragraph worded as form paragraph 8.03 should be added to the holding.
¶ 8.03 In Condition for Allowance, Non-elected Claims Withdrawn with Traverse
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claim [1] directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on [2]. Applicant is given TWO
MONTHS from the date of this letter to cancel the noted claims or take other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144). Failure to take action during this period will be treated as authorization to cancel the noted claims by Examiner’s Amendment and pass the case to issue. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted since this application will be passed to issue.
The prosecution of this case is closed except for consideration of the above matter.
821.04(b) Rejoinder of Process Requiring an Allowable Product [R-08.2012]
Where claims directed to a product and to a process of making and/or using the product are presented in the same application, applicant may be called upon under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect claims to either the product or a process. See MPEP § 806.05(f) and § 806.05(h). The claims to the nonelected invention will be withdrawn from further consideration under 37 CFR 1.142. See MPEP § 821 through § 821.03. However, if applicant elects a claim(s) directed to a product which is subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim will be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. Upon rejoinder of claims directed to a previously nonelected process invention, the restriction requirement between the elected product and rejoined process(es) will be withdrawn.
If applicant cancels all the claims directed to a nonelected process invention before rejoinder occurs, the examiner should not withdraw the restriction requirement. This will preserve applicant’s rights under 35 U.S.C. 121.
Where the application as originally filed discloses the product and the process for making and/or using the product, and only claims directed to the product are presented for examination, applicant may present claims directed to the process of making and/or using the allowable product by way of amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121. In view of the rejoinder procedure, and in order to expedite prosecution, applicants are encouraged to present such process claims, preferably as dependent claims, in the
800-96Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 821.04(b)
application at an early stage of prosecution. Process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the patentable product will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. However, if applicant files an amendment adding claims to a process invention, and the amendment includes process claims which do not depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product, all claims directed to that newly added invention may be withdrawn from consideration, via an election by original presentation (see MPEP § 821.03).
Amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312. Amendments to add only process claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed product claim and which meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112 may be entered.
Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116. When all claims to the elected product are in condition for allowance, all process claims eligible for rejoinder (see MPEP § 821.04) must be considered for patentability.
If an amendment after final rejection that otherwise complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.116 would place all the elected product claim(s) in condition for allowance and thereby require rejoinder of process claims that raise new issues requiring further consideration (e.g., issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph), the amendment could be denied entry. For example, if pending nonelected process claims depend from a finally rejected product claim, and the amendment (or affidavit or other evidence that could have been submitted earlier) submitted after final rejection, if entered, would put the product claim(s) in condition for allowance, entry of the amendment (or evidence submission) would not be required if it would raise new issues that would require further consideration, such as issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph necessitated by rejoinder of previously nonelected process claims.
Before mailing an advisory action in the above situation, it is recommended that applicant be called and given the opportunity to cancel the process
claims to place the application in condition for allowance with the allowable product claims, or to file an RCE to continue prosecution of the process claims in the same application as the product claims.
In after final situations when no amendment or evidence is submitted, but applicant submits arguments that persuade the examiner that all the product claims are allowable, in effect the final rejection of the product claims is not sustainable, and any rejection of the rejoined process claims must be done in a new Office action. If the process claims would be rejected, applicant may be called before mailing a new Office action and given the opportunity to cancel the process claims and to place the application in condition for allowance with the allowable product claims. If a new Office action is prepared indicating the allowability of the product claim and including a new rejection of the process claims, the provisions of MPEP § 706.07 govern the propriety of making the Office action final.
Form paragraph 8.21.04 should be included in any requirement for restriction between a product and a process of making or process of using the product. See MPEP § 806.05(f) and § 806.05(h).
Form paragraph 8.42 or 8.43 should be used to notify applicant of the rejoinder of process inventions which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product claim.
¶ 8.42 Allowable Product, Rejoinder of at Least One Process Claim, Less Than All Claims
Claim [1] directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claim [2], directed to the process of making or using the allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim [4], directed to the invention(s) of [5] require all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and [6] NOT been rejoined.
Because a claimed invention previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 has been rejoined, the restriction requirement [7] groups [8] as set forth in the Office action mailed on [9] is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-97
§ 821.04(b)RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. If ALL previously withdrawn process claims are being rejoined, then form paragraph 8.43 should be used instead of this form paragraph. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b).
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) of the allowable product claims followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
3. In bracket 2, insert the claim number(s) of ALL the rejoined process claims.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --is-- or --are--.
5. In bracket 4, insert the number(s) of the claims NOT being rejoined followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
6. In bracket 5, insert the group(s) or subject matter of the invention(s) to which the claims NOT being rejoined are directed, followed by either --, do not all-- or --, does not--.
7. In bracket 6, insert --has-- or --have--.
8. In bracket 7, insert either -- among -- or -- between--.
9. In bracket 8, insert group numbers of the elected product and rejoined process.
¶ 8.43 Allowable Product, Rejoinder of All Previously Withdrawn Process Claims
Claim [1] directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claim [2] , directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, [3] hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on [4] is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Note:
1. If LESS THAN ALL previously withdrawn claims are being rejoined, then form paragraph 8.42 should be used instead of this form paragraph. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b).
2. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) of the allowable product claim(s) followed by either -- is-- or -- are--.
3. In bracket 2, insert the claim number(s) of the process claim(s) previously withdrawn from consideration.
4. In bracket 3, insert either --is-- or --are--.
5. If rejoinder occurs after the first Office action on the merits and if any of the rejoined claims are unpatentable, e.g., if a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is made, then the next Office action may be made final if proper under MPEP § 706.07(a).
822 Claims to Inventions That Are Not Patentably Distinct in Plural Applications of Same Applicant or Assignee [R-07.2015]
37 CFR 1.78 Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications.
*****
(f) Applications containing patentably indistinct claims. Where two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application.
*****
Where claims in two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee are patentably indistinct, a complete examination should be made of the claims of each application and all appropriate rejections should be entered in each application, including rejections based upon prior art. The claims of each application may also be rejected on the grounds of “provisional” double patenting based on the claims of the other application whether or not any claims avoid the prior art. Where appropriate, the same prior art may be relied upon in each of the applications. See also MPEP § 804.01 and § 822.
The “provisional” double patenting rejection should continue to be made by the examiner in each application as long as there are patentably indistinct claims in more than one application unless that “provisional” double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in one of the applications. See
800-98Rev. 07.2015, November 2015
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 822
MPEP § 1490 when the “provisional” double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in at least one application.
See MPEP § 804.03 for conflicting subject matter, different inventors, common ownership.
See MPEP § 706.03(k) for rejection of one claim over another in the same application.
See MPEP § 706.03(w) and § 706.07(b) for res judicata.
See MPEP § 709.01 for one application in interference.
See MPEP § 806.04(h) to § 806.04(i) for species and genus in separate applications.
Wherever appropriate, such conflicting applications should be joined. This is particularly true where the two or more applications are due to, and consonant with, a requirement to restrict which the examiner now considers to be improper.
Form paragraph 8.29 should be used when the conflicting claims are identical or conceded by applicant to be not patentably distinct.
¶ 8.29 Patentably Indistinct Claims, CopendingApplications
Claim [1] of this application is patentably indistinct from claim [2] of Application No. [3]. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
823 Unity of Invention Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty [R-07.2015]
The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). See MPEP Chapter 1800, in particular MPEP § 1850, § 1875,
and § 1893.03(d), for a detailed discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). However, the guidance set forth in this chapter with regard to other substantive and procedural matters (e.g., double patenting rejections (MPEP § 804), election and reply by applicant (MPEP § 818), and rejoinder of nonelected inventions (MPEP § 821.04) generally applies to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371.
Rev. 07.2015, November 2015800-99
§ 823RESTRICTION IN APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 111; DOUBLE PATENTING
Chapter 900 Prior Art, Classification, and Search
Prior Art901 Canceled Matter in U.S. Patent Files901.01
Ordering of Patented and Abandoned Provisional and Nonprovisional Application Files
901.01(a)
Abandoned Applications901.02 Pending Applications901.03 U.S. Patents901.04
Kind Codes901.04(a) Foreign Patent Documents901.05
Citation Data901.05(a) Other Significant Data901.05(b) Obtaining Copies901.05(c) Translation901.05(d)
Nonpatent Publications901.06 Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC)
901.06(a)
Borrowed Publications901.06(b) Alien Property Custodian Publications
901.06(c)
Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive Publications
901.06(d)
Patent Family Information901.07 [Reserved]901.08
Search Tools and Classification Information
902
Classification Manual for the U.S. Patent Classification System
902.01
Index to the U.S. Patent Classification System
902.01(a)
Class and Subclass Definitions in USPC
902.02
Definition Notes in USPC902.02(a) [Reserved]902.02(b)
Classification Information902.03 Patent Classification Home Page on the Internet
902.03(a)
Patent Classification Home Page on the USPTO Intranet
902.03(b)
[Reserved]902.03(c) [Reserved]902.03(d) Automated Search Tools: EAST and WEST
902.03(e)
Classification in USPC903 Statutory Authority903.01 Basis and Principles of Classification903.02
[Reserved]903.02(a) Scope of a Class in the USPC903.02(b)
Availability of Foreign Patents903.03
Classifying Applications for Publication as a Patent Application Publication in USPC
903.04
Addition, Deletion, or Transfer of U.S. Patents and U.S. Patent Application Publications
903.05
Harmonized Subclasses903.06 Classifying and Cross-Referencing at Allowance
903.07
Cross-Referencing — Keep Systematic Notes During Prosecution
903.07(a)
Applications: Assignment and Transfer
903.08
New Applications903.08(a) Classification and Assignment to Examiner
903.08(b)
Immediate Inspection of Amendments
903.08(c)
Transfer Procedure903.08(d) General Guidelines Governing the Assignment of
903.08(e)
Nonprovisional Applications for Examination
[Reserved]903.09 [Reserved]903.09(a)
How to Search904 Analysis of Claims904.01
Variant Embodiments Within Scope of Claim
904.01(a)
Equivalents904.01(b) Analogous Arts904.01(c)
General Search Guidelines904.02 Classified Search904.02(a) Search Tool Selection904.02(b) Internet Searching904.02(c)
Conducting the Search904.03 Cooperative Patent Classification905
Classification Scheme for CPC905.01 CPC Titles905.01(a)
References within CPC Titles905.01(a)(1) Notes Found in CPC schemes905.01(a)(2) Warnings Found in CPC schemes
905.01(a)(3)
Guidance Headings Found in CPC Schemes
905.01(a)(4)
CPC Definitions905.02 Classifying in CPC905.03
The CPC Database905.03(a) Approach to classification in CPC905.03(b) Combination Sets905.03(c)