Question: The following facts apply to the following three questions. For purposes of these questions, it should be assumed that the statutes and regulations effective as of April 18, 2001 apply for all time periods covered by the questions. Joseph, a citizen and resident of the United States, invented a new brake for in-line skates and filed a nonprovisional utility patent application in the USPTO on February 8, 2001. The application as filed included a specification and claims in compliance with 35 USC § 112, three sheets of publication quality drawings, an abstract of the disclosure, and an information sheet listing the name and address of the inventor. The application was initially filed without an executed inventor's oath or declaration and without the required filing fee. The Office issued a "Notice to File Missing Parts-Filing Date Granted" on April 2, 2001. The Notice informed Joseph that he must submit an executed oath or declaration by the inventor, pay the required filing fee, and pay a surcharge for late submission of these items within two (2) months of the date of the Notice. Joseph received the Notice on April 9, 2001. Joseph brought the Notice with him when he left for an extended overseas business trip the next day, April 10, 2001. Unfortunately, the Notice was placed in luggage that was lost during the trip. Upon his return to the United States on July 26, 2001, Joseph obtained a copy of the Notice and, on August 2, 2001 filed a Reply in full compliance with the Notice. A Petition for a twomonth extension of time and all required fees accompanied the Reply. Joseph also requested waiver and a refund of fees associated with the Petition for extension of time on the basis that the delay was a result of his lost luggage and his extended trip overseas. In Joseph's view, even though he could have replied within the two-month period, it was unfair to penalize him for lost luggage. The request for waiver of fees was denied. A first substantive Office action on the merits of the application issued December 19, 2001 and set a three-month shortened statutory time for reply. All pending claims were rejected on the basis of prior art. Joseph filed a fully responsive Amendment on March 19, 2002, and a final Office action issued August 12, 2002 with a three-month shortened statutory period for reply. The final Office Action allowed certain claims and rejected other claims on substantially the same grounds set forth in the first Office action. Joseph filed a Notice of Appeal on September 19, 2002 and an Appeal Brief on March 18, 2003. A Petition for extension of time and proper authorization to charge a deposit account for any required fees accompanied the Appeal Brief. An Examiner's Answer issued on April 2, 2003, and Joseph filed a Reply Brief on April 15, 2003. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reversed the Examiner's rejections on August 19, 2003. A Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee Due was mailed September 3, 2003. Joseph paid the Issue Fee on September 15, 2003 and the patent issued March 9, 2004.The Office determined that the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application. Which of the following statements is most true?
A. Joseph is entitled to no patent term extension because neither the Uruguay Round Agreements Act nor the Patent Term Guarantee Act of 1999 applies to Joseph's patent application.
B. Although the Patent Term Guarantee Act of 1999 applies to Joseph's application, Joseph forfeited any patent term extension by failing to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application.
C. Joseph is entitled to a total patent term extension of approximately two (2) months because the application was pending for more than three (3) years.
D. Joseph's successful appellate review adds approximately 11 months to any calculation of patent term extension.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)