Question: Inventor A, with the assistance of a registered patent practitioner P, filed a patent application. The PTO mailed to P an Office action. P, a sole practitioner, received the Office action. The application became abandoned for failure to respond within the three month shortened statutory period for reply specified in the Office action. A asked P every three months about the status of the application. P always advised A that the application was pending. P did not revive the application. Using letters, and billing A for work not performed in the application, P misled A into believing that the application was pending. Inventor A first learned of the abandoned status of the application in a telephone conversation with the primary examiner on June 12, 1998. On June 14, 1998, A engaged another practitioner, X, to assist in reviving and prosecuting the application. Since June 12, 1998, P has refused to respond to letters he received from A and X by certified mail, or to telephone calls from A and X, wherein A and X have requested P to provide a factual statement explaining what occurred. Inventor A, with the assistance of practitioner X, filed a petition to revive the application on August 25, 1998. Which of the following complies with PTO practice and procedure for a petition to revive an application for unavoidable delay in replying to an Office action?
A. Where the application was filed on May 9, 1995, and became abandoned on March 5, 1997, for no reply to an Office action dated December 4, 1996, file a petition, accompanied by the petition fee, a terminal disclaimer for 17 months which is proper in all formal respects, the disclaimer fee, the required reply, and a showing, corroborated by supporting documents and affidavits from A and X, demonstrating that P failed to inform A of the Office action, A had sought status information from P every three months since November 1996, P misled A regarding the status of the application, and P has failed to respond to communications requesting P's assistance in reviving the application, and the entire delay was unavoidable.
B. Where the application was filed on June 10, 1996, and became abandoned on March 21, 1997, for no reply to an Office action dated December 20, 1996, file a petition, accompanied by the petition fee, a terminal disclaimer for 17 months which is proper in all formal respects, the disclaimer fee, the required reply, and an affidavit signed by X stating that P failed to inform A of the Office action, A had sought status information from P every three months since November 1996, P misled A regarding the status of the application, and P has failed to respond to communications requesting P's assistance in reviving the application, and the entire delay was unavoidable.
C. Where the application was filed on April 10, 1997, and became abandoned on May 6, 1998, for no reply to an Office action dated November 5, 1997, file a petition, accompanied by the petition fee, the required reply, and an affidavit signed by X stating that P failed to inform A of the action, P misled A regarding the status of the application, and P has failed to respond to communications from A and X requesting P's assistance in reviving the application.
D. Where the application was filed on April 10, 1997, and became abandoned on February 6, 1998, for no reply to an Office action dated November 5, 1997, file a petition to revive accompanied by a terminal disclaimer for 3 months which is proper in all formal respects, an authorization to charge any required fees to a designated account, the required reply, and an affidavit signed by A stating that P failed to inform A of the action, and that A was damaged by P's conduct at least to the extent that A had incurred additional fees and expenses for the petition, and the entire delay was unavoidable.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)