Question: The practitioner filed a patent application for inventor Jones on February 7, 1996. An Office action dated September 10, 1997, was a second action, final rejection of all the claims in the Jones application, and set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. On March 4, 1998, the practitioner filed a reply, containing an amendment and arguments which the practitioner and Jones believed would place the application in condition for allowance, a request for a three month extension of time, and the appropriate extension of time fee. In the ensuing different factual scenarios presented below, which course of action by the practitioner is in accord with proper PTO practice and procedure?
A. The practitioner did not file a notice of appeal and appeal fee on or before March 10, 1998. An Advisory action dated March 24, 1998, informed the practitioner that the amendment was not entered, and a Notice of Abandonment dated April 11, 1998, informed the practitioner that the application was abandoned. Thereafter, the practitioner should file, on or before Monday, July 13, 1998, a petition to revive the application as unintentionally abandoned, together with the appropriate petition fee, a notice of appeal and appeal fee, and a statement that the entire delay in filing the notice of appeal and fee from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition was unintentional.
B. The practitioner did not file a notice of appeal and appeal fee on or before March 10, 1998. An Advisory action dated March 24, 1998, informed the practitioner that the amendment was not entered. A Notice of Abandonment dated April 11, 1998, informed the practitioner that the application was abandoned. Thereafter, the practitioner should file, on or before Monday, July 13, 1998, a petition to revive the application as unavoidably abandoned, together with the appropriate petition fee, a notice of appeal and appeal fee, and a statement that the entire delay in filing the notice of appeal and fee from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition was unavoidable since it was believed that the reply placed the case in condition for allowance, and notice to the contrary was not given until after expiration of the reply period and any available extension thereof.
C. The practitioner did not receive a Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee Due dated March 24, 1998, mailed to him. However, the practitioner did receive a Notice of Abandonment dated July 11, 1998, informing him of the application's abandonment for nonpayment of the issue fee. Thereafter, the practitioner should file, on or before October 11, 1998, a petition to revive the application as unavoidably abandoned, together with the appropriate petition fee, a continuing application, and a statement that the entire delay in filing the continuing application from the due date for filing an issue fee until the filing of a grantable petition was unavoidable.
D. The practitioner, after receiving a Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee Due dated March 24, 1998, was informed by Jones not to pay the issue fee until the industry or a competitor showed interest in the invention. The practitioner received a Notice of Abandonment dated July 11, 1998, advising of the application's abandonment for nonpayment of the issue fee. Jones advised the practitioner on August 24, 1998, that such interest was expressed to Jones on the preceding day. Thereafter, the practitioner should file, on or before Monday, November 9, 1998, a petition to revive the application as unavoidably abandoned, together with the appropriate petition fee, and issue fee, and a statement that the entire delay in filing the issue fee from the due date for the fee until the filing of a grantable petition was unavoidable.
(category: patent, Chinese translation: 专利)