human: Please indicate when the thirty-day period specified in 37 CFR 1.704(d) begins to run in the following circumstances, and explain the basis of the Office's conclusions (note: 37 CFR 1.704(d) concerns the filing of an IDS in relation to discovery of refere
assistant: Example A: An applicant based in Chicago, Illinois, directs US counsel to prepare, file and prosecute an application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The US counsel subsequently sends the application to foreign counsel for filing and prosecution in foreign jurisdictions. The US counsel directs foreign counsel to provide copies of all communications from the foreign office (by fax or overnight mail) within seven days of receipt thereof, and expressly reserves all decision-making authority as to prosecution of the US and foreign applications. On January 5, 2002, a foreign counsel in Germany receives a communication from the European Patent Office that includes a list of citations of patents. On January 8, the foreign counsel, pursuant to the standing instructions of US counsel, sends by overnight mail, a copy of the communication from the EPO. The document is received by US counsel on January 12, 2002. On January 30, the US counsel reviews the document and discovers a previously uncited patent. A copy of the patent and an IDS is then prepared and filed by the US counsel on February 11, 2002. Example B: An applicant based in Paris, France, directs French counsel to prepare, file and prosecute an application in the European Patent Office. The EPO application is then sent to US counsel by French counsel to be reviewed, edited and prepared for filing in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The US counsel works with the French counsel to review the edited application, and then files the US application. The review and editing of the US application also leads the French counsel to amend its EPO application. On January 5, 2002, the French counsel receives a search report from the European Patent Office that includes a list of six patents. On January 20, 2002, the US counsel receives from French counsel (by overnight mail) a copy of the communication from the EPO and suggests that the US counsel review the search report and "take appropriate action." On January 25, 2002, the French counsel provides a copy of the search report to the applicant. On January 30, 2002, the US counsel reviews the document and discovers a previously uncited patent. A copy of the patent and an IDS is then prepared and filed by the US counsel on February 14, 2002. Example C: An applicant based in Chicago, Illinois, hires US counsel to prepare an application suitable for filing in the United States and the European Patent Office. The US counsel engages a German attorney to assist in the review and editing of the application to take account of issues relevant to EPO practice. The US counsel then reviews the edited application, approves the changes, and files it in the United States. The US counsel then directs the German attorney to file the application in the EPO. During prosecution of the US case, the US counsel receives an office action citing three patents. On December 1, 2001, the US counsel sends the three patents to the German attorney for review and appropriate action. On January 5, 2002, the German attorney receives a search report from the EPO that cites the three previously cited patents, plus a fourth patent, designating all as "X" references. On January 15, the German attorney reviews the fourth patent and compares it to the three patents cited in the US prosecution. The German attorney concludes that the fourth patent is duplicative of one of the three patents, and takes no further action. On March 1, 2002, during a routine status inquiry, the US counsel is informed of the citation of the fourth patent by the EPO and the decision of the German attorney that the information in the newly cited patent was duplicative of the three patents previously cited by the USPTO. The US counsel also obtains copies of the newly cited patent on this date. On March 5, 2002, the US counsel files an IDS containing the newly cited patent. Introduction 37 CFR 1.704(d) provides that a paper containing only an information disclosure statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9), or (c)(10) if it is accompanied by a statement that each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart application and that this communication was not received by any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement. The determination of when the thirty day period begins to run is dependent on the role of each entity involved in the prosecution of the US and foreign applications, and the role that each plays (if any) vis- -vis the US application. The inventors, the assignee and the US patent counsel are all individuals designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c). The issue is whether the foreign patent counsel is also an individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c). 37 CFR 1.56(c) provides that individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.56 are: Each inventor named in the application; Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application. Based on these elements of 37 CFR 1.56(c), the following would be the conclusions of the Office in the three examples cited above. Answer to Example A: The thirty-day period would be calculated from January 12, 2002 . As such, the IDS filed on February 11th would be filed within the thirty-day window in 37 CFR 1.704(d), and thus would not result in a reduction of any patent term pursuant to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9), or (c)(10). In this example, the foreign counsel has no substantive role in the prosecution of the US application. The explicitly defined role of the foreign counsel relative to the US counsel in combination with the practice in the described fact pattern removes any potential doubt as to the role of the foreign counsel. Answer to Example B: The thirty-day period would be calculated from January 5, 2002 . As such, the submission of the IDS would not be received within the thirty-day window in 37 CFR 1.704(d), and thus could result in a reduction of any patent term pursuant to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9), or (c)(10). In this example, the USPTO would consider the French counsel to have been a party within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.56(c). The French counsel, based on the above facts, played a material role in the preparation and prosecution of the US application (e.g., counsel drafted the original application, worked with US counsel to amend the application and subsequently amended the EPO application based on the work product produced with US counsel). In addition to the French counsel, the applicant would in any case be a party within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.56(c). Answer to Example C: The thirty-day period would be calculated from January 5, 2002 . As such, the submission of the IDS would be determined to have not been received, received within the thirty-day window in 37 CFR 1.704(d), and thus could result in a reduction of any patent term pursuant to 37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9), or (c)(10). In this example, the USPTO would consider the participation of the German counsel in the prosecution and decision-making as to the relevance of the newly cited art vis- -vis the previously cited three patents to be a material participation in the US prosecution. As such, the German counsel would be considered by the USPTO to be a party covered by 37 CFR 1.56(c), and as such, would evaluate compliance with 37 CFR 1.704(d) from the date that the foreign counsel first learned of the fourth patent (i.e., the newly cited reference).