Source: http://research.freepatentsonline.com/mpep/chapter-400
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:23:25+00:00

Document:
37 C.F.R. 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 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.
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.
The examiner should not suggest that applicant employ an attorney or agent if the application appears to contain no patentable subject matter.
See MPEP § 601.03 for change of correspondence address. 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.
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.
37 C.F.R. 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 83.1bis 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.
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 Fed. Reg. 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.
(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.
(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.
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.
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, 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. Thus 37 CFR 1.32(d) specifically requires that a 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).
These forms should only be used in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. Applications filed before September 16, 2012, are subject to the requirements of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.32, 1.33, 3.71 and 3.73. See MPEP § 402.02(b). 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 Web site.
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.
37 C.F.R. 1.32 (pre-AIA) Power of attorney.
(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 Web site.
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.
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.
These forms should only be used in applications filed before September 16, 2012. Applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, are subject to the requirements of current 37 CFR 1.32, 1.33, 3.71 and 3.73. See MPEP § 402.02(a). 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 Web site.
(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 by such practitioner, in compliance with § 1.4(d)(1) of this subchapter.
(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) 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.
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).
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 MPEP § 402.07 for assignee revocation of a power of attorney.
37 C.F.R. 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.
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.
37 C.F.R. 1.36 (preAIA) 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 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).
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.
(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 C.F.R. 11.116 Declining or terminating representation.
(3) The practitioner is discharged.
(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 http://www.uspto.gov/forms/forms.jsp) 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/epetition-info.jsp for more information). 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/SB/83 may be used to request withdrawal of attorney or agent of record.
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.
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.
(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 C.F.R. 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)).
For representation in international applications, see MPEP § 1807.
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) or1.183 will result in more than one 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.
(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.
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, and714.01(d).
If double correspondence is attempted, form paragraph 4.01 should be included in the next Office action.
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.
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.
(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.
(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 Spreadsheet” available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/ebc/about.jsp.
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 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).
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 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 and37 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.
37 C.F.R. 1.33 Correspondence respecting patent applications, reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings.
(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).
(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 attorney or agent of record (see § 1.32(b)) in the patent file at the address listed on the register of patent attorneys and agents maintained pursuant to §§ 11.5 and 11.11 of this subchapter, or if no attorney or agent is of record, to the patent owner or owners at the address or addresses of record. 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. If more than one attorney or agent is of record and a correspondence address has not been specified, correspondence will be held with the last attorney or agent made of record.
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.
37 C.F.R. 1.33 pre-AIACorrespondence respecting patent applications, reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings.
(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.
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 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 1.63oath 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 alsoMPEP § 2224.
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).
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) .
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 Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0084.pdf.
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.
Applicants may obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by consulting the USPTO web site,https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/, or by calling the Office of Enrollment and Discipline at (571) 272-4097.
Present Office policy places great emphasis on telephone interviews. 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.
Many patent practitioners have offices or representatives in the Washington area and it sometimes expedites business to interview them concerning an application. When the examiner believes the progress of the application would be advanced by an interview, he or she may call the patent practitioner of record in the application by telephone 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 telephoned for restriction requirements, approval of examiner's amendments, or given any information relative to such patent application by telephone. See MPEP § 405 for interviews with a patent practitioner not of record. See MPEP § 812.01 for telephone restriction practice. In addition, non-registered representatives of the practitioner of record should not be telephoned for such actions, even if apparently authorized by the attorney or agent of record.
37 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 1.43 (pre-AIA). When the inventor is insane or legally incapacitated.
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 .
37 C.F.R. 1.45 45Application 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.
37 C.F.R. 1.47 pre-AIA Filing when an inventor refuses to sign or cannot be reached.
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 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) 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 (seeMPEP §§ 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.
(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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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 appropriatepre-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) andpre-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).
37 C.F.R. 1.46 Application for patent by an assignee, obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.
(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 the application is the national stage of an international application, the person who is identified in the international stage as an applicant for the United States is the person specified as the original applicant for the national stage.
37 C.F.R. 1.64 Substitute statement in lieu of an oath or declaration.
(i) Section 11.18 certifications: 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.
(A) Of another: A person submitting a document signed by another under paragraph (d)(2) 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.
(B) Self certification : The person inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2) 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.
(C) Sanctions: Violations of the certifications as to the signature of another or a person’s own signature, set forth in paragraphs (d)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) and (d)of this chapter.
37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) provides that the presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper 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 a paper to the Office, 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) 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.
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).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2007).
[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  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 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].
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 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 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(b) was unintentional).
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. 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.

References: § 601
 § 201
 § 403
 § 2213
 § 11
 § 11
 § 11
 Art. 49
 § 1
 § 402
 § 402
 § 406
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 325
 § 325
 § 402
 § 324
 § 402
 § 1
 § 410
 § 408
 § 402
 § 402
 § 402
 § 402
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 §1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 402
 § 1
 §1
 § 1
 § 402
 § 402
 § 1
 § 41
 § 402
 § 402
 § 402
 § 724
 § 2223
 § 11
 Art. 49
 § 1
 Art. 49
 § 11
 § 1807
 § 402
 § 409
 § 403
 § 403
 § 1730
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 3
 § 1
 § 1
 § 325
 § 1
 § 402
 § 2224
 § 601
 § 201
 § 403
 § 402
 § 713
 § 405
 § 812
 §1
 §1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 324
 v. 
 § 409
 v. 
 § 402
 § 1
 §11
 § 11
 § 11
 §11
 § 11
 § 11
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 609
 v.