Source: http://research.freepatentsonline.com/mpep/chapter-1300
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:21:41+00:00

Document:
When an application is in condition for allowance, except as to matters of form, the application will be considered special and prompt action taken to require correction of formal matters. See MPEP § 710.02(b).
Frequently, the invention as originally described and claimed was of much greater scope than that defined in the claims as allowed. Some or much of the subject matter disclosed may be entirely outside the bounds of the claims accepted by the applicant. In such case, the examiner should require the applicant to modify the brief summary of the invention and restrict the descriptive matter so as to be in harmony with the claims. However valuable for reference purposes the examiner may consider the matter which is extraneous to the claimed invention, patents should be confined in their disclosures to the respective inventions patented (see 37 CFR 1.71 and 1.73). Of course, enough background should be included to make the invention clearly understandable. See MPEP § 608.01(c)and § 608.01(d). Form paragraphs 13.07 and 13.08 may be used.
Applicant is required to modify the brief summary of the invention and to restrict the descriptive matter so that they are confined to and in harmony with the invention to which the allowed claims are directed. See MPEP § 1302.01. For example, .
An example should be given as to the specific sheets or drawing figures and portions of the specification which should be cancelled. If drawing figures are to be cancelled, applicant should be reminded that subsequent figures must be renumbered.
The application contains disclosure entirely outside the bounds of the allowed claims. Applicant is required to modify the brief summary of the invention and restrict the descriptive matter so as to be in harmony with the claims (MPEP § 1302.01).
There should be clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the terminology used in the claims. Usually, the original claims follow the nomenclature of the specification; but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, applicant employs terms that do not appear in the specification. This may result in uncertainty as to the interpretation to be given such terms. See MPEP § 608.01(o). It should be noted, however, that exact terms need not be used in haec verba to satisfy the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112. Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265, 191 USPQ 90, 98 (CCPA 1976). See also 37 CFR 1.121(e) which merely requires substantialcorrespondence between the language of the claims and the language of the specification.
The claims should be renumbered as required by 37 CFR 1.126, and particular attention should be given to claims dependent on previous claims to see that the numbering is consistent. An examiner’s amendment should be prepared if the order of the claims is changed. See MPEP § 608.01(j), § 608.01(n), and § 1302.04(g).
The title should also be checked. It should be as short and specific as possible. However, the title should be descriptive of the invention claimed, even though a longer title may result. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may change the title on or after allowance. See MPEP § 606 and § 606.01.
No pencil notes should be made in the application file (that is maintained in paper) by the examiner. Any notes in the file must be erased when the application is passed to issue.
Whenever interlineations or cancellations have been made in the specification or amendments which would lead to confusion and mistake, the examiner should require the entire portion of specification affected to be rewritten before passing the application to issue. See 37 CFR 1.125 and MPEP § 608.01(q).
Form paragraph 13.01 should be used when making such a requirement.
The interlineations or cancellations made in the specification or amendments to the claims could lead to confusion and mistake during the issue and printing processes. Accordingly, the portion of the specification or claims as identified below is required to be rewritten before passing the case to issue. See 37 CFR 1.125 and MPEP § 608.01(q).
1. Specific discussion of the sections of the specification or claims required to be rewritten must be set forth.
2. See form paragraph 6.28.01 for a substitute specification.
(B) Disagreement of a noun with its verb.
(C) Inconsistent “case” of a pronoun.
(D) Disagreement between a reference character as used in the description and on the drawing. The character may be corrected in the description but only when the examiner is certain of the propriety of the change.
(E) Correction of reversed figure numbers. Garrett v. Cox, 233 F.2d 343, 345, 110 USPQ 52, 54 (CCPA 1956).
(F) Other obvious minor grammatical errors such as misplaced or omitted commas, improper parentheses, quotation marks, etc.
(G) Obvious informalities in the application, other than the ones noted above, or of purely grammatical nature.
Informal examiner’s amendments are not permitted if the application is an Image File Wrapper (IFW) application. Any amendment of an IFW application must be by way of a formal examiner’s amendment or be an amendment made by the applicant.
For continuing applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), where a reference to the parent application has been inadvertently omitted by the applicant, an examiner should not add a reference to the prior application without the approval of the applicant and a formal examiner’s amendment since applicant may decide to delete the priority claim in the application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). Furthermore, a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim may be required if the application is a utility or plant application filed on or after November 29, 2000. See MPEP § 201.11.
When correcting originally filed papers in applications with a paper application file wrapper, clean red ink must be used (not blue or black ink).
A formal examiner’s amendment may be used to correct all other informalities in the body of the written portions of the specification as well as all errors and omissions in the claims. The formal examiner’s amendmentmust be signed by the primary examiner, placed in the file and a copy sent to applicant. The changes specified in the amendment are entered by the technical support staff in the regular way. A formal examiner’s amendment should include form paragraph 13.02 and form paragraph 13.02.01. Form paragraph 13.02.02 should be used if an extension of time is required.
Authorization for this examiner"s amendment was given in a telephone interview with  on .
An extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) is required in order to make an examiner’s amendment which places this application in condition for allowance. During a telephone conversation conducted on ,  requested an extension of time for  MONTH(S) and authorized the Director to charge Deposit Account No.  the required fee of $  for this extension and authorized the following examiner’s amendment. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Although 37 CFR 1.121 has been amended to require amendments to the specification/claims to be made in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1), (b)(2), or (c), where appropriate, 37 CFR 1.121(g) permits the Office to make amendments to the specification, including the claims, by examiner’s amendments without the need to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1), (b)(2), or (c) in the interest of expediting prosecution and reducing cycle time. Examiners may continue to make additions or deletions of subject matter in the specification, including the claims, in examiner’s amendments by instructions to make the change at a precise location in the specification and/or the claims. Examiners may use an examiner’s amendment to correct a non-compliant amendment filed by the applicant if the amendment would otherwise place the application in condition for allowance (e.g., a reply to a non-final Office action or an after-final amendment includes an incorrect status identifier). See MPEP § 714, subsection II.E. Examiner’s Amendments.
As an alternative, the examiner’s amendment utilizing paragraph/claim replacement can be created by the examiner with authorization from the applicant. The examiner’s amendment can also be created from a facsimile transmission or e-mailed amendment received by the examiner and referenced in the examiner’s amendment and attached thereto. Any subject matter, in clean version form (containing no brackets or underlining), to be added to the specification/claims should be set forth separately by applicant in the e-mail or facsimile submission apart from the remainder of the submission. A clean version of a paragraph/claim, or portion of a paragraph/claim, submitted by applicant in a fax or e-mail, should be printed and attached to the examiner’s amendment and may be relied on as part of the examiner’s amendment. The examiner should mark “requested” on the entire attachment to indicate that the fax or e-mail was requested by the examiner, so as to not lead to a reduction in patent term adjustment (37 CFR 1.704(c)(8)). As the attachment is made part of the examiner’s amendment, it does not get a separate PALM code and will not trigger any reduction in patent term adjustment. A paper copy of the entire e-mail or facsimile submission should be entered in the application file. Examiners are not required to electronically save any e-mails once any e-mails or attachments thereto are printed and become part of an application file record. The e-mail practice that is an exception for examiner’s amendments is restricted to e-mails to the examiner from the applicant and should not be generated by the examiner to the applicant unless such e-mails are in compliance with all of the requirements set out in MPEP § 502.03.
The amendment or cancellation of claims by formal examiner’s amendment is permitted when passing an application to issue where these changes have been authorized by applicant (or his/her attorney or agent) in a telephone or personal interview. The examiner’s amendment should indicate that the changes were authorized, the date and type (personal or telephone) of interview, and with whom it was held.
An extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) is required to place this application in condition for allowance. During a telephone conversation conducted on , requested an extension of time for  MONTH(S) and authorized the Director to charge Deposit Account No.  the required fee of $  for this extension.
At the time of allowance, substantive changes made by the examiner to the abstract must be done by a formal examiner’s amendment after first obtaining approval from the applicant. As noted by the court in recent decisions, the abstract may be used to determine the meaning of claims. See Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Railway Products, Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1363 n.1, 65 USPQ2d 1985, 1996 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1337, 1341 n.1, 54 USPQ2d 1437, 1443 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Since the abstract may be relied upon to determine the scope of the claimed invention, examiners should review the abstract for compliance with 37 CFR 1.72(b) and point out defects noted to the applicant in the first Office action, or at the earliest point in the prosecution that the defect is noted, so that applicant may make the necessary changes to the abstract.
No examiner’s amendment, whether formal or informal, may make substantive changes to the written portions of the specification, including the abstract, without first obtaining applicant’s approval.
The fact that applicant is entitled to an earlier U.S. effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) or 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is sometimes overlooked. To minimize this possibility, and for the claim to the benefit of the earlier filing date to be proper, the statement that, “This is a division (continuation, continuation-in-part) of Application Number -/---, filed ---” should appear as the first sentence(s) of the specification, or in an application data sheet of applications other than CPAs claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. 120, except in the case of design applications where it should appear as set forth in MPEP § 1504.20. The request for a CPA (note that effective July 14, 2003, CPA practice has been eliminated as to utility and plant applications) filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is itself the specific reference, as required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2), to every application assigned the same application number identified in the request. In the case of an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b) as a division, continuation or continuation-in-part of a CPA, there would be only one reference to the series of applications assigned the same application number with the filing date cited being that of the original non-continued application. In applications claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), a statement such as “This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ - --, filed - --” should appear as the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet. In addition, for an application which is claiming the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of a prior application which in turn claims the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), a suitable reference would read, “This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 08/ - --, filed - --, now abandoned, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ - --, filed - --.” Any such statements appearing elsewhere in the specification should be relocated or made in an application data sheet.
In reviewing the application, all errors should be carefully noted. It is not necessary that the language be the best; it is, however, essential that it be clear in meaning, and free from errors in syntax. Any necessary examiner’s amendment is usually made at the time an application is being prepared for issue by the examiner and a copy of any formal examiner’s amendment is sent to the applicant as an attachment to the Notice of Allowability, PTOL-37.
If after reviewing, screening, or surveying an allowed application in the Office of Patent Quality Assurance, an error or omission of the type noted in items (A) through (G) under the second paragraph of this section is noted, the error or omission may be corrected by the Review Quality Assurance Specialist in the same manner as set forth in the second paragraph. Since all other obvious informalities may only be corrected by a formal examiner’s amendment, if the Office of Patent Quality Assurance discovers any such informality, the Review Quality Assurance Specialist will return the application to the Technology Center (TC) personnel via the TC Director suggesting, as appropriate, specific changes for approval and correction by the examiner through the use of an examiner’s amendment.
Where the title of the invention is not specific to the invention as claimed, see MPEP § 606.01.
When a case is otherwise in condition for allowance the examiner may cancel an obviously nonstatutory claim such as one to “A device substantially as shown and described.” Applicant should be notified of the cancellation of the claim by an examiner’s amendment.
See MPEP § 821.01 and § 821.02.
See MPEP Chapter 2300 .
See MPEP § 1214.06, § 1215.03, and § 1215.04.
To identify a claim, a formal examiner’s amendment should refer to it by the original number and, if renumbered in the allowed application, also by the new number.
Any previously withdrawn claims that are being rejoined and allowed must be listed in the index of claims and on the Notice of Allowability to avoid a printer query. The examiner should notify the applicant of the rejoinder. See MPEP § 821.04.
Where an application otherwise ready for issue requires correction of the drawing, the application is processed for allowance in the Technology Center and then forwarded to the Publishing Division. Any papers subsequently filed by the applicant, including replacement drawings, are forwarded to the Publishing Division in order to be matched with the application file. If the drawings that are received are still not acceptable for publishing, the Publishing Division will mail a “Notice to File Corrected Application Papers,” giving the applicant a non-extendable period in which to file the corrected drawings.
When the original drawings cannot be located and the application is otherwise in condition for allowance, no “Official Search” need be undertaken. A replacement drawing should be obtained from the Office of Initial Patent Examination’s records of the application as originally filed. If the reproduced drawings are not acceptable for publishing, applicant should be required to submit corrected drawings. An attachment to the Notice of Allowability should explain the problem and require the corrected drawings. If such an attachment is not included with the Notice of Allowability, the Publishing Division will mail a “Notice Regarding Drawings,” giving the applicant a non-extendable period in which to file the corrected drawings.
See MPEP § 201.14(c) and § 202.03.
When an application is in condition for allowance, an interference search must be made by performing a text search of the "US-PGPUB" database in EAST or WEST directed to the comprehensive inventive features in the broadest claim. If the application contains a claim directed to a nucleotide or peptide sequence, the examiner must submit a request to STIC to perform an interference search of the sequence. The text search may make use of the ".CLM." search symbol in order to limit the text search to the claims of the database references. If the search results identify any potential interfering subject matter, the examiner will review the application(s) with the potential interfering subject matter to determine whether interfering subject matter exists. If interfering subject matter does exist, the examiner will follow the guidance set forth in MPEP Chapter 2300. If there is no interfering subject matter then the examiner should prepare the application for issuance. A printout of only the database(s) searched, the query(ies) used in the interference search, and the date the interference search was performed must be made of record in the application file. The results of the interference search must not be placed in the application file. Completion of the interference search should be recorded in the "Interference Searched" section of the OACS "Search Notes" page with notation such as "PGPUB text search – March 1, 2005, see interference search printout" coupled with the examiner’s initials.
An interference search may be required in TC Working Group 3640. Inspection of pertinent prints, drawings, brief cards, and applications in TC Working Group 3640 will be done on request by an examiner in TC Working Group 3640.
The examiner preparing the application for issue completes the Issue Classification sheet.
Examiners must review the data regarding prior U.S. applications to make sure that the information is correct when preparing the application for issue. If any claim to domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c) is added, deleted, and/or modified during prosecution of the application and such addition, deletion, and/or modification has been approved, the examiner must make sure that the information in the PALM database is current and up to date. If the PALM system has not been updated, the application must be forwarded to the Technology Center (TC) Legal Instrument Examiner, with an explanation of the correction to be made . Examiners should also review the data regarding prior provisional and foreign applications for accuracy.
See MPEP § 202.02 for notation as to parent or prior U.S. application, including provisional application, to be placed in the file history.
See MPEP § 202.03 for notation as to foreign patent application to be placed in the file history.
See MPEP § 1302.13 for name of examiner.
Examiners, when preparing an application for issue, are to record the number of the claim selected for printing in the Official Gazette in the box labeled “PRINT CLAIM” on the Issue Classification Sheet.
(A) The broadest claim should be selected.
(B) Examiners should ordinarily designate but one claim on each invention, although when a plurality of inventions are claimed in an application, additional claims up to a maximum of five may be designated for publication.
(C) A dependent claim should not be selected unless the independent claim on which it depends is also printed. In the case where a multiple dependent claim is selected, the entire chain of claims for one embodiment should be listed.
(A) Write the claim number clearly in black ink.
(B) If multiple claims are selected, the claim numbers should be separated by commas.
Examiners, when preparing an application for issue, are to record the figure selected for printing in the Official Gazette in the box labeled “Print Fig.” on the Issue Classification sheet. It is no longer necessary for drawings to be stamped approved or for the examiner to write this information in the space provided by the Draftsperson’s stamp on the margin of the sheet of drawing.
Ordinarily a single figure is selected for printing. This figure should be consistent with the claim to be printed in the Official Gazette. The figure to be printed in theOfficial Gazette must not be one that is labeled “prior art.” If there is no figure illustrative of or helpful in understanding the claimed invention, no figure need be selected. “None” may be written in the box labeled “Print Fig.”on the Issue Classification Sheet.
See MPEP § 903.07, § 903.07(b) and § 903.09 for notations to be applied on the Issue Classification sheet.
In all reissue applications, the number of the original patent which is being reissued should be placed in the box provided therefor below the box for the applicant’s name.
The practice of referring certain applications to the Assignment Division when passing them to issue is no longer followed. See MPEP § 303.
Hill, “Ferrous Precipitation,” Journal of the American Defenestration Association, Jan. 1989, Pages 34– 46.* Clymerhill-Irons, “Ferrous Ascension for the Eighties,” Proceedings of the International Ferrous Ascension Society, Jan.– Mar. 1979, Pages 1111– 1163.
Indication of whether a reference was listed by the examiner will be helpful in compiling statistical data related to prior art submissions so that the USPTO can better consider whether changes are required to the rules governing prior art statements.
Indication of a reference with an asterisk should not be considered to reflect any significance other than that the reference was listed on a “Notice of References Cited,” form PTO-892. When an examiner lists references on a form PTO-892, the examiner lists references that are relied upon in a prior art rejection or mentioned as pertinent. See MPEP § 707.05(c). The examiner does not list references which were previously cited by the applicant (and initialed by an examiner) on an Information Disclosure Statement, for example, on a PTO/SB/08. See MPEP § 609 and § 707.05(b), (c) and (d). No distinction will be made in the “References Cited” section for other sources of references. Thus, references cited in a protest, by an attorney or agent not acting in a representative capacity but on behalf of a single inventor, and by the applicant will not be distinguished.
At time of allowance, the examiner may cite pertinent art in an examiner’s amendment or statement of reasons for allowance. Such pertinent art should be listed as usual on form PTO-892, a copy of which is attached to the Notice of Allowability form PTOL-37. Such pertinent art is not sent to the applicant, but foreign patent documents and non-patent literature will be scanned and added to the Image File Wrapper (IFW) for viewing and downloading by the applicant, if desired. Such citation of art is important in the case of continuing applications where significant prior art is often of record in the parent case. In the rare instance where no art is cited in a continuation application, all the references cited during the prosecution of the parent application will be listed at allowance for printing in the patent. See MPEP § 707.05 and § 707.05(a).
When preparing an application for allowance, the technical support staff will verify that there is at least one list of references (PTO-892 or PTO/SB/08 ) in the application. The technical support staff will also verify that each reference on the Information Disclosure Statement has either been initialed by the examiner or lined-through by the examiner. All lists of references are maintained in the application file.
In the first action after termination of an interference, the examiner should make of record in each application all references not already of record which were pertinent to any preliminary motions and which were discussed in the decision on motion.
In any application, otherwise ready for issue, in which an erroneous citation has not been formally corrected in an official paper, the examiner is directed to correct the citation by an examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 707.05(g).
Any new reference cited when the application is in issue, under the practice of MPEP § 1308.01, should be added by way of a PTO-892 or PTO/SB/08.
All copies of references placed in the file wrapper during prosecution should be retained therein when the allowed application is forwarded to the Publishing Division.
The primary examiner and the assistant examiner involved in the allowance of an application will type their names on the Issue Classification sheet. The assistant examiner shall place his or her initials after his or her typed name. The primary examiner will place his or her signature in the appropriate box on the Issue Classification sheet so that the typed name can still be easily read. A primary examiner who prepares an application for issue types his or her name and signs the file wrapper only in the “Primary Examiner” box on the Issue Classification sheet. A line should be drawn through the “Assistant Examiner” box to make it clear that the absence of a name in the box was not an oversight.
The practice of stating the reasons for allowance is not new, and the rule merely formalizes the examiner’s existing authority to do so and provides applicants or patent owners an opportunity to comment upon any such statement of the examiner.
In most cases, the examiner’s actions and the applicant’s replies make evident the reasons for allowance, satisfying the “record as a whole” proviso of the rule. This is particularly true when applicant fully complies with 37 CFR 1.111 (b) and (c) and 37 CFR 1.133(b). Thus, where the examiner’s actions clearly point out the reasons for rejection and the applicant’s reply explicitly presents reasons why claims are patentable over the reference, the reasons for allowance are in all probability evident from the record and no statement should be necessary. Conversely, where the record is not explicit as to reasons, but allowance is in order, then a logical extension of 37 CFR 1.111 and 1.133 would dictate that the examiner should make reasons of record and such reasons should be specific.
Where specific reasons are recorded by the examiner, care must be taken to ensure that statements of reasons for allowance (or indication of allowable subject matter) are accurate, precise, and do not place unwarranted interpretations, whether broad or narrow, upon the claims. The examiner should keep in mind the possible misinterpretations of his or her statement that may be made and its possible effects. Each statement should include at least (1) the major difference in the claims not found in the prior art of record, and (2) the reasons why that difference is considered to define patentably over the prior art if either of these reasons for allowance is not clear in the record. The statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why claims are allowed and should not be written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth. Where the examiner has a large number of reasons for allowing a claim, it may suffice to state only the major or important reasons, being careful to so couch the statement. For example, a statement might start: “The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the limitationin all the claims which is not found in the prior art references,” with further amplification as necessary.
(3) When both an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 and arguments concerning rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are presented.
(D) Allowance after remand from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
(3) Claim is so drafted that “nonanalogous” art is not applicable.
(4) Preamble or functional language “breathes life” into claim.
(H) Allowance following decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or District Court of the District of Columbia.
The reasons for allowance should refer to and incorporate the briefs and the court decision.
(A) The primary reason for allowance of the claims is the inclusion of .03 to .05 percent nickel in all of the claims. Applicant’s second affidavit in example 5 shows unexpected results from this restricted range.
(B) During two telephonic interviews with applicant’s attorney, Mr............. on 5/6 and 5/10/77, the examiner stated that applicant’s remarks about the placement of the primary teaching’s grid member were persuasive, but he pointed out that applicant did not claim the member as being within the reactor. Thus, an amendment doing such was agreed to.
(D) Upon reconsideration, this application has been awarded the effective filing date of application number -/---. Thus the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(d)and 103 over Belgium Patent No. 757,246 is withdrawn.
(E) Claims 1 and 2 are allowed because they are patentable over the prior art. If applicants are aware of better art than that which has been cited, they are required to call such to the attention of the examiner.
(F) The reference Jones discloses and claims an invention similar to applicant’s. However, a comparison of the claims, as set forth below, demonstrates the conclusion that the inventions are noninterfering.
Most instances when the examiner finds a need to place in the file a statement of the reasons for allowing a claim or claims will come at the time of allowance. In such cases, the examiner should (a) check the appropriate box on the form PTOL-37 and (b) attach thereto a paper containing the examiner's statement of reasons for allowance. Such a statement should be typewritten. The paper should identify the application number and be clearly labeled “Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” It should also specify that comments may be filed by the applicant on the statement and should preferably be submitted with the payment of the issue fee so as not to delay processing of the application and in any event no later than payment of the issue fee.
A statement may be sent to applicant with other communications, where appropriate, but should be clearly labeled as a “Statement of Reasons for Allowance” and contain the data indicated above.
The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance is an important source of prosecution file history. See Zenith Labs., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 19 F.3d 1418, 30 USPQ2d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance is the personal opinion of the examiner as to why the claims are allowable. The examiner’s statement should not create an estoppel. Only applicant’s statements should create an estoppel. The failure of applicant to comment on the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance should not be treated as acquiescence to the examiner’s statement. See Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342, 1347, 75 USPQ2d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Any inferences or presumption are to be determined on a case-by-case basis by a court reviewing the patent, the USPTO examining the patent in a reissue application or a reexamination proceeding, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences reviewing the patent in an interference proceeding, etc. Applicant may set forth his or her position if he or she disagrees with the examiner’s reasons for allowance.
Comments filed by the applicant on the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, should preferably be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee, to avoid processing delays. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Comments will be entered in the application file by the Office of Publication with an appropriate notation on the “Contents” list on the file wrapper.
37 C.F.R. 1.311 Notice of Allowance.
(a) If, on examination, it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, a notice of allowance will be sent to the applicant at the correspondence address indicated in § 1.33. The notice of allowance shall specify a sum constituting the issue fee which must be paid within three months from the date of mailing of the notice of allowance to avoid abandonment of the application. The sum specified in the notice of allowance may also include the publication fee, in which case the issue fee and publication fee (§ 1.211(e)) must both be paid within three months from the date of mailing of the notice of allowance to avoid abandonment of the application. This three-month period is not extendable.
(2) A fee transmittal form (or letter) for payment of issue fee or publication fee.
A Notice of Allowance is prepared and mailed, and the mailing date appearing thereon is recorded on the paper or image file wrapper table of contents.
If an application is subject to publication under 37 CFR 1.211, the Notice of Allowance will require both the issue fee and the publication fee. See 37 CFR 1.211(e). The Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee Due form (PTOL-85) has been revised and the revised form is entitled “Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due.” Revision of the form was necessary to include the amount of any required publication fee, as provided in 37 CFR 1.211(e) and 1.311, and to more clearly communicate the amount of any patent term extension or adjustment earned under 35 U.S.C. 154(b). As revised, the PTOL-85 form is three pages long, with all three pages being mailed to the applicant and a duplicate being retained in the application file. The first two pages of the revised form include an indication that the publication fee is due, if the application was subject to publication and the publication fee has not already been paid. Part B of the revised form (PTOL-85B) must be returned to the Office with the payment of the issue fee. Applicants are reminded to transmit an extra copy of the PTOL-85B when payment of the issue fee is by way of authorization to debit a Deposit Account. See MPEP § 509.01.
(A) For applications filed before June 8, 1995, page three will state that “This application was filed prior to June 8, 1995, thus no Patent Term Extension or Adjustment applies.” Utility and plant applications filed before June 8, 1995 are eligible for a 17 year term and thus are not eligible for patent term extension or adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b).
(B) For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995 and before May 29, 2000, page three will state that “The Patent Term Extension is _ day(s). Any patent to issue from the above identified application will include an indication of the _ extension on the front page. If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) was filed in the above identified application, the filing date that determines Patent Term Extension is the filing date of the most recent CPA.” Utility and plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995 and before May 29, 2000 may be eligible for patent term extension. See 35 U.S.C. 154(b), effective June 8, 1995, and 37 CFR 1.701.
(C) For applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, page three will state that “The Patent Term Adjustment to date is _ day(s). If the issue fee is paid on a date that is three months after the mailing date of this notice, and the patent issues on the Tuesday before the date that is 28 weeks (six and a half months) after the mailing date of this notice, the Patent Term Adjustment will be _ day(s). If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) was filed in the above-identified application, the filing date that determines Patent Term Adjustment is the filing date of the most recent CPA.” Utility and plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000 may be eligible for patent term adjustment. See 35 U.S.C. 154(b), effective May 29, 2000, and 37 CFR 1.702 - 1.705, especially 37 CFR 1.705(a).
For more information about eighteen month publication, publication fees, and patent term adjustment, visit the USPTO Internet web site at www.uspto.gov.
If the amendment is filed under 37 CFR 1.312, see MPEP § 714.15 to § 714.16(e). If the amendment contains claims copied from a patent, see MPEP Chapter 2300. Any submissions of replacement drawings filed after allowance should be forwarded to the Office of Patent Publication.
Reference to an Issue Batch Number is no longer necessary because the Office no longer stores and tracks applications according to issue batches.
Any paper filed after receiving the Issue Notification should include the indicated patent number, unless the application has been withdrawn from issue.
In case a Notice of Allowance is returned, and a new notice is sent (see MPEP § 707.13), the date of sending the notice must be changed in the file to agree with the date of such remailing. If the application is an Image File Wrapper (IFW) application, the original document, a copy of the returned document with any markings, and the remailed document should be retained in the application so that the file history is clear.
The Notice of Allowance will not be withheld due to death of the inventor if the executor or administrator has not intervened. See MPEP § 409.01(f).
For amendments received after D-10 Notice, see MPEP § 130.
“Secrecy Order” applications are not sent to issue even when all of the claims have been allowed. Instead of mailing a Notice of Allowance, a D-10 Notice is sent. See MPEP § 130.
If the “Secrecy Order” in an application is withdrawn after the D-10 notice is mailed, the application should then be treated like an ordinary application in condition for allowance.
Jurisdiction of the application remains with the primary examiner until the Notice of Allowance is mailed. However, the examiner may make examiner’s amendments correcting obvious errors, as when brought to the attention of the examiner by the printer, and also may admit amendments under 37 CFR 1.312which are confined to matters of form in the specification or claims, or to the cancellation of a claim or claims. The examiner’s action on other amendments under37 CFR 1.312 consists of a recommendation to the Director.
To regain jurisdiction over the application, the examiner must write a letter to the Director requesting it. See MPEP § 1308 and § 1308.02.
Once the patent has been granted, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can take no action concerning it, except as provided in 35 U.S.C. 135, 35 U.S.C. 251through 256, 35 U.S.C. 302 through 307 and 35 U.S.C. 311 through 316.
The issue fee and any required publication fee are due 3 months from the date of the Notice of Allowance. The amount of the issue fee and any required publication fee are shown on the Notice of Allowance. The Notice of Allowance will also reflect any issue fee previously paid in the application. The issue fee due does not reflect a credit for any previously paid issue fee in the application. If an issue fee has previously been paid in the application as reflected in the Notice of Allowance, the return of Part B (Fee(s) Transmittal form) will be considered a request to reapply the previously paid issue fee toward the issue fee that is now due. For example, if the application was allowed and the issue fee paid, but applicant withdrew the application from issue and filed a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) and the application was later allowed, the Notice of Allowance will reflect an issue fee amount that is due and the issue fee that was previously paid. Had applicant filed a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) instead of an RCE, the Notice of Allowance would not reflect any issue fee paid before the CPA was filed because the issue fee was paid in a prior application. Note that because the amount of the fees(s) due is determined by the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.18 which are in effect as of the date of submission of payment of the fees(s), the amount due at the time the fee(s) are paid may differ from the amount indicated on the Notice of Allowance. Accordingly, applicants are encouraged, at the time of submitting payment of the fees(s), to determine whether the amount of the issue fee due or any required publication fee has changed to avoid the patent lapsing for failure to pay the balance of the issue fee due (37 CFR1.317) or becoming abandoned for failure to pay the publication fee. The amounts due under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) (i.e., the issue fee, but not the publication fee) are reduced by 50 per centum for small entities.
Technology Center personnel should forward all post allowance correspondence to the Office of Initial Patent Examination (OIPE). The papers received by the OIPE will be scanned and matched with the appropriate application and the entire application will be forwarded to the appropriate Technology Center for processing.
The Director has no authority to extend the time for paying the issue fee. Intentional failure to pay the issue fee within the 3 months permitted by 35 U.S.C. 151does not amount to unavoidable or unintentional delay in making payment.
37 C.F.R. 1.314 Issuance of patent.
A petition to defer issuance of a patent is not appropriate until the issue fee is paid. Issuance of a patent cannot be deferred after an allowed application receives a patent number and issue date unless the application is withdrawn from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(b) or (c). The petition to defer is considered at the time the petition is correlated with the application file before the appropriate deciding official (MPEP § 1002.02(b)). In order to facilitate consideration of a petition for deferment of issue, the petition should be firmly attached to the Fee(s) Transmittal form (PTOL-85B) and clearly labeled as a Petition to Defer Issue; Attention: Office of Petitions.
Examining corps personnel must submit a request to the Office of Patent Publications Image Assistance Center when ordering an allowed application file that is maintained in paper.
If the applicant wishes to have an application withdrawn from issue, he or she must petition the Director under 37 CFR 1.313(a) or file a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 with a submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e). A submission may be an information disclosure statement (37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98) or an amendment. The RCE practice does not apply to utility or plant applications filed before June 8, 1995 and design applications. See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsections I, II and IX. If an applicant files a RCE (with the fee and a submission), the applicant need not pay the issue fee to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are cautioned against filing a RCE prior to payment of the issue fee and subsequently paying the issue fee (before the Office acts on the RCE) because doing so may result in issuance of a patent without consideration of the RCE (if the RCE is not matched with the application before the application is processed into a patent).
In addition to the specific reasons identified in 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1)-(3) applicant should identify some specific and significant defect in the allowed application before the application will be withdrawn from issue. A petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) based on the reason specified in 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2) can only be filed in utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995 because the request for continued examination (RCE) practice does not apply to these types of applications filed before June 8, 1995 and design applications. See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsections I and IX. Such a petition along with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) must include a request for continued examination in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114 (e.g., a submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(e)). The continued prosecution application (CPA) practice under 37 CFR 1.53(d) only applies to design applications. See MPEP § 201.06(d). To withdraw from issue a utility or plant application, an applicant may wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2) with a RCE or under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(3) for the express abandonment of the application in favor of a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), but not a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
(C) hand-carried to the Office of Petitions (see MPEP § 1730 for the location).
Applicants are strongly advised to transmit by facsimile or hand-carry the petition to the Office of Petitions to allow sufficient time to process the petition and if the petition can be granted, withdraw the application from issue. While a petition to withdraw an application from issue may be granted as late as one day prior to the patent issue date, to avoid publication and dissemination, the petition decision must be granted at least 3 weeks prior to the issue date.
The Office cannot ensure that any petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) will be acted upon prior to the date of patent grant. See Filing of Continuing Applications, Amendments, or Petitions after Payment of Issue Fee, Notice, 1221 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 14 (April 6, 1999). Since a RCE (unlike a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d))is not any type of new application filing, the Office cannot grant a petition to convert an untimely RCE to a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b). Therefore, applicants are strongly cautioned to file any desired RCE prior to payment of issue fee. In addition, applicants considering filing a RCE after payment of the issue fee are strongly cautioned to call the Office of Petitions to determine whether sufficient time remains before the patent issue date to consider (and grant) a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) and what steps are needed to ensure that a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) is before an appropriate official in the Office of Petitions in sufficient time to grant the petition before the patent is issued.
The Director may withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313 on his or her own initiative. See BlackLight Power Inc. v. Rogan, 295 F.3d 1269, 1273, 63 USPQ2d 1534, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (USPTO may withdraw a patent application from issuance after the issue fee has been paid.) andHarley v. Lehman, 981 F. Supp. 9, 12, 44 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (D.D.C. 1997) (adoption of 37 CFR 1.313(b) permitting applications to be withdrawn from issue under certain narrow circumstances not directly covered by the statute was not unreasonable). 35 U.S.C. 151 provides that upon payment of the issue fee, “the patent shall issue.” Thus, an application cannot be withdrawn from issue after payment of the issue fee consistent with 35 U.S.C. 151 unless there has been a determination that at least one of the conditions specified at 37 CFR 1.313(b)(1) through (4) exist such that the applicant is no longer “entitled to a patent under the law” as provided in 35 U.S.C. 151. See BlackLight Power Inc. v. Rogan, 295 F.3d at 1273, 63 USPQ2d at 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (USPTO is not required to make final determination of unpatentability before withdrawing an application from issue pursuant to 37 CFR 1.313(b)(3), which permits the Office to withdraw an application after payment of the issue fee on ground of “unpatentability of one or more claims.”);Harley v. Lehman, 981 F. Supp. at 11-12, 44 USPQ2d at 1701-02 (D.D.C. 1997)(Commissioner may adopt rules permitting applications to be withdrawn from issue after payment of the issue fee in situations in which the applicant is not entitled to a patent under the law); and see Sampson v. Dann, 466 F. Supp. 965, 973-74, 201 USPQ 15, 22 (D.D.C. 1978)(Commissioner not authorized to withdraw an application from issue after payment of the issue fee on an ad hoc basis, but only in situations which meet the conditions of 37 CFR1.313(b)).
The authority to withdraw an application from issue at the initiative of the USPTO after payment of the issue fee under 37 CFR 1.313(b) has been delegated to TC Directors (see MPEP § 1002.02(c)). The Office of Petitions has also been delegated the authority to withdraw an application from issue after payment of the issue fee in those situations in which the request for withdrawal from issue is at the initiative of the USPTO by someone other than a TC Director (see MPEP §1002.02(b)).
An application may be removed from the Office of Patent Publication, without it being withdrawn from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(b), to permit the examiner to consider an information disclosure statement or whether one or more claims are unpatentable. Only if such consideration results in a determination that one or more claims are unpatentable does 37 CFR 1.313(b) authorize the application to be withdrawn from issue. If uncertainty exists as to whether prosecution will in fact be re-opened, the uncertainty must be resolved before the application is withdrawn from issue. If there is a question whether an application must be withdrawn from issue and no TC Director is available to decide whether withdrawal from issue is appropriate and to sign the withdrawal Notice, the application should be hand-carried to the Office of Petitions for decision on whether withdrawal from issue is appropriate and to effect the withdrawal.
The procedure set forth below is to be followed when a TC Director withdraws an application from issue. This processing is to be done in the Technology Center without the need to send the application to the Office of Patent Publication.
(A) Prepare, date stamp, and mail a “Withdrawal from Issue” letter signed by the TC Director to the applicant to effectuate the withdrawal from issue, using form paragraph 10.01. A copy of the “Withdrawal from Issue” letter should be sent to the Office of Patent Publication.
(B) Change the status of the application to status code 066 (Previous Action Withdrawn - Awaiting Further Action). Enter the Withdrawal from Issue letter in the application file and make it of record on the application file contents.
(C) Stick an Issue Information Label (Form 2016) on the file wrapper over the filled-in boxes on the file wrapper that contain issue information. If the application is an Image File Wrapper (IFW) application, this step is not done; instead a new Issue Classification sheet will be completed if the application is subsequently allowed.
(A) Prepare, sign, date stamp, and mail a “Notice of Withdrawal From Issue under 37 CFR 1.313(b)” to the applicant indicating that the application has been withdrawn from issue (using one of the form letters WDR-TCB1, WDR-TCB2, WDR-TCB3, or WDR-TCB4).
(1) Prepare a “Withdrawal from Issue of” memorandum using the form memorandum WDR-MEMO. E-mail the memorandum to the Director of the Office of Patent Publication and the persons copied on the memorandum to inform them that the application has been withdrawn from issue.
(2) The “Notice of Withdrawal From Issue under 37 CFR 1.313(b)” letter to applicant must be signed, date stamped, and mailed no later than the Monday before the issue date to be effective to withdraw the application from issue.
(3) Remove the patent number from the file wrapper.
(C) Change the status of the application to status code 066 (Previous Action Withdrawn - Awaiting Further Action) by using PALM transaction code 1040. Enter the “Notice of Withdrawal From Issue under 37 CFR 1.313(b)” and the “Withdrawal from Issue of” memorandum, if applicable, in the application file and make it of record on the application file contents.
(D) Stick an Issue Information Label (Form 2016) on the file wrapper over the filled-in boxes on the file wrapper that contain issue information. If the application is an IFW application, this step is not done; instead a new Issue Classification sheet will be completed if the application is subsequently allowed.
(E) Forward the application to the examiner for prompt appropriate action (e.g., reopen prosecution, initiate interference proceedings).
When a new reference is discovered, which obviously is applicable to one or more of the allowed claims in an application in issue, a memorandum is addressed to the Technology Center (TC) Director, requesting that the application be withdrawn from issue for the purpose of applying the new reference. This memorandum should cite the reference, and, if need be, briefly state its application. The memorandum should be submitted with the reference and the file wrapper, if the application file is in paper. If the examiner’s proposed action is not approved, the memorandum requesting withdrawal from issue should not be placed in the file.
If the request to withdraw from issue is approved, the TC Director should withdraw the application from issue as explained in MPEP § 1308. After the TC Director has withdrawn the application from issue, the examiner will prepare an Office action stating that the application has been withdrawn from issue, citing the new reference, and rejecting the claims met thereby.
The action is given a paper number and placed in the file. For Image File Wrapper (IFW) processing, see IFW Manual.
It may be necessary to withdraw a case from issue for reasons connected with an interference. For the procedure to be followed, see MPEP Chapter 2300 .
The Office of Patent Quality Assurance administers a program for reviewing the quality of the examination of patent applications. The general purpose of the program is to improve patent quality and increase the likelihood of patents being found to be valid.
The quality review is conducted by Review Quality Assurance Specialists on a randomly selected sample of allowed applications from each examiner. The sample is computer generated under the office-wide computer system (PALM), which selects a predetermined number of allowed applications from each examiner per year for review . A subsample of the selected allowed applications are both reviewed and independently searched by the reviewers. The only applications excluded from the sample are those in which there has been a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, or by a court.
The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled application assigned to his or her docket to determine whether any claims may be unpatentable. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued applications. The program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs).
Reviewed applications may be returned to the examining TCs for consideration of the reviewer’s question(s) as to adequacy of the search and/or patentability of a claim(s).
If, during the quality review process, it is determined that one or more claims of a reviewed application are unpatentable, the prosecution of the application will be reopened. The Office action should contain, as an opening, form paragraph 13.04.
1. This paragraph should be used when a rejection is made on any previously allowed claim(s) which for one reason or another is considered unpatentable after the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) has been mailed.
2. Make appropriate rejection(s) as in any other action.
3. In bracket 1, identify claim(s) that are considered unpatentable.
4. In bracket 2, state all appropriate rejections for each claim considered unpatentable.
If the issue fee has already been paid in the application, the application must be withdrawn from issue by the Office of Patent Publication, and the action should contain not only the above quoted paragraph, but also form paragraph 13.05.
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed  is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
1. This form paragraph must be used when the prosecution is reopened after the mailing of the Notice of Allowance.
2. In bracket 1, insert date of the Notice of Allowance.
Quality Assurance forms and papers are not to be included with Office actions, nor should such forms or papers be retained in the file of any reviewed application whether or not prosecution is to be reopened. The application record should not indicate that a review has been conducted by Quality Assurance.
Whenever an application has been returned to the TC under the Quality Assurance Program, the TC should promptly decide what action is to be taken in the application and inform the Office of Patent Quality Assurance of the nature of that action by use of the appropriate form. If prosecution is to be reopened or other corrective action taken, only the forms should be returned to the Office of Patent Quality Assurance initially, with the application being returned to the Office of Patent Quality Assurance when action is completed. In all other instances, both the application and the forms should be returned to the Office of Patent Quality Assurance.
Under the current publication process, electronic capture of most of the information to be printed in a patent will begin as soon as an allowed application is received in the Office of Patent Publication, immediately after the Notice of Allowance has been mailed. The Office of Patent Publication forwards the allowed applications to the printer for Initial Data Capture (IDC). This IDC process takes approximately five weeks to accomplish and during this time the application, if in a paper file, is not available to examiners or for purposes of making copies of the application (copies of the application files that have been published may be ordered from the Office of Public Records, upon payment of the fee, but the applications will not be removed from the publication process for purposes of making copies). After IDC is completed, the application is returned to the Office of Patent Publication, and the file will be available to examiners and the Office of Public Records.
When the issue fee is paid and all other requirements have been met (e.g., drawings) within the time allowed by law, the application is forwarded to the printer for Final Data Capture (FDC) and final issue preparation. At this point, the application can only be retrieved if it is withdrawn from issue. The application is assigned a patent number and issue date about ten days before the application issues as a patent, and an Issue Notification is mailed to inform the applicant of the patent number and issue date. A bond paper copy of the patent grant is ribboned, sealed, and mailed by the Office of Patent Publication.
To ensure that any application falling within the scope of the categories outlined above and identified by (A) to (E) receives special treatment, the examiner should notify, via e-mail, the Manager of the Publishing Division, Kim Terrell in the Office of Publication that a particular application (identify the application number) should be given special treatment. The examiner should state the special treatment category outlined above.
When the printer finds an apparent error in an application, the file is returned to the Office with an attached “Query/Printer Waiting” slip noting the supposed error.
The Publishing Division forwards such “query/printer waiting” applications to the Technology Center (TC) Director’s secretary. The secretary acts as a control center in each TC and forwards the applications to the examiner by the appropriate route. The application should be taken up and acted on immediately and returned to the TC Director’s secretary within 72 hours (excluding weekends and holidays). Either necessary corrective action should be taken or an indication should be made that the application is considered to be correct as it stands. A copy of the query form is entered into the application file, and the response from the examiner should be clear from the record.
If the examiner concurs in the criticisms, the errors should, if possible, be corrected in clean red ink and initialed or be corrected by examiner’s amendment (note that in an Image File Wrapper (IFW) application, an examiner’s amendment must be made by way of a formal examiner’s amendment). See MPEP § 1302.04.
Delays in making corrections may sometimes be avoided if the applicant or his or her representative is telephoned immediately, and the error is corrected by amendment under 37 CFR 1.312, where appropriate.
Applications with a paper file wrapper are picked up from the TC Director’s office by the messenger and returned to the Publishing Division for forwarding to the printer.
THESE APPLICATIONS SHOULD NOT BE MAILED TO THE PUBLISHING DIVISION.
A similar process exists for IFW applications, with the query form being placed into the IFW, and the response from the examiner also made part of the record. For IFW processing, see IFW Manual.

References: § 710
 § 608
 § 608
 § 1302
 § 1302
 § 608
 v. 
 § 608
 § 608
 § 1302
 § 606
 § 606
 § 608
 § 608
 v. 
 § 201
 § 714
 § 502
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1504
 Application No. 60
 Application No. 08
 Application No. 60
 § 606
 § 821
 § 821
 § 1214
 § 1215
 § 1215
 § 821
 § 201
 § 202
 § 202
 § 202
 § 1302
 § 903
 § 903
 § 903
 § 303
 § 707
 § 609
 § 707
 § 707
 § 707
 § 707
 § 1308
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 509
 § 714
 § 714
 § 707
 § 409
 § 130
 § 130
 § 1308
 § 1308
 § 1002
 § 706
 § 706
 § 201
 § 1730
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1002
 §1002
 § 1308
 § 1302