Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2250.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:57:33+00:00

Document:
37 CFR 1.530 Statement by patent owner in ex parte reexamination; amendment by patent owner in ex parte or inter partes reexamination; inventorship change in ex parte or inter partes reexamination.
(d) Making amendments in a reexamination proceeding. A proposed amendment in an ex parte or an inter partes reexamination proceeding is made by filing a paper directing that proposed specified changes be made to the patent specification, including the claims, or to the drawings. An amendment paper directing that proposed specified changes be made in a reexamination proceeding may be submitted as an accompaniment to a request filed by the patent owner in accordance with § 1.510(e), as part of a patent owner statement in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, or, where permitted, during the prosecution of the reexamination proceeding pursuant to § 1.550(a) or § 1.937.
(1) Specification other than the claims. Changes to the specification, other than to the claims, must be made by submission of the entire text of an added or rewritten paragraph including markings pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, except that an entire paragraph may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph, without presentation of the text of the paragraph. The precise point in the specification must be identified where any added or rewritten paragraph is located. This paragraph applies whether the amendment is submitted on paper or compact disc (see §§ 1.96 and 1.825).
(2) Claims. An amendment paper must include the entire text of each patent claim which is being proposed to be changed by such amendment paper and of each new claim being proposed to be added by such amendment paper. For any claim changed by the amendment paper, a parenthetical expression “amended,” “twice amended,” etc., should follow the claim number. Each patent claim proposed to be changed and each proposed added claim must include markings pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, except that a patent claim or proposed added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim, without presentation of the text of the claim.
(4) The formal requirements for papers making up the reexamination proceeding other than those set forth in this section are set out in § 1.52.
(e) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes to the claims made by the amendment paper.
(2) The matter to be added by the reexamination proceeding must be underlined.
(g) Numbering of patent claims preserved. Patent claims may not be renumbered. The numbering of any claims added in the reexamination proceeding must follow the number of the highest numbered patent claim.
(h) Amendment of disclosure may be required. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
(i) Amendments made relative to patent. All amendments must be made relative to the patent specification, including the claims, and drawings, which are in effect as of the date of filing the request for reexamination.
(j) No enlargement of claim scope. No amendment may enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter. No amendment may be proposed for entry in an expired patent. Moreover, no amendment, other than the cancellation of claims, will be incorporated into the patent by a certificate issued after the expiration of the patent.
(k) Amendments not effective until certificate. Although the Office actions will treat proposed amendments as though they have been entered, the proposed amendments will not be effective until the reexamination certificate is issued and published.
37 CFR 1.52 Language, paper, writing, margins, compact disc specifications.
(a) Papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
(v) Presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition.
(2) All papers that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission and are to become a part of the permanent records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office should have no holes in the sheets as submitted.
(3) The provisions of this paragraph and paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to the pre-printed information on paper forms provided by the Office, or to the copy of the patent submitted on paper in double column format as the specification in a reissue application or request for reexamination.
(4) See § 1.58 for chemical and mathematical formulae and tables, and § 1.84 for drawings.
(5) Papers that are submitted electronically to the Office must be formatted and transmitted in compliance with the Office’s electronic filing system requirements.
(b) The application (specification, including the claims, drawings, and the inventor's oath or declaration) or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, any amendments to the application or reexamination proceeding, or any corrections to the application, or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
(ii) Be in the English language or be accompanied by a translation of the application and a translation of any corrections or amendments into the English language together with a statement that the translation is accurate.
(iii) Only a single column of text.
(3) The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page (§ 1.75(h)).
(4) The abstract must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page or be submitted as the first page of the patent in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding (§ 1.72(b)).
Amendments to the patent (one which has not expired) may be filed by the patent owner with the request under 35 U.S.C. 302. See MPEP § 2221. Such amendments, however, may not enlarge the scope of a claim of the patent or introduce new matter. Amended or new claims which broaden or enlarge the scope of a claim of the patent should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 305. The test for when an amended or “new claim enlarges the scope of an original claim under 35 U.S.C. 305 is the same as that under the 2-year limitation for reissue applications adding enlarging claims under 35 U.S.C. 251, last paragraph.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464, 31 USPQ2d 1444, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2258 for a discussion of enlargement of claim scope. For handling of new matter, see MPEP § 2270. Amendments proposed in a reexamination will normally be entered and be considered to be entered for purposes of prosecution before the Office (if they are timely and comply with the rules); however, the amendments do not become effective in the patent until the reexamination certificate under 35 U.S.C. 307 is issued and published.
No amendment will be permitted where the certificate issues after expiration of the patent. See 37 CFR 1.530(d)(3). The patent expiration date for a utility patent, for example, is determined by taking into account the term of the patent, whether maintenance fees have been paid for the patent, whether any disclaimer was filed as to the patent to shorten its term, any patent term extensions or adjustments for delays within the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 154 (see MPEP § 2710et seq.), and any patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156 for premarket regulatory review (see MPEP § 2750et. seq.). Any other relevant information should also be taken into account.
Amendment Entry — Amendments which comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j) (and are formally presented pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b), and contain all fees required by 37 CFR 1.20(c)) will be entered in the reexamination file pursuant to the guidelines set forth in MPEP § 2234.
Amendments made in a reexamination proceeding must comply with the formal requirements of 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b), as do all papers that are to become a part of the permanent USPTO file records in a patent application or proceeding. If an amendment is submitted to add claims to the patent being reexamined (i.e., to provide new claims), then excess claim fees pursuant to 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) and (4) may be applicable to the presentation of the added claims. See MPEP § 2250.03. In addition, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(k) uniquely apply to amendments in both ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, as follows.
37 CFR 1.530(d)(1) relates to the manner of making amendments to the reexamination “specification” (other than the claims). It is not to be used for making amendments to the claims or the drawings.
37 CFR 1.530(d)(1) requires that all amendments, which include any deletions or additions, must be made by submission of the full text of any paragraph to be changed in any manner, with markings (single brackets and underlining) showing the changes. It should be noted that examiner’s amendments made at the time when the Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) is prepared also require the full text of any paragraph to be changed, with markings. The exception for examiner’s amendment set forth in 37 CFR 1.121(g) does not apply to examiner’s amendments in reexamination proceedings. It should further be noted that the requirement of 37 CFR 1.530(d)(1) applies regardless of whether the amendment is submitted on paper or on compact disc (pursuant to 37 CFR 1.96 or 1.825). The only exception to this requirement is that an entire paragraph of specification text may be deleted from the specification by a statement deleting the paragraph without the presentation of the text of the paragraph. However, presentation of the text of the paragraph to be deleted will assist the Office in proper entry of the amendment.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.530(d)(1), all paragraphs which are added to the specification must be submitted as completely underlined.
37 CFR 1.530(d)(1) requires that the precise point where each amendment is to be made must be indicated. This is important because uncertainty about the precise point for an amendment may cause delay in the publication of the reexamination certificate. Care should be taken to clearly identify the precise point for each change to the specification.
37 CFR 1.530(d)(1) defines the “markings” by reference to 37 CFR 1.530(f) as being single brackets for deletion and underlining for addition. All bracketing and underlining is made in comparison to the original patent; not in comparison with the prior amendment.
Where a change is made in one sentence, paragraph or page of the patent, and the change increases or decreases the size of the sentence, paragraph or page, this will have no effect on the body of the reexamination “specification” (the copy of the patent). This is because all insertions are made as blocked additions of paragraphs. Therefore, a reexamination patent owner need not be concerned with page formatting considerations when presenting amendments to the Office.
37 CFR 1.530(d)(2) relates to the manner of making amendments to the claims in a reexamination proceeding. It is not to be used for making amendments to the remainder of the specification or to the drawings.
(D) a proposed new claim (previously added in the reexamination) is canceled by a direction to cancel that claim.
Examiner’s amendments made at the time when the Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) is prepared also require the full text of any claim to be changed, with markings. The exception for examiner’s amendment set forth in 37 CFR 1.121(g) does not apply to examiner’s amendments in reexamination proceedings. The requirements of 37 CFR 1.530(d)(2) apply regardless of whether the amendment is submitted on paper or on compact disc (pursuant to 37 CFR 1.96 or 1.825).
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.530(e), each amendment submitted must set forth the status of all patent claims and all added claims as of the date of the submission. The status to be set forth is whether the claim is pending, or canceled. The failure to submit the claim status will generally result in a notification to the patent owner of an informal response (see MPEP § 2266.02) prior to final rejection. Such an amendment submitted after final rejection will not be entered.
Also in accordance with 37 CFR 1.530(e), each claim amendment must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the amendment (i.e., support for the changes made in the claim(s), support for any insertions and deletions). The failure to submit an explanation will generally result in a notification to the patent owner that the amendment prior to final rejection is not completely responsive since the failure to set forth the support in the disclosure goes to the merits of the case (see MPEP § 2266.01). Such an amendment submitted after final rejection will not be entered.
37 CFR 1.530(f) identifies the type of markings required in the claim to be amended as underlining for added material and single brackets for material deleted.
37 CFR 1.530(g) states that original patent claims may not be renumbered. A patent claim retains its number even if it is canceled in the reexamination proceeding, and the numbering of any added claims must begin after the last original patent claim.
With respect to amendment of the drawings in a reexamination proceeding, see MPEP § 2250.01.
Form paragraph 22.12 may be used to advise patent owner of the proper manner of making amendments in an ex parte reexamination proceeding.
Patent owner is notified that any proposed amendment to the specification and/or claims in this reexamination proceeding must comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j), must be formally presented pursuant to 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any fees required by 37 CFR 1.20(c).
This paragraph may be used in the order granting reexamination and/or in the first Office action to advise patent owner of the proper manner of making amendments in a reexamination proceeding.
The amendment filed  proposes amendments to  that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j), which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reexamination proceedings. A supplemental paper correctly proposing amendments in the present ex parte reexamination proceeding is required.
A shortened statutory period for response to this letter is set to expire  from the mailing date of this letter. If patent owner fails to timely correct this informality, the amendment will be held not to be an appropriate response, prosecution of the present ex parte reexamination proceeding will be terminated, and a reexamination certificate will issue. 37 CFR 1.550(d).
1. This paragraph may be used for any 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j) informality as to a proposed amendment submitted in a reexamination proceeding prior to final rejection. After final rejection, the amendment should not be entered and patent owner informed of such in an advisory Office action using Form PTOL 467.
The cover sheet to be used for mailing the notification to the patent owner will be PTOL-473.
As an alternative to using form paragraph 22.13, it would also be appropriate to use form PTOL-475.
Note that if the informal amendment is submitted after final rejection, form paragraph 22.13 and form PTOL-475 should not be used. Rather an advisory Office action (using form PTOL-467) should be issued indicating that the amendment was not entered. In the “Other” section, it should be explained that the amendment was not entered because it does not comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)-(j), which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reexamination proceedings.
See MPEP § 2666.01 for the form paragraphs to use in inter partes reexamination proceedings, in advising the patent owner as to the manner of making amendments.
When a reexamination certificate is printed, all underlined matter is printed in italics and all brackets are printed as they were inserted in the proceeding in order to thereby show exactly which additions and deletions have been made in the patent via the reexamination proceeding. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.530(i), all amendments to the patent being reexamined must be made relative to the patent specification in effect as of the date of the filing of the request for reexamination. The patent specification includes the claims and drawings. If there was a prior change to the patent (made via a concluded post-patent proceeding, e.g., prior reexamination certificate, reissue of the patent, certificate of correction, PTAB trial certificate, etc.), the first amendment must be made relative to the patent specification as changed by the prior proceeding or other mechanism for changing the patent. All amendments subsequent to the first amendment must also be made relative to the patent specification in effect as of the date of the filing of the request for reexamination, and not relative to the prior amendment. In those rare instances where a concluded post-patent proceeding changes the patent while the reexamination proceeding is pending, amendments will be made relative to the patent, as revised by the concluded proceeding, and 37 CFR 1.530(i) is waived to that extent.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.530(j), “[n]o amendment may be proposed for entry in an expired patent.” Thus, if a patent expires during the pendency of a reexamination proceeding for a patent, all amendments to the patent claims and all claims added during the proceeding are withdrawn. The patent owner should be notified of this in the next Office action. The Office action will hold the amendments to be improper, and state that all subsequent reexamination will be on the basis of the unamended patent claims. This procedure is necessary since no amendments will be incorporated into the patent by a certificate after the expiration of the patent.
Thus, at the time the NIRC is to be issued, the examiner should ensure that all rejected and objected to claims are canceled. The examiner should issue an examiner’s amendment canceling any such claims not already canceled.
The cancellation of the original patent claims is the only “amendatory” change permitted in an expired patent.
A substantial number of problems arise in the Office because of improper submission of proposed amendments in reexamination proceedings. The following examples are provided to assist in the preparation of proper proposed amendments in reexamination proceedings. In regard to status identifiers, examiners may accept an amendment even if the status identifier used is not a status identifier recommended by 37 CFR 1.530(d)(2) or 1.121(c).
(A) Original Patent Description or Patent Claim Amended.
Scanning [is] are controlled by clocks which are, in turn, controlled from the display tube line synchronization. The signals resulting from scanning the scope of the character are delivered in parallel, then converted into serial mode through a shift register, wherein the shift signal frequency is controlled by a clock that is controlled from the display tube line synchronization.
Claim 6. (amended), The apparatus of claim  1 wherein the [first] second piezoelectric element is parallel to the [second] third piezoelectric element.
If the dependency of any original patent claim is to be changed by amendment, it is proper to make that original patent claim dependent upon a later filed higher numbered claim.
(B) Cancellation of Entire Claim(s).
(1) Original patent claim canceled - in writing, direct cancellation of the entire patent claim.
(2) Proposed new claim (previously added in the reexamination) canceled - in writing, direct cancellation of the entire claim.
(C) Re-presentation of Original Patent Claims (no underlining or bracketing).
Claim 4. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the first piezoelectric element is perpendicular to the second piezoelectric element.
(D) Presentation of New Claims.
Each proposed new claim (i.e., a claim not found in the patent, that is newly presented in the reexamination proceeding) should be presented with underlining throughout the claim, including the claim number. The status identifier “(new)” may or may not be underlined. Examiners may accept an amendment even if the claim number is not underlined or the status identifier(s) used is not a status identifier recommended by 37 CFR 1.530(d)(2) or 1.121(c).
Claim 7 (New). The apparatus of claim 5 further comprising electrodes attaching to said opposite faces of the second and third piezoelectric elements.
Even though an original claim may have been canceled, the numbering of the original claims does not change. Accordingly, any added claims are numbered beginning with the next higher number than the number of claims in the original patent. If new claims have been added to the reexamination proceeding which are later canceled prior to the issuance of the reexamination certificate, the examiner will renumber, at the time of preparing the NIRC for subsequent issuance of the certificate, any remaining new claims in numerical order to follow the highest number of the claims in the original patent.
A claim number previously assigned to a new claim that has been canceled should not be reassigned to a different new claim during the reexamination proceeding. For example, if new claim 5 added in a prior amendment is canceled in a later amendment, a different new claim added in a later amendment during the reexamination proceeding would be claim 6. Of course, at the time of preparing the NIRC, claim 6 would be renumbered for issue of the reexamination certificate as claim 5.
(E) Amendment of New Claims.
An amendment of a new claim (i.e., a claim not found in the patent, that was previously presented in the reexamination proceeding) must present the entire text of the new claim containing the amendatory material, and it must be underlined throughout the claim, including the claim number. The status identifier(s) may or may not be underlined. Examiners may accept an amendment even if the claim number is not underlined or the status identifier(s) used is not a status identifier recommended by 37 CFR 1.530(d)(2) or 1.121(c). The presentation cannot contain any bracketing or other indication of what was in the previous version of the claim. This is because all changes in the reexamination are made vis-a-vis the original patent, and not in comparison with any prior amendment. Although the presentation of the amended claim does not contain any indication of what is changed from a previous version of the claim, patent owner must point out what is changed, in the “Remarks” portion of the amendment. Also, as per 37 CFR 1.530(e), each change made in the claim must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent (i.e., the reexamination specification) for the change.
Claim 11 (New). A knife comprising a handle portion and a notched blade portion.
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has added new independent claim 11. Support for this new claim is found in column 4, lines 26-41, column 5, lines 3-18, and column 6, lines 5-15.
Claim 11 (New, amended). A fishing knife comprising a bone handle portion and a notched blade portion.
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has amended new independent claim 11 as described below.
Claim 11: Claim 11 is amended to add “fishing” before “knife” and “bone” before “handle.” Support for these changes is found in column 4, lines 34-41 and column 6, lines 5-8, respectively.
(F) Amendment of Original Patent Claims More Than Once.
Claim 1. A cutting means having a handle portion and a blade portion.
(2) Proper first amendment format.
Claim 1. (amended), A [cutting means] knife having a bone handle portion and a notched blade portion.
(3) Proper second amendment format.
Claim 1. (twice amended), A [cutting means] knife having a handle portion and a serrated blade portion.
Note that the second amendment must include (1) the changes previously presented in the first amendment; i.e., [cutting means] knife, as well as (2) the new changes presented in the second amendment; i.e., serrated.
The word bone was presented in the first amendment and is now to be deleted in the second amendment. Thus, “bone” is NOT to be shown in brackets in the second amendment. Rather, the word “bone” is simply omitted from the claim, since “bone” never appeared in the patent.
The word notched which was presented in the first amendment is replaced by the word serrated in the second amendment. The word notched is being deleted in the second amendment and did not appear in the patent; accordingly, “notched” is not shown in any form in the claim. The word serrated is being added in the second amendment, and accordingly, “serrated” is added to the claim and is underlined.
It should be understood that in the second amendment, the deletions of “notched” and “bone” are not changes from the original patent claim text and therefore, are not shown in the second amendment. In both the first and the second amendments, the entire claim is presented only with the changes from the original patent text.
If the patent expires during an ex parte or inter partes reexamination proceeding and the patent claims have been amended in that reexamination proceeding, the Office will hold the amendments as being improper, and all subsequent reexamination will be on the basis of the unamended patent claims. This procedure is necessary since no amendments will be incorporated into the patent by certificate after the expiration of the patent.
(A) For clerical handling of amendments, see MPEP § 2270 for ex parte reexamination proceedings, and see MPEP § 2670 for inter partes reexamination proceedings.
(B) As to amendments in a merged proceeding, see MPEP § 2283 for an ex parte reexamination merged with another ex parte reexamination and MPEP § 2285 for an ex parte reexamination merged with a reissue application. If an inter partes reexamination proceeding is included in the merger, see MPEP § 2686.01 and § 2686.03.
(C) As to amendments in a pending reexamination proceeding where a reexamination certificate has issued for the patent based on a prior concluded reexamination, pursuant to MPEP § 2295, any amendment made in the pending reexamination proceeding must be presented as if the changes made to the patent text via the reexamination certificate (for the prior concluded reexamination) are a part of the original patent. All italicized text of the certificate is considered as if the text was present without italics in the original patent. Further, any text of the reexamination certificate found in brackets is considered as if it were never present in the patent at all. Thus, for making an amendment in the pending reexamination, all italicized text of the reexamination certificate is presented in the amendment without italics. Further, any text found in brackets in the reexamination certificate is omitted in the amendment.
(D) As to amendments in a pending reexamination proceeding where a reissue patent has been granted, pursuant to MPEP § 2285, subsection II.A., an amendment in a reexamination of a reissued patent is made the same way as in a reexamination of a reexamined patent (i.e., as per MPEP § 2295). Thus, all italicized text of the reissue patent is presented in the amendment (made in the pending reexamination proceeding) without italics. Further, any text found in brackets in the reissue patent is omitted in the amendment (made in the pending reexamination proceeding).
(E) As to amendments in a pending reexamination proceeding where a PTAB trial certificate has issued for the patent under reexamination, an amendment must be presented as if the changes made to the patent via the PTAB trial certificate are a part of the original patent. Similar to amendments where a reexamination certificate has issued, text added by the PTAB trial certificate should be presented without any markings and text deleted by the PTAB trial certificate should not be presented at all. See paragraph (C) above.
(F) For handling a dependent claim in reexamination proceedings, see MPEP § 2260.01.
In the reexamination proceeding, the copy of the patent drawings submitted pursuant to 37 CFR 1.510(b)(4) will be used for reexamination purposes, provided no change whatsoever is made to the drawings. If there is to be ANY change in the drawings, a new sheet of drawings for each sheet changed must be submitted. The change may NOT be made on the original patent drawings.
Where the patent owner wishes to change/amend the drawings, the patent owner should submit a sketch in permanent ink showing proposed change(s)/amendment(s), for approval by the examiner. The submitted sketch should be presented as a separate paper, which is clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet,” and it will be made part of the record. Once the proposed changes are approved, sheets of substitute or new drawings must be submitted for each drawing sheet that is to be changed/amended. If a new drawing sheet contains multiple figures, each figure must be marked as “amended” or “new,” if applicable, to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.530(d)(3). For example, if the new drawing sheet contains Figures 1-3 but only Figure 2 is amended, the new drawing sheet must identify Figure 2 as “Amended.” It is not sufficient to generally indicate that the entire sheet is amended by, e.g., placing the term “Amended” in the header of the drawing sheet.
The new sheets of drawings must be entered into the record in the reexamination file prior to the preparation of a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (NIRC). If a proposed drawing correction has been approved but the new sheets of drawings have not been filed, and the proceeding is otherwise in condition for termination of the prosecution by means of a NIRC, an ex parteQuayle Office action should be prepared - setting an appropriate shortened statutory time period (SSP) for the filing of the new sheets of drawing. If the reexamination was requested by a third party requester, the examiner should set an SSP of ONE MONTH or thirty days, whichever is longer. If the reexamination was requested by the patent owner, if the reexamination was ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257, or if it is a Director ordered reexamination, the examiner should set an SSP of TWO MONTHS. If the new sheets of drawings are not timely filed in response to the Quayle action, the reexamination certificate will be issued with drawings that do not reflect the changes/amendments that were proposed by the patent owner.
(l) Correction of inventorship in an ex parte or inter partes reexamination proceeding.
(1) When it appears in a patent being reexamined that the correct inventor or inventors were not named, the Director may, on petition of all the parties set forth in § 1.324(b)(1) and (b)(2), including the assignees, and satisfactory proof of the facts and payment of the fee set forth in § 1.20(b), or on order of a court before which such matter is called in question, include in the reexamination certificate to be issued under § 1.570 or § 1.997 an amendment naming only the actual inventor or inventors. The petition must be submitted as part of the reexamination proceeding and must satisfy the requirements of § 1.324.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (I)(1) of this section, if a petition to correct inventorship satisfying the requirements of § 1.324 is filed in a reexamination proceeding, and the reexamination proceeding is concluded other than by a reexamination certificate under § 1.570 or § 1.997, a certificate of correction indicating the change of inventorship stated in the petition will be issued upon request by the patentee.
Where the inventorship of a patent being reexamined is to be corrected, a petition for correction of inventorship which complies with 37 CFR 1.324 must be submitted during the prosecution of the reexamination proceeding. See 37 CFR 1.530(l)(1). If the petition under 37 CFR 1.324 is granted, a certificate of correction indicating the change of inventorship will not be issued, because the reexamination certificate that will ultimately issue will contain the appropriate change of inventorship information. The certificate of correction is in effect merged with the reexamination certificate.
In some instances, the reexamination proceeding concludes but does not result in a reexamination certificate under 37 CFR 1.570 or 1.997, e.g., reexamination is vacated, or the order for reexamination is denied. In those instances, patent owner may, after the conclusion of the reexamination proceeding, request that the inventorship be corrected by a certificate of correction indicating the change of inventorship. See 37 CFR 1.530(l)(2). Alternatively, the failure to name the correct inventive entity is an error in the patent which is correctable by reissue under 35 U.S.C. 251. See MPEP § 1412.04 for a discussion of when correction of inventorship by reissue is appropriate.
Excess claims fees are applicable to excess claims proposed to be added to a patent by their presentation during a reexamination proceeding. See 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) and (c)(4). Under “former” 35 U.S.C. 41, excess claims fees were included as part of the “application” filing fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1), and thus did not apply during reexamination proceedings. The Consolidated Appropriations Act does not include the excess claims as part of the “application” filing fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1), but separately provides for excess claims fees in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(2) (as being in addition to the filing fee in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)). 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(2) provides that an excess claims fee is due “on filing or on presentation at any other time” (e.g., during a reexamination proceeding) of an independent claim in excess of three or of a claim (whether independent or dependent) in excess of twenty.
37 CFR 1.20 was amended, effective December 8, 2004, to provide for excess claims fees in a reexamination proceeding. The excess claims fees specified in 37 CFR 1.20(c) apply to all patents, whenever granted. The fees must be submitted for any excess claims presented in a reexamination proceeding on or after December 8, 2004 (no excess claims fee was due under 35 U.S.C. 41 for any claim presented during a reexamination proceeding before December 8, 2004). Even though a reexamination proceeding was commenced prior to December 8, 2004, the excess claims fees are due for any amendment filed on or after December 8, 2004.
When a patent owner presents an amendment to the claims (on or after December 8, 2004) during an ex parte reexamination proceeding, or upon filing of an ex parte reexamination request under 35 U.S.C. 302 (on or after December 8, 2004), excess claims fees may be applicable. If the amendment is limited to revising the existing claims, i.e., it does not provide any new claim, there is no claim fee. The excess claims fees apply only to the submission of new, i.e., “excess” claims.
(B) The fee designated in 37 CFR 1.20(c)(4) as the total claims fee must be paid for each claim (whether independent or dependent) in excess of twenty and also in excess of the number of claims in the patent being reexamined. The amendment must increase the total number of claims to be more than both of these limits, in order for the “total excess claims fee” to apply.
(A) No excess claims fee is due if the patent owner cancels ten claims, two of which are independent, and adds ten claims, two of which are independent.
(B) The 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) excess independent claims fee for a seventh independent claim is due if the patent owner cancels ten claims, two of which are independent, and adds ten claims, three of which are independent.
(C) The 37 CFR 1.20(c)(4) excess total claims fee for a thirty-first claim is due if the patent owner cancels ten claims, two of which are independent, and adds eleven claims, two of which are independent.
(D) The 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) excess independent claims fee for a seventh independent claim and the 37 CFR 1.20(c)(4) excess total claims fee for a thirty-first claim are due if the patent owner cancels ten claims, two of which are independent, and adds eleven claims, three of which are independent.
A claim that has been disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. 253 and 37 CFR 1.321(a) as of the date of filing of the request for reexamination is not considered to be a claim in the patent under reexamination for purposes of excess claims fee calculations. The same applies to a claim canceled via a prior reexamination certificate, reissue patent, or certificate of correction.
If, for a response to a non-final Office action, the excess claims fees required by 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) and (c)(4) are not paid with the presentation of the excess claims, a notice of fee deficiency will be issued as a Notice of Defective Paper In Ex Parte Reexamination. In third party requested reexaminations, a one-month time period will be set in the form PTOL-475 for correction of the defect, i.e., the fee deficiency. In patent owner requested reexaminations (including reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257) or Director ordered reexaminations, a two-month time period will be set in form PTO-2311 for correction of the defect, i.e., the fee deficiency. An extension of time to correct the fee deficiency may be requested under 37 CFR 1.550(c). If the unpaid excess claims fees required by 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) and (c)(4) are not paid within the time period set for response to the Notice, the prosecution of the reexamination proceeding will be terminated under 37 CFR 1.550(e), to effect the “abandonment” set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(c)(5). If the excess claims fees required by 37 CFR 1.20(c)(3) and (c)(4) are not paid with the presentation of the excess claims in a response to a final Office action, the examiner should notify the owner of the fee deficiency in the advisory action.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.550(i), a petition in an ex parte reexamination proceeding must be accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(c)(6), except for petitions under 37 CFR 1.530(c) to extend the period for response by a patent owner, petitions under 37 CFR 1.550(e) to accept a delayed response by a patent owner, petitions under 37 CFR 1.78 to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim, and petitions under 37 CFR 1.530(l) for correction of inventorship in a reexamination proceeding.
$ 1,940 for a large entity.
$ 970 for a small entity.
$ 485 for a micro entity (available for patent owners only).

References: § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2221
 § 2258
 § 2270
 § 2710
 § 2750
 § 2234
 § 2250
 § 2266
 § 2266
 § 2250
 § 2666
 § 2270
 § 2670
 § 2283
 § 2285
 § 2686
 § 2686
 § 2295
 § 2285
 § 2295
 § 2260
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1412