Source: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s704.html
Timestamp: 2014-03-11 19:09:13
Document Index: 26359501

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 904', '§\n719', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 704', '§ 904', '§ 714', '§ 710', '§ 2730', 'art.\n2', 'art.\n2', '§ 609', '§\n609', '§ 609', '§\n609', '§ 609', '§ 706']

Section 704 704
Search and Requirements for Information
After reading the specification and
claims, the examiner searches the prior art. The subject of searching is more fully
treated in MPEP Chapter 900. See especially
904 through § 904.03. The invention
should be thoroughly understood before a search is undertaken. However, informal cases,
or those which can only be imperfectly understood when they come up for action in their
regular turn are also given a search, in order to avoid piecemeal
PREVIOUS EXAMINER’S SEARCH
When an examiner is assigned to
act on an application which has received one or more actions by some other examiner,
full faith and credit should be given to the search and action of the previous
examiner unless there is a clear error in the previous action or knowledge of other
prior art. In general the second examiner should not take an entirely new approach to
the application or attempt to reorient the point of view of the previous examiner, or
make a new search in the mere hope of finding something. See MPEP §
719.05. 704.10
Requirements for Information [R-3]
37 C.F.R. 1.105 Requirements for information.
(1) In the course of
examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application
filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 371 (including a reissue application), in a
patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner or other Office
employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under
§ 1.56(c), or any
assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to
properly examine or treat the matter, for example:
(i) Commercial databases: The
existence of any particularly relevant commercial database known
to any of the inventors that could be searched for a particular
(ii) Search: Whether a search of
the prior art was made, and if so, what was
(iii) Related information: A copy
of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent
(U.S. or foreign), by any of the inventors, that relates to the
(iv) Information used to draft
application: A copy of any non-patent literature, published
application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft
(v) Information used in invention
process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published
application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the
invention process, such as by designing around or providing a
solution to accomplish an invention result.
(vi) Improvements: Where the claimed invention is an improvement,
identification of what is being improved.
(vii) In Use:
Identification of any use of the claimed invention known to any
of the inventors at the time the application was filed
notwithstanding the date of the use.
> (viii) Technical information known to
applicant. Technical information known to applicant concerning
the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter,
other factual information pertinent to patentability, or
concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation
items. < (2) Where an assignee
has asserted its right to prosecute pursuant to § 3.71(a) of this chapter, matters such as
paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (iii), and (vii) of this section may also be
applied to such assignee.
** > (3) Requirements for
factual information known to applicant may be presented in any
appropriate manner, for example:
(i) A requirement
for factual information;
(ii) Interrogatories in the form of specific questions seeking
applicant’s factual knowledge; or
(iii) Stipulations
as to facts with which the applicant may agree or
disagree. < > (4) Any reply to a
requirement for information pursuant to this section that states
either that the information required to be submitted is unknown to or
is not readily available to the party or parties from which it was
requested may be accepted as a complete reply.
< (b) The requirement for
information of paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be included in an Office
action, or sent separately.
(c) A reply, or a failure to
reply, to a requirement for information under this section will be governed
by §§ 1.135 and
An examiner or other Office employee
may require from individuals identified under 37 CFR 1.56(c), or any assignee, the submission of such information as
may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat a matter in a pending or
abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, in a pending or
abandoned application that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C.
371, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding. The scope of
37 CFR 1.105 is extended to any assignee because the information
required may be known to some members of the assignee even if not known by the
inventors. The authority for the Office to make
such requirements arises from the statutory requirements of examination pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 131 and 132. An examiner or other Office employee may make a requirement
for information reasonably necessary to the examination or treatment of a matter in
accordance with the policies and practices set forth by the Director(s) of the
Technology Center or other administrative unit to which that examiner or other Office
employee reports. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United
** > 393 F.3d
1277, 1283, 73 USPQ2d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Star Fruits’ argument fails to come
to grips with the real issue in this case, which is whether the Office can use section
1.105 to compel disclosure of information that the examiner deems
pertinent to patentability when the applicant has a contrary view of the applicable law.
We answer this question in the
affirmative.”) < 704.11
What Information May Be Required [R-3]
under 37 CFR 1.105 is that information reasonably
necessary to properly examine or treat a matter in a pending or abandoned application
filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 (including a reissue
application), in a pending or abandoned application that has entered the national stage
under 35 U.S.C. 371, in a patent, or in a
reexamination proceeding.
There must be a reasonable basis for
the information required that would aid in the examination of an application or
treatment of some matter. A requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 places a substantial burden on the applicant that is to be
minimized by clearly focusing the reason for the requirement and the scope of the
expected response. Thus, the scope of the requirement should be narrowly defined, and a
requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 may only be made when the
examiner has a reasonable basis for requiring information.
> The terms “factual” and “facts” are included in 37
CFR 1.105 to make it clear that it is facts and factual information,
that are known to applicant, or readily obtained after reasonable inquiry by applicant,
that are sought, and that requirements under 37 CFR 1.105 are not
requesting opinions that may be held or would be required to be formulated by applicant.
Where the factual information requested related to the subject application, and details
thereof, applicant would be expected to make a reasonable inquiry under the
circumstances to find the factual information requested (37 CFR 10.18(b)(2)). Applicant
need not, however, derive or independently discover a fact, such as by experimentation,
in response to a requirement for information. The purpose of 37 CFR 1.105 is to improve patent quality, and render better decisions,
and not to put applicants in jeopardy of meeting their duties of candor and good faith
in their replies to a requirement for information.<
INFORMATION REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR FINDING PRIOR
The criteria stated in
37 CFR 1.105 for making a requirement
for information is that the information be reasonably necessary to the examination or
treatment of a matter in an application. The information required would typically be
that necessary for finding prior art or for resolving an issue arising from the
results of the search for art or from analysis of the application file. A requirement
for information necessary for finding prior art is not a substitute for the examiner
performing a search of the relevant prior art; the examiner must make a search of the
art according to MPEP § 704.01 and §§ 904 – 904.03.
The criteria of reasonable
necessity is generally met, e.g., where:
(A) the examiner’s search and
preliminary analysis demonstrates that the claimed subject matter cannot be
adequately searched by class or keyword among patents and typical sources of
non-patent literature, or
(B) either the application
file or the lack of relevant prior art found in the examiner’s search
justifies asking the applicant if he or she has information that would be
relevant to the patentability determination.
The first instance generally
occurs where the invention as a whole is in a new area of technology which has no
patent classification or has a class with few pieces of art that diverge
substantially from the nature of the claimed subject matter. In this situation, the
applicant is likely to be among the most knowledgeable in the art, as evidenced by
the scarcity of art, and requiring the applicant’s information of areas of search is
justified by the need for the applicant’s expertise.
The second instance generally
occurs where the application file, or other related applications or publications
authored by the applicant, suggests the applicant likely has access to information
necessary to a more complete understanding of the invention and its context. In this
situation, the record suggests that the details of such information may be relevant
to the issue of patentability, and thus shows the need for information in addition to
that already submitted by the applicant. 704.11(a) Examples of Information Reasonably Required
37 CFR 1.105(a)(1)(i)-(viii)
lists specific examples of information that may be reasonably required. Other
examples, not meant to be exhaustive, of information that may be reasonably required
for examination of an application include:
(A) The name and citation of
any particularly relevant indexed journal, or treatise.
(B) The trade name of any
goods or services the claimed subject matter is embodied in.
(C) The citation for, the
dates initially published and copies of any advertising and promotional
literature prepared for any goods or services the claimed subject matter has
been embodied in.
(D) The citation for and
copies of any journal articles describing any goods or services the claimed
subject matter has been embodied in.
(E) The trade names and
providers of any goods or services in competition with the goods or services
the claimed subject matter has been embodied in.
(F) Any written descriptions
or analyses, prepared by any of the inventors or assignees, of goods or
services in competition with the goods or services the claimed subject
matter has been embodied in.
(G) Identification of pending
or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned
to the same assignee as the current application that disclose similar
subject matter that are not otherwise identified in the current
(H) A reply to a matter
raised in a protest under 37 CFR 1.291.
(I) An explanation of
technical material in a publication, such as one of the inventor’s
(J) The identification of
changes made in a reformatted continuing application filed under 37 CFR
1.53(b).
(K) A mark-up for a
continuation-in-part application showing the subject matter added where
there is an intervening reference.
(L) Comments on a new
decision by the Federal Circuit that appears on point.
(M) The publication date of
an undated document mentioned by applicant that may qualify as printed
publication prior art (35 U.S.C. 102(a)
or (b)).
(N) Comments on information
of record which raises a question of whether applicant derived the invention
from another under 35 U.S.C. 102(f).
> (O) Art related to
applicant’s invention, applicant’s disclosure, or the claimed subject
(P) Other factual information
pertinent to patentability.
(Q) The accuracy of the
examiner’s stated analysis of such items.
(R) Clarification of the
correlation and identification of what structure, material, or acts set
forth in the specification would be capable of carrying out a function
recited in a means or steps plus function claim limitation. If it is not
apparent to the examiner where in the specification and drawings there is
support for a particular claim limitation reciting a means to accomplish a
function, and if an inquiry by the examiner for such support is met by a
stated lack of knowledge thereof by the applicant, the examiner could very
well conclude that there is no such support and make appropriate rejections
under, for example, 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph (written description) and 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
(S) Interrogatories or
(1) Of the common
technical features shared among all claims, or admission that certain
groups of claims do not share any common technical
(2) About the support
found in the disclosure for means or steps plus function claims (35
U.S.C. 112, paragraph
(3) Of precisely which
portion(s) of the disclosure provide the written description and
enablement support for specific claim element(s),
(4) Of the meaning of
claim limitations or terms used in the claims, such as what teachings
in the prior art would be covered by particular limitations or terms
in a claim and which dictionary definitions would define a particular
claim term, particularly where those terms are not used per se in the
(5) Of which portions
of each claim correspond to any admitted prior art in the
(6) Of the specific
utility provided by the claimed subject matter on a claim-by-claim
(7) As to whether a
dependent claim element is known in the prior art based on the
examiner having a reasonable basis for believing so,
(8) Of support for
added limitations in an amended claim,
(9) Of facts related to
situations. < 704.11(b) When May a Requirement for Information Be Made
A requirement for information
under 37 CFR 1.105 is discretionary. A
requirement may be made at any time once the necessity for it is recognized and
should be made at the earliest opportunity after the necessity is recognized. The
optimum time for making a requirement is prior to or with a first action on the
merits because the examiner has the maximum opportunity to consider and apply the
response. Ordinarily, a request for information should not be made with or after a
final rejection.
< PRIOR TO THE FIRST
It may be appropriate to make a
requirement for information prior to the first action on the merits, such as with
a restriction requirement, when the examiner’s search and preliminary analysis
demonstrates that the claimed subject matter cannot be adequately searched by
class or keyword among patents or in areas of emerging technology where the Office
has minimal prior art.
Factors to be considered for
the appropriateness of a separate requirement for information prior to the first
action on the merits include:
(A) Whether the claimed
subject matter is in a newly established art area without a
well-developed prior art resource pool;
submitted an Information Disclosure Statement;
(C) Whether the
specification’s background description adequately describes the
background of the disclosed subject matter;
(D) Whether related
documents, written by an inventor or an employee of the assignee, which
were not submitted, are found during the search or described in the
application file;
(E) Whether non-patent
literature is referred to in the disclosure, but a copy has not been
specification’s background of the invention describes information as
being known or conventional, which may be considered as an admission of
prior art, but such information is unfamiliar to examiner and cannot be
found within the application file or from the examiner’s search, and
further details of the information would be relevant to the question of
< WITH THE FIRST ACTION
may be combined with a first action on the merits that includes at least one
rejection, if, for example, either the application file or the lack of relevant
prior art found in the examiner’s search justifies asking the applicant if he or
she has information that would be relevant to the patentability
It is not appropriate to make a
requirement for information based on a lack of relevant prior art with a first
action on the merits allowance or Ex parte
Quayle action.
< AFTER THE FIRST ACTION
made after the first action on the merits may be appropriate when the application
file justifies asking the applicant if he or she has information that would be
relevant to the patentability determination. It is rarely appropriate to require
information because of a lack of relevant prior art after the first action on the
is not proper when no further action would be taken by the examiner. The
reasonable necessity criteria for a requirement for information implies further
action by the examiner. This means that actions in which requirements for
information necessary for examination are made should generally be a non-final
action because the applicant’s reply must be considered and applied as
Under limited circumstances,
requirements under 37 CFR 1.105 may be made in an
application that is issued or abandoned. Such a requirement would normally be made
only during part of some ongoing proceeding involving the issued patent or
abandoned application. Examples of proceedings when an examiner or other Office
employee would issue such a request in an abandoned application include
proceedings to revive the abandoned application. Examples of proceedings when an
examiner or other Office employee would issue such a request in a patent include
proceedings to change inventorship and reexamination proceedings. 704.12
Replies to a Requirement for Information
Replies to requirements for
information must be complete and filed within the time period set including any
extensions. Failure to reply within the time period set will result in the abandonment
of the application. All replies for a request for information should be checked for
completeness. Any incomplete reply can be completed within the original time period set
including any extensions. Supplemental replies filed after the expiration of the
original period for reply including any extensions of time must comply with all other
rules for submissions of information.
704.12(a) Relationship of Requirement for Information to Duty of
The duty of candor and good faith
under 37 CFR 1.56 applies to the applicant’s
reply to a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105, and requires that the applicant reply to a requirement
under 37 CFR 1.105 with information reasonably
and readily available. 37 CFR 1.56 requires parties identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c) to disclose to the Office information material to the
patentability of the claimed subject matter. This threshold is substantially higher
than that for requiring information under 37 CFR 1.105, which is
reasonable necessity to the examination of the application.
> See, e.g., Star Fruits
S.N.C. v. United States, 280 F.Supp.2d 512, 515-16 (E.D. Va
2003)(“Beyond that which a patent applicant is duty-bound to disclose pursuant to 37
CFR 1.56, an examiner may require the production of ‘such
information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the
matter.’”) < In contrast with the applicant’s
duty to disclose on his or her own initiative information material to patentability
under 37 CFR 1.56, the Office has the
authority to require information reasonably necessary to the examination or treatment
of a matter in an application. Such information may not be considered material to
patentability by applicant, hence applicant would not be required to provide the
information under 37 CFR 1.56. The information is instead
reasonably necessary to determine the state of the art, the context in which the
invention is practiced, the directions in which the relevant art are advancing, the
similarity between the claimed subject matter and other art worked on by the
applicants and their assignees or to otherwise proceed in the examination and
treatment of matters in an application.
Similar to 37 CFR
1.56, applicant is required by 37 CFR 1.105 to submit information already known, but there is no
requirement to search for information that is unknown. Unlike 37 CFR
1.56, applicant is required by 37 CFR 1.105 to submit information that may not be material to
patentability in itself, but that is necessary to obtain a complete record from which
a determination of patentability may be determined.
704.12(b) What Constitutes a Complete Reply
A complete reply to a 37 CFR
1.105 requirement is a reply to each enumerated requirement
for information giving either the information required or a statement that the
information required to be submitted is unknown and/or is not readily available to
the party or parties from which it was requested. There is no requirement for the
applicant to show that the required information was not, in fact, readily attainable,
but applicant is required to make a good faith attempt to obtain the information and
to make a reasonable inquiry once the information is requested.
> There is no need for applicants to distinguish
between whether the required information is unknown or is not readily available.
Thus, if information remains unknown after a reasonable inquiry is made, applicant
may simply reply that the requested information is either unknown or is not readily
available rather than be required to make a categorical position either that the
information is unknown to the applicant, or that the information is not readily
available to the applicant. < A reply stating that the
the party or parties from which it was requested will generally be sufficient unless,
for example, it is clear the applicant did not understand the requirement, or the
reply was ambiguous and a more specific answer is possible.
> Depending on the facts surrounding the
requirement and the reply, a follow up requirement may be made where both reasonable
and warranted. < 704.12(c) Treatment of an Incomplete Reply
An incomplete reply to a 37 CFR
1.105 requirement in a pending application or reexamination
proceeding is handled in the same manner as an amendment not fully responsive to a
* > Office < action. See 37 CFR 1.135(c) and MPEP
§ 714.03. Where the reply is a bona
fide reply, form paragraph 7.95 may be used. Note that a 37 CFR
1.105 requirement, even absent an action on the merits, is an
¶ 7.95
Bona Fide, Non-Responsive Amendments
The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): [2]. See 37 CFR 1.111. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of ONE (1) MONTH or THIRTY (30) DAYS from the mailing date of this notice, whichever is longer, within which to supply the omission or correction in order to
avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete reply, or where
the application is subject to a final Office action. Under such cases, the examiner has no authority to grant an extension
if the period for reply has expired. See form paragraph 7.91.
Time Periods for Reply [R-2]
A reply, or a failure to reply, to a
requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 will be
governed by 37 CFR 1.135 and 1.136. See MPEP § 710et seq.
Requirements for information under 37
CFR 1.105 made without an
action on the merits should set a shortened statutory period of two months for reply.
Applicant may extend the time period for reply up to six months in accordance with 37
CFR 1.136(a).
Requirements sent with an
* > Office < action on the merits, and not as a separate Office action, will be given the same period
for reply as the action on the merits.
A requirement for information under
37 CFR 1.105 is an Office action under 35 U.S.C. 132 for patent term
adjustment purposes. See MPEP § 2730 for information pertaining to
patent term adjustment.
Making a Requirement for Information
37 CFR 1.105 should be narrowly specified and limited in scope. It is a
significant burden on both the applicant and the Office since the applicant must collect
and submit the required information and the examiner must consider all the information
that is submitted. A requirement for information is only warranted where the benefit
from the information exceeds the burden in obtaining information.
704.14(a) Format of the Requirement
The requirement must clearly
indicate that a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 is being
made, the basis for the requirement, and what information is being required.
Requirements should specify the particular art area involved, and the particular
claimed subject matter within such art area, in which the information is required in
order to avoid overly burdening the applicant and to avoid inviting large volumes of
information that are not relevant to the need for the information. The requirement
should also clearly indicate the form the required information is expected to take.
That is, whether the requirement is for citations and copies of individual art
references, for the identification of whole collections of art, for answers to
questions, or for another specified form.
under 37 CFR 1.105 is generally prepared as a
separate document that may be attached to an Office action on the merits or mailed as
a stand alone action. The rule permits a requirement to be included within an Office
action, but creating a separate document is preferable because the existence of the
requirement is immediately brought to the attention of the recipient and it is more
readily routed by the applicant to the parties best able to respond.
The requirement should state why
the requirement has been made and how the information is necessary to the
examination. Interrogatories may be used to ask
specific questions seeking applicant’s factual knowledge. Such a requirement for
information may include an inquiry as to the existence of a particular document or
other piece of information and a requirement that such information be supplied if it
is known to exist and is readily available. A stipulation may be used as to facts
with which applicant may agree or disagree in order to clarify the record about
uncontroverted matters.
The following form paragraphs
should be used when preparing a requirement for information:
¶ 7.105
Requirement for Information, Heading
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this
Examiner Note: 1. This form paragraph should appear at the beginning of any requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105, and should be followed by an explanation of why the required information is necessary for examination. Form paragraphs 7.106 – 7.121 may be used as appropriate.
2. The requirement for information should conclude with form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
should be used as appropriate where the information required pertains to
stipulations of facts or interrogatories of facts known to the
¶ 7.105.01
Stipulations of Facts Known to Applicant
In response to this requirement, please agree or disagree to the stipulation of each of the following assertions of facts:
Examiner Note: 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 –7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 1, specify each factual assertion, in the form of a separate, numbered sentence, that the applicant is to either
agree or disagree to so stipulate. It is suggested that at the end of each assertion, the parenthetic phrase, "(agree/disagree)"
be appended to facilitate a reply by way of applicant marking up a copy of the requested stipulations.
¶ 7.105.02
Interrogatories of Facts Known to Applicant
In response to this requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:
2. In bracket 1, specify each interrogatory question, in the form of a separate, numbered sentence, that the applicant is to
answer. The scope of each query must be clearly set forth and the content of the expected reply is to be characterized as
should be used as appropriate where the information required pertains to a search
for prior art, or to citations and/or copies of publications:
¶ 7.106
The information is required to extend the domain of search for prior art. Limited amounts of art related to the claimed subject
matter are available within the Office, and are generally found in class [1] and subclasses [2], which describe [3]. A broader range of art to search is necessary to establish the level of knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the claimed
subject matter art of [4].
Examiner Note: 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
2. In bracket 4, insert a description of the art claimed but not found in the classification system. ¶ 7.107
The information is required to document the level of skill and knowledge in the art of [1]. Examiner Note:
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.
¶ 7.108
The information is required to complete the background description in the disclosure by documenting [1].
¶ 7.109
Products and Services Embodying Invention
The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of [1] and identify the properties of similar products and services found in the prior art.
¶ 7.110
Art Suggested as Relevant
The information is required to enter in the record the art suggested by the applicant as relevant to this examination in
2. In bracket 1, describe where in the application file applicant suggests that the art is relevant, e.g., the specification
and the relevant page thereof, or a paper received in the Office on a specified date and the relevant page thereof.
¶ 7.111
In response to this requirement, please provide a list of keywords that are particularly helpful in locating publications
related to the disclosed art of [1].
¶ 7.112
Citations for Electronically Searchable Databases or Other Indexed Collections
In response to this requirement, please provide a list of citations to electronically searchable databases or other indexed
collections containing publications that document the knowledge within the disclosed art of [1].
¶ 7.113
Copy of Art Referred to in the Disclosure, But Not Submitted In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of each of the following items of art referred to in the [1].
2. In bracket 1, describe where in the application file applicant refers to art that has not been previously submitted, e.g.,
the specification and the relevant page thereof, or a paper received in the Office on a specified date and the relevant page
¶ 7.114
Copies of Publications Authored by Inventor(s)
In response to this requirement, please provide copies of each publication which any of the applicants authored or co-authored
and which describe the disclosed subject matter of [1].
¶ 7.115
Art Relied Upon for Description of Prior Art
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that is a source used for
the description of the prior art in the disclosure. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of that publication’s
contribution to the description of the prior art.
2. This requirement is limited in that only those documents actually relied on, rather than documents believed to be relevant,
¶ 7.116
Art Relied Upon for Development of Invention
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that any of the applicants
relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to developing
[1]. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development
of the disclosed subject matter.
3. In bracket 1, insert a description of the most important inventive elements. ¶ 7.117
Art Relied Upon for Drafting Claimed Subject Matter
In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that was relied upon to
draft the claimed subject matter. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that
publication in distinguishing the claimed subject matter from the prior art.
¶ 7.118
Results of Applicant’s Prior Art Search
In response to this requirement, please state whether any search of prior art was performed. If a search was performed,
please state the citation for each prior art collection searched. If any art retrieved from the search was considered material
to demonstrating the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to the disclosed [1]
, please provide the citation for each piece of art considered and a copy of the art.
2. In bracket 1, describe the subject matter for which art is required. ¶ 7.119
Names of Products or Services Incorporating Claimed Invention
In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the claimed subject
¶ 7.120
Names of Products or Services Incorporating Disclosed Prior Art
In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the disclosed
prior art [1].
2. In bracket 1, specify the attributes of the prior art that most closely approximate the claimed subject matter to narrow the
focus of the reply.
¶ 7.121
Details of Improvement Over the Prior Art
In response to this requirement, please state the specific improvements of the subject matter in claims [1] over the disclosed prior art and indicate the specific elements in the claimed subject matter that provide those improvements.
For those claims expressed as means or steps plus function, please provide the specific page and line numbers within the disclosure
which describe the claimed structure and acts.
should appear at the end of the requirement for information, as
¶ 7.122
Submission of Only Pertinent Pages Where Document is Large
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article
over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated
in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure.
2. Use this form paragraph where the scope of the requirement for information specifically includes copies of publications. ¶ 7.123
Waiver of Fee and Statement Requirements for Certain Information Disclosures
The fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within
the scope of the requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies
subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this
requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate.
Examiner Note: 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraph 7.124 and either form paragraph 7.125 or 7.126 as appropriate.
2. Use this form paragraph where the scope of the requirement for information specifically includes citations to and/or copies
¶ 7.124
Contents of Good Faith Reply
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is
unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
Examiner Note: 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraph 7.125 or 7.126 as appropriate.
2. This form paragraph should appear in the conclusion of any requirement for information. ¶ 7.125
Conclusion of Requirement That Accompanies Office Action
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include
a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply
to the enclosed Office action.
Examiner Note: 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should appear at the conclusion of any requirement for information that accompanies an Office action. If the requirement
for information is mailed without any other Office action, use form paragraph 7.126 instead.
2. Form paragraph 7.127 should appear at the end of any Office action that includes an attached requirement for information.
** > ¶ 7.126
Conclusion Of Requirement Mailed Without Any Other Office Action
This requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and has a shortened statutory period of [1] months. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Examiner Note: 1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should appear at the conclusion of any requirement for information mailed without any other Office action. If the requirement
for information is mailed with an Office action, use form paragraph 7.125 instead .
2. The period for reply is ordinarily set for 2 months. < ¶ 7.127
Conclusion of Office Action That Includes Requirement
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time
period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
This form paragraph should appear at the end of any Office action that includes an attached requirement for information.
704.14(b) Examiner’s Obligation Following Applicant’s Reply
The examiner must consider the
information submitted with the applicant’s reply and apply the information as the
examiner deems appropriate. This obligation arises from the examiner’s assertion that
the information is necessary to the examination in making the
Information constituting
identification of areas of search must be considered and the examiner must indicate
which areas were used and which areas were not used in performing a search. This
indication may be placed in the file wrapper search notes, or may be made by
notations on the applicant’s reply, with the examiner’s initials and date, and with a
notation in the file wrapper search notes that searching based on the 37 CFR
1.105 requirement was made according to the notes on the
applicant’s reply. > For Image File Wrapper (IFW)
processing, see IFW Manual section
3.7. < Information constituting answers
to queries posed by the examiner or another Office employee must be considered, and
the record must indicate that the answers were considered. This indication may be
made minimally by indicating “Considered” with the initials and date of the person
making such consideration on the reply. > For
Image File Wrapper (IFW) processing, see IFW Manual section
3.7. < Art that is submitted in response
to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement must be
considered, at least to the extent that art submitted with an Information Disclosure
Statement under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 is considered. See MPEP § 609. If the applicant provides a written list of citations
for the art submitted with a reply to a 37 CFR 1.105
requirement, an examiner must indicate on that list which art has been considered and
which art has not been considered, in the same manner as with an Information
Disclosure Statement under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. > For Image File
Wrapper (IFW) processing, see IFW Manual section 3.7.
< If the applicant provides no such list, there is
no requirement for the examiner to prepare such a list or otherwise make the
submitted art of record unless the examiner relies on such art in a
It is never appropriate to deny
considering information that is submitted in reply to, and is within the scope of, a
requirement under 37 CFR 1.105. However, information that
is beyond the scope of a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement, submitted
along with information responding to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105, need not be
considered unless the submission of such art conforms to the provisions of 37 CFR
1.97 and 1.98, and MPEP §
609. The criteria for measuring the scope of a 37 CFR
1.105 requirement is the plain meaning of the text of the
requirement. For this reason, it is essential that the scope of information required
be carefully specified. If art which is beyond the scope of a 37 CFR
1.105 requirement is submitted in accordance with the
provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98, and MPEP § 609, such art must
be considered according to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98.
704.14(c) Petitions to Requirements Under 37 CFR 1.105
Applicants who seek to have a
requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 withdrawn or modified, or
who seek to have information submitted under 37 CFR 1.105 considered, may submit a
petition under 37 CFR 1.181 to the Director of the
Technology Center in which the requirement was issued. However, a petition is not a
reply to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement. The time
period for the applicant to reply to the 37 CFR 1.105 requirement
continues to run, even where a petition has been submitted.
704.14(d) Relationship to Information Disclosure Statements
The initial reply, if responsive
to the requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 and
submitted within the original time period for reply including any extensions of time,
does not have to satisfy the fee and/or certification requirements of 37 CFR
1.97 and 1.98. Applicant should list the
references on a copy of Form ** PTO/SB/08 to
have the citations entered in the record. Any replies made subsequent to the initial
reply must meet the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and
1.98 as appropriate.
Any submission of art beyond the
scope of a requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105 is a submission of art under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and MPEP §
609, and must meet the provisions of 37 CFR
1.97 and 1.98 for the art to be
Where information is submitted in
a reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105, the
examiner may NOT make the next Office action relying on that art final unless all
instances of the application of such art are necessitated by amendment. This section
explicitly distinguishes the practice following a reply under 37 CFR
1.105 from the practice in MPEP § 609.04(b) and MPEP § 706.07(a) following a submission of an Information
Disclosure Statement under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.