Source: http://patents.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s711.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 00:13:43
Document Index: 183139839

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 711', '§ 711', '§ 714', '§ 714', '§ 1308', '§ 1308', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 711', '§ 714', '§ 711', '§ 710', '§ 711', '§ 710', '§ 714', '§ 714', '§ 1215', '§\n1215', '§ 1215', '§ 1216', '§ 201', '§ 711', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§\n1214', '§ 714', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§\n1', '§ 1', '§\n1', '§ 41', '§ 513', '§\n503', '§\n512', '§ 512', '§ 706', '§ 1123', '§ 1124', '§ 711', '§ 3', '§ 601', '§ 403', '§ 1002', '§\n103', '§ 512', '§ 402', '§\n601', '§ 403', '§\n711', '§\n2136']

Section 711 711
Abandonment of Patent Application [R-9]
(a) If an applicant of a patent
application fails to reply within the time period provided under
§ 1.134 and
§ 1.136, the application
will become abandoned unless an Office action indicates
(b) Prosecution of an
application to save it from abandonment pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section must include such complete and proper reply as the condition of the
application may require. The admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment
after final rejection or any amendment not responsive to the last action, or
any related proceedings, will not operate to save the application from
(c) When reply by the applicant
is a bona fide attempt to advance the
application to final action, and is substantially a complete reply to the
non-final Office action, but consideration of some matter or compliance with
some requirement has been inadvertently omitted, applicant may be given a new
time period for reply under § 1.134 to supply the
(a) An application may be
expressly abandoned by filing a written declaration of abandonment identifying
the application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Express
abandonment of the application may not be recognized by the Office before the
date of issue or publication unless it is actually received by appropriate
officials in time to act.
(b) A written declaration of
abandonment must be signed by a party authorized under § 1.33(b)(1), (b)(3), or
(b)(4) to sign a paper in
the application, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph. A registered
attorney or agent, not of record, who acts in a representative capacity under
the provisions of § 1.34(a) when filing a
continuing application, may expressly abandon the prior application as of the
filing date granted to the continuing application.
(c) An applicant seeking to
abandon an application to avoid publication of the application (see
§ 1.211(a)(1)) must submit a
declaration of express abandonment by way of a petition under this section
including the fee set forth in § 1.17(h) in
sufficient time to permit the appropriate officials to recognize the
abandonment and remove the application from the publication process. Applicant
should expect that the petition will not be granted and the application will be
published in regular course unless such declaration of express abandonment and
petition are received by the appropriate officials more than four weeks prior
Abandonment may be either of the
invention or of an application. This discussion is concerned with abandonment of the
An abandoned application, in accordance
with 37 CFR 1.135 and 1.138, is one which is removed from the Office
docket of pending applications through:
(1) by the applicant
(acquiesced in by the assignee if there is one), (2) by the attorney or agent
of record , or
(3) by a registered attorney
or agent acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR 1.34 when filing a continuing
(B) failure of applicant to take
appropriate action within a specified time at some stage in the prosecution of the
Where an applicant, himself or herself,
formally abandons an application and there is a corporate assignee, the acquiescence must
be made through an officer whose official position is indicated and is authorized to sign
on behalf of the corporate assignee.
Express or Formal Abandonment [R-9]
The applicant (acquiesced in by an
assignee of record), or the attorney/agent of record, if any, can sign an express
abandonment. It is imperative that the attorney or agent of record exercise every
precaution in ascertaining that the abandonment of the application is in accordance with
the desires and best interests of the applicant prior to signing a letter of express
abandonment of a patent application. Moreover, special care should be taken to ensure
that the appropriate application is correctly identified in the letter of
A letter of abandonment properly
signed becomes effective when an appropriate official of the Office takes action
thereon. When so recognized, the date of abandonment may be the date of recognition or a
later date if so specified in the letter itself. For example, where a continuing
application is filed with a request to abandon the prior application as of the filing
date accorded the continuing application, the date of the abandonment of the prior
application will be in accordance with the request once it is
A letter of express abandonment or a
petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) for express abandonment to
avoid publication of the application (see 37 CFR 1.211(a)(1))
accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) may be: (A) mailed to Mail Stop Express
Abandonment, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313-1450; or
(B) ** > filed electronically using
EFS-Web. < Since a petition under 37 CFR
1.138(c) will not stop publication of the application unless it
is recognized and acted on by the Pre-Grant Publication Division in sufficient time to
avoid publication, applicants should transmit the petition
** > electronically using EFS-Web < in
all instances where the projected publication date is less than 3 months from the date
of the petition. This will increase the chance of such petition being received by the
appropriate officials in sufficient time to recognize the abandonment and remove the
application from the publication process. If the issue fee has been paid, the letter of
express abandonment should be directed to the Office of Petitions instead of the
Pre-Grant Publication Division and be accompanied by a petition to withdraw an
application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c). See subsection “I. After
Payment of Issue Fee.”
Action in recognition of an express
abandonment may take the form of an acknowledgment by the Publishing Division of the
receipt of the express abandonment, indicating that it is in compliance with
CFR 1.138.
It is suggested that divisional
applications be reviewed before filing to ascertain whether the prior application should
be abandoned. Care should be exercised in situations such as these as the Office looks
on express abandonments as acts of deliberation, intentionally
Applications may be expressly
abandoned as provided for in 37 CFR 1.138. When a letter
expressly abandoning an application (not in issue) is received, the Office should
acknowledge receipt thereof, and indicate whether it does or does not comply with the
requirements of 37 CFR 1.138.
The filing of a request for a
continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a
design application is considered to be a request to expressly abandon the prior
application as of the filing date granted the continuing application.
If the letter expressly abandoning
the application does comply with 37 CFR 1.138, the Office personnel
should respond by using a “Notice of Abandonment” form PTO-1432, and by checking the
appropriate box(es). If such a letter does not comply with the requirements of
CFR 1.138, a fully explanatory letter should be
A letter of express abandonment which
is not timely filed (because it was not filed within the period for reply), is not
acceptable to expressly abandon the application. The letter of express abandonment
should be placed in the application file but not formally entered.
The application should be pulled for
abandonment after expiration of the maximum permitted period for reply (see
711.04(a)) and applicant notified of the abandonment for
failure to reply within the statutory period. See MPEP § 711.02 and
§ 711.04(c).
In view of the doctrine set forth in
Ex parte Lasscell, 1884 C.D. 66, 29 O.G. 861
(Comm’r Pat. 1884), an amendment canceling all of the claims, even though said amendment
is signed by the applicant himself/herself and the assignee, is not an express
abandonment. The Office, however, will not enter any amendment that would cancel all of
the claims in an application without presenting any new or substitute claims. See
Exxon Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 265 F.3d
1249, 60 USPQ2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Such an amendment is regarded as nonresponsive
and is not a bona fide attempt to advance the
application to final action. The practice set forth in 37 CFR 1.135(c) does not apply to such amendment. Applicant should be
notified as explained in MPEP § 714.03 to § 714.05.
An attorney or agent not of record in
an application may file a withdrawal of an appeal under 37 CFR
1.34 except in those instances where such
withdrawal would result in abandonment of the application. In such instances the
withdrawal of appeal is in fact an express abandonment.
If a letter of express abandonment
is being submitted in an allowed application after the payment of the issue fee, the
express abandonment must be accompanied by a petition to withdraw from issue under
37 CFR 1.313(c) and the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(h). Also see MPEP § 1308. The express abandonment may not be recognized by the
Office unless it is actually received by appropriate officials in time to withdraw
the application from issue. A petition under 37 CFR 1.313 will not be effective to withdraw the application from
issue unless it is actually received and granted by the appropriate official before
the date of issue. After the issue fee has been paid, the application will not be
withdrawn upon petition by the applicant for any reason except those reasons listed
in 37 CFR 1.313(c), which include express
abandonment of the application. An application may be withdrawn from issue for
express abandonment of the application in favor of a continuing application. The
petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c) accompanied by the
petition fee should be addressed to the Office of Petitions. If the petition and the
letter of abandonment are received by appropriate officials in sufficient time to act
on the petition and remove the application from the issue process, the letter of
abandonment will be acknowledged by the Office
of ** > Data Management < after the
petition is granted. Petitions to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR
1.313(c) may be:
(A) mailed to Mail Stop
Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313-1450;
(B) transmitted by facsimile
transmission to (571) 273-0025; or
(C) hand-carried to the
Office of Petitions, Madison West, 7th Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. At the
guard station in Madison West, the security guard should call the Office of
Petitions at (571) 272-3282 for delivery assistance > ;
(D) submitted electronically by
EFS-Web. < Applicants are strongly encouraged
to either transmit by > EFS-Web, or < 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.
711.05 and § 1308. In cases
where 37 CFR 1.313 precludes giving
effect to an express abandonment, the appropriate remedy is a petition, with fee,
under 37 CFR 1.183, showing an
extraordinary situation where justice requires suspension of 37 CFR
TO AVOID PUBLICATION OF APPLICATION
A petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c)
will not stop publication of the application unless it is recognized and acted on by
the Pre-Grant Publication Division in sufficient time to avoid publication. The
petition will be granted when it is recognized in sufficient time to avoid
publication of the application. The petition will be denied when it is not recognized
in time to avoid publication. Generally, a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) will not be granted and the application will be
petition are received by the appropriate officials more than four weeks prior to the
projected date of publication. It is unlikely that a petition filed within four weeks
of the projected date of publication will be effective to avoid publication. Also
note that withdrawal of an application from issue after payment of the issue fee may
not be effective to avoid publication of an application under 35 U.S.C.
122(b). See 37 CFR 1.313(d).
TO OBTAIN REFUND OF SEARCH FEE AND EXCESS CLAIMS
***** (d) An applicant seeking
to abandon an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and § 1.53(b) on or after December 8, 2004, to obtain a
refund of the search fee and excess claims fee paid in the application,
must submit a declaration of express abandonment by way of a petition
under this paragraph before an examination has been made of the
application. The date indicated on any certificate of mailing or
transmission under § 1.8 will not be taken
into account in determining whether a petition under § 1.138(d) was filed before an examination has been
made of the application. If a request for refund of the search fee and
excess claims fee paid in the application is not filed with the
declaration of express abandonment under this paragraph or within two
months from the date on which the declaration of express abandonment
under this paragraph was filed, the Office may retain the entire search
fee and excess claims fee paid in the application. This two-month period
is not extendable. If a petition and declaration of express abandonment
under this paragraph are not filed before an examination has been made of
the application, the Office will not refund any part of the search fee
and excess claims fee paid in the application except as provided in §
As provided in 37 CFR
1.138(d), refund of the search fee and excess claims fee paid
in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 CFR 1.53(b) on or after December 8, 2004 may be obtained by
submitting a petition and declaration of express abandonment before an examination
has been made of the application.
1.138(d) will be granted if it was
filed before an examination has been made of the application and will be denied if it
was not filed before an examination has been made of the application. This averts the
situation in which an applicant files a declaration of express abandonment to obtain
a refund of the search fee and excess claims fee, the request for a refund is not
granted because the declaration of express abandonment was not filed before an
examination has been made of the application, the applicant then wishes to rescind
the declaration of express abandonment upon learning that the declaration of express
abandonment was not filed before an examination has been made of the application, and
the Office cannot revive the application (once the declaration of express abandonment
is recognized) because the application was expressly and intentionally abandoned by
An “examination has been made of
the application” for purposes of 37 CFR 1.138(d) once an
action (e.g., restriction or election of species requirement, requirement for
information under 37 CFR 1.105, first Office action on the
merits, notice of allowability or notice of allowance, or action under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 11 (1935)) is
shown in the Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) system as having been
counted. For purposes of 37 CFR 1.138(d), “before” means
occurring earlier in time, in that if a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) is filed and an action is counted on the same day,
the petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) was not filed before an
examination has been made of the application. In addition, the date indicated on any
certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8 is not taken into account in determining whether a
petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) was filed before an
examination has been made of the application.
The PALM system maintains
computerized contents records of all patent applications and reexamination
proceedings. The PALM system will show a status higher than 031 once an action has
been counted. If the status of an application as shown in PALM is higher than 031
before or on the day that the petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) was filed, the petition under 37 CFR
1.138(d) will be denied and the search fee and excess claims
fee will not be refunded except as provided in 37 CFR 1.26.
1.138(d) may not be effective to stop publication of an
application unless the petition under 37 CFR 1.138(d) is
granted and the abandonment processed before technical preparations for publication
of the application has begun. Technical preparations for publication of an
application generally begin four months prior to the projected date of
The Office recommends that
petitions under 37 CFR 1.138(d) be submitted by
** > EFS-Web < . The use of form
PTO/SB/24B, reproduced in MPEP § 711.01, subsection
V., is recommended.
APPLICATION IN INTERFERENCE
abandonment of the application signed only by an attorney or agent of record, when
the application sought to be expressly or formally abandoned is the subject of an
interference proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135, is not effective
to terminate the interference, and will not be considered until after ex parte prosecution is resumed. In order to be
effective to terminate an interference proceeding, an abandonment of the application
must be signed by the inventor with the written consent of the assignee where there
has been an assignment.
FORMS FOR FILING EXPRESS ABANDONMENT
Form PTO/SB/24 may be used for
filing a letter of express abandonment or a letter of express abandonment in favor of
a continuing application. Form PTO/SB/24A may be used for filing a petition for
express abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138(c) to avoid
publication of the application. Form PTO/SB/24B may be used for filing a petition for
express abandonment under 37 CFR 1.138(d) to obtain a refund of
the search fee and excess claims fee.
** > Form PTO/SB/24. Express Abandonment Under 37 CFR
Form PTO/SB/24a Petition for Express Abandonment To Avoid
Publication Under 37 CFR 1.138(c)
Form PTO/SB/24B Petition for Express Abandonment To Obtain
Privacy Act Statement < 711.02
Failure To Take Required Action During Statutory Period [R-3]
1.135(a) specifies that an application becomes abandoned if
applicant “fails to reply” to an office action within the fixed statutory period. This
failure may result either from (A) failure to reply within the statutory period, or (B)
insufficiency of reply, i.e., failure to file a “complete and proper reply, as the
condition of the case may require” within the statutory period (37 CFR
1.135(b)).
When an amendment is filed after the
expiration of the statutory period, the application is abandoned and the remedy is to
petition to revive it. The examiner should notify the applicant or attorney at once that
the application has been abandoned by using Notice of Abandonment form PTOL-1432. The
proper boxes on the form should be checked and the blanks for the dates of the proposed
amendment and the Office action completed. The late amendment is
** > placed
in < the file wrapper but not formally entered. See
§ 714.17.
7.90 or 7.98.02 may also be
¶ 7.90
Abandonment, Failure to Reply
Examiner Note: 1. A letter of abandonment should not be mailed until after the period for requesting an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) has expired.
** > ¶ 7.98.02
Reply Is Late, Petition To Revive Suggested, Pro Se
Applicant’s reply to the Office Action of [1] was received in the Patent and Trademark Office on [2], which is after the expiration of the period for reply set in the last Office Action. Since no time remains for applicant
to obtain an extension of the period for reply by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a), this application is abandoned. Applicant is advised that the abandonment of this application may only be overcome by filing a petition to revive under
37 CFR 1.137. A petition to revive may be appropriate if applicant’s failure to reply was either unavoidable or unintentional,
A. Failure to reply was unavoidable. A petition to revive an abandoned application on the grounds that the failure to reply was unavoidable (37 CFR 1.137(a)) must
be accompanied by: (1) the required reply (which has been filed); (2) a showing to the satisfaction of the Director that the
entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant
to 37 CFR 1.137(a) was unavoidable; (3) any terminal disclaimer required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(d); and (4) the $[3] petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(l). No consideration to the substance of a petition will be given until this fee
The showing requirement can be met by submission of statements of fact establishing that the delay in filing the reply was
unavoidable, as well as inadvertent. This must include: (1) a satisfactory showing that the cause of the delay resulting in
failure to reply in timely fashion to the Office action was unavoidable; and (2) a satisfactory showing that the cause of
any delay during the time period between abandonment and filing of the petition to revive was also unavoidable.
A terminal disclaimer and the $[4] terminal disclaimer fee is required under 37 CFR 1.137(d) if the application is: (1) a design application, (2) a utility
application filed before June 8, 1995, or (3) a plant application filed before June 8, 1995. The terminal disclaimer must
dedicate to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted the application equivalent to the period of abandonment
of the application, and must also apply to any patent granted on any application containing a specific reference under 35 U.S.C.
120, 121 or 365(c) to the application for which revival is sought.
B. Failure to reply was unintentional. A petition to revive an abandoned application on the grounds that the failure to reply was unintentional (37 CFR 1.137(b))
must be accompanied by: (1) the required reply (which has been filed); (2) a statement that the entire delay in filing the
required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(b) was unintentional;
(3) any terminal disclaimer required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(d) (see above discussion); and (4) the $[5] petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m). No consideration to the substance of a petition will be given until this fee
is received. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
The required items and fees must be submitted promptly under a cover letter entitled “Petition to Revive.” Further correspondence with respect to this matter should be addressed as follows:
Mail Stop PetitionCommissioner for PatentsP.O. Box 1450Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
571-273-8300Attn: Office of Petitions
Telephone inquiries with respect to this matter should be directed to the Office of Petitions Staff at (571) 272-3282. For
more detailed information, see MPEP § 711.03(c).
< To pass on questions of abandonment,
it is essential that the examiner know the dates that mark the beginning and end of the
statutory period under varying situations. Applicant's reply must reach the Office
within the set shortened statutory period for reply dating from the date stamped or
printed on the Office letter or within the extended time period obtained under
CFR 1.136. (See MPEP § 710 to
710.06.)
For a petition to withdraw a holding
of abandonment based upon failure to receive an Office action, see MPEP
§ 711.03(c).
711.02(a) Insufficiency of Reply
Abandonment may result from a
situation where applicant's reply is within the period for reply but is not fully
responsive to the Office action. But see MPEP § 710.02(c).
See also MPEP § 714.02 to
§ 714.04.
¶ 7.91
Reply Is Not Fully Responsive, Extension of Time Suggested
The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because: [2]. Since the period for reply set forth in the prior Office action has expired, this application will become abandoned unless
applicant corrects the deficiency and obtains an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate extension fee have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the
corresponding amount of the fee. In no case may an applicant reply outside the SIX (6) MONTH statutory period or obtain an
extension for more than FIVE (5) MONTHS beyond the date for reply set forth in an Office action. A fully responsive reply
must be timely filed to avoid abandonment of this application. Examiner Note: 1. In bracket 2, set forth why the examiner considers there to be a failure to take “complete and proper action” within the statutory
711.02(b) Special Situations Involving Abandonment
The following situations involving
questions of abandonment often arise, and should be specially noted:
(A) Copying claims from a
patent when not suggested by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not
constitute a reply to the last Office action and will not save the
application from abandonment, unless the last Office action relied solely on
the patent for the rejection of all the claims rejected in that
(B) An application may become
abandoned through withdrawal of, or failure to prosecute, an appeal to the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. See MPEP
§ 1215.01 to §
1215.04.
(C) An application may become
abandoned through dismissal of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit or civil action, where there was not filed prior to such
dismissal an amendment putting the application in condition for issue or
fully responsive to the Board’s decision. Abandonment results from failure
to perfect an appeal as required by the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. See MPEP § 1215.04 and
§ 1216.01.
(D) Where claims are
suggested for interference near the end of the period for reply running
application ** > .
See MPEP Chapter
(E) < Where a continued prosecution
application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) is filed.
See MPEP § 201.06(d) and
§ 711.01. * > (F) < Prior to a decision by the Board, an
application on appeal that has no allowed claims may become abandoned when a
** > Request
for Continued Examination (RCE) < is
improperly filed without the appropriate fee or a submission (37 CFR
1.114(d)) in the
application. The filing of an RCE will be treated as a withdrawal of the
appeal by the applicant. See MPEP § 706.07(h),
* > (G) < When a reply to a final Office action
is outstanding, an application may become abandoned if an RCE is filed
without a timely submission that meets the reply requirements of 37 CFR
1.111. The filing of an
improper RCE will not operate to toll the running of any time period set in
the previous Office action for reply to avoid abandonment of the
application. See MPEP § 706.07(h),
* > (H) < Prior to payment of the issue fee, an
allowed application may become abandoned if an RCE is improperly filed
without the appropriate fee or a submission in the application. The improper
RCE will not operate to toll the running of the time period for payment of
the issue fee. See MPEP § 706.07(h),
711.02(c) Termination of Proceedings
“Termination of proceedings” is an
expression found in 35 U.S.C. 120. As there stated, a
second application is considered to be copending with an earlier application if it is
filed before (A) the patenting,
(B) the abandonment of, or
proceedings on the earlier application. “Before” has consistently been
interpreted, in this context, to mean “not later than.”
situations, proceedings are terminated:
(A) When the issue fee is not
paid and the application is abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee,
proceedings are terminated as of the date the issue fee was due and the
application is the same as if it were abandoned after midnight on that date
(but if the issue fee is later accepted, on petition, the application is
revived). See MPEP
(B) If an application is in
interference wherein all the claims present in the application correspond to
the counts and the application loses the interference as to all the claims,
then proceedings on that application are terminated as of the date appeal or
review by civil action was due if no appeal or civil action was
(C) Proceedings are
terminated in an application after decision by the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences as explained in MPEP §
1214.06.
(D) Proceedings are
terminated after a decision by the court as explained in
1216.01.
Reconsideration of Holding of Abandonment; Revival
When advised of the abandonment of
his or her application, applicant may either ask for reconsideration of such holding, if
he or she disagrees with it on the basis that there is no abandonment in fact; or
petition for revival under 37 CFR 1.137.
711.03(a) Holding Based on Insufficiency of Reply Applicant may deny that the reply
While the primary examiner has no
authority to act upon an application in which no action by applicant was taken during
the period for reply, he or she may reverse his or her holding as to whether or not
an amendment received during such period was responsive and act on an application of
such character which he or she has previously held abandoned. This is not a revival
of an abandoned application but merely a holding that the application was never
abandoned. See also MPEP § 714.03.
711.03(b) Holding Based on Failure To Reply Within Period
When an amendment reaches the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office after the expiration of the period for reply and there is
no dispute as to the dates involved, no question of reconsideration of a holding of
abandonment can be presented.
However, the examiner and the
applicant may disagree as to the date on which the period for reply commenced to run
or ends. In this situation, as in the situation involving sufficiency of reply, the
applicant may take issue with the examiner and point out to him or her that his or
her holding was erroneous.
711.03(c) Petitions Relating to Abandonment 37 C.F.R. 1.135 Abandonment for failure to reply within time
(a) If an applicant of a
patent application fails to reply within the time period provided under
§ 1.136, the
application will become abandoned unless an Office action indicates
section must include such complete and proper reply as the condition of
the application may require. The admission of, or refusal to admit, any
amendment after final rejection or any amendment not responsive to the
last action, or any related proceedings, will not operate to save the
application from abandonment.
(c) When reply by the
applicant is a bona fide attempt
to advance the application to final action, and is substantially a
complete reply to the non-final Office action, but consideration of some
matter or compliance with some requirement has been inadvertently
omitted, applicant may be given a new time period for reply under
§ 1.134 to supply the
37 C.F.R. 1.137 Revival of abandoned application, terminated reexamination
proceeding, or lapsed patent.
(a) Unavoidable. If the delay in reply by
applicant or patent owner was unavoidable, a petition may be filed
pursuant to this paragraph to revive an abandoned application, a
reexamination prosecution terminated under §§ 1.550(d) or 1.957(b) or limited under § 1.957(c), or a lapsed patent. A grantable petition
pursuant to this paragraph must be accompanied by:
(1) The reply
required to the outstanding Office action or notice, unless
previously filed;
(2) The petition fee
as set forth in § 1.17(l);
(3) A showing to the
satisfaction of the Director that the entire delay in filing the
required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of
a grantable petition pursuant to this paragraph was unavoidable;
(4) Any terminal
disclaimer (and fee as set forth in § 1.20(d)) required pursuant to paragraph (d)
(b) Unintentional. If the delay in reply
by applicant or patent owner was unintentional, a petition may be filed
as set forth in § 1.17(m);
the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for
the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to this
paragraph was unintentional. The Director may require additional
information where there is a question whether the delay was
(c) Reply. In a nonprovisional application
abandoned for failure to prosecute, the required reply may be met by the
filing of a continuing application. In a nonprovisional utility or plant
application filed on or after June 8, 1995, and abandoned for failure to
prosecute, the required reply may also be met by the filing of a request
for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114. In an application or patent, abandoned or
lapsed for failure to pay the issue fee or any portion thereof, the
required reply must include payment of the issue fee or any outstanding
balance. In an application, abandoned for failure to pay the publication
fee, the required reply must include payment of the publication
(1) Any petition to
revive pursuant to this section in a design application must be
accompanied by a terminal disclaimer and fee as set forth in §
dedicating to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent
granted thereon equivalent to the period of abandonment of the
application. Any petition to revive pursuant to this section in
either a utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995,
must be accompanied by a terminal disclaimer and fee as set forth
in § 1.321
granted thereon equivalent to the lesser of:
(i) The period
of abandonment of the application; or
(ii) The period
extending beyond twenty years from the date on which the
application for the patent was filed in the United States or,
if the application contains a specific reference to an
earlier filed application(s) under 35 U.S.C.
365(c), from the date on which the earliest such application
(2) Any terminal
disclaimer pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section must also
apply to any patent granted on a continuing utility or plant
application filed before June 8, 1995, or a continuing design
application, that contains a specific reference under 35 U.S.C.
365(c) to the
application for which revival is sought.
of paragraph (d)(1) of this section do not apply to applications
for which revival is sought solely for purposes of copendency with
a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, to
lapsed patents, to reissue applications, or to reexamination
(e) Request for reconsideration. Any
request for reconsideration or review of a decision refusing to revive an
abandoned application, a terminated or limited reexamination prosecution,
or lapsed patent upon petition filed pursuant to this section, to be
considered timely, must be filed within two months of the decision
refusing to revive or within such time as set in the decision. Unless a
decision indicates otherwise, this time period may be extended
(1) The provisions
of § 1.136 for an
abandoned application or lapsed patent;
(2) The provisions
of § 1.550(c) for a
terminated ex parte
reexamination prosecution, where the ex
parte reexamination was filed under §
1.510;
of § 1.956 for a
terminated inter partes
reexamination prosecution or an inter
partes reexamination limited as to further
prosecution, where the inter
partes reexamination was filed under §
(f) Abandonment for failure to notify the Office of
a foreign filing: A nonprovisional application abandoned
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for
failure to timely notify the Office of the filing of an application in a
foreign country or under a multinational treaty that requires publication
of applications eighteen months after filing, may be revived only
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. The reply requirement of
paragraph (c) of this section is met by the notification of such filing
in a foreign country or under a multinational treaty, but the filing of a
petition under this section will not operate to stay any period for reply
that may be running against the application.
(g) Provisional applications: A
provisional application, abandoned for failure to timely respond to an
Office requirement, may be revived pursuant to this section. Subject to
the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3) and §
1.7(b), a provisional application will not be
regarded as pending after twelve months from its filing date under any
(a) Petition may be taken
(1) From any action
or requirement of any examiner in the ex
parte prosecution of an application, or in ex parte or inter partes prosecution of a reexamination
proceeding which is not subject to appeal to the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences or to the court; (2) In cases in
which a statute or the rules specify that the matter is to be
determined directly by or reviewed by the Director;
(3) To invoke the
supervisory authority of the Director in appropriate circumstances.
For petitions involving action of the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, see § 41.3 of this title.
***** (f) The mere filing of a
petition will not stay any period for reply that may be running against
the application, nor act as a stay of other proceedings. Any petition
under this part not filed within two months of the mailing date of the
action or notice from which relief is requested may be dismissed as
untimely, except as otherwise provided. This two-month period is not
***** I.
A petition to revive an
abandoned application (discussed below) should not be confused with a petition
from an examiner’s holding of abandonment. Where an applicant contends that the
application is not in fact abandoned (e.g., there is disagreement as to the
sufficiency of the reply, or as to controlling dates), a petition under
37 CFR 1.181(a) requesting
withdrawal of the holding of abandonment is the appropriate course of action, and
such petition does not require a fee. Where there is no dispute as to whether an
application is abandoned (e.g., the applicant’s contentions merely involve the
cause of abandonment), a petition under 37 CFR 1.137
(accompanied by the appropriate petition fee) is necessary to revive the abandoned
Two additional procedures are
available for reviving an application that has become abandoned due to a failure
to reply to an Office Action: (1) a petition under 37 CFR
1.137(a) based on unavoidable delay; and (2) a petition
under 37 CFR 1.137(b) based on
unintentional delay.
Petition To Withdraw Holding of Abandonment Based on
Failure To Receive Office Action
In Delgar v. Schulyer, 172 USPQ 513 (D.D.C. 1971), the court decided
that the Office should mail a new Notice of Allowance in view of the evidence
presented in support of the contention that the applicant’s representative did
not receive the original Notice of Allowance. Under the reasoning of Delgar, an allegation that an Office action was
never received may be considered in a petition to withdraw the holding of
abandonment. If adequately supported, the Office may grant the petition to
withdraw the holding of abandonment and remail the Office action. That is, the
reasoning of Delgar is applicable regardless
of whether an application is held abandoned for failure to timely pay the issue
fee (35 U.S.C. 151) or for
failure to prosecute (35 U.S.C.
To minimize costs and
burdens to practitioners and the Office, the Office has modified the showing
required to establish nonreceipt of an Office action. The showing required to
establish nonreceipt of an Office communication must include a statement from
the practitioner describing the system used for recording an Office action
received at the correspondence address of record with the USPTO. The statement
should establish that the docketing system is sufficiently reliable. It is
expected that the record would include, but not be limited to, the application
number, attorney docket number, the mail date of the Office action and the due
date for the response. Practitioner must state that
the Office action was not received at the correspondence address of record, and
that a search of the practitioner’s record(s), including any file jacket or the
equivalent, and the application contents, indicates that the Office action was
not received. A copy of the record(s) used by the practitioner where the
non-received Office action would have been entered had it been received is
A copy of the practitioner’s
record(s) required to show non-receipt of the Office action should include the
master docket for the firm. That is, if a three month period for reply was set
in the nonreceived Office action, a copy of the master docket report showing
all replies docketed for a date three months from the mail date of the
nonreceived Office action must be submitted as documentary proof of nonreceipt
of the Office action. If no such master docket exists, the practitioner should
so state and provide other evidence such as, but not limited to, the following:
the application file jacket; incoming mail log; calendar; reminder system; or
the individual docket record for the application in question.
The showing outlined above
may not be sufficient if there are circumstances that point to a conclusion
that the Office action may have been lost after receipt rather than a
conclusion that the Office action was lost in the mail (e.g., if the
practitioner has a history of not receiving Office actions).
Evidence of nonreceipt of an
Office communication or action (e.g., Notice
of Abandonment or an advisory action) other than that action to which reply was
required to avoid abandonment would not warrant withdrawal of the holding of
abandonment. Abandonment takes place by operation of law for failure to reply
to an Office action or timely pay the issue fee, not by operation of the
mailing of a Notice of Abandonment. See Lorenz v.
Finkl, 333 F.2d 885, 889-90, 142 USPQ 26, 29-30 (CCPA 1964);
Krahn v. Commissioner, 15 USPQ2d 1823,
1824 (E.D. Va 1990); In re Application of
Fischer, 6 USPQ2d 1573, 1574 (Comm’r Pat. 1988). B.
Evidence That a Reply Was Timely Mailed or Filed
37 CFR 1.10(c) through 1.10(e) and
1.10(g) set forth procedures for petitioning the Director of the USPTO to
accord a filing date to correspondence as of the date of deposit of the
correspondence as “Express Mail.” A petition to withdraw the holding of
abandonment relying upon a timely reply placed in “Express Mail” must include
an appropriate petition under 37 CFR 1.10(c),
(d), (e), or (g) (see MPEP § 513). When a paper is
shown to have been mailed to the Office using the “Express Mail” procedures,
the paper must be entered in PALM with the “Express Mail” date.
Similarly, applicants may
establish that a reply was filed with a postcard receipt that properly
identifies the reply and provides prima
facie evidence that the reply was timely filed. See MPEP §
503. For example, if the
application has been held abandoned for failure to file a reply to a first
Office action, and applicant has a postcard receipt showing that an amendment
was timely filed in response to the Office action, then the holding of
abandonment should be withdrawn upon the filing of a petition to withdraw the
holding of abandonment. When the reply is shown to have been timely filed based
on a postcard receipt, the reply must be entered into PALM using the date of
receipt of the reply as shown on the post card receipt. Where a certificate of
mailing under 37 CFR 1.8, but not a postcard
receipt, is relied upon in a petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment,
see 37 CFR 1.8(b) and MPEP §
512. As stated in 37 CFR
1.8(b)(3) the statement
that attests to the previous timely mailing or transmission of the
correspondence must be on a personal knowledge basis, or to the satisfaction of
the Director of the USPTO. If the statement attesting to the previous timely
mailing is not made by the person who signed the Certificate of Mailing (i.e.,
there is no personal knowledge basis), then the statement attesting to the
previous timely mailing should include evidence that supports the conclusion
that the correspondence was actually mailed (e.g., copies of a mailing log
establishing that correspondence was mailed for that application). When the
correspondence is shown to have been timely filed based on a certificate of
mailing, the correspondence is entered into PALM with the actual date of
receipt (i.e., the date that the duplicate copy of the papers was filed with
the statement under 37 CFR 1.8).
37 CFR 1.8(b) also permits applicant to notify the Office of a
previous mailing or transmission of correspondence and submit a statement under
37 CFR 1.8(b)(3) accompanied by a
duplicate copy of the correspondence when a reasonable amount of time (e.g.,
more than one month) has elapsed from the time of mailing or transmitting of
the correspondence. Applicant does not have to wait until the application
becomes abandoned before notifying the Office of the previous mailing or
transmission of the correspondence. Applicant should check the private Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system for the status of the
correspondence before notifying the Office. See MPEP § 512.
Treatment of Untimely Petition To Withdraw Holding of
37 CFR 1.181(f) provides that, inter
alia, except as otherwise provided, any petition not filed within
2 months from the action complained of may be dismissed as untimely. Therefore,
any petition (under 37 CFR 1.181) to withdraw the
holding of abandonment not filed within 2 months of the mail date of a notice
of abandonment (the action complained of) may be dismissed as untimely. 37 CFR
1.181(f). Rather than dismiss an
untimely petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment under 37 CFR
1.181(f), the Office may
require a terminal disclaimer as a condition of granting an untimely petition
to withdraw the holding of abandonment. > Where the
record indicates that the applicant intentionally delayed the filing of a
petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment, the Office may simply dismiss
the petition as untimely (37 CFR 1.181(f))
solely on the basis of such intentional delay in taking action in the
application without further addressing the merits of the petition. Obviously,
intentional delay in seeking the revival of an abandoned application precludes
relief under 37 CFR 1.137(a) or (b) (discussed
below). < 1. Design Applications, Utility Applications Filed
Before June 8, 1995, and Plant Applications Filed Before June 8,
(a) Applicant Receives Notice of
application, any utility application filed before June 8, 1995, or any
plant application filed before June 8, 1995, if applicant receives a
notice of abandonment, any petition to withdraw the holding of
abandonment that is not filed within two months of the mail date of the
notice of abandonment will not (absent
extraordinary circumstances) be treated on its merits unless accompanied by a terminal disclaimer
under 37 CFR 1.321(a), and the
required fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(d). The period to be disclaimed is the terminal
part of the term of any patent granted on the application, or of any
patent granted on any utility or plant application that claims the
benefit of the filing date of the application under 35 U.S.C.
365(c), equivalent to
the period between:
(A) the date that
is two months after the mail date of the notice of abandonment;
(B) the filing
date of a grantable petition to withdraw the holding of
Form PTO/SB/62 is the
appropriate terminal disclaimer to be used.
(b) Applicant Does Not Receive Notice of
plant application filed before June 8, 1995, if applicant never receives
the notice of abandonment, any petition to withdraw the holding of
abandonment that is not filed within twelve months from the date of
applicant’s filing (or date of submission, if the correspondence was
never received by the Office) of correspondence with the Office for which
further action by the Office can reasonably be expected, will not (absent extraordinary circumstances) be
treated on its merit unless accompanied by a
terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321(a), and the required fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.20(d). The period
to be disclaimed is the terminal part of the term of any patent granted
thereon, or of any patent granted on any utility or plant application
that claims the benefit of the filing date of the application under 35
U.S.C. 120,
is twelve months from the date of applicant’s filing or
submission of correspondence with the Office, for which further
action by the Office can reasonably be expected;
2. Utility and Plant Applications Filed on or After
June 8, 1995 but Before May 29, 2000
In utility and plant
applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, but before May 29, 2000, a
terminal disclaimer should not be required as a
condition of granting an untimely petition to withdraw the holding of
abandonment. However, the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) must
be consulted in such situations if the holding of abandonment involves a
period during: (A) appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences; (B) an interference proceeding under 35 U.S.C.
135(a), including any
suspension due to an interference proceeding; or (C) which the application
was in a sealed condition or prosecution was suspended due to a secrecy
order under 35 U.S.C. 181. This is because it
is necessary to effect (if appropriate) a reduction of patent term extension
under the “due diligence” provisions of 37 CFR 1.701(d)(2).
3. Utility and Plant Applications Filed on or After May
applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, a terminal disclaimer should
not be required as a condition of granting
an untimely petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment. This is because
any patent term adjustment is automatically reduced under the provisions of
37 CFR 1.704(c)(4) in
applications subject to the patent term adjustment provisions of the
American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) if a petition to withdraw a
holding of abandonment is not filed within two months from the mailing date
of the notice of abandonment, and if applicant does not receive the notice
of abandonment, any patent term adjustment is reduced under the provisions
of 37 CFR 1.704(a) by a period
equal to the period of time during which the applicant “failed to engage in
reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution” (processing or examination) of
the application. ** II.
PETITIONS TO REVIVE AN ABANDONED APPLICATION, OR ACCEPT
LATE PAYMENT OF ISSUE FEE
37 CFR 1.137 provides for the revival of abandoned
applications and lapsed patents for the failure:
(A) to timely reply to an
Office requirement in a provisional application; (B) to timely prosecute in
a nonprovisional application; (C) to timely pay the
issue fee for a design application; (D) to timely pay the
issue fee for a utility or plant application; and (E) to timely pay any
outstanding balance of the issue fee (lapsed patents).
A petition under
37 CFR 1.137(a)
(A) the required reply,
unless previously filed; (B) the petition fee as
set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(l);
(C) a showing to the
satisfaction of the Director of the USPTO that the entire delay in filing
the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a
grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137(a) was unavoidable; and (D) any terminal
disclaimer required pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137(d).
set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m);
entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply
until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137(b) was unintentional; and (D) any terminal
1.137(d). The Director of the USPTO may
require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was
Reply Requirement
Unlike a petition to
withdraw the holding of abandonment, a petition to revive under
37 CFR 1.137 must be
accompanied by, inter alia, the required
reply. See Ex parte Richardson, 1906 Dec.
Comm’r Pat. 83 (1905) (“This Office has no authority to revive a case upon
which no action has been taken within [the period for reply], but merely has
authority to determine after an action is taken whether the delay in presenting
it was unavoidable.”). Generally, the required reply is the reply sufficient to
have avoided abandonment, had such reply been timely filed. A petition for an
extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 and a
fee for such an extension of time are not required to be included with the
37 CFR 1.137(c) applies to the reply requirement for petitions
under 37 CFR 1.137(a) and (b). In a
nonprovisional application abandoned for failure to prosecute, the required
reply may be met by the filing of a continuing application. In a nonprovisional
utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, and abandoned for
failure to prosecute, the required reply may also be met by the filing of a
request for continued examination (RCE) in compliance with
37 CFR 1.114. In an application or
patent, abandoned or lapsed for failure to pay the issue fee or any portion
thereof, the required reply must include payment of the issue fee or any
outstanding balance. In an application, abandoned for failure to pay the
publication fee, the required reply must include payment of the publication
fee. See below for more details on the reply requirement in specific situations
1. Abandonment for Failure To Pay the Issue Fee or
While the revival of
applications abandoned for failure to timely prosecute and for failure to
timely pay the issue fee are incorporated together in 37 CFR
1.137, the statutory provisions for the revival of an
application abandoned for failure to timely prosecute and for failure to
timely submit the issue fee are mutually exclusive. See Brenner v. Ebbert, 398 F.2d 762, 157 USPQ 609
(D.C. Cir. 1968). 35 U.S.C. 151 authorizes
the acceptance of a delayed payment of the issue fee, if the issue fee “is
submitted ... and the delay in payment is shown to have been unavoidable.”
35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7)
likewise authorizes the acceptance of an “unintentionally delayed payment of
the fee for issuing each patent.” Thus, 35 U.S.C.
41(a)(7) and 151 each require payment of the issue fee
as a condition of reviving an application abandoned or patent lapsed for
failure to pay the issue fee. Therefore, the filing of a continuing
application without payment of the issue fee or any outstanding balance
thereof is not an acceptable reply in an application abandoned or patent
lapsed for failure to pay the issue fee or any portion
The Notice of Allowance
requires the timely payment of the issue fee in effect on the date of its
mailing to avoid abandonment of the application. In instances in which there
is an increase in the issue fee by the time of payment of the issue fee
required in the Notice of Allowance, the Office will mail a notice requiring
payment of the balance of the issue fee then in effect. See In re Mills, 12 USPQ2d 1847, 1848 (Comm’r Pat.
1989). The phrase “for failure to pay the issue fee or any portion thereof”
applies to those instances in which the applicant fails to pay either the
issue fee required in the Notice of Allowance or the balance of the issue
fee required in a subsequent notice. In such instances, the reply must be
the issue fee then in effect, if no portion of the issue fee was previously
submitted, or any outstanding balance of the issue fee then in effect, if a
portion of the issue fee was previously submitted.
abandoned for failure to pay the publication fee, the required reply must
include payment of the publication fee. Even if an application abandoned for
failure to pay the publication fee is being revived solely for purposes of
continuity with a continuing application, the petition to revive under
37 CFR 1.137 must include
payment of the publication fee.
2. Abandonment for Failure To Reply in a Nonprovisional
(a) Abandonment for Failure To Reply to a Non-Final
The required reply to
a non-final action in a nonprovisional application abandoned for failure
to prosecute may be either:
or an amendment under 37 CFR 1.111; (B) the filing of
a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or
a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR
1.53(d) if
the application is a design application).
petition under 37 CFR 1.137 is not a
determination that any reply under 37 CFR 1.111 is complete. Where the proposed reply is to
a non-final Office action, the petition may be granted if the reply
appears to be bona fide. After revival
of the application, the patent examiner may, upon more detailed review,
determine that the reply is lacking in some respect. In this limited
situation, the patent examiner should send out a letter giving a 1-month
shortened statutory period under 37 CFR
1.135(c) for correction of the error or omission.
Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) are permitted. If applicant does not
correct the omission within the time period set in the letter (including
any extension), the application is again abandoned. (b) Abandonment for Failure To Reply to a Final
A reply under 37 CFR
1.113 to a final
action must include a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37
CFR 1.114 or cancellation
of, or appeal from the rejection of, each claim so rejected. Accordingly,
in a nonprovisional application abandoned for failure to reply to a final
action, the reply required for consideration of a petition to revive must
be: (A) a Notice of
Appeal and appeal fee; (B) an amendment
under 37 CFR 1.116 that
cancels all the rejected claims or otherwise prima facie places the application
in condition for allowance; (C) the filing of
an RCE (accompanied by a submission that meets the reply
requirements of 37 CFR 1.111 and the requisite fee) under 37 CFR
1.114 for
utility or plant applications filed on or after June 8, 1995
(see paragraph (d) below); or
(D) the filing of
a CPA under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the application is a design
application). When a notice of
appeal is the reply filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(a)(1) or 1.137(b)(1), the time period under 37 CFR
41.37 for filing the
appeal brief will be set by the Director of the USPTO in the decision
granting the petition. An application subject
to a final action in which a proposed amendment under 37 CFR
1.116 is filed as the
required reply will normally be routed by the Office of Petitions to the
Technology Center (TC) to determine whether a proposed amendment places
the application in condition for allowance prior to granting any petition
to revive such application. The examiner is instructed that if the reply
places the application in condition for allowance, the examiner should
write in the margin of the reply “OK to enter upon revival.” For Image
File Wrapper (IFW) processing, see IFW Manual. If the petition is
otherwise grantable and the examiner indicates that the reply places the
application in condition for allowance, the petition will be granted. If,
on the other hand, the reply would not place the application in condition
for allowance, the examiner is instructed to complete form PTOL-303 and
return the form to the Office of Petitions with the application. Form
PTOL-303 should not be mailed to the applicant by the examiner. In this
situation, the Office of Petitions will not grant the petition. A copy of
the form PTOL-303 is marked with the notation “Courtesy Copy” by the
Office of Petitions. The courtesy copy is sent as an attachment with the
decision on the petition. The advisory form PTOL-303 merely serves as an
advisory notice to the Office of Petitions regarding the decision of the
examiner on the amendment after final rejection. For Image File Wrapper
(IFW) processing, see IFW Manual.
(c) Abandonment for Failure To File an Appeal
where abandonment occurred because of the failure to file an appeal
brief, the reply required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(a)(1) or 1.137(b)(1) must be either:
(A) an appeal
brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37(c) and
appeal brief fee; (B) the filing of
an RCE accompanied by a submission and the requisite fee in
compliance with 37 CFR 1.114 for utility or plant applications
filed on or after June 8, 1995 (see paragraph (d) below); or
(C) the filing of
For utility or plant
applications abandoned for failure to reply to a final Office action or
for failure to file an appeal brief, the required reply may be the filing
of an RCE accompanied by a submission and the requisite fee. When an RCE
is the reply filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(a)(1) or 1.137(b)(1) to revive such an application, the
submission accompanying the RCE must be a reply responsive within the
meaning of 37 CFR 1.111 to the last
Office action. Consideration of whether the submission is responsive
within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.111
to the last Office action is done without factoring in the “final” status
of such action. The submission may be a previously filed amendment after
final or a statement that incorporates by reference the arguments in a
previously filed appeal or reply brief. See MPEP § 706.07(h), paragraph II.
granted if the submission appears to be a bona
fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the last Office
action. After revival of the application, the examiner may, upon a more
detailed review, determine that the reply is lacking in some respect. In
this limited situation, the examiner should send out a letter giving a
1-month shortened statutory period under 37 CFR 1.135(c) for correction of the error or omission.
Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) are permitted. If the applicant does not
any extension), the application is again abandoned. (e) A Continuing Application or RCE May Be Required
The Office may require
the filing of a continuing application or an RCE (if the prosecution
prior to abandonment was closed) (or request for further examination
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.129(a)) to
meet the reply requirement of 37 CFR
1.137(a)(1) (or 37 CFR
1.137(b)(1)) where, under the circumstances of the
application, treating a reply under 37 CFR
1.111 or 1.113 would place an inordinate burden on
the Office. Exemplary circumstances of when treating a reply under
37 CFR 1.111 or 1.113
may place an inordinate burden on the Office are where: (A) an
application has been abandoned for an inordinate period of time;
application file contains multiple or conflicting replies to the
last Office action; or (C) the reply or
replies submitted under 37 CFR
1.137(b)(1)) are questionable as to
compliance with 37 CFR
1.111 or 1.113.
3. Abandonment for Failure To Notify the Office of a
Foreign Filing After the Submission of a Non-Publication Request
If an applicant makes a
nonpublication request upon filing with the appropriate certifications, the
utility or plant application filed on or after November 29, 2000 will not be
published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(1). See 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i). If an applicant makes a
nonpublication request and then rescinds, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
122(b)(2)(B)(ii), the
nonpublication request before or on the date a counterpart application is
filed in a foreign country, or under a multilateral international agreement,
that requires eighteen-month publication, the nonpublication request will be
treated as annulled and the application will be treated as if the
nonpublication request were never made. See MPEP § 1123 and § 1124. An applicant who has made a nonpublication
request, but who subsequently files an application directed to the invention
disclosed in the U.S. application in a foreign country, or under a
publication before the nonpublication request is rescinded, must, in
addition to the rescission, notify the Office of such filing within
forty-five days after the date of such filing. The requirement in 35 U.S.C.
122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for
notice of the foreign filing is in addition to any rescission of the
nonpublication request under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(ii). If an applicant files a counterpart
application in a foreign country after having filed an application in the
USPTO with a nonpublication request, filing a rescission of the
nonpublication request under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(ii) without also providing a notice of the
foreign filing in a timely manner will result in the abandonment of the U.S.
application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii). 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii), however, also provides that an
application abandoned as a result of the failure to timely provide such a
notice to the Office is subject to revival if the “delay in submitting the
notice was unintentional.” 35 U.S.C.
122(b)(2)(B)(iii)
provides for revival only on the basis of unintentional delay, and not on
the basis of unavoidable delay. Therefore, a nonprovisional application
abandoned pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for failure to timely notify the
Office of the filing of an application in a foreign country or under a
multinational treaty that requires eighteen-month publication may be revived
only on the basis of unintentional delay pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137(b). The reply
requirement of 37 CFR 1.137(c) is met by the
notification of such filing in a foreign country or under a multinational
treaty, but the filing of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b) will not operate to stay any period for
reply that may be running against the application. Since the Office cannot
ascertain whether an application is abandoned under 35 U.S.C.
122(b)(2)(B)(iii), the
Office may continue to process and examine the application until the Office
is notified of applicant’s failure to meet the forty-five days notice
requirement of 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii).
Therefore, the filing of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b) to revive such an application will not
operate to stay any period for reply that may be running against the
application. Applicants may use form PTO/SB/64a to file a petition for
revival under 37 CFR
1.137(b).
Petition Fee Requirement
35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) provides
that a petition for the revival of an unintentionally abandoned application or
for the unintentionally delayed payment of the issue fee must be accompanied by
the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(m), unless the petition is filed under
35 U.S.C. 133 or 151 (on
the basis of unavoidable delay), in which case the fee is set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(l). Thus,
unless the circumstances warrant the withdrawal of the holding of abandonment
(i.e., it is determined that the
application is not properly held abandoned), the payment of a petition fee to
obtain the revival of an abandoned application is a statutory prerequisite to
revival of the abandoned application, and cannot be waived.
In addition, the phrase
“[o]n filing” in 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) means
that the petition fee is required for the filing (and not merely the grant) of
a petition under 37 CFR 1.137. See H.R. Rep.
No. 542, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1982), reprinted
in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 770 (“[t]he fees set forth in this section
are due on filing the petition”). Therefore, the Office: (A) will not refund
the petition fee required by 37 CFR
1.17(l) or 1.17(m), regardless of whether the petition
under 37 CFR 1.137 is dismissed
or denied; and (B) will not reach the merits of any petition under
37 CFR 1.137 lacking the
requisite petition fee.
The phrase “unless the
petition is filed under [35 U.S.C.] 133 or 151” signifies that petitions to
revive filed on the basis of “unavoidable” delay (under 35 U.S.C.
133 or 151) are a subset of petitions to revive filed on
the basis of unintentional delay. That is, “unavoidable” delay and
“unintentional” delay are not alternatives; “unavoidable” delay is the epitome
of “unintentional” delay. Any petition to revive an abandoned application or
lapsed patent must meet the minimal “unintentional” delay threshold, and an
applicant need only pay the fee specified in 37 CFR
1.17(l) (rather than the fee specified in
37 CFR 1.17(m)) if the
petition is also accompanied by an adequate showing that the entire delay in
filing the required reply, from the due date for the reply until the filing of
a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137(a), was unavoidable.
C. Unintentional and Unavoidable Delay
1.137(b) are less
burdensome (statement(s) rather than a showing accompanied by documentary
evidence) to file and are evaluated under the less stringent “unintentional
delay” standard. Applicants determining whether to file a petition to revive an
application under 37 CFR 1.137(b) or
1.137(a) should take the
While the Office reserves
the authority to require further information concerning the cause of
abandonment and delay in filing a petition to revive, the Office relies upon
the applicant’s duty of candor and good faith and accepts the statement that
“the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply
1.137(b) was unintentional” without requiring further
information in the vast majority of petitions under 37 CFR
1.137(b). This is because the applicant is obligated
under 37 CFR 10.18 to inquire into the underlying facts and circumstances when
a practitioner provides this statement to the Office. In addition, providing an
inappropriate statement in a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b) to revive an abandoned application may have an
adverse effect when attempting to enforce any patent resulting from the
application. See Lumenyte Int’l Corp. v. Cable Lite
Corp., Nos. 96-1011, 96-1077, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 16400, 1996 WL
383927 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 1996)(unpublished)(patents held unenforceable due to
a finding of inequitable conduct in submitting an inappropriate statement that
the abandonment was unintentional).
Even if the Office requires
further information in a petition under 37 CFR
1.137(b), such petition is still significantly less
burdensome to prepare and prosecute than a petition under 37
CFR 1.137(a). The Office is
almost always satisfied as to whether “the entire delay…was unintentional” on
the basis of statement(s) by the applicant or representative explaining the
cause of the delay (accompanied at most by copies of correspondence relevant to
the period of delay). A showing of unavoidable delay will (in addition to the
above) require: (1) evidence concerning the procedures in place that should
have avoided the error resulting in the delay; (2) evidence concerning the
training and experience of the persons responsible for the error; and (3)
copies of any applicable docketing records to show that the error was in fact
the cause of the delay. See MPEP § 711.03(c),
subsection II.C.2. In addition, a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) must establish that the delay was unavoidable,
and not just that it was unintentional. Thus, many petitions originally filed
under 37 CFR 1.137(a) end up being
granted under 37 CFR 1.137(b) when the
applicant realizes that sufficient evidence concerning the delay is too
difficult to obtain or the cause of delay simply does not amount
to “unavoidable delay” within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137(a).
Since the requirements of 37
CFR 1.137(a) are more exacting
than the corresponding requirements of 37 CFR 1.137(b), a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) is significantly less likely to be grantable as
filed than is a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
The Office usually must render a number of interlocutory decisions dismissing a
petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) and requesting
additional evidence until either the applicant provides a satisfactory showing
of unavoidable delay (in which case the petition can be granted) or the Office
concludes that the applicant cannot provide a satisfactory showing of
unavoidable delay (in which case the petition must be denied). Thus, the period
between when an applicant first files a petition to revive and the Office
renders a decision granting (or denying) that petition will, more often than
not, be much longer if the petition is under 37 CFR
1.137(a) than it would have been if the petition were
under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
1. Unintentional Delay
of Public Law 97-247, § 3, 96 Stat. 317 (1982), reveals that the purpose of
35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) is to
permit the Office to have more discretion than in 35 U.S.C.
133 or 151 to revive abandoned applications in
appropriate circumstances, but places a limit on this discretion stating
that “[u]nder this section a petition accompanied by [the requisite fee]
would not be granted where the abandonment or the failure to pay the fee for
issuing the patent was intentional as opposed to being unintentional or
unavoidable.” H.R. Rep. No. 542, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 6-7 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 770-71. A delay
resulting from a deliberately chosen course of action on the part of the
applicant is not an “unintentional” delay within the meaning of
deliberately permits an application to become abandoned (e.g., due to a
conclusion that the claims are unpatentable, that a rejection in an Office
action cannot be overcome, or that the invention lacks sufficient commercial
value to justify continued prosecution), the abandonment of such application
is considered to be a deliberately chosen course of action, and the
resulting delay cannot be considered as “unintentional” within the meaning
of 37 CFR 1.137(b). See
In re Application of G, 11 USPQ2d
1378, 1380 (Comm’r Pat. 1989). An intentional course of action is not
rendered unintentional when, upon reconsideration, the applicant changes his
or her mind as to the course of action that should have been taken. See
In re Maldague, 10 USPQ2d 1477, 1478
(Comm’r Pat. 1988).
A delay resulting from a
deliberately chosen course of action on the part of the applicant does not
become an “unintentional” delay within the meaning of 37 CFR
1.137(b) because: (A) the applicant
does not consider the claims to be patentable over the references
relied upon in an outstanding Office action; (B) the applicant
does not consider the allowed or patentable claims to be of
sufficient breadth or scope to justify the financial expense of
obtaining a patent; (C) the applicant
does not consider any patent to be of sufficient value to justify
the financial expense of obtaining the patent; (D) the applicant
does not consider any patent to be of sufficient value to maintain
an interest in obtaining the patent; or (E) the applicant
remains interested in eventually obtaining a patent, but simply
seeks to defer patent fees and patent prosecution
Likewise, a change in
circumstances that occurred subsequent to the abandonment of an application
does not render “unintentional” the delay resulting from a previous
deliberate decision to permit an application to be abandoned. These matters
simply confuse the question of whether there was a deliberate decision not
to continue the prosecution of an application with why there was a
deliberate decision not to continue the prosecution of an
treatment, applicants filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b) to revive an abandoned application are
advised to include the statement “the entire delay in filing the required
reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable
petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(b)
was unintentional,” even if applicant chooses to include a statement of the
facts concerning the delay. Applicants may use the forms provided by the
Office (PTO/SB/64, PTO/SB/64a, or PTO/SB/64PCT).
** > Form PTO/SB/64. Petition for Revival of an
Application for Patent Abandoned Unintentionally Under 37 CFR 1.137(b)
Form PTO/SB/64. Petition for Revival of an
Form PTO/SB/64a Petition for Revival of an
Application for Patent Abandoned for Failure To Notify the Office of a
Foreign or International Filing (37 CFR 1.137(f)). [Page 1 of
Foreign or International Filing (37 CFR 1.137(f)). [Page 2 of
Form PTO/SB/64/PCT Petition for Revival of an
International Application for Patent Designating the U.S. Abandoned
Intentionally Under 37 CFR 1.137(b) [Page 1 of 2]
Intentionally Under 37 CFR 1.137(b) [Page 2 of 2]
Privacy Act Statement < 2. Unavoidable Delay
“unavoidable” delay is the epitome of “unintentional” delay. Thus, an
intentional delay precludes revival under 37 CFR
1.137(a) (“unavoidable” delay) or 37 CFR
1.137(b) (“unintentional” delay). See Maldague, 10 USPQ2d at 1478.
Decisions on reviving
abandoned applications on the basis of “unavoidable” delay have adopted the
reasonably prudent person standard in determining if the delay was
The word ‘unavoidable’
. . . is applicable to ordinary human affairs, and requires no more or
greater care or diligence than is generally used and observed by prudent
and careful men in relation to their most important business. It permits
them in the exercise of this care to rely upon the ordinary and
trustworthy agencies of mail and telegraph, worthy and reliable
employees, and such other means and instrumentalities as are usually
employed in such important business. If unexpectedly, or through the
unforeseen fault or imperfection of these agencies and instrumentalities,
there occurs a failure, it may properly be said to be unavoidable, all
other conditions of promptness in its rectification being
In re Mattullath, 38 App. D.C. 497,
514-15 (1912)(quoting Pratt, 1887 Dec.
Comm’r Pat. 31, 32-33 (1887)); see also Winkler v.
Ladd, 221 F. Supp. 550, 552, 138 USPQ 666, 667-68 (D.D.C.
1963), aff’d, 143 USPQ 172 (D.C. Cir.
1963); Ex parte Henrich, 1913 Dec. Comm’r
Pat. 139, 141 (1913). In addition, decisions on revival are made on a
“case-by-case basis, taking all the facts and circumstances into account.”
Smith v. Mossinghoff, 671 F.2d 533,
538, 213 USPQ 977, 982 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Finally, a petition cannot be
granted where a petitioner has failed to meet his or her burden of
establishing that the delay was “unavoidable.” Haines v. Quigg, 673 F. Supp. 314, 316-17, 5 USPQ2d 1130,
1131-32 (N.D. Ind. 1987).
A delay resulting from an
error (e.g., a docketing error) on the part of an employee in the
performance of a clerical function may provide the basis for a showing of
“unavoidable” delay, provided it is shown that:
(A) the error was
the cause of the delay at issue; (B) there was in
place a business routine for performing the clerical function that
could reasonably be relied upon to avoid errors in its performance;
(C) the employee was
sufficiently trained and experienced with regard to the function
and routine for its performance that reliance upon such employee
represented the exercise of due care.
See In re Egbers, 6 USPQ2d 1869, 1872 (Comm’r Pat.
1988), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., Theodor
Groz & Sohne & Ernst Bechert Nadelfabrik KG v. Quigg,
10 USPQ2d 1787 (D.D.C. 1988); In re
Katrapat, 6 USPQ2d 1863, 1867-68 (Comm’r Pat. 1988). For
example, where an application becomes abandoned as a consequence of a change
of correspondence address (the Office action being mailed to the old,
uncorrected address and failing to reach the applicant in sufficient time to
permit a timely reply) an adequate showing of “unavoidable” delay will
require a showing that due care was taken to adhere to the requirement for
prompt notification in each concerned application of the change of address
(see MPEP § 601.03), and must
include an adequate showing that a timely notification of the change of
address was filed in the application concerned, and in a manner reasonably
calculated to call attention to the fact that it was a notification of a
change of address. The following do not constitute proper notification of a
(A) the mere
inclusion, in a paper filed in an application for another purpose,
of an address differing from the previously provided correspondence
address, without mention of the fact that an address change was
being made; (B) the notification
on a paper listing plural applications as being affected (except as
provided for under the Customer Number practice - see
MPEP § 403); or
(C) the lack of
notification, or belated notification, to the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office of the change in correspondence
Delay resulting from the
lack of knowledge or improper application of the patent statute, rules of
practice or the MPEP, however, does not constitute “unavoidable” delay. See
Haines, 673 F. Supp. at 317, 5 USPQ2d
at 1132; Vincent v. Mossinghoff, 230 USPQ
621, 624 (D.D.C. 1985); Smith v. Diamond,
209 USPQ 1091 (D.D.C. 1981); Potter v.
Dann, 201 USPQ 574 (D.D.C. 1978); Ex
parte Murray, 1891 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 130, 131 (1891). For
example, as 37 CFR 1.116 and
1.135(b) are manifest that proceedings concerning an amendment after final
rejection will not operate to avoid abandonment of the application in the
absence of a timely and proper appeal, a delay is not “unavoidable” when the
applicant simply permits the maximum extendable statutory period for reply
to a final Office action to expire while awaiting a notice of allowance or
other action. Likewise, as a “reasonably prudent person” would file papers
or fees in compliance with 37 CFR
1.8 or 1.10 to ensure their timely filing in the
USPTO, as well as preserve adequate evidence of such filing, a delay caused
by an applicant’s failure to file papers or fees in compliance with
37 CFR 1.8 and 1.10 does
not constitute “unavoidable” delay. See Krahn, 15 USPQ2d at 1825. Finally, a delay caused by an
applicant’s lack of knowledge or improper application of the patent statute,
rules of practice or the MPEP is not rendered “unavoidable” due to: (A)
the applicant’s reliance upon oral advice from USPTO employees; or (B) the
USPTO’s failure to advise the applicant of any deficiency in sufficient time
to permit the applicant to take corrective action. See In re Sivertz, 227 USPQ 255, 256 (Comm’r Pat.
35 U.S.C. 133 and 151
each require a showing that the “delay” was “unavoidable,” which requires
not only a showing that the delay which resulted in the abandonment of the
application was unavoidable, but also a showing of unavoidable delay until
the filing of a petition to revive. See In re
Application of Takao, 17 USPQ2d 1155 (Comm'r Pat. 1990). The
burden of continuing the process of presenting a grantable petition in a
timely manner likewise remains with the applicant until the applicant is
informed that the petition is granted. Id. at 1158. Thus, an applicant seeking to revive an
“unavoidably” abandoned application must cause a petition under
37 CFR 1.137(a) to be
filed without delay (i.e., promptly upon
becoming notified, or otherwise becoming aware, of the abandonment of the
An applicant who fails to
file a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a)
“promptly” upon becoming notified, or otherwise becoming aware, of the
abandonment of the application will not be able to show that the entire
delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the
filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137(a) was unavoidable. The removal of the language
in 37 CFR 1.137(a)
requiring that any petition thereunder be “promptly filed after the
applicant is notified of, or otherwise becomes aware of, the abandonment”
should not be viewed as: (A) permitting an
applicant, upon becoming notified, or otherwise becoming aware, of the
abandonment of the application, to delay the filing of a petition under
37 CFR 1.137(a); or (B)
changing (or modifying) the result in In re
Application of S, 8 USPQ2d 1630 (Comm’r Pat. 1988), in which a
petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) was
denied due to the applicant’s deliberate deferral in filing a petition under
37 CFR 1.137. An
applicant who deliberately chooses to delay the filing of a petition under
37 CFR 1.137 (as in
Application of S, 8 USPQ2d at 1632)
will not be able to show that “the entire delay in filing the required reply
from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition
pursuant to [37 CFR 1.137(a)] was
unavoidable” or even make an appropriate statement that “the entire delay in
filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing
of a grantable petition pursuant to [37 CFR
1.137(b)] was unintentional.”
The dismissal or denial
of a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(a) does not
preclude an applicant from obtaining relief pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137(b) on the basis of unintentional delay (unless
the decision dismissing or denying the petition under 37 CFR
1.137(a) indicates otherwise). In such an instance, a
petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b) may be
filed accompanied by the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(m), the required reply, a statement that the
1.137(b) was unintentional, and any terminal
disclaimer required by 37 CFR
1.137(c).
Form PTO/SB/61 or
PTO/SB/61PCT may be used to file a petition for revival of an unavoidably
abandoned application.
** > Form PTO/SB/61. Petition for Revival of an
Application for Patent Abandoned Unavoidably Under 37 CFR 1.137(a) [Page
Form PTO/SB/61. Petition for Revival of an
Form PTO/SB/61/PCT Petition for Revival of an
International Application for Patent Designationg the U.S. Abandoned
Unavoidably Under 37 CFR 1.l137(a) [Page 1 of 3].
Unavoidably Under 37 CFR 1.l137(a) [Page 2 of 3].
Unavoidably Under 37 CFR 1.l137(a) [Page 3 of 3]..
Privacy Act Statement < D.
Delay Until the Filing of a Grantable
There are three periods to
be considered during the evaluation of a petition under 37 CFR
1.137: (A) the delay in reply
that originally resulted in the abandonment; (B) the delay in filing
an initial petition pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137 to revive the application; and
(C) the delay in filing
a grantable petition pursuant to
37 CFR 1.137 to
revive the application.
abandonment of an application is considered to be a deliberately chosen course
of action, and the resulting delay cannot be considered as “unintentional”
within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137(b), where the
applicant deliberately permits the application to become abandoned. See
Application of G, 11 USPQ2d at 1380.
Likewise, where the applicant deliberately chooses not to seek or persist in
seeking the revival of an abandoned application, or where the applicant
deliberately chooses to delay seeking the revival of an abandoned application,
the resulting delay in seeking revival of the abandoned application cannot be
considered as “unintentional” within the meaning of 37 CFR
1.137(b). An intentional delay resulting from a
deliberate course of action chosen by the applicant is not affected
(A) the correctness of
the applicant’s (or applicant’s representative’s) decision to abandon
the application or not to seek or persist in seeking revival of the
application; (B) the correctness or
propriety of a rejection, or other objection, requirement, or decision
by the Office; or (C) the discovery of
new information or evidence, or other change in circumstances
subsequent to the abandonment or decision not to seek or persist in
seeking revival.
Obviously, delaying the
revival of an abandoned application, by a deliberately chosen course of action,
until the industry or a competitor shows an interest in the invention is the
antithesis of an “unavoidable” or “unintentional” delay. An intentional
abandonment of an application, or an intentional delay in seeking the revival
of an abandoned application, precludes a finding of unavoidable or
unintentional delay pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137. See Maldague,
10 USPQ2d at 1478.
The Office does not
generally question whether there has been an intentional or otherwise
impermissible delay in filing an initial petition pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137(a) or (b), when such petition is filed: (A) within
3 months of the date the applicant is first notified that the application is
abandoned; and (2) within 1 year of the date of
abandonment of the application. Thus, an applicant seeking revival of an
abandoned application is advised to file a petition pursuant to
37 CFR 1.137 within 3
months of the first notification that the application is abandoned to avoid the
question of intentional delay being raised by the Office (or by third parties
seeking to challenge any patent issuing from the application).
Where a petition pursuant to
37 CFR 1.137(a) or (b) is
not filed within 3 months of the date the applicant is first notified that the
application is abandoned, the Office may consider there to be a question as to
whether the delay was unavoidable or unintentional. In such instances, (A) the Office will
require a showing as to how the delay between the date the applicant
was first notified that the application was abandoned and the date a
petition was filed was “unavoidable”; or (B) the Office may
require further information as to the cause of the delay between the
date the applicant was first notified that the application was
abandoned and the date a 37 CFR
1.137(b) petition was filed, and how such delay
was “unintentional.”
To avoid delay in the
consideration of the merits of a petition under 37 CFR
1.137(a) or (b) in instances in which such petition was
not filed within 3 months of the date the applicant was first notified that the
application was abandoned, applicants should include a showing as to how the
delay between the date the applicant was first notified by the Office that the
application was abandoned and the filing of a petition under 37 CFR
1.137 was (A) “unavoidable” in a petition under
“unintentional” in a petition under 37 CFR
37 CFR 1.137(a) is not
filed within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application (note that
abandonment takes place by operation of law, rather than by the mailing of a
Notice of Abandonment) the Office will require: (A) further information
as to when the applicant (or applicant’s representative) first became
aware of the abandonment of the application; and (B) a showing as to how
the delay in discovering the abandoned status of the application
occurred despite the exercise of due care or diligence on the part of
the applicant (or applicant’s representative) (see Pratt, 1887 Dec. Comm’r Pat. at
37 CFR 1.137(b) is not
Notice of Abandonment), the Office may require:
(A) further information
as to when the applicant (or the applicant’s representative) first
became aware of the abandonment of the application;
(B) a showing as to how
the applicant (or applicant’s representative).
1.137(b) in instances in which such petition was not
filed within 1 year of the date of abandonment of the application, applicants
(A) the date that the
applicant first became aware of the abandonment of the application;
and (B) a showing as to how
In either instance,
applicant’s failure to carry the burden of proof to establish that the “entire”
delay was “unavoidable” or “unintentional” may lead to the denial of a petition
under 37 CFR 1.137(a) or
37 CFR 1.137(b), regardless
of the circumstances that originally resulted in the abandonment of the
Party Whose Delay Is Relevant
The question under
37 CFR 1.137 is whether the
delay on the part of the party having the right or authority to reply to avoid
abandonment (or not reply) was unavoidable or unintentional. When the applicant
assigns the entire right, title, and interest in an invention to a third party
(and thus does not retain any legal or equitable interest in the invention),
the applicant’s delay is irrelevant in evaluating whether the delay was
unavoidable or even unintentional. See Kim v.
Quigg, 718 F. Supp. 1280, 1284, 12 USPQ2d 1604, 1607-08 (E.D. Va.
1989). When an applicant assigns the application to a third party (e.g., the
inventor/applicant’s employer), and the third party decides not to file a reply
to avoid abandonment, the applicant’s actions, inactions or intentions are
irrelevant under 37 CFR 1.137, unless the
third party has reassigned the application to the applicant prior to the due
date for the reply. Id.
Likewise, where the
applicant permits a third party (whether a partial assignee, licensee, or other
party) to control the prosecution of an application, the third party’s decision
whether or not to file a reply to avoid abandonment is binding on the
applicant. See Winkler, 221 F. Supp. at 552,
138 USPQ at 667. Where an applicant enters an agreement with a third party for
the third party to take control of the prosecution of an application, the
applicant will be considered to have given the third party the right and
authority to prosecute the application to avoid abandonment (or not prosecute),
unless, by the express terms of the contract between applicant and the third
party, the third party is conducting the prosecution of the application for the
applicant solely in a fiduciary capacity. See Futures
Technology Ltd. v. Quigg, 684 F. Supp. 430, 431, 7 USPQ2d 1588,
1589 (E.D. Va. 1988). Otherwise, the applicant will be considered to have given
the third party unbridled discretion to prosecute (or not prosecute) the
application to avoid abandonment, and will be bound by the actions or inactions
of such third party.
Burden of Proof To Establish Unavoidable or
37 CFR 1.137(a)(3) requires
a showing to the satisfaction of the Director of the USPTO that the entire
1.137(a) was unavoidable. Therefore, the Office will
require the applicant in every petition under 37 CFR
1.137(a) to carry the burden of proof to establish that
the delay from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable
petition was unavoidable. See Haines, 673 F.
Supp. at 316-17, 5 USPQ2d at 1131-32.
37 CFR 1.137(b)(3) requires
that a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b) must be
accompanied by a statement that the entire delay in providing the required
reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(b) was
unintentional, but also provides that “[t]he Director may require additional
information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.”
While the Office will generally require only the statement that the entire
delay in providing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the
1.137(b) was unintentional, the Office may require an
applicant to carry the burden of proof to establish that the delay from the due
date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition was unintentional
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(7) and
37 CFR 1.137(b) where there
is a question whether the entire delay was unintentional. See Application of G, 11 USPQ2d at
Terminal Disclaimer Requirement
37 CFR 1.137(d) requires
that a petition under either 37 CFR
1.137(a) or 1.137(b) be accompanied by a terminal
disclaimer (and fee), regardless of the period of abandonment, in: (A) a design
(B) a nonprovisional
utility application (other than a reissue application) filed before
June 8, 1995; or (C) a nonprovisional
plant application (other than a reissue application) filed before June
8, 1995. In addition, a terminal
disclaimer (and fee) is also required for a utility or plant application filed
on or after June 8, 1995, but before May 29, 2000, where the application became
abandoned (1) during appeal, (2) during interference, or (3) while under a
secrecy order. The reason being that utility and plant patents issuing on
applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, but before May 29, 2000, are
eligible for the patent term extension under former 35 U.S.C. 154(b) (as
a result of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)). See 35 U.S.C.
154(b) (1999); see also 37 CFR
1.701. If such an application is abandoned (1) during
appeal, (2) during interference, or (3) while under a secrecy order, the
patentee of a patent issuing from such an application is eligible for patent
term extension for the entire period of abandonment. The requirement for a
terminal disclaimer for these situations will make certain that any patent term
extension obtained for the period of abandonment while the application is under
appeal, interference, or a secrecy order will be dedicated to the public. For
utility and plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, a terminal
disclaimer (and fee) is not required since the period of abandonment is reduced
from the patent term adjustment pursuant to 37 CFR
submitted in a design application must dedicate to the public a terminal part
of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the period of
abandonment of the application. The terminal disclaimer submitted in either a
utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995 must dedicate to the
public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to
the lesser of: (1) the period of abandonment of the application; or (2) the
period extending beyond twenty years from the date on which the application for
the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a
specific reference to an earlier filed application(s) under 35 U.S.C.
120, 121, or 365(c),
from the date on which the earliest such application was filed. The terminal
disclaimer must also apply to any patent granted on any continuing utility or
plant application filed before June 8, 1995, or any continuing design
application, entitled under 35 U.S.C. 120,
121, or 365(c) to the benefit of the filing date of the
application for which revival is sought. The terminal disclaimer requirement of
37 CFR 1.137(d) does not apply to
(A) applications for which revival is sought solely for purposes of copendency
with a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, (B) lapsed
patents, (C) reissue applications, or (D) reexamination
The Office cannot determine
(at the time a petition to revive is granted) the period disclaimed (i.e.,
which period is lesser: the period of abandonment of the application, or the
from the date on which the earliest such application was filed). Therefore, the
Office will not indicate the period disclaimed under 37 CFR 1.137(d) in its decision granting a petition to revive
an abandoned application.
The filing of a terminal
disclaimer is not a substitute for unavoidable or unintentional delay. See
Application of Takao, 17 USPQ2d at 1159.
The requirement that the entire delay have been unavoidable (37 CFR
1.137(a)) or at least unintentional (37 CFR
1.137(b)) is distinct from the requirement for a terminal
disclaimer. Therefore, the filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot excuse an
intentional delay in filing a petition or renewed petition to revive an
abandoned application. Likewise, an unavoidable or unintentional delay in
filing a petition or renewed petition to revive an abandoned application will
not warrant waiver of the terminal disclaimer requirement of 37 CFR
applicant considers the requirement for a terminal disclaimer to be
inappropriate under the circumstances of the application at issue, the
applicant should file a petition under 37 CFR
1.183 (and petition fee) to request a waiver of this
requirement of 37 CFR 1.183. Such a
petition may request waiver of this requirement in
toto, or to the extent that such requirement exceeds the period
considered by applicant as the appropriate period of disclaimer. The grant of
such a petition, however, is strictly limited to situations wherein applicant
has made a showing of an “extraordinary situation” in which “justice requires”
the requested relief. An example of such a situation is when the abandonment of
the application caused no actual delay in prosecution (e.g., an application
awaiting decision by the Board of Appeals and Interferences during period of
** > Form < PTO/SB/63 may be
used when filing a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR
** > Form PTO/SB/63. Terminal Disclaimer to Accompany
Privacy Act Statement < H.
37 CFR 1.137(e) requires
that any request for reconsideration or review of a decision refusing to revive
an abandoned application or lapsed patent must be filed within 2 months of the
decision refusing to revive or within such time as set in the decision.
37 CFR 1.137(e) further
provides that, unless a decision indicates otherwise, this time period for
requesting reconsideration or review may be extended under the provisions of
37 CFR 1.137(e) specifies a
time period within which a renewed petition pursuant to 37 CFR
1.137 must be filed to be considered timely. Where an
applicant files a renewed petition, request for reconsideration, or other
petition seeking review of a prior decision on a petition pursuant to
37 CFR 1.137 outside the
time period specified in 37 CFR 1.137(e), the Office
may require, inter alia, a specific showing
as to how the entire delay was “unavoidable” (37 CFR
1.137(a)) or “unintentional” (37 CFR
1.137(b)). As discussed above, a delay resulting from the
applicant deliberately choosing not to persist in seeking the revival of an
abandoned application cannot be considered “unavoidable” or “unintentional”
within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.137, and the
correctness or propriety of the decision on the prior petition pursuant to
37 CFR 1.137, the
correctness of the applicant’s (or the applicant's representative's) decision
not to persist in seeking revival, the discovery of new information or
evidence, or other change in circumstances subsequent to the abandonment or
decision to not persist in seeking revival are immaterial to such intentional
delay caused by the deliberate course of action chosen by the
37 CFR 1.137 is applicable
to a provisional application abandoned for failure to reply to an Office
requirement. A petition under 37 CFR
1.137(a) or (b) must be accompanied by any outstanding
reply to an Office requirement, since 37 CFR
1.137(a)(1) and 1.137(b)(1) permit the filing of a
continuing application in lieu of the required reply only in a nonprovisional
35 U.S.C. 111(b)(5)
provides that a provisional application shall be regarded as abandoned 12
months after its filing date and shall not be subject to revival after such
12-month period. 37 CFR 1.137(g) provides that a
provisional application, abandoned for failure to timely respond to an Office
requirement, may be revived pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137, however a provisional application will not be
circumstances. Note that the pendency of a provisional application is extended
to the next succeeding secular or business day if the day that is twelve months
after the filing date of the provisional application falls on a Saturday,
Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia. See
119(e)(3).
may be abandoned prior to 12 months from its filing date for failure to reply
to an Office requirement (e.g., failure to
submit the filing fee and/or cover sheet). Applicant may petition to have an
abandoned provisional application revived as a pending provisional application
for a period of no longer than 12 months
from the filing date of the provisional application where the delay was
unavoidable or unintentional. It would be permissible to file a petition for
revival later than 12 months from the filing date of the provisional
application but only to revive the application for the 12-month period
following the filing of the provisional application. Thus, even if the petition
were granted to establish the pendency up to the end of the 12-month period,
the provisional application would not be considered pending after 12 months
from its filing date.
711.03(d) Examiner’s Statement on Petition To Set Aside Examiner’s
CFR 1.181 states that the examiner
** > “may
be directed by the Director to furnish a written statement within a specific time
setting forth the reasons for his or her decision upon the matters averred in the
petition, supplying a copy thereof to the
petitioner.” < Unless requested, however, such a
statement should not be prepared. See MPEP
§ 1002.01.
Public Access to Abandoned Applications [R-2]
** > Access
will be provided to the application file itself for any non-Image File Wrapper (IFW)
abandoned published application. When access to the IFW system is available in the File
Information Unit (FIU) and/or Internet access to abandoned published IFW applications,
such files will be provided to the public via the FIU and/or Internet. Since there is no
paper file wrapper for IFW applications, if electronic access is not available to the
public, then access to IFW files is only available by ordering a copy of the
application-as-filed, the file contents of the published application or a specific
document in the file of the published application from the Office of Public Records and
payment of the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b). See 37 CFR
1.14(a)(1)(ii).
Access to an abandoned unpublished
application may be provided to any person if a written request for access is submitted,
and the abandoned application is identified or relied upon:
(A) in a U.S. patent application
publication or patent; (B) in statutory invention
registration; or (C) in an international
application that is published in accordance with PCT Article 21(2). An application is considered
identified in a document such as a patent when the application number or serial number
and filing date, first named inventor, title and filing date or other application
specific information are provided in the text of the patent, but not when the
identification is made in a paper in the file contents of the patent and is not included
in the printed patent. See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv). A copy of the
application-as-filed, the file contents of the abandoned application, or a specific
document in the file of the abandoned application may also be provided to any person
upon written request, and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.19(b). See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(iv). See
also MPEP §
103. Form PTO/SB/68 may be used to request access of an
abandoned application under 37 CFR
1.14(a)(1)(iv). < 711.04(a) Pulling and Forwarding Abandoned Applications
The files of abandoned
applications are pulled and forwarded to the Files Repository on a biweekly basis 1
month after the full 6-month statutory period has expired. However, the date of
abandonment is after midnight of the date on which the set shortened statutory
period, including any extensions under 37 CFR 1.136,
The applications should be
carefully scrutinized by the appropriate examiner to verify that they are actually
abandoned. A check should be made of files containing a decision of the Board of
Patent Appeals and
* > Interferences < for the presence of allowed claims to avoid their being erroneously sent to the Files
Although the abandoned files are
not pulled until the maximum permissible period for which an extension of time under
37 CFR 1.136(a) plus 1 month has expired, the date of the
abandonment is after midnight of the date the period for reply actually expired. This
is normally the end of the 3-month shortened statutory period.
711.04(b) Ordering of Patented and Abandoned Files
In examination of an application
it is sometimes necessary to inspect the application papers of a previously patented
or abandoned application. It is always necessary to do so in the examination of a
reissue application.
Recently patented and abandoned
> paper < files
are stored at the Files Repository ** . Older
files are housed in warehouses located off
site ** . Image File Wrapper (IFW) applications
are stored electronically and do not have a paper file wrapper to be stored. The
electronic file is the official record of the application. See the IFW Manual section
Patented and abandoned files are
ordered by means of a PALM video display transaction. To place such an order, the
examiner is required to input his/her PALM location code, employee number, and patent
number(s) and/or application number(s) of the file(s) that are needed. After
transmission of the request transaction by the examiner, a “response” screen appears
on the video display terminal which informs him/her of the status of the request for
each file. The examiner is informed that the request is:
(B) accepted, but for which
the file is stored at a warehouse off site (in which case delivery time is
increased); (C) not accepted since the
file is not located at the repository or warehouse; (D) not accepted since a
previous request for the file has not yet been filled; or (E) not accepted since the
patent or application number inputted is not valid.
Periodically each day, personnel
at the Files Repository perform a PALM print transaction which produces a list of all
accepted requests in patent number order and, for requests for abandoned files, in
application number order. The printed record of each request is detached from the
list when its associated file is found. It is then stapled to it. Throughout the day,
periodic deliveries of files are made directly to the offices of their requestors by
Files Repository personnel. Upon delivery of files at the various locations, files
that are ready to be returned to the repository are picked up. For applications
stored in IFW, this process is no longer necessary.
older files, the drawings of patented and abandoned files, if any, are now stored
within their respective application file wrappers. Since it is desired not to
separate one from the other, both the file and its drawings are delivered when a file
is ordered. For applications stored in IFW, it is no longer necessary to order or
deliver the files.
711.04(c) Notifying Applicants of Abandonment
The Patent Examining Corps
currently mails to the correspondence address of record, a Notice of Abandonment form
PTOL-1432 in all applications which become abandoned in the Corps for failure to
prosecute. However, in no case will mere failure to receive a notice of abandonment
affect the status of an abandoned application.
This procedure should enable
applicants to take appropriate and diligent action to reinstate an application
inadvertently abandoned for failure to timely reply to an official communication. In
most cases, a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 will
be the appropriate remedy. It may be that a reply to the Office action was mailed to
the Office with a certificate of mailing declaration as a part thereof
(MPEP § 512) but was not received in the Office. In this
instance, adequate relief may be available by means of a petition to withdraw the
holding of abandonment.
In any instance, if action is not
taken promptly after receiving the notice of abandonment, appropriate relief may not
be granted. If a lack of diligent action is predicated on the contention that neither
the Office action nor the notice of abandonment was received, one may presume that
there is a problem with the correspondence address of record. Accordingly, attention
is directed to MPEP § 402 and §
601.03 dealing with changes of address. In essence, it is
imperative that a paper notifying the Office of a change of address be filed promptly
in each application in which the correspondence address is to be changed (except as
provided for under Customer Number practice — see MPEP
§ 403).
Letter of Abandonment Received After Application Is
Receipt of a letter of abandonment
while an application is allowed is acknowledged by the Publishing
An express abandonment arriving after
the issue fee has been paid will not be accepted without a showing of one of the reasons
indicated in 37 CFR 1.313(c), or else a showing
under 37 CFR 1.183 justifying suspension of 37 CFR
1.313. See also MPEP §
711.01.
Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive Publications [R-2]
Abstracts were prepared and
published in accordance with the Notice of January 25, 1949, 619 O.G. 258. Each
abstract includes a summary of the disclosure of the abandoned application, and in
applications having drawings, a figure of the drawing. The publication of such
abstracts was discontinued in 1953.
< ABBREVIATURES
Abbreviatures were prepared and
published in accordance with the procedure indicated in the Notice of October 13,
1964, 808 O.G. 1. Each abbreviature contains a specific portion of the disclosure of
the abandoned application, preferably a detailed representative claim, and, in
abbreviatures was discontinued in 1965.
< DEFENSIVE
The Defensive Publication Program,
which provided for the publication of the abstract of the technical disclosure of a
pending application if the applicant waived his or her rights to an enforceable
patent, was available between April 1968 and May 8, 1985. The program was ended in
view of the applicant’s ability to obtain a Statutory Invention
An application was laid open for
public inspection under the Defensive Publication Program and the applicant
provisionally abandoned the application, retaining rights to an interference for a
limited period of 5 years from the earliest effective U.S. filing
The defensive publication of an
application precluded a continuing application (divisional, continuation-in-part, or
continuation) filed under 35 U.S.C. 120 from being entitled
to the benefit of the filing date of the defensively published application unless a
continuing application was filed within 30 months after the earliest effective U.S.
filing date. Where a similar application was not filed until after expiration of the
30 month period, the application was examined, but it was not entitled to claim the
benefit of the earlier filing date of the defensive publication application. If a first continuing application
was filed within 30 months from the earliest U.S. effective filing date of the
application published under the Defensive Publication Program, later copending
continuing applications (such as divisions if restriction is required during the
prosecution of the first continuing application) were not barred and could be filed
during the pendency of the first continuing application, even though beyond the 30
month period, without loss of the right to claim the benefit of the filing date of
the Defensive Publication application.
The Defensive Publication Abstract
and a selected figure of the drawing, if any, were published in the Official Gazette. Defensive Publication Search Copies,
containing the defensive publication abstract and suitable drawings, if any, were
provided for the application file, the Patent Search Room and the examiner’s search
files. A defensive publication is not a patent or an application publication under 35
U.S.C. 122(b); it is a publication.
Therefore, it is prior art only as of its publication date. See MPEP §
2136. The defensive publication
application files are maintained in the File Information Unit (Record
Distinct numbers are assigned
to all Defensive Publications published December 16, 1969 through October 1980,
For Defensive Publications
published on and after November 4, 1980, a different numbering system is
The revised numbering system is
Defensive Publications are
included in subclass lists and subscription orders. The distinct numbers are used
for all official reference and document copy requirements.
A conversion table from the
application serial number to the distinct number for all Defensive Publications
published before December 16, 1969 appears at 869 O.G. 687.
711.06(a) Citation and Use of Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive
Publications as References
It is important that abstracts,
abbreviatures, and defensive publications (O.G. Defensive Publication and Defensive
Publication Search Copy) be referred to as publications.
These printed publications are
cited as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(b)
effective from the date of publication in the Official
Gazette. See Ex parte Osmond, 191
USPQ 334 (Bd. App. 1973) and
** > Ex Parte < Osmond, 191
USPQ 340 (Bd. App. 1976). See also MPEP §
An application or portion thereof
from which an abstract, abbreviature or defensive publication has been prepared
** may be used as a reference under
35 U.S.C.102(a), effective from the actual date of filing in the United
States > , only for evidence of prior knowledge of
another < .
These publications may be used
alone or in combination with other prior art in rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
Defensive Publications are listed
with “U.S. Patent Documents.” Abstracts and Abbreviatures are listed under “Other
References” in the citation thereof as follows:
(A) Abstracts and
Brown, (abstract or
abbreviature) of Serial No. ........, filed ............., published in O.G.
........., on ........, (list classification).
(B) Applications or
designated portions thereof, abstracts, abbreviatures, and defensive
Jones, Application
Serial No. ........, filed ............., laid open to public inspection on
............... as noted at .......... O.G. (portion of application relied
on), (list classification, if any).