Source: http://roohit.com/a23ecd
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 03:15:08
Document Index: 304518474

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1134', '§ 1134', '§ 1895', '§ 1893', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 706', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§609']

609 Information Disclosure Statement [R-11.2013]
(3) Before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits; or
(4) Before the mailing of a first Office action after the filing of a request for continued examination under § 1.114.
Third parties (individuals not covered by 37 CFR 1.56(c)) cannot file information disclosure statements under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Third parties may only submit patents and publications in compliance with 37 CFR 1.290 in applications published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). See MPEP § 1134.01. For unpublished, pending applications, any member of the public, including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a protest under 37 CFR 1.291 prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance under 37 CFR 1.311. See MPEP Chapter 1900. Alternatively, third parties may provide information to the applicant who may submit the information to the Office in an IDS. See 37 CFR 1.56(d). The Office will review any submission in an application filed by a third party to determine whether the submission is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.290 or 1.291. Any third party submission that does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.290 or 37 CFR 1.291 will not be entered into the application file and will be discarded. Office personnel (including the Patent Examining Corps) are instructed to: (1) not reply to or act upon any third-party inquiry or other submission in an application, except those in compliance with 37 CFR 1.290 or 37 CFR 1.291; and (2) decline to accept oral or telephone comments or submissions about applications from third parties. See MPEP § 1134.01.
Once the minimum requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 are met, the examiner has an obligation to consider the information. There is no requirement that the information must be prior art references in order to be considered by the examiner. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above. In addition, the following alternative electronic signature method may be used by examiners in information disclosure statements to indicate whether the information has been considered. Examiners will no longer initial each reference citation considered, but will continue to strikethrough each citation not considered. Each page of reference citations will be stamped by the examiner with the phrase “All references considered except where lined through” along with the examiner’s electronic initials, and the final page of reference citations will include the examiner’s electronic signature. Information submitted to the Office that does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will not be considered by the Office but will be placed in the application file.
Multiple information disclosure statements may be filed in a single application, and they will be considered, provided each is in compliance with the appropriate requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Use of form PTO/SB/08A and 08B, “Information Disclosure Statement,” is encouraged as a means to provide the required list of information as set forth in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO form PTO/SB/08A and 08B when preparing an information disclosure statement because this form is updated by the Office. The form PTO/SB/08A and 08B will enable applicants to comply with the requirement to list each item of information being submitted and to provide the Office with a uniform listing of citations and with a ready way to indicate that the information has been considered. A copy of form PTO/SB/08A and 08B is reproduced at the end of this section to indicate how the form should be completed.
609.01 Examiner Checklist for Information Disclosure Statements [R-08.2012]
(1)(a) for national applications (not including CPAs), within 3 months of filing or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later; (b) for national stage applications, within 3 months of entry into national stage or before first Office action on the merits, whichever is later; (c) for RCEs and CPAs before the first Office action on the merits. None
(B) Draw a line through the citation to show that it has not been considered if the citation fails to comply with all the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. - The examiner should inform applicant the reasons why a citation was not considered.
(C) Write “not considered” on an information disclosure statement if none of the information listed complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. - The examiner will inform applicant the reasons why the IDS was not considered by using form paragraphs 6.49 through 6.49.10.
609.02 Information Disclosure Statements in Continued Examinations or Continuing Applications [R-08.2012]
When filing a continuing application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to an international application that designated the U.S. (see MPEP § 1895), it will be necessary for the applicant to submit an information disclosure statement complying with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 in the continuing application listing the documents cited in the international search report and/or the international preliminary examination report of the international application if applicant wishes to ensure that the information be considered by the examiner in the continuing application.
IDS IN CONTINUED EXAMINATIONS OR CONTINUING APPLICATIONS
A. IDS That Has Been Considered (1) in the Parent Application, or (2) Prior to the Filing of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
1. Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
2. Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, or Continuation-in-Part Applications Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(b)
The examiner will consider information which has been considered by the Office in a parent application when examining: (A) a continuation application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), (B) a divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b), or (C) a continuation-in-part application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). A listing of the information need not be resubmitted in the continuing application unless the applicant desires the information to be printed on the patent.
If resubmitting a listing of the information, applicant should submit a new listing that complies with the format requirements in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). Applicants are strongly discouraged from submitting a list that includes copies of PTO/SB/08 or PTO-892 forms from other applications. A completed PTO/SB/08 form from another application may already have initials of an examiner and the application number of another application. This information will likely confuse the record. Furthermore, when the spaces provided on the form have initials of an examiner, there are no spaces available next to the documents listed for the examiner of the subsequent application to provide his or her initials, and the previously relevant initials may be erroneously construed as being applied for the current application.
3. Requests for Continued Examination (RCE) Under 37 CFR 1.114
B. IDS That Has Not Been Considered (1) in the Parent Application, or (2) Prior to the Filing of a Request for Continued Examination
1. Continued Prosecution Applications Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(d)
3. Requests for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
609.03 Information Disclosure Statements in National Stage Applications [R-08.2012]
¶ 6.53 References Considered in 37 U.S.C. 371 Application Based Upon Search Report - Prior to Allowance
The references cited in the Search Report [1] have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
1. In bracket [1], identify the office (e.g., PCT, EPO, etc.) that issued the search report and the date it issued.
2. This form paragraph may be used for PCT National Stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 where the examiner has obtained copies of the cited references. If receipt of such copies is not indicated on the PCT/DO/EO/903 form in the file, burden is on the applicant to supply copies for consideration. See MPEP § 1893.03(g).
¶ 6.54 References Considered in 37 U.S.C. 371 Application Based Upon Search Report - Ready for Allowance
The references cited in the Search Report [1] have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B form, must be filed within ONE MONTH of the mailing date of this communication. NO EXTENSION OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b) to comply with this requirement.
The listing of references in the Search Report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the Search Report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information or any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the IDS, including all “statement” requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
1. This form paragraph may be used in National Stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371.
609.04 [Reserved]
37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) also requires that each page of the list include a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an IDS. Since the Office treats an IDS submitted by the applicant differently than information submitted by a third-party (e.g., the Office may discard any non-compliant third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.99), a heading on each page of the list to indicate that the list is an IDS would promote proper treatment of the IDS submitted by the applicant and reduce handling errors.
37 CFR 1.98(b) requires that each item of information in an IDS be identified properly. U.S. patents must be identified by the inventor, patent number, and issue date. U.S. patent application publications must be identified by the applicant, patent application publication number, and publication date. U.S. applications must be identified by the inventor, the eight digit application number (the two digit series code and the six digit serial number), and the filing date. If a U.S. application being listed in an IDS has been issued as a patent or has been published, the applicant should list the patent or application publication in the IDS instead of the application. Each foreign patent or published foreign patent application must be identified by the country or patent office which issued the patent or published the application, an appropriate document number, and the publication date indicated on the patent or published application. Each publication must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, and date and place of publication. The date of publication supplied must include at least the month and year of publication, except that the year of publication (without the month) will be accepted if the applicant points out in the information disclosure statement that the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue. The place of publication refers to the name of the journal, magazine, or other publication in which the information being submitted was published. Pending U.S. applications that are being cited can be listed under the non-patent literature section or in a new section appropriately labeled.
(A) Each foreign patent ;
(B) Each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed , other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications unless required by the Office;
(C) For each cited pending unpublished U.S. application, the application specification including the claims, and any drawings of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system. The requirement in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(iii) for a legible copy of the specification, including the claims, and drawings of each cited pending U.S. patent application (or portion of the application which caused it to be listed) is sua sponte waived where the cited pending application is stored in the USPTO’s IFW system. See Waiver of the Copy Requirement in 37 CFR 1.98 for Cited Pending U.S. Patent Applications, 1287 O.G. 163 (Oct. 19, 2004); and
Second, 37 CFR 1.98(c) states that when the disclosures of two or more patents or publications listed in an information disclosure statement are substantively cumulative, a copy of one of the patents or publications may be submitted without copies of the other patents or publications provided that a statement is made that these other patents or publications are cumulative. The examiner will then consider only the patent or publication of which a copy is submitted and will so indicate on the list, form PTO/SB/08A and 08B, submitted, e.g., by crossing out the listing of the cumulative information. But see Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1374, 54 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Reference was not cumulative since it contained a more complete combination of the claimed elements than any other reference before the examiner. “A withheld reference may be highly material when it discloses a more complete combination of relevant features, even if those features are before the patent examiner in other references.” (citations omitted).).
Electronic means or medium for filing IDSs are not permitted except for: (A) citations to U.S. patents , U.S. patent application publications , foreign patent documents and non-patent literature (NPLs)in an IDS filed via the Office’s Electronic Filing System (EFS) (see MPEP § 609.07); or (B) a compact disc (CD) that has tables, sequence listings, or program listings included in a paper IDS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e). A CD cannot be used to submit an IDS listing or copies of the documents cited in the IDS.
The requirement for a concise explanation of relevance is limited to information that is not in the English language. The explanation required is limited to the relevance as understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information at the time the information is submitted to the Office. If a complete translation of the information into English is submitted with the non-English language information, no concise explanation is required. An English-language equivalent application may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if it is, in fact, a translation of a foreign language application being listed in an information disclosure statement. There is no requirement for the translation to be verified. Submission of an English language abstract of a reference may fulfill the requirement for a concise explanation. Where the information listed is not in the English language, but was cited in a search report or other action by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, the requirement for a concise explanation of relevance can be satisfied by submitting an English-language version of the search report or action which indicates the degree of relevance found by the foreign office. This may be an explanation of which portion of the reference is particularly relevant, to which claims it applies, or merely an “X”, “Y”, or “A” indication on a search report. The requirement for a concise explanation of non-English language information would not be satisfied by a statement that a reference was cited in the prosecution of a United States application which is not relied on under 35 U.S.C. 120.
The concise explanation may indicate that a particular figure or paragraph of the patent or publication is relevant to the claimed invention. It might be a simple statement pointing to similarities between the item of information and the claimed invention. It is permissible but not necessary to discuss differences between the cited information and the claims. However, see Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1376, 54 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[A]lthough MPEP Section 609A(3) allows the applicant some discretion in the manner in which it phrases its concise explanation, it nowhere authorizes the applicant to intentionally omit altogether key teachings of the reference.”).
In Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, patentee during prosecution submitted an untranslated 29-page Japanese reference as well as a concise explanation of its relevance and an existing one-page partial English translation, both of which were directed to less material portions of the reference. The untranslated portions of the Japanese reference “contained a more complete combination of the elements claimed [in the patent] than anything else before the PTO.” 204 F.3d at 1376, 54 USPQ2d at 1005. The patentee, whose native language was Japanese, was held to have understood the materiality of the reference. “The duty of candor does not require that the applicant translate every foreign reference, but only that the applicant refrain from submitting partial translations and concise explanations that it knows will misdirect the examiner’s attention from the reference’s relevant teaching.” 204 F.3d at 1378, 54 USPQ2d at 1008.
(a) for national applications (not including CPAs), within 3 months of filing, or before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits, whichever is later;
(b) for international applications, within 3 months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 or before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits in the national stage application, whichever is later;
I. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE FIRST ACTION ON THE MERITS OR WITHIN THREE (3) MONTHS OF ACTUAL FILING DATE (37 CFR 1.97(b))
(A) for national applications (not including CPAs), within 3 months of the filing date of the national application or before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits;
(B) for international applications, within 3 months of the date of entry of the national stage as set forth in 37 CFR 1.491 or before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits; or
(C) for RCEs and CPAs, before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement filed within one of these periods requires neither a fee nor a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e). An information disclosure statement will be considered to have been filed on the day it was received in the Office, or on an earlier date of mailing if accompanied by a properly executed certificate of mailing or facsimile transmission under 37 CFR 1.8, or if it is in compliance with the provisions of “Express Mail” delivery under 37 CFR 1.10. If the last day of the three months period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(b)(1) and (b)(2) falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday within the District of Columbia, the IDS will be considered timely if filed on the next succeeding business day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday. See 37 CFR 1.7(a). An Office action is mailed on the date indicated in the Office action.
A. National or International Applications
The term “national application” includes continuing applications (continuations, divisions, and continuations-in-part but not CPAs), so 3 months will be measured from the actual filing date of an application as opposed to the effective filing date of a continuing application. For international applications, the 3 months will be measured from the date of entry of the national stage.
All information disclosure statements that comply with the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 and are filed within 3 months of the filing date, will be considered by the examiner, regardless of whatever else has occurred in the examination process up to that point in time. Thus, in the rare instance that a final Office action, a notice of allowance, or an Ex parte Quayle action is mailed prior to a date which is 3 months from the filing date, any information contained in a complete information disclosure statement filed within that 3-month window will be considered by the examiner.
Likewise, an information disclosure statement will be considered if it is filed later than 3 months after the application filing date but before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. An action on the merits means an action which treats the patentability of the claims in an application, as opposed to only formal or procedural requirements. An action on the merits would, for example, contain a rejection or indication of allowability of a claim or claims rather than just a restriction requirement (37 CFR 1.142) or just a requirement for additional fees to have a claim considered (37 CFR 1.16). Thus, if an application was filed on January 2 and the first Office action on the merits was not mailed until 6 months later on July 2, the examiner would be required to consider any proper information disclosure statement filed prior to July 2.
The 3-month window as discussed above does not apply to a RCE filed under 37 CFR 1.114 or a CPA filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (effective July 14, 2003, CPAs are only available for design applications). An IDS filed after the filing of a RCE will be considered if the IDS is filed before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits. A RCE is not the filing of an application, but merely the continuation of prosecution in the current application. After the mailing of a RCE, such application is treated as an amended application by the examiner and is subject to a short turnover time. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to file any IDS with the filing of a RCE. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for details on RCEs.
If an IDS cannot be filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits (generally within 2 months from the filing of the RCE or CPA), applicants may request a 3-month suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(c) in an application at the time of filing of the RCE, or under 37 CFR 1.103(b) in a CPA, at the time of filing of the CPA. Where an IDS is mailed to the Office shortly before the expiration of a 3-month suspension under 37 CFR 1.103(b) or (c), applicant is requested to make a courtesy call to notify the examiner as to the IDS submission.
The requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 provide for consideration by the Office of information which is submitted within a reasonable time, i.e., within 3 months after an individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) becomes aware of the information or within 3 months of the information being cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application. This undertaking by the Office to consider information would be available throughout the pendency of the application until the point where the patent issue fee was paid.
Applicant’s information disclosure statement of [1] was filed after the issue fee was paid. Information disclosure statements filed after payment of the issue fee will not be considered, but will be placed in the file. However, the application may be withdrawn from issue in order to file a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 upon the grant of a petition under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(2), or a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) (or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) if the CPA is for a design patent and the prior application of the CPA is a design application) upon the grant of a petition filed under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.313(c)(3). Alternatively, the other provisions of 37 CFR 1.313 may apply, e.g., a petition to withdraw the application from issue under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1) may be filed together with an unequivocal statement by the applicant that one or more claims are unpatentable over the information contained in the statement. The information disclosure statement would then be considered upon withdrawal of the application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c)(1).
A statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) can contain either of two statements. One statement is that each item of information in an information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication, such as a search report, from a patent office outside the U.S. in a counterpart foreign application not more than 3 months prior to the filing date of the statement. Applicant would not be able to make a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) where an item of information was first cited by a foreign patent office, for example, a year before the filing of the IDS, in a communication from that foreign patent office, and the same item of information is once again cited by another foreign patent office within three months prior to the filing of the IDS in the Office. Similarly, applicant would not be able to make a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) where an item of information was cited in an examination report and the same item of information was previously cited more than three months prior to the filing of the IDS in the Office, in a search report from the same foreign patent office. Under this statement, it does not matter whether any individual with a duty of disclosure actually knew about any of the information cited before receiving the search report.
The date on the communication by the foreign patent office begins the 3-month period in the same manner as the mailing of an Office action starts a 3-month shortened statutory period for reply. If the communication contains two dates, the mailing date of the communication is the one which begins the 3-month period. The date which begins the 3-month period is not the date the communication was received by a foreign associate or the date it was received by a U.S. registered practitioner. Likewise, the statement will be considered to have been filed on the date the statement was received in the Office, or on an earlier date of mailing or transmission if accompanied by a properly executed certificate of mailing or facsimile transmission under 37 CFR 1.8, or if it is in compliance with the provisions for “Express Mail” delivery under 37 CFR 1.10.
If an information disclosure statement includes a copy of a dated communication from a foreign patent office which clearly shows that the statement is being submitted within 3 months of the date on the communication, the copy of the dated communication from the foreign patent office by itself will not be accepted as the required statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) since it would not be clear from the dated communication whether the information in the IDS was “first cited” in any communication from a foreign patent office not more than 3 months prior to the filing of the IDS as required by 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1).
In the alternative, a statement can be made if no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application and, to the knowledge of the person signing the statement after making reasonable inquiry, neither was it known to any individual having a duty to disclose more than 3 months prior to the filing of the statement. If an inventor of the U.S. application is also a named inventor of one of the items of information contained in the IDS, the 37 CFR 1.97(e)(2) statement cannot be made for that particular item of information, and if made, will not be accepted.
The phrase “after making reasonable inquiry” makes it clear that the individual making the statement has a duty to make reasonable inquiry regarding the facts that are being stated. The statement can be made by a registered practitioner who represents a foreign client and who relies on statements made by the foreign client as to the date the information first became known. A registered practitioner who receives information from a client without being informed whether the information was known for more than 3 months, however, cannot make the statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(2) without making reasonable inquiry. For example, if an inventor gave a publication to the attorney prosecuting an application with the intent that it be cited to the Office, the attorney should inquire as to when that inventor became aware of the publication and should not submit a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(2) to the Office until a satisfactory response is received. The statement can be based on present, good faith knowledge about when information became known without a search of files being made.
A statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) need not be in the form of an oath or a declaration under 37 CFR 1.68. A statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) by a registered practitioner or any other individual that the statement was filed within the 3-month period of either first citation by a foreign patent office or first discovery of the information will be accepted as dispositive of compliance with this provision in the absence of evidence to the contrary. For example, a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) could read as follows:
I hereby state that each item of information contained in this Information Disclosure Statement was first cited in any communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than 3 months prior to the filing of this statement.,
I hereby state that no item of information in the Information Disclosure Statement filed herewith was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to my knowledge after making reasonable inquiry, no item of information contained in this Information Disclosure Statement was known to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than 3 months prior to the filing of this Information Disclosure Statement.
An information disclosure statement may include two lists and two statements, similar to the above examples, in situations where some of the information listed was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office not more than 3 months prior to filing the statement and some was not, but was not known more than 3 months prior to filing the statement.
609.05 Examiner Handling of Information Disclosure Statements [R-08.2012]
Information disclosure statements will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 as discussed in MPEP § 609.04(a) and § 609.04(b). Applicant will be notified of compliance and noncompliance with the rules as discussed in MPEP § 609.05(a) and § 609.05(b) .
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.97(i), submitted information, filed before the grant of a patent, which does not comply with 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will be placed in the file, but will not be considered by the Office. Information submitted after the grant of a patent must comply with 37 CFR 1.501.
If an information disclosure statement does not comply with the requirements based on the time of filing of the IDS as discussed in MPEP § 609.04(b), including the requirements for fees and/or statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e), the IDS will be placed in the application file, but none of the information will be considered by the examiner. The examiner may use form paragraph 6.49 which is reproduced below to inform applicant that the information has not been considered. Applicant may then file a new information disclosure statement or correct the deficiency in the previously filed IDS, but the date that the new IDS or correction is filed will be the date of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing of the IDS (37 CFR 1.97).
The examiner should write “not considered” on an information disclosure statement where none of the information listed complies with the requirements, e.g., the format requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) are not met. If none of the information listed on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B form is considered, a diagonal line should also be drawn across the form and the form made of record in the application file. The examiner will inform applicant that the information has not been considered and the reasons why by using form paragraphs 6.49 through 6.49.10. If the improper citation appears as part of another paper, e.g., an amendment, which may be properly entered and considered, the portion of the paper which is proper for consideration will be considered.
If an item of information in an IDS fails to comply with all the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98, that item of information in the IDS will not be considered and a line should be drawn through the citation to show that it has not been considered. However, other items of information that do comply with all the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will be considered by the examiner.
If information listed in the specification rather than in a separate paper, or if the other content requirements as discussed in MPEP § 609.04(a) are not complied with, the information need not be considered by the examiner, in which case, the examiner should notify applicant in the next Office action that the information has not been considered.
¶ 6.49 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because [2]. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any resubmission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
See MPEP § 609.05(a) for situations where the use of this form paragraph would be appropriate.
¶ 6.49.01 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, After First Action, But Before the Prosecution of the Application Closes, No Statement
¶ 6.49.02 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, After First Action, But Before the Prosecution of the Application Closes, No Fee
¶ 6.49.03 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, After the Prosecution of the Application Closes, Issue Fee Not Paid, No Statement
¶ 6.49.05 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, After the Prosecution of the Application Closes, Issue Fee Not Paid, No Fee
¶ 6.49.06 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, References Listed in Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
¶ 6.49.07 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, No Copy of References
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Do not use this form paragraph when the missing reference(s) are U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, or U.S. pending applications (limited to the specification, including claims, and drawings) stored in IFW.
¶ 6.49.08 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, Non-Compliant List of References
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
If an IDS listing includes a copy of an initialed IDS listing from another application, the IDS listing would not comply with the requirements under 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). This form paragraph is applicable for such an IDS submission.
¶ 6.49.09 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, No Explanation of Relevance of Non-English Language Information
The information disclosure statement filed [1] fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
¶ 6.49.10 Information Disclosure Statement Not Considered, Non-acceptable Electronic Medium
The information disclosure statement filed [1] was submitted on an electronic medium that was not acceptable. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Note that U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, foreign patent documents and non-patent literature cited in an information disclosure statement may be electronically submitted in compliance with the Office Electronic Filing System (EFS) requirements.
This form paragraph may be used when the IDS that includes patents and non-patent literature documents is submitted on compact discs or any other electronic medium, except via EFS. Only tables, sequence listings, and program listings may be submitted on CDs. See 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (e).
¶ 6.51 Time for Completing Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on [1] does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(b) because: [2]. Since the submission appears to be bona fide, applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above-mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above-mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the non-complying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i).
Use this form paragraph if an IDS complies with the timing requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 but part of the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(b) has been inadvertently omitted.
This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of an Information Disclosure Statement or where the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.97, have not been complied with.
The information contained in information disclosure statements which comply with both the content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 and the requirements, based on the time of filing the statement, of 37 CFR 1.97 will be considered by the examiner. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner will consider the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above.
In addition, the following alternative electronic signature method may be used by examiners in information disclosure statements to indicate whether the information has been considered. Examiners will no longer initial each reference citation considered, but will continue to strikethrough each citation not considered. Each page of reference citations will be stamped by the examiner with the phrase “All references considered except where lined through” along with the examiner’s electronic initials, and the final page of reference citations will include the examiner’s electronic signature.
Examiners must consider all citations submitted in conformance with the rules, and their initials when placed adjacent to the considered citations on the list or in the boxes provided on a form PTO/SB/08A and 08B (or the examiner may use the alternative electronic signature method noted above)provides a clear record of which citations have been considered by the Office. The examiner must also fill in his or her name and the date the information was considered in blocks at the bottom of the PTO/SB/08A and 08B form. If any of the citations are considered, a copy of the submitted list, form PTO/SB/08A and 08B, as reviewed by the examiner, will be returned to the applicant with the next communication. Those citations not considered by the examiner will have a line drawn through the citation and any citations considered will have the examiner's initials adjacent thereto (or the bottom of each page of the information disclosure statement may include the phrase “All references considered except where lined through” along with the examiner’s electronic initials). The original copy of the list, form PTO/SB/08A and 08B will be entered into the application file. The copy returned to applicant will serve both as acknowledgement of receipt of the information disclosure statement and as an indication as to which references were considered by the examiner. Forms PTO-326 and PTOL-37 include a box to indicate the attachment of form PTO/SB/08A and 08B.
Information which complies with requirements as discussed in this section but which is in a non-English language will be considered in view of the concise explanation submitted (see MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection III.) and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches. The examiner need not have the information translated unless it appears to be necessary to do so. The examiner will indicate that the non-English language information has been considered in the same manner as consideration is indicated for information submitted in English. The examiner should not require that a translation be filed by applicant. The examiner should not make any comment such as that the non-English language information has only been considered to the extent understood, since this fact is inherent. See Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. V. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1377-78, 54 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[A]s MPEP Section 609C(2) reveals, the examiner’s understanding of a foreign reference is generally limited to that which he or she can glean from the applicant’s concise statement…Consequently, while the examiner’s initials require that we presume that he or she considered the [foreign] reference, this presumption extends only to the examiner’s consideration of the brief translated portion and the concise statement.”).
If an item of information in an IDS fails to comply with requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98, a line should be drawn through the citation to show that it has not been considered. The other items of information listed that do comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98 will be considered by the examiner and will be appropriately initialed.
609.05(c) Documents Submitted as Part of Applicant’s Reply to Office Action
609.06 Information Printed on Patent [R-08.2012]
A citation listed on form PTO/SB/08A and 08B and considered by the examiner will be printed on the patent. A citation listed in a separate paper, equivalent to but not on form PTO/SB/08A and 08B, and considered by the examiner will be printed on the patent if the list lends itself to easy capture of the necessary information by the Office printing contractor, i.e., each item of information is listed on a single line, the lines are at least double-spaced from each other, and the information is uniform in format for each listed item. For patents printed after January 1, 2001, citations from information disclosure statements that are printed on the face of the patent will be distinguished from citations cited by the examiner on a form PTO-892. The citations cited by the examiner on a form PTO-892 will be marked with an asterisk. If an item of information is cited more than once in an IDS and on a form PTO-892, the citation of the item will be listed only once on the patent as a citation cited by the examiner.
If the applicant does not provide classification information for a citation, or if the examiner lines through incorrect classification data, the citation will be printed on the face of the patent without the classification information. If a U.S. patent application number is listed on a PTO/SB/08A and 08B form or its equivalent and the examiner considers the information and initials the form, the application number will be printed on the patent. Applicants may wish to list U.S. patent application numbers on other than a form PTO/SB/08A and 08B format to avoid the application numbers of pending applications being published on the patent. If a citation is not printed on the patent but has been considered by the examiner, the patented file will reflect that fact as noted in MPEP §609.05(b).
609.07 IDSs Electronically Submitted (e-IDS) Using EFS [R-11.2013]
As of May of 2002 IDSs may be submitted to the Office via the EFS. Applicants can file an e-IDS using the EFS by (A) entering the references’ citation information in an electronic data entry form, equivalent to the paper PTO/SB/08A form, and (B) transmitting the electronic data entry form to the Office. As of January 2007, an e-IDS filed via EFS-Web may include citations of U.S. patents , U.S. patent application publications , foreign patent documents and non-patent literature (NPLs). Copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications cited in the IDS are not required to be submitted by the applicants with the e-IDS. If any references to foreign patent documents or NPLs or unpublished U.S. patent applications (that are not stored in the Office’s Image File Wrapper (IFW) system)are to be cited, applicants must submit copies of these documents in PDF using EFS-Web.
The electronic IDS form may be included with a new EFS electronic application filing, or it may be submitted for previously filed patent applications. An e-IDS contains an electronic list of U.S. patent numbers, U.S. patent application publication numbers, foreign patent documents and non-patent literature (NPLs). An individual e-IDS may contain a listing of (1) a combined total of 50 U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications, (2) 50 foreign patent documents, and (3) 50 NPLs. Applicants are permitted to file more than one e-IDS if these numbers are exceeded.
A subsequent non-electronic submission is considered received by the Office on the same date as the first e-IDS submission with which the fee was included for purposes of the fee due under 37 CFR 1.17(p) if it is deposited in Express Mail under 37 CFR 1.10, deposited in the first class U.S. mail with a certificate of mailing in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8, or transmitted by facsimile with a certificate of transmission in accordance with 37 CFR 1.8, on the same date as the first e-IDS submission with which the fee was included. If a subsequent e-IDS submission is received by the Office on a date later than the date the fee was paid, the later submission will require an additional fee.
If the e-IDS complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.97, examiners must consider the e-IDS and complete the e-IDS form by initialing, signing, and dating the e-IDS form entries. Examiners may notice numbering gaps in the “Citation No.” column on the printed e-IDS form due to an applicant data entry error. This data entry error will not affect the e-IDS and is not a sufficient reason not to consider the e-IDS. A copy of the initialed, signed, and dated e-IDS form must be sent to the applicant. The original completed e-IDS form will be retained in the application file if the application file is maintained in paper. The completed copy of the e-IDS form sent to an applicant in an IFW application should be made of record in the IFW when the copy is sent to the applicant.
The Office’s EFS system starting with version 5.1 released on April 14, 2003, permits applicants and registered practitioners to sign portions of an EFS submission with an electronic signature. The electronic signature is any typed combination of alphanumeric characters. The electronic signature must comply with 37 CFR 1.4(d)(3). The electronic signature may be on EFS transmittal letters, declarations, powers of attorney, fee sheets, and later filed biosequence listings. Accordingly, an e-IDS should not be denied consideration solely because it has an alpha numeric electronic signature if filed on or after April 14, 2003.
609.08 Electronic Processing of Information Disclosure Statement [R-08.2012]
As of January 18, 2006, the Office began electronic processing of the list of citations (e.g., form PTO/SB/08) submitted as part of an information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted in applications stored by the Office in image form. Examiners are provided with a tool on their desktop (Annotation Tool deployed as part of eDAN 2.0) to electronically annotate citations and electronically sign the IDS when reviewing the cited references. The electronically processed IDS will be stored in the Office’s official record as an entry in the application’s image file wrapper (IFW) and a copy will be mailed to applicant as part of an Office action. Applicants that receive numerous Office actions may receive some IDS annotated by hand while receiving other IDSs annotated by electronic means for a limited time period.
The electronic annotation, similar to hand written annotations, will cause the initials of the reviewing examiner to be applied to either: (A) the immediate left of each citation reviewed; or (B) the immediate left of the first of several consecutive citations and the left of the last of the consecutive citations reviewed with a line connecting the initials. Citations that have not been considered will be lined through.
The electronic signature will be in the form /John Q. Examiner/ at the bottom of the last sheet of citations of an IDS. The examiner may elect to electronically sign each sheet of citations considered.
As of October 1, 2007, examiners may use an alternative electronic signature method for IDS. Under the alternative electronic signature, examiners will no longer initial each reference citation considered, but will continue to strikethrough each citation not considered. Each page of reference citations will be stamped by the examiner with the phrase “All references considered except where lined through” along with the examiner’s electronic initials, and the final page of reference citations will include the examiner’s electronic signature.