Source: https://www.clfip.com/ip/blog/mpep/1444/
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 04:51:15
Document Index: 312511610

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1414', '§ 1414', '§ 1414', '§ 1414', '§ 1414', '§ 714']

MPEP » Section 1444 Review of Reissue Oath/Declaration » Chhabra® Law
Section 1444 Review of Reissue Oath/Declaration
I. REQUIREMENTS OF REISSUE OATH OR DECLARATION
MPEP § 1414 describes the requirements for each of the aforementioned statements. See MPEP § 1414.01 for the remaining requirements for the reissue oath or declaration in a reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012; MPEP § 1414.02 for the remaining requirements of a reissue oath or declaration in a reissue application filed before September 16, 2012; and MPEP § 1414.03 for supplemental reissue oaths or declarations in reissue applications.
II. REVIEW OF REISSUE OATH OR DECLARATION
In preparing an Office action, the examiner should use form paragraphs 14.01 through 14.01.06 to state the objection(s) to the oath/declaration, i.e., the defects in the oath/declaration. These form paragraphs are reproduced in MPEP § 1414. The examiner should then use form paragraph 14.14 to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 251, based upon the improper oath/declaration.
A lack of the inventor’s signature on a reissue oath/declaration (except as otherwise provided in 37 CFR 1.64 and 1.175(c) for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.42, 1.43, and 1.47 and in 37 CFR 1.172 for applications filed before September 16, 2012) would be considered a lack of compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(a) and result in a rejection, including final rejection, of all the claims on the basis that the reissue oath/declaration is insufficient. If the unsigned reissue oath/declaration is submitted as part of a reply which is otherwise properly signed and responsive to the outstanding Office action, the reply should be accepted by the examiner as proper and responsive, and the oath/declaration considered fully in the next Office action. The reply should not be treated as an unsigned or improperly signed amendment (see MPEP § 714.01(a)), nor do the holdings of Ex parte Quayle apply in this situation. The lack of signature, along with any other oath/declaration deficiencies, should be noted in the next Office action rejecting the claims as being based upon an insufficient reissue oath/declaration.
III. ERRORS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED NO LONGER RELIED UPON AS THE BASIS FOR REISSUE
A. Application Filed on or After September 16, 2012
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, a supplemental reissue oath or declaration is not required where all errors previously identified in the reissue oath/declaration are no longer being relied upon as the basis for reissue. However, the applicant must explicitly identify an error being relied upon as the basis for reissue (e.g., in the remarks accompanying an amendment). See 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2). Identification of the error must be conspicuous and clear and must comply with 35 U.S.C. 251. Additionally, since applicant is not required to identify the new error in a reissue oath/declaration, identification of the error may not be deferred until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance.
B. Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, where all errors previously identified in the reissue oath/declaration are no longer being relied upon as the basis for reissue, a supplemental oath/declaration will be needed to identify at least one error now being relied upon as the basis for reissue, even if a prior oath/declaration was earlier found proper by the examiner. The supplemental oath/declaration is not required to indicate that the error(s) identified in the prior oath(s)/declaration(s) is/are no longer being corrected. In this instance, applicant’s submission of the supplemental reissue oath/declaration to obviate the rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 251 may, at applicant’s option, be deferred until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance. The submission can be deferred because a proper statement of error was provided in the initial reissue oath/declaration, and therefore applicant does not need to supply a supplemental reissue oath/declaration each time the error being corrected is changed. Applicant need only conspicuously and clearly identify the new error in the remarks section of the reply and request that submission of the supplemental reissue oath/declaration be deferred until allowance. Such a request will be considered a complete reply to the rejection.
IV. SUPPLEMENTAL REISSUE OATH/DECLARATION UNDER PRE-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1):
When a supplemental oath/declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1) directed to the amendments or other corrections of error is required, the examiner is encouraged to telephone the applicant and request the submission of the supplemental oath/declaration by EFS-Web or fax. If the circumstances do not permit making a telephone call, or if applicant declines or is unable to promptly submit the oath/declaration, the examiner should issue a final Office action (final rejection) and use form paragraph 14.05.02.fti where the action issued is a second or subsequent action on the merits.
¶ 14.05.02.fti Supplemental Oath or Declaration Required Prior to Allowance – Application Filed Before Sept. 16, 2012
2. In bracket 2, insert either –oath– or –declaration–.
As noted above, the examiner will issue a final Office action where the application is otherwise in condition for allowance, and amendments or other corrections of error in the patent have been made subsequent to the last oath/declaration filed in the application. The examiner will be introducing (via form paragraph 14.05.02.fti) a rejection into the case for the first time in the prosecution, when the claims have been determined to be otherwise allowable. This introduction of a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 will not prevent the action from being made final on a second or subsequent action because of the following factors:
Where the application is in condition for allowance and no amendments or other corrections of error in the patent have been made subsequent to the last oath/declaration filed in the application, a supplemental reissue oath/declaration under pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1) should not be required by the examiner. Instead, the examiner should issue a Notice of Allowability indicating allowance of the claims.
V. AFTER ALLOWANCE
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, a supplemental reissue oath/declaration must accompany the amendment. The supplemental reissue oath/declaration must state that the error(s) to be corrected arose without any deceptive intention on the part of the applicant. The supplemental reissue oath/declaration submitted after allowance must be directed to the error(s) applicant seeks to correct after allowance. This oath/declaration need not cover any earlier errors, because all earlier errors should have been covered by a reissue oath/declaration submitted before allowance.
Occasionally, correcting an error after allowance does not include an amendment of the specification or claims of the patent. For example, the correction of the error could be the filing of a certified copy of the original foreign application (before the payment of the issue fee. See 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1) to obtain the right of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119; see also Brenner v. State of Israel, 400 F.2d 789, 158 USPQ 584 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (the claim for foreign priority had been timely made in the application for the original patent). In such a case, the requirements of 37 CFR 1.312 must still be met. This is so, because the correction of the patent is an amendment of the patent, even though no amendment is physically entered into the case. Thus, for a reissue oath/declaration submitted after allowance to correct an additional error (or errors), the reissue applicant must comply with 37 CFR 1.312 in the manner discussed above.