Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2809.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-23 21:57:36
Document Index: 174010530

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1402', '§ 1402', '§ 2258', '§ 1481', '§ 1402', '§ 2811']

37 CFR 1.605 Items of information.
I.LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF ITEMS OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED AS PART OF A SINGLE REQUEST
II.REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ITEM OF INFORMATION
An item of information must be in writing. In most cases, an "item of information" is a separate document submitted as part of the request. Under certain conditions, however, an “item of information” may be contained within the body of the request.
A.An Item of Information Must Be in Writing
B.An Item of Information Must Be Submitted as a Separate Document, Where Applicable
C.When an Item of Information May be Contained within the Body of the Request
III.HOW ITEMS OF INFORMATION ARE COUNTED
IV.INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED WITH THE REQUEST
However, if the patent owner merely wishes to amend the patent file in order to correct factual information, the patent owner should file a reissue application or a request for certificate of correction, where appropriate. See MPEP §§ 1402 and 1405. If the patent owner only desires to correct the inventorship, the patent owner should file a request for a certificate of correction under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 256 and 37 CFR 1.324, or, alternatively, the patent owner may file a reissue application. See MPEP §§ 1402, 1412.04, and 1481.02. Correction of inventorship may also be made, if desired, in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. See MPEP § 2258, subsection IV.F. If the information that the patent owner wishes to correct is only of a clerical or typographical nature, or of a minor character within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323, the patent owner should file a request for certificate of correction rather than a supplemental examination request. See, e.g.,MPEP § 1481.
I.SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION IS LIMITED TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE REQUEST RAISES A SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY
If the Office determines that no SNQ is raised by the request, the supplemental examination proceeding concludes with the issuance of a supplemental examination certificate, indicating that no SNQ is raised. See 35 U.S.C. 257(a), 37 CFR 1.620(a), and 37 CFR 1.625(a). Because no SNQ is raised by the request, ex parte reexamination is not ordered. In such an instance, the factual information cannot be corrected because the procedure for making the correction of the factual information is the reexamination that would have been ordered, had the Office determined that a SNQ was raised in the request. In other words, the patent owner may inform the Office of factual information to be corrected during the supplemental examination proceeding, and thus request supplemental examination "to correct information believed to be relevant to the patent" in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 257(a). However, in the absence of information in the request that raises a SNQ, there is no opportunity to make the correction. Thus, the supplemental examination proceeding will not result in any correction to the patent. In such cases, the patent owner may wish to file a reissue application, a certificate of correction, or other proceeding, as applicable, in order to have the information corrected. See, e.g.,MPEP §§ 1402, 1405 and 1481.
When analyzing a request for supplemental examination, the Office will only consider the item(s) of information provided by the patent owner. The Office will not initiate supplemental examination of the patent in view of any item of information that was not requested by the patent owner to be considered, reconsidered or corrected. For example, any prior art of record in the patent file, that is not properly submitted as one or more additional item(s) of information in the request, will not, in general, be considered during the supplemental examination proceeding, except to determine whether the item(s) of information properly submitted with the request are cumulative to the prior art of record. Furthermore, a request for supplemental examination "of all of the patent claims" solely in view of the "the factual information to be corrected" , without more, is improper. The patent owner is effectively requesting reconsideration of all of the patent claims in view of all prior art in existence (or, at a minimum, all of the prior art of record). Each prior art document, however, would be considered as a separate item of information. Such a request would be improper because it would not comply with the requirements of, for example, 37 CFR 1.610(b). It would fail to include, e.g., (a) a separate list of each prior art document as an item of information; (b) a copy of each item of information, where appropriate; c) a separate, detailed explanation of the relevance and manner of applying each prior art document to every claim for which supplemental examination is requested, etc. In addition, "all prior art in existence" is likely to include more than twelve items of information. See MPEP § 2811 for discussion of the required elements of a supplemental examination request as set forth in 37 CFR 1.610(b).
II.RECOMMENDED INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE REQUEST
III.INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED WITH THE REQUEST