MPEP § 1449 — MPEP § 1449
Current through: 2022-07-01

1449-Protest Filed in Reissue Where Patent Is in Interference or Contested Case 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Skip over navigation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 search for patents | search for trademarks 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Search 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 PATENTS 
 
 Patent Search 

 
 Patent Process 

 
 Patent Classification 

 
 Patent Forms 

 
 Statistics 

 
 Electronic Business Center 

 
 Patent Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures 

 
 Resources and Guidance 

 
 Office of Data Management 

 
 Announcements 

 
 Initiatives & Events 

 
 International Protection 

 
 Employee Locator 

 
 Contact Patents 

 

 

 
 TRADEMARKS 
 
 Trademark Search 

 
 Trademarks Process 

 
 News & Notices 

 
 Manuals, Guides, Official Gazette 

 
 Laws & Regulations 

 
 Online Filing 

 
 Contact Trademarks 

 

 

 
 IP LAW & POLICY 
 
 Rulemaking 

 
 IP Policy and Enforcement 

 
 Protecting IP Overseas 

 
 Training and Education 

 
 Training Programs & Conferences 

 
 Office of Governmental Affairs 

 
 Office of Chief Economist 

 
 Boards and Counsel 

 

 

 
 PRODUCTS & SERVICES 
 
 Electronic Data Products 

 
 XML Resources 

 
 XML Resources - Retrospective 

 
 USPTO Contact Center Order Form 

 
 Services 

 
 Locate Libraries 

 
 Training/Events 

 
 Online Services Hub 

 

 

 
 INVENTORS 
 
 Patents for Inventors 

 
 Trademarks for Inventors 

 
 Inventors Assistance 

 
 Education and Information 

 
 Scam Prevention 

 
 Pro Se and Pro Bono 

 
 Current Events 

 
 State Resources 

 
 InventorsEye Newsletter 

 

 

 
 NEWS & NOTICES 
 
 Subscription Center 

 
 Press Releases 

 
 Testimony and Speeches 

 
 Director's Forum 

 
 Systems Status 

 
 Emergency Notices 

 
 USPTO Videos 

 
 Official Gazette 

 
 Federal Register Notices 

 
 Event Calendar 

 

 

 
 FAQs 
 
 Patents FAQs 

 
 Trademarks FAQs 

 
 Assignments 

 
 Security 

 
 Musicians and Artists 

 
 Browser Plugins 

 
 Other Web Resources 

 

 

 
 ABOUT US 
 
 USPTO Leadership 

 
 USPTO Organization 

 
 USPTO Offices 

 
 Careers 

 
 Budget, Performance, and Planning 

 
 Statistics 

 
 Vendor Information 

 
 Public Advisory Committees 

 
 National Medal of Technology and Innovation 

 
 IP in Motion 

 
 Contact Us 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 Home Page 

 
 Patents 

 
 Patent Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures 

 
 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 

 Chapter 1400 

 Section 1449 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 1449 Protest Filed in Reissue Where Patent Is in Interference or
 Contested Case [R-08.2017]
 

 If a protest (see MPEP Chapter 1900 ) is filed in a reissue
 application related to a patent involved in a pending interference proceeding or contested
 case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the reissue application should be
 referred to the PTAB before considering the protest and taking any action on the reissue
 application. A contested case includes a derivation proceeding, an inter
 partes review, a post-grant review, and a covered business method review.
 

 In consultation with the examiner and the PTAB, a TC TQAS
 or SPRS will check to see that:
 

 
 (A) all parties to the interference or contested case are aware of the
 filing of the reissue; and
 

 (B) the Office does not allow claims in a reissue that are unpatentable
 over the pending interference count(s), or found unpatentable in the interference
 proceeding or contested case. After the PTAB has finished their review, the PTAB will
 inform the examiner that they may now act on the reissue application. See
 MPEP §
 1441.01 for a discussion as to protests under
 37 CFR
 1.291 in reissue applications.
 

 
 It is particularly important that the reissue application
 not be allowed without the administrative patent judge’s approval.
 

 
 1449.01 Concurrent Office Proceedings [R-08.2017]
 I. CONCURRENT REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS 37 CFR
 1.565(d) provides that if “a reissue application and an
 ex parte reexamination proceeding on which an order pursuant to
 §
 1.525 has been mailed are pending concurrently on a patent, a
 decision may be made to merge the two proceedings or to suspend one of the two
 proceedings.” 37
 CFR 1.991 provides that if 
 "a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination
 proceeding on which an order pursuant to § 1.931 has been mailed are
 pending concurrently on a patent, a decision may be made to merge the two
 proceedings or to suspend one of the two proceedings."
 
 
 If an
 examiner becomes aware that a reissue application and an ex parte 
 or inter partes reexamination proceeding are both pending for the
 same patent, the examiner should immediately inform their Technology Center (TC)
 Training Quality Assurance Specialist (TQAS) or Supervisory Patent Reexamination
 Specialist (SPRS).
 

 Under 37 CFR 1.177 , a patent owner may
 file more than one reissue application for the same patent. If an examiner becomes
 aware that multiple reissue applications are pending for the same patent, and an
 ex parte or inter partes reexamination
 proceeding is pending for the same patent, the examiner should immediately inform
 their TC TQAS or SPRS.
 

 Where a reissue application and a reexamination proceeding are
 pending concurrently on a patent, and an order granting reexamination has
 been issued for the reexamination proceeding, the Office of Patent Legal
 Administration (OPLA) must be notified (by email to a Legal Advisor involved in
 reexamination) that the proceedings are ready for a decision as to whether to merge
 the reissue and the reexamination, or stay one of the two. See MPEP § 2285 for
 the procedure of notifying OPLA and general guidance, if a reissue application and an
 ex parte reexamination proceeding are both pending for the same
 patent, and an inter partes reexamination proceeding is
 not involved. See MPEP § 2686.03 where a reissue
 application and an inter partes reexamination proceeding are both
 pending for the same patent, regardless of whether an ex parte 
 reexamination proceeding is also pending.
 

 Where a reissue application and a reexamination proceeding are
 pending concurrently on a patent, the patent owner, i.e., the reissue applicant, has
 a responsibility to notify the Office of the concurrent proceeding. 37 CFR
 1.178(b) , 37 CFR 1.565(a) , and
 37 CFR
 1.985(a) . The patent owner should file in the reissue
 application, as early as possible, a Notification of Concurrent Proceedings pursuant
 to 37 CFR
 1.178(b) in order to alert the Office of the existence of the
 reexamination proceeding on the same patent. See MPEP § 1418 . In
 addition, the patent owner should file in the reexamination proceeding, as early as
 possible, a Notification of Concurrent Proceedings pursuant to 37 CFR 1.565(a) 
 or 1.985(a) (for an ex parte reexamination
 proceeding or an inter partes reexamination proceeding,
 respectively) to provide a notification to the Office in the reexamination proceeding
 of the existence of the two concurrent proceedings.
 

 The patent owner may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 in
 a reissue application to merge the reissue application with the reexamination
 proceeding, or to stay one of the proceedings because of the other. This petition
 must be filed after the order to reexamine is issued
 ( 37 CFR
 1.525 , 37 CFR 1.931 ) in the
 reexamination proceeding. If the petition is filed before the reexamination order, it
 will not be considered, and will not be entered into the Image File Wrapper (IFW) or
 will be expunged from the record, if entered into the Image File Wrapper (IFW) before
 discovery that the petition is an improper paper. If the petition is filed after the
 order to reexamine is issued, the petition and any other materials for the files for
 the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding will be forwarded/referred
 to OPLA for decision. An email will be sent to a Legal Advisor in OPLA involved in
 reexamination, providing notification that the petition is ready to be addressed. See
 MPEP §
 2285 , subsection V, and MPEP § 2686.03 ,
 subsection V.
 

 A. Certificate Is To Be Issued for a Patent, While a Reissue Application
 for the Patent Is Pending The following provides guidance to address the situation where a
 reexamination certificate or PTAB trial certificate is to be issued for a patent,
 while a reissue application for the patent is pending and will not be merged with
 the reexamination or trial before the PTAB (i.e., a derivation proceeding, an
 inter partes review, a post-grant review, and a covered
 business method review). This can occur, for example, where a reissue application
 prosecution is stayed or suspended, and the prosecution of a reexamination
 proceeding or a PTAB trial for the patent (for which reissue is requested) is
 permitted to proceed. It can also occur where a reissue application is filed after
 the reexamination proceeding or the PTAB trial has entered the publication
 process, such that it is too late to consider the question of stay or merger.
 

 
 (A) The examiner will not act on the reissue application until
 the certificate issues and publishes.
 

 (B) After the certificate issues and publishes--
 
 

 

 At the time that the certificate is issued and published,
 the Office will resume examination of the reissue application--
 

 
 (1) An Office action will be issued giving the patent
 owner (applicant) two months to submit an amendment of the reissue
 application claims, based upon the results of the concluded
 reexamination proceeding or concluded trial before the PTAB.
 

 (2) The reissue application will then be examined. Any
 claim canceled by the certificate will be treated the same way as a
 claim lost in litigation, and stated in the next action to be deemed
 as canceled. The remaining claims will be examined. If the reissue
 application is subsequently allowed, the claims that were canceled by
 the certificate will be formally canceled in the reissue application
 by examiner’s amendment (unless they have already been canceled by the
 applicant).
 
 

 

 It is to be noted that the patent owner/applicant
 will have been advised in any decision suspending the copending
 reissue application to bring to the attention of the Office the
 issuance of the certificate, request a resumption of examination of
 the reissue application, and to include an amendment of the reissue
 application claims at that time, if it is deemed appropriate based
 upon the results of the reexamination proceeding or trial before the
 PTAB.
 

 

 (3) Generally, further prosecution will be limited to
 claims narrower than those claims canceled as a result of the
 certificate (this includes any existing patent claims and any claims
 added in the reexamination proceeding or trial before the PTAB). Any
 claims added thereafter, which are equal in scope to claims canceled
 as a result of the certificate, or are broader than the scope of the
 claims canceled as a result of the certificate, will generally be
 deemed as surrendered based on the patent owner’s failure to prosecute
 claims of equal scope, and to present claims of broader scope in the
 reexamination proceeding or trial before the PTAB. Such claims will be
 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 .
 Further, a rejection of such claims based on estoppel will be made,
 citing to MPEP § 2308.03 as to
 treatment of claims lost in a proceeding before the Office, and noting
 that a reexamination or trial before the PTAB is a 
 "proceeding."
 
 
 
 
 

 

 An exception to the guidance stated in part (3)
 above: claims that are broader than the scope of the claims canceled
 as a result of the certificate may be presented where:
 

 
 (a) The broader claims in the reissue application
 can be patentable, despite the fact that the claims in the
 reexamination or trial before the PTAB are not; and
 

 (b) The broader claims in the reissue application
 could not have been presented in the reexamination proceeding or
 trial before the PTAB.
 
 

 

 Criterion (a) can occur if the broadened claims
 in the reissue application have an earlier effective filing date
 than those canceled by the certificate (as where the claims in
 the reissue application are supported by a parent application,
 and the reexamination or PTAB trial claims are not). Criterion
 (a) can also occur if the subject matter of the broadened claims
 in the reissue application can be sworn behind, and the more
 specific subject matter of the reexamination or PTAB trial
 claims cannot be sworn behind. Criterion (b) can occur if the
 claims in the reissue application are broader than all claims of
 the patent as it existed during reexamination or trial before
 the PTAB (e.g., claims directed to a distinct invention).
 

 

 
 

 (4) What happened in the concluded reexamination
 proceeding or trial before the PTAB must be taken into account by the
 examiner as to any new claims presented by the reissue application.
 This is in addition to any other issue that may be addressed in any
 reissue application.
 

 (5) If all of the patent claims were canceled by the
 certificate, action on the reissue application can still proceed, as
 will be discussed below: if claims were canceled in a reexamination
 certificate, patent owner/applicant must first file a petition under
 
 37 CFR 1.183 to waive 37 CFR
 1.570 and/or 37 CFR 1.997(d) ,
 depending on whether the certificate was issued for an ex
 parte reexamination proceeding, an inter
 partes reexamination proceeding, or a merger of the two;
 and if the claims were canceled in a PTAB trial certificate, the
 patent owner/applicant must first file a petition under
 37 CFR 1.182 . The petition under
 37 CFR 1.183 or the petition under
 37 CFR 1.182 would be grantable where the
 patent owner/applicant shows that either:
 
 (a) The reissue claims are narrower than those
 claims canceled as a result of the certificate (this includes
 any existing patent claims and any claims added in the
 reexamination proceeding or trial before the PTAB); or
 

 (b) Criteria (a) and (b) of part (3) above are
 satisfied by the claims of the reissue application.
 

 
 The claims satisfying this requirement may only be
 provided where a petition accompanies the amendment providing the
 claims.
 

 

 
 

 (C) The reissue application can still proceed even where all of
 the patent claims were canceled by the certificate, based on the following.
 Where the certificate issues and publishes to cancel all existing patent
 claims, the reissue application can continue in the Office to correct the
 35
 U.S.C. 251 
 "error"
 
 
 of
 presenting the existing claims, which were in-fact unpatentable. Of course,
 what happened in the concluded reexamination proceeding or PTAB trial must
 be taken into account by the examiner, as to any new claims presented by the
 reissue application. See the discussion in part (B)(3)(b) above. If a
 reissue application is filed after a certificate issues and publishes to
 cancel all existing patent claims, then the matter should be forwarded to
 OPLA for resolution.
 

 II. CONCURRENT INTERFERENCE OR OTHER CONTESTED CASE PROCEEDINGS If the original patent is involved in an interference or another
 contested case, the examiner must consult with the TQAS or SPRS before taking any
 action on the reissue application. It is particularly important that the reissue
 application not be allowed without the PTAB’s approval. See MPEP Chapter
 2300 .
 

 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act amended
 35
 U.S.C. 315(d) and added 35 U.S.C.
 325(d) to provide that, during the pendency of an
 inter partes review, post grant review or covered business
 method review (“PTAB Review Proceeding”), if another proceeding (e.g., a reissue
 application) or matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Director may
 determine the manner in which the PTAB Review Proceeding and other proceeding or
 matter may proceed, including providing for stay, transfer, consolidation or
 termination of such matter or proceeding. Accordingly, if an examiner becomes aware
 of a PTAB Review Proceeding for the same patent that is being examined as a reissue
 application, the examiner is to consult with the TQAS or SPRS who will coordinate
 with the PTAB before taking any action on the reissue application. 
 

 For guidance to address the situation where a PTAB
 trial certificate is to be issued for a patent, while a reissue application for the
 patent is pending and will not be merged, transferred, or consolidated with the PTAB
 trial, see subsection I.A above. This can occur, for example, where a reissue
 application prosecution is stayed or suspended, and the pending trial before the PTAB
 for the patent (for which reissue is requested) is permitted to proceed. It can also
 occur where a reissue application is filed after the pending trial before the PTAB
 has entered the publication process for the certificate, such that it is too late to
 consider the question of stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination. 
 

 III. CONCURRENT REISSUE PROCEEDINGS When more than one reissue application is pending concurrently on
 the same patent, see MPEP §§ 1450 and 1451 .
 

 

 
 1449.02 Interference in Reissue [R-08.2017]

 [Editor Note: This section is only applicable to reissue applications subject
 to pre-AIA 35
 U.S.C. 102(g) . See MPEP §
 2159 et seq.] 

 
 37 CFR 41.8 Mandatory notices. 

 
 (a) In an appeal brief ( §§ 41.37 , 41.67 , or
 41.68 ) or at the initiation of a contested case
 ( §
 41.101 ), and within 20 days of any change during the
 proceeding, a party must identify:
 
 (1) Its real party-in-interest, and

 (2) Each judicial or administrative proceeding that could
 affect, or be affected by, the Board proceeding.
 

 
 

 (b) For contested cases, a party seeking judicial review of a
 Board proceeding must file a notice with the Board of the judicial review
 within 20 days of the filing of the complaint or the notice of appeal. The
 notice to the Board must include a copy of the complaint or notice of appeal.
 See also §§
 1.301 to 1.304 of this title.
 

 
 

 
 37 CFR 41.202 Suggesting an interference. 

 
 (a) Applicant. An applicant, including a reissue applicant, may
 suggest an interference with another application or a patent. The suggestion
 must:
 
 (1) Provide sufficient information to identify the
 application or patent with which the applicant seeks an interference,
 

 (2) Identify all claims the applicant believes interfere,
 propose one or more counts, and show how the claims correspond to one or
 more counts,
 

 (3) For each count, provide a claim chart comparing at least
 one claim of each party corresponding to the count and show why the
 claims interfere within the meaning of §
 41.203(a) ,
 

 (4) Explain in detail why the applicant will prevail on
 priority,
 

 (5) If a claim has been added or amended to provoke an
 interference, provide a claim chart showing the written description for
 each claim in the applicant’s specification, and
 

 (6) For each constructive reduction to practice for which
 the applicant wishes to be accorded benefit, provide a chart showing
 where the disclosure provides a constructive reduction to practice within
 the scope of the interfering subject matter.
 

 
 

 
 *****

 
 (c) Examiner . An examiner may require an applicant to add a
 claim to provoke an interference. Failure to satisfy the requirement within a
 period (not less than one month) the examiner sets will operate as a concession
 of priority for the subject matter of the claim. If the interference would be
 with a patent, the applicant must also comply with paragraphs (a)(2) through
 (a)(6) of this section. The claim the examiner proposes to have added must,
 apart from the question of priority under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) :
 
 (1) Be patentable to the applicant, and

 (2) Be drawn to patentable subject matter claimed by another
 applicant or patentee.
 

 
 

 
 *****

 

 In appropriate circumstances, a reissue application subject to
 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 102(g) (first to invent) may be placed into interference with a
 patent or pending application. A patentee may thus seek to provoke an interference with
 a patent or pending application by filing a reissue application, if the reissue
 application includes an appropriate reissue error as required by 35 U.S.C. 251 .
 Reissue error must be based upon applicant error; a reissue cannot be based solely on
 the error of the Office for failing to declare an interference or to suggest copying
 claims for the purpose of establishing an interference. See In re
 Keil, 808 F.2d 830, 1 USPQ2d 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re
 Dien, 680 F.2d 151, 214 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1982); In re
 Bostwick, 102 F.2d 886, 888, 41 USPQ 279, 281 (CCPA 1939); and In
 re Guastavino, 83 F.2d 913, 916, 29 USPQ 532, 535 (CCPA 1936). See also
 Slip Track Systems, Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337, 48
 USPQ2d 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Two patents issued claiming the same patentable subject
 matter, and the patentee with the earlier filing date requested reexamination of the
 patent with the later filing date (Slip Track’s patent). A stay of litigation in a
 priority of invention suit under 35 U.S.C. 291 , pending the outcome
 of the reexamination, was reversed. The suit under 35 U.S.C. 291 was the only option
 available to Slip Track to determine priority of invention. Slip Track could not file a
 reissue application solely to provoke an interference proceeding before the Office
 because it did not assert that there was any error as required by 35 U.S.C. 251 in
 the patent.). A reissue application can be employed to provoke an interference if the
 reissue application: 
 

 
 (A) adds copied claims which are not present in the original
 patent;
 

 (B) amends claims to correspond to those of the patent or application
 with which an interference is sought; or
 

 (C) contains at least one error (not directed to provoking an
 interference) appropriate for the reissue.
 

 
 In the first two situations, the reissue oath/declaration must assert
 that applicant erred in failing to include claims of the proper scope to provoke an
 interference in the original patent application, and must include an identification of
 the claims added to provoke the interference. Furthermore, the subject matter of the
 copied or amended claims in the reissue application must be supported by the disclosure
 of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 112 , first paragraph. See
 In re Molins, 368 F.2d 258, 261, 151 USPQ 570, 572 (CCPA 1966) and
 In re Spencer, 273 F.2d 181, 124 USPQ 175 (CCPA 1959). 
 

 A reissue applicant cannot present added or amended claims to provoke
 an interference, if the claims were deliberately omitted from the patent in a reissue
 application filed before September 16, 2012. If there is evidence that the claims were
 not inadvertently omitted from the original patent, e.g., the subject matter was
 described in the original patent as being undesirable, the reissue application may lack
 proper basis for the reissue. See In re Bostwick, 102 F.2d at 889, 41
 USPQ at 282 (CCPA 1939) (reissue lacked a proper basis because the original patent
 pointed out the disadvantages of the embodiment that provided support for the copied
 claims). 
 

 The issue date of the patent, or the publication date of the
 application publication (whichever is applicable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 135(b) ), with which an interference is sought must be less than 1
 year before the presentation of the copied or amended claims in the reissue application.
 See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
 135(b) and MPEP § 715.05 and MPEP Chapter 2300 . If
 the reissue application includes broadened claims, the reissue application must be filed
 within two years from the issue date of the original patent. See 35 U.S.C. 251 and
 MPEP §
 1412.03 .
 

 In a reissue application subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and
 103 , an examiner may, pursuant to 37 CFR 41.202(c) ,
 require a reissue applicant to add a claim to provoke an interference, unless the
 reissue applicant cannot present the added claim to provoke an interference based upon
 the provisions of the reissue statute and rules, e.g., if the claim was deliberately
 omitted from the patent and the reissue application was filed before September 16, 2012,
 or if the claim enlarges the scope of the claims of the original patent and was not
 
 "applied for within two years from the grant of
 the original patent."
 
 
 Failure to satisfy the requirement within a
 time period (not less than one month) that the examiner sets will operate as a
 concession of priority for the subject matter of the claim. If the interference would be
 with a patent, the reissue applicant must also comply with 37 CFR
 41.202(a)(2) through (a)(6) . The claim the examiner
 proposes to have added must, apart from the question of priority under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) ,
 be patentable to the reissue applicant, and be drawn to patentable subject matter
 claimed by another applicant or patentee.
 

 I. REISSUE APPLICATION FILED WHILE PATENT IS IN INTERFERENCE If a reissue application is filed while the original patent is in an
 interference proceeding, the reissue applicant must promptly notify the Patent Trial
 and Appeal Board of the filing of the reissue application within 20 days from the
 filing date. See 37
 CFR 41.8 and MPEP Chapter 2300 .
 

 

 
 1449.03 Reissue Application in Derivation
 Proceeding [R-08.2017]
 

 [Editor Note: This section is only applicable to
 reissue applications subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 as amended by the
 AIA. See MPEP § 2159 et seq.] 

 Effective March 16, 2013, an applicant for patent,
 including a reissue applicant, may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding
 in the Office in applications subject to derivation proceedings. See 37 CFR
 42.402 . For processing of derivation proceedings, see
 MPEP §
 2310 . 
 

 

 [top] 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 1400.01-Introduction 

 1401-Reissue 

 1402-Grounds for Filing 

 1403-Diligence in Filing 

 1404-Submission of Papers Where Reissue Patent Is in Litigation 

 1405-Reissue and Patent Term 

 1406-Citation and Consideration of References Cited in Original Patent 

 1407-1409-[Reserved] 

 1410-Content of Reissue Application 
 1410.01-Reissue Applicant and Inventor's Oath or Declaration 

 1410.02-Assignee Consent to the Reissue 

 
 

 1411-Form of Specification 
 1411.01-Certificate of Correction or Disclaimer in Original Patent 

 1411.02-New Matter 

 
 

 1412-Content of Claims 
 1412.01-Reissue Claims Must Be for Same General Invention 

 1412.02-Recapture of Canceled Subject Matter 

 1412.03-Broadening Reissue Claims 

 1412.04-Correction of Inventorship By Reissue 

 1412.05-Correction of Inventorship in a Broadening Reissue Application 

 
 

 1413-Drawings 

 1414-Content of Reissue Oath/Declaration 
 1414.01-Reissue Oath or Declaration in Reissue Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 

 1414.02-Reissue Oath or Declaration in Reissue Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 

 1414.03-Supplemental Reissue Oath/Declaration 

 
 

 1415-Reissue Application and Issue Fees 
 1415.01-Maintenance Fees on the Original Patent 

 
 

 1416-No Physical Surrender of Original Patent 

 1417-Claim for Priority Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) 

 1418-Notification of Prior/Concurrent Proceedings and Decisions Thereon, and of Information Known To Be Material to Patentability 

 1419-1429-[Reserved] 

 1430-Reissue Files Open to the Public and, Notice of Filing Reissue Announced in, Official Gazette 

 1431-1439-[Reserved] 

 1440-Examination of Reissue Application 

 1441-Two-Month Delay Period 
 1441.01-Protest and Pre-issuance Submission in Reissue Applications 

 
 

 1442-Special Status 
 1442.01-Litigation-Related or PTAB Trial-Related Reissues 

 1442.02-Concurrent Litigation or Trial Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

 1442.03-Litigation Stayed 

 1442.04-Litigation Involving Patent 

 1442.05-Court Ordered Filing of Reissue Application 

 
 

 1443-Initial Examiner Review 

 1444-Review of Reissue Oath/Declaration 

 1445-Reissue Application Examined in Same Manner as Original Application 

 1446-1447-[Reserved] 

 1448-Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, or Duty of Disclosure Issues 

 1449-Protest Filed in Reissue Where Patent Is in Interference or Contested Case 
 1449.01-Concurrent Office Proceedings 

 1449.02-Interference in Reissue 

 1449.03-Reissue Application in Derivation Proceeding 

 
 

 1450-Restriction and Election of Species Made in Reissue Application 

 1451-Divisional Reissue Applications; Continuation Reissue Applications Where the Parent is Pending 

 1452-Request for Continued Examination of Reissue Application 

 1453-Amendments to Reissue Applications 

 1454-Appeal Brief 

 1455-Allowance and Issue 

 1456-Reissue Review 

 1457-Design Reissue Applications and Patents 

 1458-1459-[Reserved] 

 1460-Effect of Reissue 

 1461-1469-[Reserved] 

 1470-Public Access to Reissue Applications 

 1471-1479-[Reserved] 

 1480-Certificates of Correction — Office Mistake 
 1480.01-Expedited Issuance of Certificates of Correction - Error Attributable to Office 

 
 

 1481-Certificates of Correction - Applicant’s Mistake 
 1481.01-Correction of Assignees’ Names 

 1481.02-Correction of Named Inventor 

 1481.03-Correction of 35 U.S.C. 119 and 35 U.S.C. 120 Benefits 

 
 

 1482-1484-[Reserved] 

 1485-Handling of Request for Certificates of Correction 

 1486-1489-[Reserved] 

 1490-Disclaimers 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Accessibility 

 Privacy Policy 

 Terms of Use 

 Security 

 Emergencies/Security Alerts 

 Information Quality Guidelines 

 
 

 
 
 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act 

 Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (NoFEAR) Act 

 Budget & Performance 

 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

 
 

 
 
 Department of Commerce NoFEAR Act Report 

 Regulations.gov 

 STOP!Fakes.gov 

 Department of Commerce 

 USA.gov 

 
 

 
 
 Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) 

 Careers 

 Site Index 

 Contact Us 

 Submit Feedback 

 
 

 
 This page is owned by Patents.

 Last Modified: 
 
 03/09/2026 20:50:35