What constitutes a valid ‘reply’ for a petition to excuse unintentional delay in an international design application?

A valid ‘reply’ for a petition to excuse unintentional delay in an international design application can take two forms, as specified in 37 CFR 1.1051(c):

1. Filing a continuing application (with additional requirements if the original application hasn’t been internationally registered)
2. A grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.1052 for applications filed indirectly with the USPTO

The MPEP states: “Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1051(c), the ‘reply’ required for a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.1051(a) may be: (1) the filing of a continuing application and, if the international design application has not been subject to international registration, a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.1023(b) to accord the international design application a filing date; or (2) a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.1052, where the international design application was filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing.“

It’s important to note that the specific type of reply required depends on the circumstances of the application and how it was originally filed.

To learn more:

• reply requirements
• unintentional delay
• international design applications
• continuing application
• indirect filing