MPEP § 1003 — Matters Submitted to Technology Center Directors (Annotated Rules)

§1003 Matters Submitted to Technology Center Directors

USPTO MPEP version: BlueIron's Update: 2025-12-31

This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 1003, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.

Matters Submitted to Technology Center Directors

This section addresses Matters Submitted to Technology Center Directors. Primary authority: 37 CFR 1.103. Contains: 4 statements.

Key Rules

Topic

Reexamination Order

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1003-1ee4893882dfceae6a829085]
Requirement for Compelling Reason and Unpatentability
Note:
A compelling reason must be established, along with at least one claim being prima facie unpatentable over prior art, to order reexamination.
16. An unusual fact situation in a patent that establishes:
  • a. there is a “compelling reason” to order reexamination, and
  • b. at least one claim in the patent is prima facie unpatentable over prior patents and/or printed publications. See 37 CFR 1.520, MPEP § 2239.
Jump to MPEP SourceReexamination OrderEx Parte Reexamination
Topic

Ex Parte Reexamination

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1003-890497338fb4f6e4662e7394]
Claim Prima Facie Unpatentable Over Prior Art
Note:
A claim in the patent is considered prima facie unpatentable if it appears to lack novelty or non-obviousness based on prior patents and/or printed publications.

16. An unusual fact situation in a patent that establishes b. at least one claim in the patent is prima facie unpatentable over prior patents and/or printed publications. See 37 CFR 1.520, MPEP § 2239.

Jump to MPEP SourceEx Parte Reexamination
Topic

Ex Parte Appeals to PTAB

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-1003-b7eb45f1826ec39ed0d6cf99]
Appeal Conference Must Be Indicated in Examiner’s Answers
Note:
Examiner’s answers must include a clear indication that an appeal conference was held, as per MPEP § 1207.01.

17. Applications containing examiner’s answers lacking the appropriate indication that an appeal conference was held. See MPEP § 1207.01.

Jump to MPEP SourceEx Parte Appeals to PTAB
Topic

Access to Patent Application Files (MPEP 101-106)

1 rules
MPEP GuidanceInformativeAlways
[mpep-1003-43374126508e14061d42e908]
Papers Entered in File Wrapper Must Be Returned
Note:
The rule requires that any papers entered in the file wrapper must be returned as specified.

2. Return of papers entered in the file wrapper. See MPEP § 719.01.

Jump to MPEP SourceAccess to Patent Application Files (MPEP 101-106)Certified Copies of Documents
Topic

PTAB Jurisdiction

1 rules
MPEP GuidanceInformativeAlways
[mpep-1003-133cef26acb20ea9f98356ca]
Examiner Requests PTAB Reconsideration Before Deputy Commissioner
Note:
The examiner must request reconsideration from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board before forwarding to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents who oversees the Office of Petitions.

13. Requests by the examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for reconsideration of a decision before forwarding to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents who oversees the Office of Petitions, MPEP § 1214.04.

Jump to MPEP SourcePTAB JurisdictionPTAB Contested Case ProceduresEx Parte Appeals to PTAB

Citations

Primary topicCitation
37 CFR § 1.103
Ex Parte Reexamination
Reexamination Order
37 CFR § 1.520
Ex Parte Appeals to PTABMPEP § 1207.01
MPEP § 1207.02
PTAB JurisdictionMPEP § 1214.04
MPEP § 1308.01
MPEP § 1901.06
Ex Parte Reexamination
Reexamination Order
MPEP § 2239
MPEP § 2302
MPEP § 2304.02
MPEP § 2304.04
MPEP § 705.01(e)
MPEP § 709
Access to Patent Application Files (MPEP 101-106)MPEP § 719.01
MPEP § 804.04

Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP

This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.

BlueIron Last Updated: 2025-12-31