MPEP § 1308.03 — Quality Review for Examined Patent Applications (Annotated Rules)
§1308.03 Quality Review for Examined Patent Applications
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 1308.03, 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.
Quality Review for Examined Patent Applications
This section addresses Quality Review for Examined Patent Applications. Contains: 1 requirement, 4 guidance statements, 2 permissions, and 4 other statements.
Key Rules
Allowance Quality Review
The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled Office action assigned to their docket to determine the action's compliance with patent statutes. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued patents. The Quality Assurance program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying best practices and problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs). Quality reviews, for statutory and/or other compliance, may also be performed in other appropriate areas. All completed reviews are forwarded to the examining TCs or art units for consideration.
The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled Office action assigned to their docket to determine the action's compliance with patent statutes. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued patents. The Quality Assurance program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying best practices and problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs). Quality reviews, for statutory and/or other compliance, may also be performed in other appropriate areas. All completed reviews are forwarded to the examining TCs or art units for consideration.
The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled Office action assigned to their docket to determine the action's compliance with patent statutes. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued patents. The Quality Assurance program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying best practices and problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs). Quality reviews, for statutory and/or other compliance, may also be performed in other appropriate areas. All completed reviews are forwarded to the examining TCs or art units for consideration.
Whenever a completed review has been forwarded to the TC under the Quality Assurance program, the TC should promptly decide what action is to be taken in the application and inform the Office of Patent Quality Assurance of the nature of that action.
Quality review forms and papers are not to be included with Office actions, nor should such forms or papers be retained in the file of any reviewed application whether or not prosecution is to be reopened. The application record should not indicate that a quality review has been conducted.
Quality review forms and papers are not to be included with Office actions, nor should such forms or papers be retained in the file of any reviewed application whether or not prosecution is to be reopened. The application record should not indicate that a quality review has been conducted.
Quality Assurance Specialist Review
The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled Office action assigned to their docket to determine the action's compliance with patent statutes. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued patents. The Quality Assurance program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying best practices and problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs). Quality reviews, for statutory and/or other compliance, may also be performed in other appropriate areas. All completed reviews are forwarded to the examining TCs or art units for consideration.
The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled Office action assigned to their docket to determine the action's compliance with patent statutes. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued patents. The Quality Assurance program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying best practices and problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs). Quality reviews, for statutory and/or other compliance, may also be performed in other appropriate areas. All completed reviews are forwarded to the examining TCs or art units for consideration.
The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled Office action assigned to their docket to determine the action's compliance with patent statutes. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued patents. The Quality Assurance program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying best practices and problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs). Quality reviews, for statutory and/or other compliance, may also be performed in other appropriate areas. All completed reviews are forwarded to the examining TCs or art units for consideration.
Notice of Allowance Form and Content
1. This paragraph should be used when a rejection is made on any previously allowed claim(s) which for one reason or another is considered unpatentable after the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) has been mailed.
1. This form paragraph must be used when the prosecution is reopened after the mailing of the Notice of Allowance.
Allowance Practice
If, during any quality review process, it is determined that one or more claims of an allowed application are unpatentable, the prosecution of the application will be reopened. The Office action should contain, as an opening, form paragraph 13.04.
Form Paragraph Usage
If, during any quality review process, it is determined that one or more claims of an allowed application are unpatentable, the prosecution of the application will be reopened. The Office action should contain, as an opening, form paragraph 13.04.
Issue Fees
If the issue fee has already been paid in the application, the application must be withdrawn from issue, and the action should contain not only the above quoted paragraph, but also form paragraph 13.05.
Examiner Form Paragraphs
Examiner form paragraphs are standard language that you might see in an Office Action or communication from the USPTO. Examiners have latitude to change the form paragraphs, but you will often see this exact language.
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claim [1] considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
[2]
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed [1] is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Allowance Practice Form Paragraph Usage | Form Paragraph § 13.04 |
| Issue Fees | Form Paragraph § 13.05 |
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.
Official MPEP § 1308.03 — Quality Review for Examined Patent Applications
Source: USPTO1308.03 Quality Review for Examined Patent Applications [R-01.2024]
The Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) administers a Quality Assurance program for reviewing the quality of the examination of patent applications. The general purpose of the Quality Assurance program is to collect patent examination quality data used to report patent examination quality metrics and to inform decisions for continuous patent quality improvement.
As part of OPQA’s Quality Assurance program, a quality review is conducted by Review Quality Assurance Specialists on a randomly selected sample of Office actions on the merits mailed throughout the fiscal year. The sample is computer generated under the office-wide computer system, which selects a predetermined number mailed Office actions per year for review, which number is representative, in quantity and technology, of all Office actions on the merits mailed in the fiscal year. A subsample of the selected Office actions are both reviewed and searched by the Review Quality Assurance Specialists.
The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled Office action assigned to their docket to determine the action’s compliance with patent statutes. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued patents. The Quality Assurance program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying best practices and problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs). Quality reviews, for statutory and/or other compliance, may also be performed in other appropriate areas. All completed reviews are forwarded to the examining TCs or art units for consideration.
Whenever a completed review has been forwarded to the TC under the Quality Assurance program, the TC should promptly decide what action is to be taken in the application and inform the Office of Patent Quality Assurance of the nature of that action.
If, during any quality review process, it is determined that one or more claims of an allowed application are unpatentable, the prosecution of the application will be reopened. The Office action should contain, as an opening, form paragraph 13.04.
¶ 13.04 Reopen Prosecution – After Notice of Allowance
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claim [1] considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
[2]
Examiner Note:
- 1. This paragraph should be used when a rejection is made on any previously allowed claim(s) which for one reason or another is considered unpatentable after the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) has been mailed.
- 2. Make appropriate rejection(s) as in any other action.
- 3. In bracket 1, identify claim(s) that are considered unpatentable.
- 4. In bracket 2, state all appropriate rejections for each claim considered unpatentable.
If the issue fee has already been paid in the application, the application must be withdrawn from issue, and the action should contain not only the above quoted paragraph, but also form paragraph 13.05.
¶ 13.05 Reopen Prosecution – Vacate Notice of Allowance
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed [1] is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
Examiner Note:
- 1. This form paragraph must be used when the prosecution is reopened after the mailing of the Notice of Allowance.
- 2. In bracket 1, insert date of the Notice of Allowance.
Quality review forms and papers are not to be included with Office actions, nor should such forms or papers be retained in the file of any reviewed application whether or not prosecution is to be reopened. The application record should not indicate that a quality review has been conducted.