The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question. This may include providing the identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee as the current application that disclose similar subject matter that are not otherwise identified in the current application. As set forth by the court in Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co., 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972):

The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question. This may include providing the identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee as the current application that disclose similar subject matter that are not otherwise identified in the current application. As set forth by the court in Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co., 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972):

Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., 144 F. Supp. 3d 530, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are “material to patentability” of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808.

Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., 144 F. Supp. 3d 530, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are “material to patentability” of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808.

Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., 144 F. Supp. 3d 530, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are “material to patentability” of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808.

Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V., 144 F. Supp. 3d 530, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are “material to patentability” of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808.

If the application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the prior art properly cited in the earlier application. See MPEP § 609 and MPEP § 719.05, subsection (II)(A), example J. The examiner must indicate in the first Office action whether the prior art in a related earlier application has been reviewed. Accordingly, no separate citation of the same prior art need be made in the later application, unless applicant wants a listing of the prior art printed on the face of the patent.

If the application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the prior art properly cited in the earlier application. See MPEP § 609 and MPEP § 719.05, subsection (II)(A), example J. The examiner must indicate in the first Office action whether the prior art in a related earlier application has been reviewed. Accordingly, no separate citation of the same prior art need be made in the later application, unless applicant wants a listing of the prior art printed on the face of the patent.

If the application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the prior art properly cited in the earlier application. See MPEP § 609 and MPEP § 719.05, subsection (II)(A), example J. The examiner must indicate in the first Office action whether the prior art in a related earlier application has been reviewed. Accordingly, no separate citation of the same prior art need be made in the later application, unless applicant wants a listing of the prior art printed on the face of the patent.