MPEP § 2816.03 — Content of the Determination (Annotated Rules)

§2816.03 Content of the Determination

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

This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2816.03, 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.

Content of the Determination

This section addresses Content of the Determination. Primary authority: 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2)), 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2), and 37 CFR 1.620. Contains: 1 requirement, 13 guidance statements, 3 permissions, and 9 other statements.

Key Rules

Topic

AIA Effective Dates

14 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-f851567d0affb56902dbe71f]
Requirement for Proper Item Description
Note:
The rule requires that specific items, such as patents, documents, and receipts, be properly identified by name, description, or date.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as "the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011 XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012 XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-4abd652a396a812ce0908189]
Requirement for Designating Patent Documents
Note:
Patent documents must be designated using the patentee's name, inventor's name, or document number. Non-patent literature should use author names and dates if applicable.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as "the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011 XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012 XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-e13768ffd77790bc6c34efb1]
Non-Patent Literature Must Be Described by Author and Date
Note:
A non-patent literature document must be designated using the author's name and, if desired, the date of publication.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as "the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011 XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012 XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-3f13fdc8de98dbf4150cdffd]
Sales Receipt Must Be Described By Date and Store Name
Note:
A sales receipt must be designated using the date of the receipt and a descriptive name, such as 'the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt'.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as "the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011 XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012 XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-b3bdda26db4b31d638c4b402]
Declaration Must Include Declarant Name and Date
Note:
An affidavit must be designated with the name of the declarant and the date it was made, such as 'the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012'.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as "the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011 XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012 XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-1bdf805b48c7bf441ad0143d]
Transcript Must Be Clearly Labeled With Recording Title and Date
Note:
A transcript of an audio or video recording must be designated using the title of the recording and, if applicable, the date of the recording.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as "the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011 XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012 XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-c4ad5a049279ed18cd691214]
Designating Discussion on Potential 35 U.S.C. 101 Issue
Note:
This rule permits designating a discussion within the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101, specifically pages 7-11 in this example.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as "the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011 XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012 XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-ceddac61763ae6a870472ea9]
Requirement for Describing Item Properly
Note:
The rule requires that the name or description of an item be properly identified and described, such as a patent, publication, receipt, invoice, affidavit, transcript, or discussion within a request.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as " the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011, XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012, XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-268a0fd4803d8b4c09f1d384]
How to Designate Patent Publications and Documents
Note:
This rule explains how to properly designate patent publications, documents, and other items using specific naming conventions.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as " the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011, XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012, XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-a0dd66d5a2766b386f65dc00]
Non-Patent Literature Must Be Described by Author and Date
Note:
A non-patent literature document must be designated using the author's name and publication date if specified.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as " the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011, XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012, XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-860cf8de10aed01533e0d8ad]
Sales Receipt Must Be Described By Date and Store Name
Note:
A sales receipt must be designated by its date of issuance and the name of the store, such as 'the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt'.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as " the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011, XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012, XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-8cb83085a86fb65909854cee]
Affidavit Must Be Designated by Declarant and Date
Note:
An affidavit must be clearly labeled with the name of the person who made it and the date it was created.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as " the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011, XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012, XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-25b8935dd3fd7c155fc2bde5]
Transcript Must Include Recording Title and Date
Note:
A transcript of an audio or video recording must be designated with the title of the recording and, if applicable, the date of the recording.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as " the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011, XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012, XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-b4bacfb927f7aba2523b9ee3]
Designating Discussion on Potential 35 U.S.C. 101 Issue
Note:
This rule permits designating a discussion within the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101, specifically on pages 7-11.

1. In bracket 1, insert the name or description, as appropriate, for the item of information. For example, a patent or patent application publication may be designated using the name of the patentee or first-named inventor, such as "the Jones patent," "the Jones patent application publication," or the number of the patent or patent application publication. A non-patent literature document may be designated by the name of the author, such as the "the Sherwood publication" and the date of the publication, if desired. A sales receipt or invoice should be designated using the date of the receipt, and any appropriate descriptive information, such as " the March 11, 2011, BigBoxStore sales receipt," or "the April 1, 2011, XYZ Corporation invoice." An affidavit or declaration should be designated using the name of the declarant and the date of the affidavit or declaration, such as "the Schmidt declaration dated January 20, 2012." A transcript of an audio or video recording should be designated using the title of the recording and the date of the recording, if applicable, such as "the transcript of the September 16, 2012, XYZ Corporation Marketing Video." A discussion within the body of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be designated, for example, as "the discussion on pages 7-11 of the request regarding a potential issue under 35 U.S.C. 101."

35 U.S.C.AIA Effective DatesAIA Overview and Effective DatesAIA vs Pre-AIA Practice
Topic

SNQ Criteria

12 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-5a0beaa811f6ce04da0e0059]
Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability
Note:
Explains why each item raises or does not raise a substantial new question of patentability.

The Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) Determination (or “reasons document”) will typically accompany the supplemental examination certificate. This document will explain, for each item of information, why each item does or does not raise a SNQ. Form paragraph 28.01 should be used as the heading for the reasons document.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-4b0489337de35e9f3382371f]
Identify SNQ for Each Item of Information
Note:
For each item in the request, identify if it raises a substantial new question and specify which claims are affected.

If the request is determined to raise at least one SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will indicate that a SNQ affecting at least one claim of the patent has been raised, and will refer to the reasons document. For each item of information, the reasons document should include (1) A statement that the item of information, as presented in the request, raises a SNQ, and an identification of the claims for which a SNQ is raised.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-985ba5b369c5758616a6a692]
SNQ Raised for Independent Claim Implies Same for Dependent Claims
Note:
If an SNQ is raised by information A for the independent claim, it must also be considered for dependent claims that include the same subject matter.

For each item of information, the examiner need only identify one SNQ (e.g., a teaching that would be important to a reasonable examiner when determining patentability) for each identified claim. The examiner may rely upon a determination that a SNQ is raised for an independent claim as the basis that a SNQ is raised for each dependent claim that incorporates the subject matter of the independent claim, if the dependent claims were also requested to be examined by the patent owner. For example, if the examiner finds that item of information A raises a SNQ for independent claim 1, the examiner may rely upon the explanation of how item A raises a SNQ for claim 1 as the explanation of how item A raises a SNQ for dependent claims 2-10, which were also requested to be examined by the patent owner. Form paragraph 28.03 should be used to explain why an item of information raises a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-acff7aded8076f6a5d336495]
Form Paragraph 28.03 For SNQ Explanation
Note:
Use form paragraph 28.03 to explain why an item of information raises a substantial new question.

For each item of information, the examiner need only identify one SNQ (e.g., a teaching that would be important to a reasonable examiner when determining patentability) for each identified claim. The examiner may rely upon a determination that a SNQ is raised for an independent claim as the basis that a SNQ is raised for each dependent claim that incorporates the subject matter of the independent claim, if the dependent claims were also requested to be examined by the patent owner. For example, if the examiner finds that item of information A raises a SNQ for independent claim 1, the examiner may rely upon the explanation of how item A raises a SNQ for claim 1 as the explanation of how item A raises a SNQ for dependent claims 2-10, which were also requested to be examined by the patent owner. Form paragraph 28.03 should be used to explain why an item of information raises a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-9dc2723b5e27d8afb7ea048f]
Item of Information Raising SNQ Must Be Addressed
Note:
The reasons document must identify if a substantial new question of patentability is raised by an item of information, and explain the specific claim limitations affected.
For each item of information, if the examiner determines that a substantial new question of patentability is raised by the item, the reasons document should point out:
  • (A) That the item of information raises a SNQ affecting specific claims of the patent (where the specific claims are listed);
  • (B) The recitation of the specific claim limitation(s) affected by the teaching(s) of the item of information;
  • (C) What the teaching(s) are, and where in the item of information the teaching(s) are to be found;
  • (D) Why a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching(s) to be important in determining the patentability of the specific claim(s) (where the specific claims are listed) for which supplemental examination is being requested; and
  • (E) Where appropriate, whether the item of information is prior art (e.g., due to its issue date or publication date) to specific patent claims (where the specific claims are listed) and, when applicable, the reasons why the item of information is deemed to be available as prior art against the patent claims.
Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-cd71617d1e94eac27eb7363a]
Reasons Document for Non-Patentability Issues
Note:
The document must explain why an item of information does not raise a substantial new question of patentability and provide details on its relevance or lack thereof.
For each item of information, if the examiner determines that a substantial new question of patentability is not raised by the item, the reasons document should point out:
  • (A) That the item of information does not raise a SNQ affecting specific claims of the patent (where the specific claims are listed);
  • (B) The recitation of the specific claim limitation(s), if any, which were discussed in the request with respect to the teaching(s) of the item of information;
  • (C) What the teaching(s) are, if any, and where in the item of information the teaching(s) are to be found;
  • (D) Why a reasonable examiner would not consider the teaching(s) to be important in determining the patentability of the specific claim(s) (where the specific claims are listed) for which supplemental examination is being requested (e.g., why the teaching(s) are cumulative to the teachings considered in the earlier concluded examination or review of the patent, or are not important even though the teaching(s) are not cumulative and are available against the claim);
  • (E) Where appropriate, whether the item of information is available as prior art (e.g., due to its issue date or publication date) against specific patent claims (where specific claims are listed) and, when applicable, the reasons why the item of information is or is not deemed to be available as prior art against the patent claims; and
  • (F) If the item of information is not deemed to be available as prior art against specific patent claims, a further statement, when applicable, that the item does not contain information that raises any other issues of patentability with respect to the specific claims (where the specific claims are listed). For example, a request for the supplemental examination of claims 1-3 includes, as an item of information, a copy of a foreign search report which is determined not to raise any issues of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, or 35 U.S.C. 112 affecting claims 1-3. In the reasons document, the examiner should explain why the foreign search report does not qualify as prior art (under, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103) against any of claims 1-3, and should also state that the foreign search report does not contain information that raises any other issues of patentability with respect to claims 1-3 of the patent.
Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-b253133be1b1f63171ddae8c]
Item Not Prior Art and No Other Issues
Note:
The examiner must state that an item of information is not prior art against specific claims and does not raise other patentability issues.

For each item of information, if the examiner determines that a substantial new question of patentability is not raised by the item, the reasons document should point out:

(F) If the item of information is not deemed to be available as prior art against specific patent claims, a further statement, when applicable, that the item does not contain information that raises any other issues of patentability with respect to the specific claims (where the specific claims are listed).

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaPrior Consideration of ArtSubstantial New Question of Patentability
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-ea90b326aa618b99043b8915]
Examiner Must Explain Why Foreign Search Report Does Not Qualify as Prior Art Against Claims 1-3
Note:
The examiner must explain why the foreign search report does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 and does not raise any other issues of patentability for claims 1-3.

For each item of information, if the examiner determines that a substantial new question of patentability is not raised by the item, the reasons document should point out:

In the reasons document, the examiner should explain why the foreign search report does not qualify as prior art (under, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103) against any of claims 1-3, and should also state that the foreign search report does not contain information that raises any other issues of patentability with respect to claims 1-3 of the patent.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaPrior Consideration of ArtSubstantial New Question of Patentability
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-791c76e3834f13a5eead7991]
Examiner Must Explain SNQ Raised by Intervening Reference
Note:
The examiner must include reasons in the document if a substantial new question is raised by an intervening reference, or provide reasons if no such question is raised.

Example 1. The request includes a first item of information limited to the addition of a claim for the benefit of an earlier effective filing date, a second item of information which is an intervening reference, and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged, and is not corrected. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the correction of a domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaDenial – No SNQ RaisedRequest Content Requirements
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-1c939121f95381844076172d]
Form Paragraphs for SNQ Determination
Note:
The rule specifies the form paragraphs that must be used in the reasons section when a substantial new question of patentability is raised.

The following are the form paragraphs that should be used in the Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination:

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620SNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-99f1df5623b8d331ddf18269]
Reasons for SNQ Must Be Stated
Note:
Examiner must provide reasons when determining if an item of information raises a substantial new question of patentability affecting certain claims.

3. In bracket 3, insert the reasons for the determination that the item of information raises a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). If a SNQ is found for only a portion of the claims identified with respect to the item of information, then an additional statement may be included explaining why a SNQ was found with respect to some of the identified claims, and why a SNQ was not found with respect to the remainder of the identified claims. For example, if the patent owner requests supplemental examination of claims 1-10 in view of the Schmidt patent, and the examiner finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting only patent claims 1-5 is raised by that item of information, then the form paragraph may be completed by, for example, stating "The Schmidt patent, as presented in the request, raises a substantial new question of patentability affecting patent claims 1-5 because [provide reasons]. However, the Schmidt patent, as presented in the request, does not raise a substantial new question of patentability affecting patent claims 6-10 because [provide reasons]."

35 U.S.C.SNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-f7755975cf394f0e6af23f51]
Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination
Note:
Examiner must determine if a substantial new question of patentability is raised by an item of information for specific claims and provide reasons.

3. In bracket 3, insert the reasons for the determination that the item of information raises a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). If a SNQ is found for only a portion of the claims identified with respect to the item of information, then an additional statement may be included explaining why a SNQ was found with respect to some of the identified claims, and why a SNQ was not found with respect to the remainder of the identified claims. For example, if the patent owner requests supplemental examination of claims 1-10 in view of the Schmidt patent, and the examiner finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting only patent claims 1-5 is raised by that item of information, then the form paragraph may be completed by, for example, stating "The Schmidt patent, as presented in the request, raises a substantial new question of patentability affecting patent claims 1-5 because [provide reasons]. However, the Schmidt patent, as presented in the request, does not raise a substantial new question of patentability affecting patent claims 6-10 because [provide reasons]."

35 U.S.C.SNQ CriteriaDenial – No SNQ RaisedSubstantial New Question of Patentability
Topic

Supplemental Examination

10 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-41202db90e7ff956478572ef]
No Initials on Prior Art Listings
Note:
Examiners are not required to initial, sign, and date the listing of prior art items submitted under 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2) as part of a supplemental examination request.

Examiners should not initial, sign and date the listing of the items of information (37 CFR 1.610(b)(2)) submitted with the request. This practice is different from the current practice regarding prior art citations in applications or proceedings involving patents. There is no need to initial, sign, and date the listing submitted under 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2) because the supplemental examination certificate includes a citation to each item of information properly submitted as part of the request.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2))Supplemental ExaminationRequest Content RequirementsSupplemental Examination Certificate
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-eac0a1d46656a1ee77d08a24]
Reasons Document Must Use Form Paragraph 28.01
Note:
The reasons document for a SNQ determination must use form paragraph 28.01 as its heading.

The Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) Determination (or “reasons document”) will typically accompany the supplemental examination certificate. This document will explain, for each item of information, why each item does or does not raise a SNQ. Form paragraph 28.01 should be used as the heading for the reasons document.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental ExaminationReexamination CertificateSNQ Criteria
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-2f4e2f036f55f518195710fd]
Examiner Must Explain Barred Information
Note:
The examiner must explain why cited information in the patent record is barred by MPEP § 2242, subsection II.A during supplemental examination.

Where applicable, the examiner should also explain why an item of information that was cited in the record of the patent is barred by the guidelines set forth in MPEP § 2242, subsection II.A.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental Examination
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-d050035ad1bc6eadcd756a71]
Optional Reasons for New Information in Supplemental Examination
Note:
The reasons document may include explanations for new information that was not previously considered or is presented in a new light during the supplemental examination proceeding.
Where it is not clear from the patent file or supplemental examination record, the reasons document may optionally include, for each item of information:
  • (i) An explanation that the teaching was not previously considered or addressed in any prior examination or proceeding involving the patent or a final holding of invalidity of the patent by the federal courts; or
  • (ii) An explanation that the teaching, if considered in a previous examination or proceeding of the patent or of the application that became the patent, is presented in a new light, or in a different way, by the arguments presented in the request.
Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental Examination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-ebdac2739c99851d93ccfa6b]
Presentation of New Light on Previous Teaching
Note:
The reasons document may include an explanation that a previous teaching, when considered in a previous examination or proceeding, is presented in a new light or differently by the arguments in the request.

Where it is not clear from the patent file or supplemental examination record, the reasons document may optionally include, for each item of information:

(ii) An explanation that the teaching, if considered in a previous examination or proceeding of the patent or of the application that became the patent, is presented in a new light, or in a different way, by the arguments presented in the request.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental Examination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-7d65ae55c8730a9f7c7cab3c]
No SNQ Determination for Supplemental Exam
Note:
If no SNQ is raised, the certificate states so and refers to reasons explaining why each item of information did not raise a SNQ.

If the examiner determines that none of the items of information properly submitted as part of the request raise a SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will state that no SNQ is raised in the request for supplemental examination, and will refer to the Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., "the reasons document"). The reasons document should explain why each item of information did not raise a SNQ for every claim to which that item of information was applied in the supplemental examination request. See subsection II.A., above. Form paragraph 28.02 should be used to explain why each item of information does not raise a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental ExaminationReexamination CertificateSNQ Criteria
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-7d463250207c5c890d14cfee]
Intervening Reference Does Not Raise SNQ If Claim Unchanged
Note:
If a domestic benefit claim remains unchanged, an intervening reference does not raise a statutory non-obviousness question unless corrected.

Example 1. The request includes a first item of information limited to the addition of a claim for the benefit of an earlier effective filing date, a second item of information which is an intervening reference, and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged, and is not corrected. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the correction of a domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental ExaminationSNQ CriteriaDenial – No SNQ Raised
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-086b6af26bf12b00f121b5cc]
Intervening Reference Requirement for Supplemental Examination
Note:
The examiner must consider an intervening reference if the domestic benefit claim is deleted and provide reasons whether it raises a statutory non-obviousness question.

Example 2. The request includes a first item of information limited to the deletion of a benefit claim, a second item of information which is a reference that pre-dates the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the patent if the benefit claim is deleted (i.e., an intervening reference), and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the benefit claim is deleted. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference if the benefit claim is deleted, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ if the domestic benefit claim is deleted, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim was deleted. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the deletion of the domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim were to be deleted.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental ExaminationBenefit Claim in ADSContinuation Benefit Claims
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-aa32843101a86f3d1c7c2279]
Preliminary Determination Reviewed by Panel
Note:
Examiner’s preliminary determination is reviewed by a panel during a conference, with the panel members confirming or validating the examiner's decision.

After an examiner has made a preliminary determination, the examiner will formulate a draft Supplemental Examination Certificate and a draft Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., a draft "reasons document"). The examiner will then inform their CRU Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) of the preliminary determination. A panel review conference will be convened, and the conference members will review the preliminary determination. See MPEP § 2271.01 for the make-up of the panel. If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary determination, the Supplemental Examination Certificate shall be issued by its publication in the Office’s Image File Wrapper System, IFW, which will be viewable in Patent Center. The reasons document will be labeled "Reasons for SNQ Determination" in IFW, and it will generally be available for viewing at the same time as, or shortly after, the issuance of the certificate. The reasons document will be signed by the examiner, with the two other conferees initialing as “conferee” to indicate their presence in the conference.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental ExaminationReexamination CertificateSNQ Criteria
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-dba29f99bf881bce99ed2ebd]
Examiner Signs Reasons for SNQ Determination
Note:
The examiner signs the reasons document, while two conferees initial 'conferee' to indicate their presence at the conference.

After an examiner has made a preliminary determination, the examiner will formulate a draft Supplemental Examination Certificate and a draft Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., a draft "reasons document"). The examiner will then inform their CRU Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) of the preliminary determination. A panel review conference will be convened, and the conference members will review the preliminary determination. See MPEP § 2271.01 for the make-up of the panel. If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary determination, the Supplemental Examination Certificate shall be issued by its publication in the Office’s Image File Wrapper System, IFW, which will be viewable in Patent Center. The reasons document will be labeled "Reasons for SNQ Determination" in IFW, and it will generally be available for viewing at the same time as, or shortly after, the issuance of the certificate. The reasons document will be signed by the examiner, with the two other conferees initialing as “conferee” to indicate their presence in the conference.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Supplemental ExaminationReexamination CertificateSNQ Criteria
Topic

Denial – No SNQ Raised

8 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-4d13f120cb4c03e381c7558c]
Reasons for No SNQ Raised Explained
Note:
This document explains why each item of information does not raise a substantial new question of patentability.

The Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) Determination (or “reasons document”) will typically accompany the supplemental examination certificate. This document will explain, for each item of information, why each item does or does not raise a SNQ. Form paragraph 28.01 should be used as the heading for the reasons document.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Denial – No SNQ RaisedSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-c92cf0286841210c5bca0ba9]
Identification of Claims Without SNQ
Note:
For each item not raising a SNQ, identify the claims for which no SNQ is raised in the reasons document.

If the request is determined to raise at least one SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will indicate that a SNQ affecting at least one claim of the patent has been raised, and will refer to the reasons document. For each item of information, the reasons document should include:

(2) Where appropriate, a statement that the item of information, as presented in the request, does not raise a SNQ, and an identification of the claims for which a SNQ is not raised.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Denial – No SNQ RaisedSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-b21d947b91081a6d07294cf8]
Item Not Raising SNQ for Specific Claims
Note:
Examiner must identify claims where an item of information does not raise a substantial new question and provide reasons why.

If the examiner determines that an item of information does not raise a SNQ affecting every claim to which the item of information was applied in the request, the examiner should state the claim(s) for which the SNQ was not raised and a brief statement of the reasons why the item did not raise a SNQ affecting the identified claim(s). If the patent owner applied the item of information to an independent claim, but did not apply the item to its dependent claims, the examiner may rely upon a determination that a SNQ is not raised for the independent claim as the basis for the determination that a SNQ is not raised for each dependent claim, for which supplemental examination was also requested, and which incorporates the subject matter of the independent claim. For example, if the patent owner provided a detailed explanation of the manner of applying item of information A to independent claim 11 as required by 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5), and relied on that explanation as the only required explanation for dependent claims 12-21 (for which supplemental examination was also requested), and if the examiner finds that item of information A does not raise a SNQ for independent claim 11, then the examiner may rely upon the explanation of how item A does not raise a SNQ for claim 11 as the explanation for its dependent claims 12-21. Form paragraph 28.02 should be used to explain why an item of information does not raise a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5)Denial – No SNQ RaisedSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryRequiredAlways
[mpep-2816-03-0dc02984d1e785c62a68aa2c]
Examiner May Use SNQ Explanation from Independent Claim for Dependent Claims
Note:
If the examiner finds that item of information A does not raise a substantial new question (SNQ) for independent claim 11, the examiner may rely on this explanation for dependent claims 12-21 which incorporate the same item.

If the examiner determines that an item of information does not raise a SNQ affecting every claim to which the item of information was applied in the request, the examiner should state the claim(s) for which the SNQ was not raised and a brief statement of the reasons why the item did not raise a SNQ affecting the identified claim(s). If the patent owner applied the item of information to an independent claim, but did not apply the item to its dependent claims, the examiner may rely upon a determination that a SNQ is not raised for the independent claim as the basis for the determination that a SNQ is not raised for each dependent claim, for which supplemental examination was also requested, and which incorporates the subject matter of the independent claim. For example, if the patent owner provided a detailed explanation of the manner of applying item of information A to independent claim 11 as required by 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5), and relied on that explanation as the only required explanation for dependent claims 12-21 (for which supplemental examination was also requested), and if the examiner finds that item of information A does not raise a SNQ for independent claim 11, then the examiner may rely upon the explanation of how item A does not raise a SNQ for claim 11 as the explanation for its dependent claims 12-21. Form paragraph 28.02 should be used to explain why an item of information does not raise a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5)Denial – No SNQ RaisedSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-6b0b4551c7a67382209dade1]
Item Not Raising SNQ Must Be Explained
Note:
Explain why an item of information does not raise a substantial new question for each claim it applies to using form paragraph 28.02.

If the examiner determines that an item of information does not raise a SNQ affecting every claim to which the item of information was applied in the request, the examiner should state the claim(s) for which the SNQ was not raised and a brief statement of the reasons why the item did not raise a SNQ affecting the identified claim(s). If the patent owner applied the item of information to an independent claim, but did not apply the item to its dependent claims, the examiner may rely upon a determination that a SNQ is not raised for the independent claim as the basis for the determination that a SNQ is not raised for each dependent claim, for which supplemental examination was also requested, and which incorporates the subject matter of the independent claim. For example, if the patent owner provided a detailed explanation of the manner of applying item of information A to independent claim 11 as required by 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5), and relied on that explanation as the only required explanation for dependent claims 12-21 (for which supplemental examination was also requested), and if the examiner finds that item of information A does not raise a SNQ for independent claim 11, then the examiner may rely upon the explanation of how item A does not raise a SNQ for claim 11 as the explanation for its dependent claims 12-21. Form paragraph 28.02 should be used to explain why an item of information does not raise a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5)Denial – No SNQ RaisedSubstantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte Reexamination
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-b78db3ae757974f7a2c29711]
Explain Why No SNQ Raised for Each Claim
Note:
The reasons document must detail why each submitted item of information does not raise a substantial new question of patentability for every claim in the supplemental examination request.

If the examiner determines that none of the items of information properly submitted as part of the request raise a SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will state that no SNQ is raised in the request for supplemental examination, and will refer to the Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., "the reasons document"). The reasons document should explain why each item of information did not raise a SNQ for every claim to which that item of information was applied in the supplemental examination request. See subsection II.A., above. Form paragraph 28.02 should be used to explain why each item of information does not raise a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Denial – No SNQ RaisedRequest Content RequirementsSubstantial New Question of Patentability
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-0f663f02d7fc9741b2477422]
Explain Why No SNQ Raised for Each Item of Info
Note:
Use Form paragraph 28.02 to detail why each submitted item does not raise a SNQ.

If the examiner determines that none of the items of information properly submitted as part of the request raise a SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will state that no SNQ is raised in the request for supplemental examination, and will refer to the Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., "the reasons document"). The reasons document should explain why each item of information did not raise a SNQ for every claim to which that item of information was applied in the supplemental examination request. See subsection II.A., above. Form paragraph 28.02 should be used to explain why each item of information does not raise a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Denial – No SNQ RaisedRequest Content RequirementsSubstantial New Question of Patentability
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-2ab9af7145f1a4ba7931f643]
No SNQ Raised by Correction of Domestic Benefit Claim
Note:
The examiner should state that the first item of information, which corrects a domestic benefit claim but does not include additional items affecting patentability, does not raise a substantial new question.

Example 1. The request includes a first item of information limited to the addition of a claim for the benefit of an earlier effective filing date, a second item of information which is an intervening reference, and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged, and is not corrected. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the correction of a domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Denial – No SNQ RaisedRequest Content RequirementsSubstantial New Question of Patentability
Topic

Substantial New Question of Patentability

8 rules
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-05f4e755fb71e7c6ae8eec05]
Identification of Claims Not Raised by SNQ Item
Note:
The reasons document must identify claims not affected by a Substantial New Question and provide the basis for this determination.

Where an item of information is determined to raise a SNQ, but the SNQ is determined to affect less than all of the claims which were requested to be examined in view of the item, the reasons document may also include, in addition to (1) above, an identification of the claims for which a SNQ was not raised by the item, and a brief statement of the basis for that determination.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Substantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte ReexaminationSupplemental Examination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-6c919f7c27057ede8e346aa5]
Identify One SNQ Per Claim During Examination
Note:
Examiners must identify one substantial new question of patentability for each claim during the examination process.

For each item of information, the examiner need only identify one SNQ (e.g., a teaching that would be important to a reasonable examiner when determining patentability) for each identified claim. The examiner may rely upon a determination that a SNQ is raised for an independent claim as the basis that a SNQ is raised for each dependent claim that incorporates the subject matter of the independent claim, if the dependent claims were also requested to be examined by the patent owner. For example, if the examiner finds that item of information A raises a SNQ for independent claim 1, the examiner may rely upon the explanation of how item A raises a SNQ for claim 1 as the explanation of how item A raises a SNQ for dependent claims 2-10, which were also requested to be examined by the patent owner. Form paragraph 28.03 should be used to explain why an item of information raises a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Substantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte ReexaminationSNQ Criteria
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-27b08982c4c4105f9cb6abd3]
SNQ for Dependent Claims if Raised in Independent Claim
Note:
If a substantial new question of patentability is raised for an independent claim, the examiner can rely on that determination for dependent claims that incorporate the same subject matter.

For each item of information, the examiner need only identify one SNQ (e.g., a teaching that would be important to a reasonable examiner when determining patentability) for each identified claim. The examiner may rely upon a determination that a SNQ is raised for an independent claim as the basis that a SNQ is raised for each dependent claim that incorporates the subject matter of the independent claim, if the dependent claims were also requested to be examined by the patent owner. For example, if the examiner finds that item of information A raises a SNQ for independent claim 1, the examiner may rely upon the explanation of how item A raises a SNQ for claim 1 as the explanation of how item A raises a SNQ for dependent claims 2-10, which were also requested to be examined by the patent owner. Form paragraph 28.03 should be used to explain why an item of information raises a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Substantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte ReexaminationSNQ Criteria
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-56fe9a584eac52b968ca87e4]
Foreign Search Report Does Not Raise Issues of Patentability
Note:
The examiner must state that a foreign search report does not raise any issues of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, or 112 for specific claims during supplemental examination.

For each item of information, if the examiner determines that a substantial new question of patentability is not raised by the item, the reasons document should point out:

For example, a request for the supplemental examination of claims 1-3 includes, as an item of information, a copy of a foreign search report which is determined not to raise any issues of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, or 35 U.S.C. 112 affecting claims 1-3.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Substantial New Question of PatentabilityStatutory Authority for ExaminationExamination Procedures
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-5bdd704dbebcb1fe4906b1c5]
SNQ Not Raised for Dependent Claims Incorporating Independent Claim
Note:
If the examiner finds no SNQ for an independent claim, they may use that determination to conclude there is no SNQ for dependent claims that incorporate its subject matter.

If the examiner determines that an item of information does not raise a SNQ affecting every claim to which the item of information was applied in the request, the examiner should state the claim(s) for which the SNQ was not raised and a brief statement of the reasons why the item did not raise a SNQ affecting the identified claim(s). If the patent owner applied the item of information to an independent claim, but did not apply the item to its dependent claims, the examiner may rely upon a determination that a SNQ is not raised for the independent claim as the basis for the determination that a SNQ is not raised for each dependent claim, for which supplemental examination was also requested, and which incorporates the subject matter of the independent claim. For example, if the patent owner provided a detailed explanation of the manner of applying item of information A to independent claim 11 as required by 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5), and relied on that explanation as the only required explanation for dependent claims 12-21 (for which supplemental examination was also requested), and if the examiner finds that item of information A does not raise a SNQ for independent claim 11, then the examiner may rely upon the explanation of how item A does not raise a SNQ for claim 11 as the explanation for its dependent claims 12-21. Form paragraph 28.02 should be used to explain why an item of information does not raise a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5)Substantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte ReexaminationDenial – No SNQ Raised
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-4f71d593173e59e323206f48]
No Decision on Patentability in Supplemental Examination
Note:
The examiner is not required to decide if claims are patentable or rejected based on additional information during a supplemental examination proceeding. The focus is only on identifying any substantial new questions of patentability.

The examiner will not decide, and no statement should be made, as to whether the claims are rejected over the items of information. It is unnecessary for the examiner to decide questions of patentability of the claims in a supplemental examination proceeding. The examiner only decides whether there is a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Substantial New Question of PatentabilitySupplemental Examination RequestSupplemental Examination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-6f483f202c8ba56babefe18f]
Examiner Decides Only on SNQ
Note:
The examiner is required to decide only whether there is a substantial new question of patentability, not the overall patentability of claims.

The examiner will not decide, and no statement should be made, as to whether the claims are rejected over the items of information. It is unnecessary for the examiner to decide questions of patentability of the claims in a supplemental examination proceeding. The examiner only decides whether there is a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Substantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte ReexaminationSupplemental Examination
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-8ab3fc6d431758a7fda1404b]
Explain SNQ for Some Claims Only
Note:
If a substantial new question of patentability is found for only some claims, provide reasons why it applies to those claims but not others.

3. In bracket 3, insert the reasons for the determination that the item of information raises a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). If a SNQ is found for only a portion of the claims identified with respect to the item of information, then an additional statement may be included explaining why a SNQ was found with respect to some of the identified claims, and why a SNQ was not found with respect to the remainder of the identified claims. For example, if the patent owner requests supplemental examination of claims 1-10 in view of the Schmidt patent, and the examiner finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting only patent claims 1-5 is raised by that item of information, then the form paragraph may be completed by, for example, stating "The Schmidt patent, as presented in the request, raises a substantial new question of patentability affecting patent claims 1-5 because [provide reasons]. However, the Schmidt patent, as presented in the request, does not raise a substantial new question of patentability affecting patent claims 6-10 because [provide reasons]."

35 U.S.C.Substantial New Question of PatentabilityEx Parte ReexaminationSNQ Criteria
Topic

Reexamination Certificate

7 rules
StatutoryRequiredAlways
[mpep-2816-03-f3d7026d76eec371e8f53937]
Director Must Conduct Supplemental Examination Within 3 Months
Note:
The Director must conduct a supplemental examination within 3 months of receiving a request that meets the requirements and conclude it by issuing a certificate indicating whether the information raises a substantial new question of patentability.

(a) REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION.—A patent owner may request supplemental examination of a patent in the Office to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent, in accordance with such requirements as the Director may establish. Within 3 months after the date a request for supplemental examination meeting the requirements of this section is received, the Director shall conduct the supplemental examination and shall conclude such examination by issuing a certificate indicating whether the information presented in the request raises a substantial new question of patentability.

Jump to MPEP SourceReexamination CertificateSNQ CriteriaDetermination on Request
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-99e04cdfa60a56762dad4754]
Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination Must Accompany Supplemental Examination Certificate
Note:
The reasons document must explain why each item raises or does not raise a substantial new question of patentability and should be included with the supplemental examination certificate.

The Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) Determination (or “reasons document”) will typically accompany the supplemental examination certificate. This document will explain, for each item of information, why each item does or does not raise a SNQ. Form paragraph 28.01 should be used as the heading for the reasons document.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Reexamination CertificateConclusion of Ex Parte ReexaminationSupplemental Examination Certificate
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-7ab0c1b8c62b81792cb21d18]
Supplemental Examination Certificate Must Indicate SNQ and Refer to Reasons Document
Note:
The certificate must indicate if a request raises an SNQ for any claims and refer to the reasons document detailing the determination.
If the request is determined to raise at least one SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will indicate that a SNQ affecting at least one claim of the patent has been raised, and will refer to the reasons document. For each item of information, the reasons document should include:
  • (1) A statement that the item of information, as presented in the request, raises a SNQ, and an identification of the claims for which a SNQ is raised.
  • (2) Where appropriate, a statement that the item of information, as presented in the request, does not raise a SNQ, and an identification of the claims for which a SNQ is not raised.
  • (3) A brief statement of the basis for the determination that a SNQ affecting the identified claims was raised by the item, or was not raised by the item.
Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Reexamination CertificateConclusion of Ex Parte ReexaminationSubstantial New Question of Patentability
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-cc008253bb4aea1a09f4889c]
Supplemental Examination No SNQ Determination
Note:
If no items of information raise a SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will state this and reference the reasons document explaining why each item did not raise a SNQ.

If the examiner determines that none of the items of information properly submitted as part of the request raise a SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will state that no SNQ is raised in the request for supplemental examination, and will refer to the Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., "the reasons document"). The reasons document should explain why each item of information did not raise a SNQ for every claim to which that item of information was applied in the supplemental examination request. See subsection II.A., above. Form paragraph 28.02 should be used to explain why each item of information does not raise a SNQ.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Reexamination CertificateSNQ CriteriaConclusion of Ex Parte Reexamination
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-5048f6c2201583ac294bba31]
Examiner Formulates and Submits Supplemental Examination Certificate and Reasons Document
Note:
The examiner prepares a draft Supplemental Examination Certificate and a draft reasons document after making a preliminary determination, then informs their supervisor for review.

After an examiner has made a preliminary determination, the examiner will formulate a draft Supplemental Examination Certificate and a draft Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., a draft "reasons document"). The examiner will then inform their CRU Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) of the preliminary determination. A panel review conference will be convened, and the conference members will review the preliminary determination. See MPEP § 2271.01 for the make-up of the panel. If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary determination, the Supplemental Examination Certificate shall be issued by its publication in the Office’s Image File Wrapper System, IFW, which will be viewable in Patent Center. The reasons document will be labeled "Reasons for SNQ Determination" in IFW, and it will generally be available for viewing at the same time as, or shortly after, the issuance of the certificate. The reasons document will be signed by the examiner, with the two other conferees initialing as “conferee” to indicate their presence in the conference.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Reexamination CertificateSNQ CriteriaConclusion of Ex Parte Reexamination
StatutoryRequiredAlways
[mpep-2816-03-7bceaabfe00fe88652c77a98]
Supplemental Examination Certificate Issued After Panel Confirmation
Note:
The Supplemental Examination Certificate is issued by publishing it in the Office’s Image File Wrapper System, IFW, after a panel review conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary determination.

After an examiner has made a preliminary determination, the examiner will formulate a draft Supplemental Examination Certificate and a draft Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., a draft "reasons document"). The examiner will then inform their CRU Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) of the preliminary determination. A panel review conference will be convened, and the conference members will review the preliminary determination. See MPEP § 2271.01 for the make-up of the panel. If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary determination, the Supplemental Examination Certificate shall be issued by its publication in the Office’s Image File Wrapper System, IFW, which will be viewable in Patent Center. The reasons document will be labeled "Reasons for SNQ Determination" in IFW, and it will generally be available for viewing at the same time as, or shortly after, the issuance of the certificate. The reasons document will be signed by the examiner, with the two other conferees initialing as “conferee” to indicate their presence in the conference.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Reexamination CertificateConclusion of Ex Parte ReexaminationSupplemental Examination Certificate
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-f7816f3891a322ef49fc2dd9]
Reasons for SNQ Determination Must Be Viewable with Certificate
Note:
The reasons document supporting the substantial new question of patentability determination must be labeled and available in IFW at the same time as or shortly after the issuance of the certificate.

After an examiner has made a preliminary determination, the examiner will formulate a draft Supplemental Examination Certificate and a draft Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., a draft "reasons document"). The examiner will then inform their CRU Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) of the preliminary determination. A panel review conference will be convened, and the conference members will review the preliminary determination. See MPEP § 2271.01 for the make-up of the panel. If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary determination, the Supplemental Examination Certificate shall be issued by its publication in the Office’s Image File Wrapper System, IFW, which will be viewable in Patent Center. The reasons document will be labeled "Reasons for SNQ Determination" in IFW, and it will generally be available for viewing at the same time as, or shortly after, the issuance of the certificate. The reasons document will be signed by the examiner, with the two other conferees initialing as “conferee” to indicate their presence in the conference.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Reexamination CertificateConclusion of Ex Parte ReexaminationSubstantial New Question of Patentability
Topic

Benefit Claim in ADS

5 rules
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-095e17baa1f04025bd623a40]
Requirement for Additional Evidence When Correcting Factual Information in ADS
Note:
When correcting factual information in the application data sheet, additional evidence must be provided to show that the patentability of claims depends on the corrected information.

Where the request includes an item of information limited to the correction of factual information, the request should also include one or more additional item(s) of information, such as one or more intervening reference(s), that potentially provide evidence that the patentability of the claims depends upon the factual information to be corrected. In such an instance, the item of information may raise a SNQ, depending upon whether the foreign priority or domestic benefit claim is or is not corrected.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Benefit Claim in ADSContinuation Benefit ClaimsDomestic Benefit Claims (35 U.S.C. 120/121)
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-9fe2700caf086d03c20895f6]
Requirement for Correcting Foreign Priority or Domestic Benefit Claim
Note:
The rule requires including additional information to determine if the patentability of claims depends on correcting a foreign priority or domestic benefit claim.

Where the request includes an item of information limited to the correction of factual information, the request should also include one or more additional item(s) of information, such as one or more intervening reference(s), that potentially provide evidence that the patentability of the claims depends upon the factual information to be corrected. In such an instance, the item of information may raise a SNQ, depending upon whether the foreign priority or domestic benefit claim is or is not corrected.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Benefit Claim in ADSContinuation Benefit ClaimsDomestic Benefit Claims (35 U.S.C. 120/121)
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-b773e13de542d892f4185a12]
Examiner Must Explain Why Intervening Reference Raises SNQ If Benefit Claim Deleted
Note:
The examiner must include reasons in the document if an intervening reference raises a SNQ when the benefit claim is deleted.

Example 2. The request includes a first item of information limited to the deletion of a benefit claim, a second item of information which is a reference that pre-dates the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the patent if the benefit claim is deleted (i.e., an intervening reference), and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the benefit claim is deleted. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference if the benefit claim is deleted, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ if the domestic benefit claim is deleted, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim was deleted. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the deletion of the domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim were to be deleted.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Benefit Claim in ADSContinuation Benefit ClaimsSNQ Criteria
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-1e9716787aa818ad8b4375a6]
Examiner Must Explain Why Intervening Reference Does Not Raise SNQ If Domestic Benefit Claim Deleted
Note:
The examiner must provide reasons in the reasons document if they determine an intervening reference does not raise a SNQ when the domestic benefit claim is deleted.

Example 2. The request includes a first item of information limited to the deletion of a benefit claim, a second item of information which is a reference that pre-dates the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the patent if the benefit claim is deleted (i.e., an intervening reference), and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the benefit claim is deleted. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference if the benefit claim is deleted, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ if the domestic benefit claim is deleted, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim was deleted. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the deletion of the domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim were to be deleted.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Benefit Claim in ADSContinuation Benefit ClaimsDenial – No SNQ Raised
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-637fbd815af06ea20d40ceb4]
Requirement for Deletion Statement Not Causing SNQ
Note:
The examiner must state that deleting a domestic benefit claim does not raise a statutory nonconformity if no additional information is provided that affects patentability.

Example 2. The request includes a first item of information limited to the deletion of a benefit claim, a second item of information which is a reference that pre-dates the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the patent if the benefit claim is deleted (i.e., an intervening reference), and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the benefit claim is deleted. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference if the benefit claim is deleted, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ if the domestic benefit claim is deleted, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim was deleted. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the deletion of the domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim were to be deleted.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Benefit Claim in ADSContinuation Benefit ClaimsDenial – No SNQ Raised
Topic

Request Content Requirements

2 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-bd3d729404840bbeae4c9748]
No Initial, Sign, Date Listing Under 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2)
Note:
Examiners are not required to initial, sign, and date the listing of items submitted with a request for supplemental examination because it is included in the supplemental examination certificate.

Examiners should not initial, sign and date the listing of the items of information (37 CFR 1.610(b)(2)) submitted with the request. This practice is different from the current practice regarding prior art citations in applications or proceedings involving patents. There is no need to initial, sign, and date the listing submitted under 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2) because the supplemental examination certificate includes a citation to each item of information properly submitted as part of the request.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2))Request Content RequirementsSupplemental Examination CertificateSupplemental Examination
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-61255b2ee6597812cedbc289]
Requirement for Intervening Reference Handling During Supplemental Examination
Note:
The rule requires how to handle an intervening reference during a supplemental examination if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected.

Example 1. The request includes a first item of information limited to the addition of a claim for the benefit of an earlier effective filing date, a second item of information which is an intervening reference, and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged, and is not corrected. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the correction of a domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim remains unchanged and is not corrected.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Request Content RequirementsSupplemental ExaminationSNQ Criteria
Topic

Statutory Authority for Examination

1 rules
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-4e3796483f2abdf99834aa23]
Patent Owner May Request Supplemental Examination to Consider Relevant Information
Note:
A patent owner can request the Office to reconsider, correct, or consider new information related to their patent within 3 months of submitting a compliant request.

(a) REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION.—A patent owner may request supplemental examination of a patent in the Office to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent, in accordance with such requirements as the Director may establish. Within 3 months after the date a request for supplemental examination meeting the requirements of this section is received, the Director shall conduct the supplemental examination and shall conclude such examination by issuing a certificate indicating whether the information presented in the request raises a substantial new question of patentability.

Jump to MPEP SourceStatutory Authority for ExaminationExamination ProceduresSupplemental Examination
Topic

Supplemental Examination Request

1 rules
StatutoryRecommendedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-568631248267e11bd3e4b59b]
Examiners Must Not Initial Request Listing
Note:
Examiners are not to initial, sign, and date the listing of information submitted with a request for supplemental examination.

Examiners should not initial, sign and date the listing of the items of information (37 CFR 1.610(b)(2)) submitted with the request. This practice is different from the current practice regarding prior art citations in applications or proceedings involving patents. There is no need to initial, sign, and date the listing submitted under 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2) because the supplemental examination certificate includes a citation to each item of information properly submitted as part of the request.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.610(b)(2))Supplemental Examination RequestSupplemental ExaminationRequest Content Requirements
Topic

Ex Parte Reexamination

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-0a4290eba18e5df01260671c]
Basis for SNQ Determination Must Be Stated
Note:
For each item of information, the reasons document must include a brief statement explaining whether an SNQ affecting identified claims was raised or not.

If the request is determined to raise at least one SNQ, the supplemental examination certificate will indicate that a SNQ affecting at least one claim of the patent has been raised, and will refer to the reasons document. For each item of information, the reasons document should include:

(3) A brief statement of the basis for the determination that a SNQ affecting the identified claims was raised by the item, or was not raised by the item.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Ex Parte ReexaminationSupplemental ExaminationReexamination Certificate
Topic

Prior Consideration of Art

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-3120f4e9b2a580ea59c87cf3]
Determining If Item Is Prior Art Against Claims
Note:
The examiner must determine if the item of information is prior art to specific claims and provide reasons for why it qualifies as such.

For each item of information, if the examiner determines that a substantial new question of patentability is raised by the item, the reasons document should point out:

(E) Where appropriate, whether the item of information is prior art (e.g., due to its issue date or publication date) to specific patent claims (where the specific claims are listed) and, when applicable, the reasons why the item of information is deemed to be available as prior art against the patent claims.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Prior Consideration of ArtSNQ CriteriaSubstantial New Question of Patentability
Topic

Continuation Benefit Claims

1 rules
StatutoryPermittedAlways
[mpep-2816-03-003127bb81be78a548533164]
Intervening Reference When Deleting Benefit Claim
Note:
Explains how to handle an intervening reference if a benefit claim is deleted in a patent application.

Example 2. The request includes a first item of information limited to the deletion of a benefit claim, a second item of information which is a reference that pre-dates the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the patent if the benefit claim is deleted (i.e., an intervening reference), and a detailed explanation of how the intervening reference may be applied to the patent claims if the benefit claim is deleted. If the examiner determines that a SNQ is raised by the intervening reference if the benefit claim is deleted, the examiner should include, in the reasons document, the reasons why the intervening reference raises a SNQ if the domestic benefit claim is deleted, in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.A. If the examiner determines that no SNQ is raised by the intervening reference, the examiner should provide, in the reasons document, the reasons for the determination that the second item of information, i.e., the intervening reference, does not raise a SNQ in accordance with the general guidance set forth above in subsection II.B., even if the domestic benefit claim was deleted. The examiner should also provide a statement to the effect that the first item of information, which is limited to the deletion of the domestic benefit claim, does not raise a SNQ because the patent owner did not include with the request any additional items of information that cause the patentability of the claim(s) to depend upon the domestic benefit claim, even if the domestic benefit claim were to be deleted.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Continuation Benefit ClaimsRequest Content RequirementsPriority and Benefit Claims
Topic

Central Reexamination Unit Processing

1 rules
StatutoryInformativeAlways
[mpep-2816-03-e97d00ab9fd73ef583290aea]
Examiner Must Inform SPRS of Preliminary Determination
Note:
The examiner must inform their CRU Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) about the preliminary determination after making a decision on a supplemental examination proceeding.

After an examiner has made a preliminary determination, the examiner will formulate a draft Supplemental Examination Certificate and a draft Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination (i.e., a draft "reasons document"). The examiner will then inform their CRU Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) of the preliminary determination. A panel review conference will be convened, and the conference members will review the preliminary determination. See MPEP § 2271.01 for the make-up of the panel. If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary determination, the Supplemental Examination Certificate shall be issued by its publication in the Office’s Image File Wrapper System, IFW, which will be viewable in Patent Center. The reasons document will be labeled "Reasons for SNQ Determination" in IFW, and it will generally be available for viewing at the same time as, or shortly after, the issuance of the certificate. The reasons document will be signed by the examiner, with the two other conferees initialing as “conferee” to indicate their presence in the conference.

Jump to MPEP Source · 37 CFR 1.620Central Reexamination Unit ProcessingEx Parte ReexaminationSupplemental Examination

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.

¶ 28.01 ¶ 28.01 Header for Statement of Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination
¶ 28.02 ¶ 28.02 Reasons for Finding No Substantial New Question of Patentability
¶ 28.03 ¶ 28.03 Reasons for Finding A Substantial New Question of Patentability

Citations

Primary topicCitation
AIA Effective Dates
SNQ Criteria
Substantial New Question of Patentability
35 U.S.C. § 101
SNQ Criteria
Substantial New Question of Patentability
35 U.S.C. § 102
SNQ Criteria
Substantial New Question of Patentability
35 U.S.C. § 112
Request Content Requirements
Supplemental Examination
Supplemental Examination Request
37 CFR § 1.610(b)(2)
Denial – No SNQ Raised
Substantial New Question of Patentability
37 CFR § 1.610(b)(5)
Supplemental ExaminationMPEP § 2242
Central Reexamination Unit Processing
Reexamination Certificate
Supplemental Examination
MPEP § 2271.01
Denial – No SNQ Raised
Reexamination Certificate
SNQ Criteria
Supplemental Examination
Form Paragraph § 28.01
Denial – No SNQ Raised
Reexamination Certificate
Substantial New Question of Patentability
Supplemental Examination
Form Paragraph § 28.02
SNQ Criteria
Substantial New Question of Patentability
Form Paragraph § 28.03

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