Allowed applications should generally contain a citation of pertinent prior art for printing in the patent, even if no claim presented during the prosecution was considered unpatentable over such prior art. Only in those instances where a proper search has not revealed any prior art relevant to the claimed invention is it appropriate to send an application to issue with no art cited. In the case where no prior art is cited, the examiner must indicate “None” on a form PTO-892 and include it in the application file wrapper. Where references have been cited during the prosecution of parent applications and a continuing application, having no newly cited references, is ready for allowance, the cited references of the parent applications should be listed on a form PTO-892. The form should then be placed in the file of the continuing application. See MPEP § 1302.12. In a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), it is not necessary to prepare a new form PTO-892 because the form from the parent application is in the same file wrapper and will be used by the printer.

Allowed applications should generally contain a citation of pertinent prior art for printing in the patent, even if no claim presented during the prosecution was considered unpatentable over such prior art. Only in those instances where a proper search has not revealed any prior art relevant to the claimed invention is it appropriate to send an application to issue with no art cited. In the case where no prior art is cited, the examiner must indicate “None” on a form PTO-892 and include it in the application file wrapper. Where references have been cited during the prosecution of parent applications and a continuing application, having no newly cited references, is ready for allowance, the cited references of the parent applications should be listed on a form PTO-892. The form should then be placed in the file of the continuing application. See MPEP § 1302.12. In a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), it is not necessary to prepare a new form PTO-892 because the form from the parent application is in the same file wrapper and will be used by the printer.

Allowed applications should generally contain a citation of pertinent prior art for printing in the patent, even if no claim presented during the prosecution was considered unpatentable over such prior art. Only in those instances where a proper search has not revealed any prior art relevant to the claimed invention is it appropriate to send an application to issue with no art cited. In the case where no prior art is cited, the examiner must indicate “None” on a form PTO-892 and include it in the application file wrapper. Where references have been cited during the prosecution of parent applications and a continuing application, having no newly cited references, is ready for allowance, the cited references of the parent applications should be listed on a form PTO-892. The form should then be placed in the file of the continuing application. See MPEP § 1302.12. In a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), it is not necessary to prepare a new form PTO-892 because the form from the parent application is in the same file wrapper and will be used by the printer.

Allowed applications should generally contain a citation of pertinent prior art for printing in the patent, even if no claim presented during the prosecution was considered unpatentable over such prior art. Only in those instances where a proper search has not revealed any prior art relevant to the claimed invention is it appropriate to send an application to issue with no art cited. In the case where no prior art is cited, the examiner must indicate “None” on a form PTO-892 and include it in the application file wrapper. Where references have been cited during the prosecution of parent applications and a continuing application, having no newly cited references, is ready for allowance, the cited references of the parent applications should be listed on a form PTO-892. The form should then be placed in the file of the continuing application. See MPEP § 1302.12. In a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), it is not necessary to prepare a new form PTO-892 because the form from the parent application is in the same file wrapper and will be used by the printer.

Allowed applications should generally contain a citation of pertinent prior art for printing in the patent, even if no claim presented during the prosecution was considered unpatentable over such prior art. Only in those instances where a proper search has not revealed any prior art relevant to the claimed invention is it appropriate to send an application to issue with no art cited. In the case where no prior art is cited, the examiner must indicate “None” on a form PTO-892 and include it in the application file wrapper. Where references have been cited during the prosecution of parent applications and a continuing application, having no newly cited references, is ready for allowance, the cited references of the parent applications should be listed on a form PTO-892. The form should then be placed in the file of the continuing application. See MPEP § 1302.12. In a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), it is not necessary to prepare a new form PTO-892 because the form from the parent application is in the same file wrapper and will be used by the printer.

During the examination of an application or reexamination of a patent, the examiner should cite appropriate prior art which is nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims. When such prior art is cited, its pertinence should be explained.

The examiner must consider all the prior art references (alone and in combination) cited in the application or reexamination, including those cited by the applicant in a properly submitted Information Disclosure Statement. See MPEP § 609.

Effective June 8, 1995, Public Law 103-465 amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to change the term of a patent to 20 years measured from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application for which benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) is claimed. The 20-year patent term applies to all utility and plant patents issued on applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. Effective March 16, 2013, Public Law 112-196 amended Title 35 of the U.S. Code to change U.S. practice from a first to invent system to a first inventor to file system. In certain circumstances, applicants may cancel their benefit/priority claim by amending the specification to delete any references to prior applications. Therefore, examiners should search all applications based on the actual U.S. filing date of the application rather than on the filing date of any parent U.S. application for which benefit is claimed or foreign application to which priority is claimed. Examiners should cite of interest all material disclosures having a prior art date after the filing date of the U.S. parent application or the foreign priority application but before the actual filing date of the application being examined.

Effective June 8, 1995, Public Law 103-465 amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to change the term of a patent to 20 years measured from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application for which benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) is claimed. The 20-year patent term applies to all utility and plant patents issued on applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. Effective March 16, 2013, Public Law 112-196 amended Title 35 of the U.S. Code to change U.S. practice from a first to invent system to a first inventor to file system. In certain circumstances, applicants may cancel their benefit/priority claim by amending the specification to delete any references to prior applications. Therefore, examiners should search all applications based on the actual U.S. filing date of the application rather than on the filing date of any parent U.S. application for which benefit is claimed or foreign application to which priority is claimed. Examiners should cite of interest all material disclosures having a prior art date after the filing date of the U.S. parent application or the foreign priority application but before the actual filing date of the application being examined.

Effective June 8, 1995, Public Law 103-465 amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to change the term of a patent to 20 years measured from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application for which benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) is claimed. The 20-year patent term applies to all utility and plant patents issued on applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. Effective March 16, 2013, Public Law 112-196 amended Title 35 of the U.S. Code to change U.S. practice from a first to invent system to a first inventor to file system. In certain circumstances, applicants may cancel their benefit/priority claim by amending the specification to delete any references to prior applications. Therefore, examiners should search all applications based on the actual U.S. filing date of the application rather than on the filing date of any parent U.S. application for which benefit is claimed or foreign application to which priority is claimed. Examiners should cite of interest all material disclosures having a prior art date after the filing date of the U.S. parent application or the foreign priority application but before the actual filing date of the application being examined.

Effective June 8, 1995, Public Law 103-465 amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to change the term of a patent to 20 years measured from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application for which benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) is claimed. The 20-year patent term applies to all utility and plant patents issued on applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. Effective March 16, 2013, Public Law 112-196 amended Title 35 of the U.S. Code to change U.S. practice from a first to invent system to a first inventor to file system. In certain circumstances, applicants may cancel their benefit/priority claim by amending the specification to delete any references to prior applications. Therefore, examiners should search all applications based on the actual U.S. filing date of the application rather than on the filing date of any parent U.S. application for which benefit is claimed or foreign application to which priority is claimed. Examiners should cite of interest all material disclosures having a prior art date after the filing date of the U.S. parent application or the foreign priority application but before the actual filing date of the application being examined.

Form paragraph 7.96 may be used as an introductory sentence.

Effective June 8, 1995, Public Law 103-465 amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to change the term of a patent to 20 years measured from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application for which benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) is claimed. The 20-year patent term applies to all utility and plant patents issued on applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. Effective March 16, 2013, Public Law 112-196 amended Title 35 of the U.S. Code to change U.S. practice from a first to invent system to a first inventor to file system. In certain circumstances, applicants may cancel their benefit/priority claim by amending the specification to delete any references to prior applications. Therefore, examiners should search all applications based on the actual U.S. filing date of the application rather than on the filing date of any parent U.S. application for which benefit is claimed or foreign application to which priority is claimed. Examiners should cite of interest all material disclosures having a prior art date after the filing date of the U.S. parent application or the foreign priority application but before the actual filing date of the application being examined.

Effective June 8, 1995, Public Law 103-465 amended 35 U.S.C. 154 to change the term of a patent to 20 years measured from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application for which benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) is claimed. The 20-year patent term applies to all utility and plant patents issued on applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. Effective March 16, 2013, Public Law 112-196 amended Title 35 of the U.S. Code to change U.S. practice from a first to invent system to a first inventor to file system. In certain circumstances, applicants may cancel their benefit/priority claim by amending the specification to delete any references to prior applications. Therefore, examiners should search all applications based on the actual U.S. filing date of the application rather than on the filing date of any parent U.S. application for which benefit is claimed or foreign application to which priority is claimed. Examiners should cite of interest all material disclosures having a prior art date after the filing date of the U.S. parent application or the foreign priority application but before the actual filing date of the application being examined.

Applicants and/or applicants’ attorneys in PCT related national applications may wish to cite the material citations from the PCT International Search Report by an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 in order to ensure consideration by the examiner.