What is the requirement for ‘lack of deceptive intention’ in reissue applications?
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, there was a specific requirement regarding ‘lack of deceptive intention’. The MPEP states: For reissue applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, both pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 251 and pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.175 require that the reissue oath or declaration must state that the error arose “without any…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for the oath or declaration in a broadening reissue application?
The requirements for the oath or declaration in a broadening reissue application depend on when the application was filed: For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: The original reissue oath or declaration must be signed by all inventors, unless the original patent application was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of…
Read MoreHow does the process of claiming foreign priority differ for reissue applications filed before and after September 16, 2012?
The process of claiming foreign priority in reissue applications differs based on whether the application was filed before or after September 16, 2012. Here’s a breakdown of the differences: For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012: MPEP 1417 states: “For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the foreign priority…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for a design reissue oath or declaration?
The requirements for a design reissue oath or declaration are specific and must be carefully followed. According to MPEP 1457: “The oath or declaration required by 37 CFR 1.175 must state that the applicant believes the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective specification or drawing.” Additionally,…
Read MoreHow do I claim priority to a foreign application in a reissue patent application?
To claim priority to a foreign application in a reissue patent application, you must: Make a claim for priority to the earlier filing date in the foreign country, even if such a claim was made in the original patent application. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, present the foreign priority information…
Read MoreWhat are the formal requirements for affidavits and declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(a)?
Affidavits and declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(a) must meet specific formal requirements: An affidavit must be a written statement made under oath before a notary public, magistrate, or authorized officer. A declaration, permitted under 37 CFR 1.68, can be used instead of an affidavit. Declarations must include an acknowledgment that willful false statements are punishable…
Read MoreWhat’s the difference between an affidavit and a declaration?
While both affidavits and declarations serve similar purposes in patent prosecution, there are key differences: Affidavit: A statement in writing made under oath before a notary public, magistrate, or officer authorized to administer oaths. Declaration: As per 37 CFR 1.68, a declaration can be used instead of an affidavit. It must include an acknowledgment that…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for disqualifying a patent or patent application publication under 37 CFR 1.131(c)?
To disqualify a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication as prior art under 37 CFR 1.131(c), the applicant or patent owner must submit two items: A terminal disclaimer: This must be in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). An oath or declaration: This must state that: The application or patent under reexamination and the patent…
Read MoreCan an attorney sign an oath or declaration on behalf of an inventor?
No, an attorney cannot sign an oath or declaration on behalf of an inventor, even if they have been given power of attorney to do so. This rule applies to applications filed before September 16, 2012. According to MPEP § 602.08(b), “The oath or declaration may not be signed by an attorney on behalf of…
Read MoreCan an attorney in a patent application administer the oath as a notary?
The MPEP provides guidance on this matter. According to MPEP 602, “The language of 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.66 is such that an attorney in the application is not barred from administering the oath as notary.” However, it’s important to note that this practice may be subject to local laws. The MPEP further…
Read More