What constitutes a valid ‘reply’ for a petition to excuse unintentional delay in an international design application?
A valid ‘reply’ for a petition to excuse unintentional delay in an international design application can take two forms, as specified in 37 CFR 1.1051(c): Filing a continuing application (with additional requirements if the original application hasn’t been internationally registered) A grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.1052 for applications filed indirectly with the USPTO The…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for a third-party requester’s reply in ex parte reexamination?
According to MPEP 2254, a third-party requester has specific requirements for filing a reply in ex parte reexamination: The reply must be filed within two months of the date of service of the patent owner’s statement. The reply is limited to issues raised in the patent owner’s statement. No new prior art may be introduced…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a reply to an Office action is considered insufficient?
How does the USPTO determine if a reply to an Office action is considered insufficient? The USPTO determines if a reply to an Office action is insufficient based on whether it addresses all the objections, requirements, and rejections set forth in the Office action. According to MPEP 711.02(a): “A reply to a non-final Office action…
Read More