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 constitutes “unintentional delay” in paying maintenance fees?
“Unintentional delay” in paying maintenance fees is a crucial concept for reinstating expired patents. According to MPEP 2590: “A person seeking reinstatement of an expired patent should not make a statement that the delay in payment of the maintenance fee was unintentional unless the entire delay was unintentional, including the period from discovery that the…
Read MoreWhy is a terminal disclaimer required for petitions to excuse unintentional delay in international design applications?
A terminal disclaimer is required for petitions to excuse unintentional delay in international design applications to prevent the applicant from unfairly extending the patent term due to the delay. This requirement is specified in 37 CFR 1.1051(d). The MPEP explains: “Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1051(d), any petition under 37 CFR 1.1051(a) must be accompanied by…
Read MoreWhat is the process for reviving a terminated inter partes reexamination proceeding?
To revive a terminated inter partes reexamination proceeding, the patent owner must file a petition under 37 CFR 1.137. The petition must demonstrate that the delay in response was unintentional. According to the MPEP: “If the patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding fails to file a timely and appropriate response to any Office…
Read MoreWhat is the process for reviving a terminated ex parte reexamination proceeding?
To revive a terminated ex parte reexamination proceeding, the patent owner must file a petition under 37 CFR 1.137. The petition must include: The required reply to the outstanding Office action or notice (if not previously filed) The petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m) A statement that the entire delay was unintentional…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for restoring the right of priority in international design applications?
Restoring the right of priority in international design applications may be possible if there was a delay in filing the application within the six-month priority period. According to MPEP 2920.05(d): “Where there was a delay in filing the subsequent application within this six month period, the right of priority may be restored under the conditions…
Read MoreWhat documents are required for a petition to excuse unintentional delay in an international design application?
A petition to excuse unintentional delay in an international design application must be accompanied by several documents and fees as specified in 37 CFR 1.1051(a). The required documents include: A copy of any invitation from the International Bureau setting the missed time limit The required reply (unless previously filed) The petition fee A certified copy…
Read MoreWhat is the procedure for seeking relief from prescribed time limits in international design applications?
The procedure for seeking relief from prescribed time limits in international design applications is outlined in 37 CFR 1.1051. This procedure allows applicants to excuse unintentional delays in meeting time limits under the Hague Agreement for requirements related to international design applications. The key components of this procedure include: Filing a petition with the USPTO…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for a petition to revive a reexamination proceeding?
A petition to revive a reexamination proceeding must meet specific requirements as outlined in 37 CFR 1.137(b). The MPEP states: “A grantable petition pursuant to this section must be accompanied by: (1) The reply required to the outstanding Office action or notice, unless previously filed; (2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m);…
Read MoreWhat changes were made to the revival of reexamination proceedings by the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA)?
The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) of 2012 brought significant changes to the revival of reexamination proceedings. The MPEP outlines these changes: “37 CFR 1.137 was revised to implement the changes in the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) to eliminate revival of abandoned applications and reexamination prosecution terminated under 37 CFR…
Read More