How long do parties have to correct defects in inter partes reexamination submissions?
Parties typically have one month or thirty days, whichever is longer, from the mailing date of the form PTOL-2069 or equivalent letter to correct defects in their submissions. The MPEP 2666.50 states: “A time period of one month or thirty days, whichever is longer, from the mailing date of the form PTOL-2069 or equivalent letter…
Read MoreWhat are the time limits for adding a required claim for interference?
When an examiner requires an applicant to add a claim for interference purposes using Form Paragraph 23.04, specific time limits apply. According to MPEP 2304.04(b), the standard time limit is two months from the mailing date of the communication requiring the claim. The form paragraph states: “Applicant is given TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing…
Read MoreWhat is the time limit for responding to a rejection based on a deposit issue?
When facing a rejection based on a deposit issue, applicants must be aware of the time limits for response. According to MPEP 2411.02: “If an application is otherwise in condition for allowance except for a needed deposit and the file record indicates that the deposit has not been made or identified as required, the examiner…
Read MoreWhat is the time limit for requesting reconsideration of a refused petition under 37 CFR 1.1051?
When a petition under 37 CFR 1.1051 is refused by the USPTO, there is a specific time limit for requesting reconsideration or review of the decision. This time limit is outlined in 37 CFR 1.1051(b). The MPEP states: “Where a petition under 37 CFR 1.1051(a) is refused by the Office, any request for reconsideration or…
Read MoreCan third-party requesters participate in ex parte reexamination interviews?
No, third-party requesters are not permitted to participate in ex parte reexamination interviews. MPEP 2281 clearly states: “Requests that reexamination requesters participate in interviews with examiners will not be granted.“ This restriction is in place to maintain the ex parte nature of the reexamination proceedings. Only the patent owner and/or their representative can participate in…
Read MoreWhat is the timeline for third-party requester comments in inter partes reexamination?
In inter partes reexamination, the third-party requester has a specific timeline to submit comments on patent owner responses. According to MPEP 2654, which cites 35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2): “Each time that the patent owner files a response to an action on the merits from the Patent and Trademark Office, the third-party requester shall have one opportunity…
Read MoreHow does the extension of time practice differ for third-party requested reexaminations?
The extension of time practice for third-party requested ex parte reexaminations differs from patent owner requested or Director ordered reexaminations in several ways: “No cause” extensions for up to two months are not available. All requests must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due. All requests…
Read MoreCan third parties participate in a supplemental examination proceeding?
No, third parties are prohibited from participating in supplemental examination proceedings. MPEP 2813 clearly states this prohibition based on statutory and regulatory requirements: “In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 257(a), any party other than the patent owner is prohibited from filing papers or otherwise participating in any manner in the supplemental examination proceeding. See 37 CFR…
Read MoreWhat happens when a reexamination proceeding is terminated?
When a reexamination proceeding is terminated, the following steps are taken according to MPEP 2294: The reexamination file is forwarded to the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) if not already there The file is given a 420 status A copy of the PALM “Application Number Information” screen and the “Contents” screen is printed and annotated with…
Read MoreWhat is the role of a Technology Center Practice Specialist in derivation proceedings?
A Technology Center Practice Specialist plays an important advisory role in handling complex issues that may arise from derivation proceedings. According to MPEP 2315: “Examiners should consult a Technology Center Practice Specialist if any questions arise regarding remedies provided for in a derivation proceeding.” This guidance suggests that Technology Center Practice Specialists are resources for…
Read More