Can an inadvertent omission in a reply lead to abandonment of a patent application?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-10 3 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. Not necessarily. Under 37 CFR 1.135(c) , if a reply to a non-final Office action is a bona fide attempt to advance the application and is substantially complete but for an inadvertent omission, the examiner may give the applicant a new time period to supply the omission. The MPEP states: “When a bona fide attempt to reply includes an inadvertent omission that precludes action on the merits of the application […], the examiner may consider that reply adequate to avoid abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR 1.135, and give the applicant a shortened statutory time period of 2 months to correct the omission.” This provision helps prevent abandonment due to minor oversights in otherwise substantive responses. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 3 rules Collapse Application Abandoned for Missing Prosecution Within Six Months MPEP 710 Required Director May Extend Time for Taking Action on Important Inventions MPEP 710 Permitted Technology Center Director Decides Time Extensions MPEP 710 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How long do I have to respond to a notice about an unlocatable file? How does 37 CFR 1.136 affect time periods in patent applications? What happens when two different periods for reply are running against a patent application? What is the &#8216;next succeeding business day&#8217; rule for patent application deadlines? When does the USPTO set time periods that are not subject to extensions?