When might a reply stating information is unknown or not readily available be insufficient?

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.

While generally sufficient, a reply stating that the required information is unknown or not readily available might be considered insufficient in certain circumstances. These include:

• When it’s clear the applicant didn’t understand the requirement
• When the reply is ambiguous and a more specific answer is possible

MPEP 704.12(b) explains: “A reply stating that the information required to be submitted is unknown and/or is not readily available to the party or parties from which it was requested will generally be sufficient unless, for example, it is clear the applicant did not understand the requirement, or the reply was ambiguous and a more specific answer is possible.”

In such cases, a follow-up requirement may be issued if deemed reasonable and warranted based on the specific circumstances.