710.02(c) Specified Time Limits: Situations in Which Used [R-11.2013]
There are certain situations in which the examiner specifies a time for the applicant to take some action, and the applicant’s failure to timely take the specified action results in a consequence other than abandonment. Situations in which a specified time limit for taking an action is set are as follows:
- (A) Where a member of the public files a petition under 37 CFR 1.14(a) for access to an application, the Office may give the applicant a specified time (usually 3 weeks) within which to state any objections to the granting of the petition for access and the reasons why it should be denied. The failure to timely reply will not affect the prosecution of the application (assuming that it is still pending), but will result in the Office rendering a decision on the petition for access without considering any objections by the applicant. See MPEP § 103.
- (B) Where an information disclosure statement complies with the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.97 (including the requirement for fees or statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) based upon the time of filing), but part of the content requirement of 37 CFR 1.98 has been inadvertently omitted, the examiner may set a 1-month time limit for completion of the information disclosure statement. The failure to timely comply will not result in abandonment of the application, but will result in the information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See MPEP § 609.05(a).
- (C) Where an application is otherwise allowable but contains a traverse of a restriction requirement, the applicant may be given a specified time (e.g., a 2-month time limit) to cancel claims to the nonelected invention or species or take other appropriate action (i.e., petition the restriction requirement under 37 CFR 1.144 ). The failure to timely file a petition under 37 CFR 1.144 (or cancel the claims to the nonelected invention or species) will not result in abandonment of the application, but will be treated as authorization to cancel the claims to the non-elected invention or species, and the application will be passed to issue. See 37 CFR 1.141 and 1.144, and MPEP §§ 821.01 and 821.04(a).
- (D) A portion of 37 CFR 41.202(c) provides that in suggesting claims for interference:
An examiner may require an applicant to add a claim to provoke an interference for an application subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). Failure to satisfy the requirement within a period (not less than one month) the examiner sets will operate as a concession of priority for the subject matter of the claim.
The failure to timely present the suggested claim will not result in abandonment of the application, but will be treated as a concession by the applicant of the priority of the subject matter of the claim. See MPEP Chapter 2300.
Where the failure to take the specified action may result in abandonment (e.g., filing a new complete appeal brief correcting the deficiencies in a prior appeal brief), a time period should be set for taking the specified action. Where the condition of the application requires that such action not be subject to extensions under 37 CFR 1.136, the action should specify that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 (or 1.136(a)) do not apply to the time period for taking action (i.e., a specified time limit should not be set simply to exclude the possibility of extending the period for reply under 37 CFR 1.136 ).