As this is a paragraph describing the mailing of a requirement for information that is NOT part of an action on the merits, it is unclear to me whether the maximum statutory period for reply of six months is applicable.
Regardless, as drafted it seems ambiguous to me;... more »
While this is technically true, I believe that "March 15, 2012" was intended to read "March 15, 2013," one day before the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the... more »
examination will not entitle the applicant to a refund of... more »
However, section 714.01 (and the other subsections thereof, 714.01(a)-(d)) refer primarily to requirements for signature of amendments. It seems to me that the content of 714.01(e) should be moved to it's own section of chapter 700, or made a subsection of a more applicable... more »
The current language says "Applicant’s arguments ... are moot because [they] do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection." However, I regularly see this paragraph in second 103 rejections when some references have been carried forward. Would you please update the language to match how it is used, or add a separate form... more »
I propose amending 706.03(a), form paragraph 7.05.015, to refer to the USPTO's web site for information not found in the Action. For example: (>>insertions<< marked)
the claimed... more »
- The text references 37 CFR 1.304 (left column, bottom). However, the AIA removed and reserved that section (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e326176). Would you please correct the reference?
- The text does not reference MPEP 1214.07, although 1214.07 does reference 706.07(h), XI. See p. 1200-60 (Nov. 2015). Would you please add the... more »