608.01(a) Arrangement of Application [R-07.2022]

For design patent specification, see MPEP § 1503.01.

For plant patent specification, see MPEP § 1605.

For reissue patent specification, see MPEP § 1411.

The order of arrangement of specification elements as set forth in 37 CFR 1.77(b) is preferable (e.g., not required) in framing the nonprovisional specification and each of the items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as section headings. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading. It is recommended that provisional applications follow the same general format, although claims are not required. If an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76) is used, data supplied in the application data sheet need not be provided elsewhere in the application except that for applications filed before September 16, 2012, the citizenship of each inventor must be provided in the oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 even if this information is provided in the application data sheet.

For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, if there is a discrepancy between the information submitted in an application data sheet and the information submitted elsewhere in the application, the application data sheet will control except for the naming of inventors. The naming of the inventorship is governed by 37 CFR 1.41, and changes to inventorship or the names of inventors is governed by 37 CFR 1.48. In addition, for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the most recent application data sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 will govern with respect to foreign priority claims or domestic benefit claims. See 37 CFR 1.76(d) and MPEP § 601.05(a).

For applications filed before September 16, 2012, if there is a discrepancy between the information submitted in an application data sheet and the information submitted elsewhere in the application, the application data sheet will control except for the naming of the inventors and the citizenship of the inventors. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76(d) and MPEP § 601.05(b).

Applicant (typically a pro se) may be advised of the proper arrangement by using Form Paragraph 6.01 or 6.02.

608.01(b) Abstract of the Disclosure [R-01.2024]

The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will review all applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for compliance with 37 CFR 1.72 and will require an abstract, if one has not been filed. In all other applications which lack an abstract, the examiner in the first Office action should require the submission of an abstract directed to the technical disclosure in the specification. See Form Paragraph 6.12 (below). Applicants may use either “Abstract” or “Abstract of the Disclosure” as a heading.

If the abstract contained in the application does not comply with the guidelines, the examiner should point out the defect to the applicant in the first Office action, or at the earliest point in the prosecution that the defect is noted, and require compliance with the guidelines. Since the abstract of the disclosure has been interpreted to be a part of the specification for the purpose of compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678-79, 185 USPQ 152, 154 (CCPA 1975)), it would ordinarily be preferable that the applicant make the necessary changes to the abstract to bring it into compliance with the guidelines. See Form Paragraphs 6.13-6.16 (below).

Replies to such actions requiring either a new abstract or amendment to bring the abstract into compliance with the guidelines should be treated under 37 CFR 1.111(b) practice like any other formal matter. Any submission of a new abstract or amendment to an existing abstract should be carefully reviewed for introduction of new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132, MPEP § 608.04. The abstract will be printed on the patent.

Upon passing the application to issue, the examiner should make certain that the abstract is an adequate and clear statement of the contents of the disclosure and generally in line with the guidelines. If the application is otherwise in condition for allowance except that the abstract does not comply with the guidelines, the examiner generally should make any necessary revisions by a formal examiner’s amendment after obtaining applicant’s authorization (see MPEP § 1302.04) rather than issuing an Ex parteQuayle action requiring applicant to make the necessary revisions.

The Rules of Practice in Patent Cases require that each application for patent include an abstract of the disclosure, 37 CFR 1.72(b).

The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.

A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.

If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure.

If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement.

Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be included in the abstract.

With regard particularly to chemical patents, for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as the use thereof, e.g., “The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas, useful as oral anti-diabetics.” Exemplification of a species could be illustrative of members of the class. For processes, the type of reaction, reagents and process conditions should be stated, generally illustrated by a single example unless variations are necessary.

The abstract must commence on a separate sheet, preferably following the claims, under the heading “Abstract” or “Abstract of the Disclosure.” The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. Form paragraph 6.16.01 (below) may be used if the abstract does not commence on a separate sheet. Note that the abstract for a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 may be found on the front page of the Patent Cooperation Treaty publication (i.e., pamphlet). See MPEP § 1893.03(e).

The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should not exceed 15 lines of text. Abstracts exceeding 15 lines of text or 150 words should be checked to see that they are as concise as the disclosure permits. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract should sufficiently describe the disclosure to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.

The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “This disclosure describes,” etc.

Preparation of the abstract is the responsibility of the applicant. Background knowledge of the art and an appreciation of the applicant’s contribution to the art are most important in the preparation of the abstract. The review of the abstract for compliance with these guidelines is the responsibility of the examiner. Any necessary amendment to the abstract at the time of allowance or a printer query must be made either by the applicant or by the examiner with applicant’s approval. See MPEP § 1302.04.

608.01(c) Background of the Invention [R-07.2022]

The Background of the Invention may (but is not required to) include the following parts:

(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) definitions. The statement should be directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention.

(2) Description of the related art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A paragraph(s) describing to the extent practical the state of the prior art or other information disclosed known to the applicant, including references to specific prior art or other information where appropriate. Where applicable, the problems involved in the prior art or other information disclosed which are solved by the applicant’s invention should be indicated. See also MPEP § 608.01(a), § 608.01(p) and § 707.05(b).

608.01(d) Brief Summary of Invention [R-07.2015]

Since the purpose of the brief summary of invention is to apprise the public, and more especially those interested in the particular art to which the invention relates, of the nature of the invention, the summary should be directed to the specific invention being claimed, in contradistinction to mere generalities which would be equally applicable to numerous preceding patents. That is, the subject matter of the invention should be described in one or more clear, concise sentences or paragraphs.

The brief summary, if properly written to set out the exact nature, operation, and purpose of the invention, will be of material assistance in aiding ready understanding of the patent in future searches. The brief summary should be more than a mere statement of the objects of the invention, which statement is also permissible under 37 CFR 1.73.

The brief summary of invention should be consistent with the subject matter of the claims. Note final review of application and preparation for issue, MPEP § 1302.

608.01(e) [Reserved]

608.01(f) Brief Description of Drawings [R-01.2024]

The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will review the specification, including the brief description, to determine whether all of the figures of drawings described in the specification are present. If the specification describes a figure which is not present in the drawings or lacks any drawings, and if the application, other than a design application, is filed on or after December 18, 2013, the application will be treated as an application filed without all figures of drawings in accordance with MPEP § 601.01(g). If the application is filed prior to December 18, 2013 or is a design application and lacks any drawings, the application will be treated as an application filed without drawings in accordance with MPEP § 601.01(f).

The examiner should see to it that the figures are correctly described in the brief description of the drawing, that all section lines used are referred to, and that all needed section lines are used. If the drawings show Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C and the brief description of the drawings refers only to Figure 1, the examiner should object to the brief description, and require applicant to provide a brief description of Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C.

The specification must contain or be amended to contain proper reference to the existence of drawings executed in color as required by 37 CFR 1.84.

608.01(g) Detailed Description of Invention [R-10.2019]

A detailed description of the invention and drawings follows the general statement of invention and brief description of the drawings. This detailed description, required by 37 CFR 1.71, MPEP §§ 608.01, 2161, and 2162, must be in such particularity as to enable any person skilled in the pertinent art or science to make and use the invention without involving extensive experimentation and must clearly convey enough information about the invention to show that applicant invented the subject matter that is claimed. An applicant is ordinarily permitted to use his or her own terminology, as long as it can be understood. Necessary grammatical corrections, however, should be required by the examiner, but it must be remembered that an examination is not made for the purpose of securing grammatical perfection.

The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.

The description is a dictionary for the claims and should provide clear support or antecedent basis for all terms used in the claims. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i), § 608.01(o), and § 1302.01, and § 2111.01.

For completeness of the specification, see MPEP § 608.01(p).

608.01(h) Mode of Operation of Invention [R-11.2013]

The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his or her invention must be set forth in the description. See 35 U.S.C. 112. There is no statutory requirement for the disclosure of a specific example. A patent specification is not intended nor required to be a production specification. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1536, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 135 USPQ 311 (CCPA 1962). The absence of a specific working example is not necessarily evidence that the best mode has not been disclosed, nor is the presence of one evidence that it has. In re Honn, 364 F.2d 454, 150 USPQ 652 (CCPA 1966). In determining the adequacy of a best mode disclosure, only evidence of concealment (accidental or intentional) is to be considered. That evidence must tend to show that the quality of an applicant’s best mode disclosure is so poor as to effectively result in concealment. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1536, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Sherwood, 613 F.2d 809, 204 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1980).

The question of whether an inventor has or has not disclosed what he or she feels is his or her best mode is a question separate and distinct from the question of sufficiency of the disclosure. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1532, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228, 181 USPQ 31 (CCPA 1974); In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 135 USPQ 311 (CCPA 1962). See 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.71(b).

If the best mode contemplated by the inventor at the time of filing the application is not disclosed, such defect cannot be cured by submitting an amendment seeking to put into the specification something required to be there when the application was originally filed. In re Hay, 534 F.2d 917, 189 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1976). Any proposed amendment of this type should be treated as new matter.

For completeness, see MPEP § 608.01(p). For a discussion of the best mode requirement see MPEP § 2165 to § 2165.04.

608.01(i) Claims [R-08.2012]

For numbering of claims, see MPEP § 608.01(j).

For form of claims, see MPEP § 608.01(m).

For dependent claims, see MPEP § 608.01(n).

For examination of claims, see MPEP § 706.

For claims in excess of fee, see MPEP § 714.10.

608.01(j) Numbering of Claims [R-08.2012]

In a single claim case, the claim is not numbered.

Form paragraph 6.17 may be used to notify applicant.

608.01(k) Statutory Requirement of Claims [R-10.2019]

35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the specification shall particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as his or her invention. The portion of the application in which this is done forms the claim or claims. This is an important part of the application, as it is the definition of that for which protection is granted.

608.01(l) Claims Present on the Application Filing Date [R-10.2019]

In establishing a disclosure, applicant may rely not only on the description and drawing as filed but also on the claims present on the filing date of the application if their content justifies it.

Where subject matter not shown in the drawing or described in the description is claimed in the application as filed, and such claim itself constitutes a clear disclosure of this subject matter, then the claim should be treated on its merits, and requirement made to amend the drawing and description to show this subject matter. The claim should not be objected to or rejected because this subject matter is lacking in the drawing and description. It is the drawing and description that are defective, not the claim.

It is, of course, to be understood that this disclosure in the claim must be sufficiently specific and detailed to support the necessary amendment of the drawing and description.

On the other hand, when the subject matter is not shown in the drawing or described in the description, the words of the original claim must sufficiently describe the invention so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention. If the claim does not provide its own description in this case, the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to be supported by an adequate written description.

608.01(m) Form of Claims [R-10.2019]

The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with “I (or we) claim,” “The invention claimed is” (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).

There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. In general, the printed patent copies will follow the format used but printing difficulties or expense may prevent the duplication of unduly complex claim formats.

Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.

Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept.

Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. Where separate species are claimed, the claims of like species should be grouped together where possible. Similarly, product and process claims should be separately grouped. Such arrangements are for the purpose of facilitating classification and examination.

When two claims in an application comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) but are duplicates, or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other claim under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. Note however, that court decisions have confirmed applicant’s right to restate (i.e., by plural claiming) the invention in a reasonable number of ways. Indeed, a mere difference in scope between claims has been held to be enough. Form paragraphs 7.05.05 and 7.05.06 may be used where duplicate claims are present in an application.

See MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection II, for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of dependent claims that do not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. See MPEP § 804 for double patenting rejections of claims in different applications that are not patentable over each other.

The form of claim required in 37 CFR 1.75(e) is particularly adapted for the description of improvement-type inventions. It is to be considered a combination claim. The preamble of this form of claim is considered to positively and clearly include all the elements or steps recited therein as a part of the claimed combination.

The following form paragraphs may be used to object to the form of the claims.

Amendments to the claims must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c).

608.01(n) Dependent Claims [R-01.2024]

Generally, a multiple dependent claim is a dependent claim which refers back in the alternative to more than one preceding independent or dependent claim.

35 U.S.C. 112(e), authorizes multiple dependent claims in applications as long as they are in the alternative form (e.g., “A machine according to claims 3 or 4, further comprising ---”). Cumulative claiming (e.g., “A machine according to claims 3 and 4, further comprising ---”) is not permitted. A multiple dependent claim may refer in the alternative to only one set of claims. A claim such as “A device as in claims 1, 2, 3, or 4, made by a process of claims 5, 6, 7, or 8” is improper. 35 U.S.C. 112 allows reference to only a particular claim. Furthermore, a multiple dependent claim may not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly. These limitations help to avoid undue confusion in determining how many prior claims are actually referred to in a multiple dependent claim.

35 U.S.C. 112 indicates that the limitations or elements of each claim incorporated by reference into a multiple dependent claim must be considered separately. Thus, a multiple dependent claim, as such, does not contain all the limitations of all the alternative claims to which it refers, but rather contains in any one embodiment only those limitations of the particular claim referred to for the embodiment under consideration. Hence, a multiple dependent claim must be considered in the same manner as a plurality of single dependent claims. See Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings Pty Ltd., IPR2020-01234, Paper 42 (Feb. 24, 2023).

A multiple dependent claim which depends from another multiple dependent claim should be objected to by using form paragraph 7.45.

Assume each claim example given below is from a different application.

Claim 5. A gadget according to claims 3 or 4, further comprising ---

Claim 5. A gadget as in any one of the preceding claims, in which ---

Claim 5. A gadget as in any one of claims 1, 2, and 3, in which ---

Claim 3. A gadget as in either claim 1 or claim 2, further comprising ---

Claim 4. A gadget as in claim 2 or 3, further comprising ---

Claim 16. A gadget as in claims 1, 7, 12, or 15, further comprising ---

Claim 5. A gadget as in any of the preceding claims, in which ---

Claim 8. A gadget as in one of claims 4-7, in which ---

Claim 5. A gadget as in any preceding claim, in which ---

Claim 10. A gadget as in any of claims 1-3 or 7-9, in which ---

Claim 11. A gadget as in any one of claims 1, 2, or 7-10 inclusive, in which ---

Claim 5. A gadget according to claim 3 and 4, further comprising ---

Claim 9. A gadget according to claims 1-3, in which ---

Claim 9. A gadget as in claims 1 or 2 and 7 or 8, which ---

Claim 6. A gadget as in the preceding claims in which ---

Claim 6. A gadget as in claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and/or 5, in which ---

Claim 10. A gadget as in claims 1-3 or 7-9, in which ---

Claim 3. A gadget as in any of the following claims, in which ---

Claim 5. A gadget as in either claim 6 or claim 8, in which ---

Claim 9. A gadget as in claim 1 or 4 made by the process of claims 5, 6, 7, or 8, in which ---

Claim 8. A gadget as in claim 5 (claim 5 is a multiple dependent claim) or claim 7, in which ---

For restriction purposes, each embodiment of a multiple dependent claim is considered in the same manner as a single dependent claim. Therefore, restriction may be required between the embodiments of a multiple dependent claim. Also, some embodiments of a multiple dependent claim may be held withdrawn while other embodiments are considered on their merits.

The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) is responsible for verifying whether multiple dependent claims filed with the application are in proper alternative form, that they depend only upon prior independent or single dependent claims and also for calculating the amount of the filing fee. Form PTO/SB/07 has been designed to be used in conjunction with the current fee calculation form PTO/SB/06.

The Technology Center (TC) technical support staff is responsible for verifying compliance with the statute and rules of multiple dependent claims added by amendment and for calculating the amount of any additional fees required. This calculation should be performed on form PTO/SB/07.

There is no need for a TC technical support staff to check the accuracy of the initial filing fee since this has already been verified by the Office of Patent Application Processing.

If a multiple dependent claim (or claims) is added in an amendment without the proper fee, either by adding references to prior claims or by adding a new multiple dependent claim, the amendment should not be entered until the fee has been received. In view of the requirements for multiple dependent claims, no amendment containing new claims or changing the dependency of claims should be entered before checking whether the paid fees cover the costs of the amended claims. The applicant, or the applicant's attorney or agent, should be contacted to pay the additional fee. Where a letter is written in an insufficient fee situation, a copy of the multiple dependent claim fee calculation, form PTO/SB/07 should be included for applicant’s information.

Where the TC technical support staff notes that the reference to the prior claims is improper in an added or amended multiple dependent claim, a notation should be made in the left margin next to the claim itself and the number 1, which is inserted in the “Dep. Claim” column of that amendment on form PTO/SB/07 should be circled in order to call this matter to the examiner’s attention.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c), a claim in dependent form must refer only to a claim or claims previously set forth. The following procedures are to be followed by examiners when faced with claims which refer to numerically succeeding claims:

If any series of dependent claims contains a claim with an improper reference to a numerically following claim which cannot be understood, the claim referring to a following claim should normally be objected to and not treated on the merits. (See Example A, below.)

However, in situations where a claim refers to a numerically following claim and the dependency is clear, both as presented and as it will be renumbered at issue, all claims should be examined on the merits and no objection as to form need be made. In such cases, an examiner’s amendment should be prepared if the order of the claims is changed. (See Example B, below.)

Any unusual problems should be brought to the supervisor’s attention.

The following practice is followed by patent examiners when making reference to a dependent claim either singular or multiple:

• (A) When identifying a singular dependent claim which does not include a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, reference should be made only to the number of the dependent claim.
• (B) When identifying the embodiments included within a multiple dependent claim, or a singular dependent claim which includes a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, each embodiment should be identified by using the number of the claims involved, starting with the highest, to the extent necessary to specifically identify each embodiment.
• (C) When all embodiments included within a multiple dependent claim or a singular dependent claim which includes a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, are subject to a common rejection, objection, or requirement, reference may be made only to the number of the dependent claim.

The following table illustrates the current practice where each embodiment of each claim must be treated on an individual basis:

When all embodiments in a multiple dependent claim situation (claims 4, 6, and 7 above) are subject to a common rejection, objection, or requirements, reference may be made to the number of the individual dependent claim only. For example, if 4/2 and 4/3 were subject to a common ground of rejection, reference should be made only to claim 4 in the statement of that rejection.

The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 132 require that each Office action make it explicitly clear what rejection, objection and/or requirement is applied to each claim embodiment.

To assist in the computation of the fees for multiple dependent claims, a separate “Multiple Dependent Claim Fee Calculation Sheet,” form PTO/SB/07 has been designed for use with the current “Patent Application Fee Determination Record,” form PTO/SB/06. Form PTO/SB/07 will be placed in the application file by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) where multiple dependent claims are in the application as filed or submitted in response to an OPAP notice requiring claims. If multiple dependent claims are not included upon filing or submitted in response to an OPAP notice requiring claims, but are later added by amendment, the TC technical support staff will place the form in the application file. If there are multiple dependent claims in the application, the total number of independent and dependent claims for fee purposes will be calculated on form PTO/SB/07 and the total number of claims and number of independent claims is then placed on form PTO/SB/06 for final fee calculation purposes.

35 U.S.C. 41(a), provides that claims in proper multiple dependent form may not be considered as single dependent claims for the purpose of calculating fees. Thus, a multiple dependent claim is considered to be that number of dependent claims to which it refers. Any proper claim depending directly or indirectly from a multiple dependent claim is also considered as the number of dependent claims as referred to in the multiple dependent claim from which it depends.

If none of the multiple dependent claims is proper, the multiple dependent claim fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(j) will not be required. However, the multiple dependent claim fee is required if at least one multiple dependent claim is proper.

If any multiple dependent claim is improper, OPAP may indicate that fact by placing an encircled numeral “1” in the “Dep. Claims” column of form PTO/SB/07. The fee for any improper multiple dependent claim, whether it is defective for either not being in the alternative form or for being directly or indirectly dependent on a prior multiple dependent claim, will only be one, since only an objection to the form of such a claim will normally be made. This procedure also greatly simplifies the calculation of fees. Any claim depending from an improper multiple dependent claim will also be considered to be improper and be counted as one dependent claim.

Claim 1 — This is an independent claim; therefore, a numeral “1” is placed opposite claim number 1 in the “Ind.” column.

Claim 2 — Since this is a claim dependent on a single independent claim, a numeral “1” is placed opposite claim number 2 of the “Dep.” column.

Claim 3— Claim 3 is also a single dependent claim, so a numeral “1” is placed in the “Dep.” column.

Claim 4 — Claim 4 is a proper multiple dependent claim. It refers directly to two claims in the alternative, namely, claim 2 or 3. Therefore, a numeral “2” to indicate direct reference to two claims is placed in the “Dep.” column opposite claim number 4.

Claim 5 — This claim is a singularly dependent claim depending from a multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes, such a claim is counted as being that number of claims to which direct reference is made in the multiple dependent claim from which it depends. In this case, the multiple dependent claim number 4 it depends from counts as 2 claims; therefore, claim 5 also counts as 2 claims. Accordingly, a numeral “2” is placed opposite claim number 5 in the “Dep.” column.

Claim 6 — Claim 6 depends indirectly from a multiple dependent claim 4. Since claim 4 counts as 2 claims, claim 6 also counts as 2 dependent claims. Consequently, a numeral “2” is placed in the “Dep.” column after claim 6.

Claim 7 — This claim is a multiple dependent claim since it refers to claims 4, 5, or 6. However, as can be seen by looking at the “2” in the “Dep.” column opposite claim 4, claim 7 depends from a multiple dependent claim. This practice is improper under 35 U.S.C.112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c). Following the procedure for calculating fees for improper multiple dependent claims, a numeral “1” is placed in the “Dep.” column with a circle drawn around it to alert the examiner that the claim is improper.

Claim 8 — Claim 8 is improper since it depends from an improper claim. If the base claim is in error, this error cannot be corrected by adding additional claims depending therefrom. Therefore, a numeral “1” with a circle around it is placed in the “Dep.” column.

Claim 9 — Here again we have an independent claim which is always indicated with a numeral “1” in the “Ind.” column opposite the claim number.

Claim 10 — This claim refers to two independent claims in the alternative. A numeral “2” is, therefore, placed in the “Dep.” column opposite claim 10.

Claim 11 — Claim 11 is a dependent claim which refers to two claims in the conjunctive (“1” and “9”) rather than in the alternative (“1” or “9”). This form is improper under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c). Accordingly, since claim 11 is improper, an encircled number “1” is placed in the “Dep.” column opposite Claim 11.

After the number of “Ind.” and “Dep.” claims are noted on form PTO/SB/07, each column is added. In this example, there are 2 independent claims and 13 dependent claims or a total of 15 claims. The number of independent and total claims can then be placed on form PTO/SB/06 and the fee calculated.

The initial determination, for fee purposes, as to whether a claim is dependent must be made by persons other than examiners; it is necessary, at that time, to accept as dependent virtually every claim which refers to another claim, without determining whether there is actually a true dependent relationship. The initial acceptance of a claim as a dependent claim does not, however, preclude a subsequent holding by the examiner that a claim is not a proper dependent claim.

In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain:

• (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and
• (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.

A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

Following the statute, the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. For example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. A dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) simply because there is a question as to the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim.

The fact that a dependent claim, which is otherwise proper might relate to a separate invention that would require a separate search or be separately classified from the claim on which it depends would not render it an improper dependent claim.

The fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. Thus, if claim 1 recites a specific product, a claim for the method of making the product of claim 1 in a particular manner would be a proper dependent claim since it further specifies limitations relating to the method of making the product of claim 1. Similarly, if claim 1 recites a method of making a product, a claim for a product made by the method of claim 1 could be a proper dependent claim. On the other hand, if claim 1 recites a method of making a specified product, a claim to the product set forth in claim 1 would not be a proper dependent claim if the product can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim, and thus, does not include the limitations of the base claim.

Examiners are reminded that a dependent claim is directed to a combination including everything recited in the base claim and what is recited in the dependent claim. It is this combination that must be compared with the prior art, exactly as if it were presented as one independent claim.

When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, and include all the limitations of the previous claim. If the dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the examiner should reject the dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph (now 35 U.S.C. 112(d))). Although the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are related to matters of form, non-compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) renders the claim unpatentable just as non-compliance with other paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112 would. For example, a dependent claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) if it omits an element from the claim upon which it depends or it fails to add a limitation to the claim upon which it depends.

Claims which are in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim, or for not including every limitation of the claim from which it depends, should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph by using form paragraphs 7.36 and 7.36.01.

A singular dependent claim 2 could read as follows:

2. The product of claim 1 in which . . . .

A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.

A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated therefrom by any claim which does not also depend from said “dependent claim.” It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer back to any preceding independent claim. These are the only restrictions with respect to the sequence of claims and, in general, applicant’s sequence should not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(j). Applicant may be so advised by using form paragraph 6.18.

During prosecution, the order of claims may change and be in conflict with the requirement that dependent claims refer to a preceding claim. Accordingly, the numbering of dependent claims and the numbers of preceding claims referred to in dependent claims should be carefully checked when claims are renumbered upon allowance.

If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete. If the base claim is rejected, the dependent claim should be objected to rather than rejected, if it is otherwise allowable.

Form paragraph 7.43 can be used to state the objection.

608.01(o) Basis for Claim Terminology in Description [R-07.2015]

The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).

Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.

New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.

The specification should be objected to if it does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claims by using form paragraph 7.44.

608.01(p) Completeness of Specification [R-07.2022]

Newly filed applications obviously failing to disclose an invention with the clarity required are discussed in MPEP § 702.01.

The contents of an application, to be complete, must include a specification containing a written description of the invention using such description and details as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention pertains to make and use the invention as of its filing date. See 35 U.S.C. 112. At least one specific operative embodiment or example of the invention must be set forth. The example(s) and description should be of sufficient scope as to justify the scope of the claims.

For the written description requirement, an applicant’s specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as of the date of invention. See MPEP § 2163et seq. for further guidance with respect to the evaluation of a patent application for compliance with the written description requirement.

An applicant’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The fact that experimentation is complex, however, will not make it undue if a person of skill in the art typically engages in such complex experimentation. See MPEP § 2164et seq. for detailed guidance with regard to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.

See also MPEP § 2161.01 regarding computer programming and 35 U.S.C. 112; and MPEP § 2181 and § 2185 regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 in the context of functional claims.

The specification should include a statement which identifies a specific and substantial credible utility for the claimed invention. This usually presents no problem in mechanical or electrical cases. Questions regarding compliance with the utility requirement arise more often in biotechnological or chemical cases.

For “Guidelines For Examination Of Applications For Compliance With The Utility Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101,” see MPEP § 2107.

For “General Principles Governing Utility Rejections,” see MPEP § 2107.01.

For a discussion of the utility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in drug cases, see MPEP § 2107.03 and § 2164.06(a).

For “Procedural Considerations Related to Rejections for Lack of Utility,” see MPEP § 2107.02.

For “Special Considerations for Asserted Therapeutic or Pharmacological Utilities,” see MPEP § 2107.03.

The Director has considerable discretion in determining what may or may not be incorporated by reference in a patent application. General Electric Co. v. Brenner, 407 F.2d 1258, 159 USPQ 335 (D.C. Cir. 1968). In 2004, the Office codified in 37 CFR 1.57(b) – (g) existing practice with respect to explicit incorporations by reference with a few changes to reflect the eighteen-month publication of applications. In addition, in 2004, 37 CFR 1.57(a) was added to provide a safeguard for applicants when a page(s) of the specification, or a portion thereof, or a sheet(s) of the drawing(s), or a portion thereof, is inadvertently omitted from an application, such as through a clerical error. In 2013, the Office moved the provisions of former 37 CFR 1.57(a) to 37 CFR 1.57(b) in order to provide for reference filing in 37 CFR 1.57(a), which is a new procedure provided by the implementation of section 201(a) of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) (Public Law 112-211). 37 CFR 1.57(b) permits inadvertently omitted material to be added to the application by way of a later filed amendment if the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in a prior-filed application (for which priority/benefit is claimed) even though there is no explicit incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application. See MPEP § 217 for discussion regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b).

As mentioned above, 37 CFR 1.57 was revised, effective December 18, 2013, to implement the reference filing provisions in title II of the PLTIA, which amended the patent laws in accordance with the Patent Law Treaty. As provided in 35 U.S.C. 111(c), as amended by the PLTIA, a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013, may be filed by a reference to a previously filed application (foreign, international, provisional, or nonprovisional) indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application. See MPEP § 601.01(a), subsection III, for information on the conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, under which a reference made upon the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to a previously filed application shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the subsequent application for purposes of a filing date.

The incorporation by reference practice with respect to applications which issue as U.S. patents provides the public with a patent disclosure which minimizes the public’s burden to search for and obtain copies of documents incorporated by reference which may not be readily available. Through the Office’s incorporation by reference policy, the Office ensures that reasonably complete disclosures are published as U.S. patents. The following is the manner in which the Director has elected to exercise that discretion. Section A provides the guidance for incorporation by reference in applications which are to issue as U.S. patents. Section B provides guidance for incorporation by reference in benefit applications; i.e., those domestic (35 U.S.C. 120) or foreign (35 U.S.C. 119(a)) applications relied on to establish an earlier effective filing date. See MPEP § 2181 for the impact of incorporation by reference on the determination of whether applicant has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.

An application as filed must be complete in itself in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112. Material nevertheless may be incorporated by reference. An application for a patent when filed may incorporate “essential material” by reference to (1) a U.S. patent, or (2) a U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. See 37 CFR 1.57(d).

“Essential material” is defined in 37 CFR 1.57(d) as that which is necessary to (1) provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a); (2) describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b); or (3) describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In any application that is to issue as a U.S. patent, essential material may only be incorporated by reference to a U.S. patent or patent application publication.

Other material (“nonessential subject matter”) may be incorporated by reference to (1) patents or applications published by the United States or foreign countries or regional patent offices, (2) prior and concurrently filed, commonly owned U.S. applications, or (3) non-patent publications. Nonessential subject matter is subject matter referred to for purposes of indicating the background of the invention or illustrating the state of the art. See 37 CFR 1.57(e).

An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.57(e) and MPEP § 608.01.

Mere reference to another application, patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything therein into the application containing such reference for the purpose of the disclosure required by 35 U.S.C. 112. In re de Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 177 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1973). 37 CFR 1.57(c)(1) limits a proper incorporation by reference (except as provided in 37 CFR 1.57(b)) to instances only where the perfecting words “incorporated by reference” or the root of the words “incorporate” (e.g., incorporating, incorporated) and “reference” (e.g., referencing) appear. The requirement for specific root words will bring greater clarity to the record and provide a bright line test as to where something is being referred to is an incorporation by reference. The Office intends to treat references to documents that do not meet this “bright line” test as noncompliant incorporations by reference and may require correction pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(h). If a reference to a document does not clearly indicate an intended incorporation by reference, examination will proceed as if no incorporation by reference statement has been made and the Office will not expend resources trying to determine if an incorporation by reference was intended. In addition to other requirements for an application, the referencing application must include an identification of the referenced patent, application, or publication. See 37 CFR 1.57(c)(2). Particular attention should be directed to specific portions of the referenced document where the subject matter being incorporated may be found. Guidelines for situations where applicant is permitted to fill in a number for Application No. __________ left blank in the application as filed can be found in In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971) (Abandoned applications less than 20 years old can be incorporated by reference to the same extent as copending applications; both types are open to the public upon the referencing application issuing as a patent.). See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(i), (iv), and (vi), and MPEP § 103.

If an application is filed with a complete disclosure, essential material may be canceled by amendment and may be substituted by reference to a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement signed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material canceled from the application is the same material that has been incorporated by reference and no new matter has been included (see 37 CFR 1.57(g)). The same procedure is available for nonessential material.

If an application as filed incorporates material by reference, a copy of the incorporated by reference material may be required to be submitted to the Office even if the material is properly incorporated by reference. The examiner may require a copy of the incorporated material to review and to understand what is being incorporated or to put the description of the material in its proper context. Another instance where a copy of the incorporated material may be required is where the material is being inserted by amendment into the body of the application to replace an improper incorporation by reference statement so that the Office can determine that the material being added by amendment in lieu of the incorporation is the same material as was attempted to be incorporated. If the Office requires the applicant to supply a copy of the material incorporated by reference, the material must be accompanied by a statement that the copy supplied consists of the same material incorporated by reference in the referencing application. See 37 CFR 1.57(f).

37 CFR 1.57(g) addresses corrections of incorporation by reference by inserting the material previously incorporated by reference. A noncompliant incorporation by reference statement may be corrected by an amendment. 37 CFR 1.57(g). However, the amendment must not include new matter. Incorporating by reference material that was not incorporated by reference on filing of an application may introduce new matter. An incorporation by reference of essential material to an unpublished U.S. patent application, a foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper under 37 CFR 1.57(d). The improper incorporation by reference is not effective to incorporate the material unless corrected by the applicant (37 CFR 1.57(h)). Any underlying objection or rejection (e.g., under 35 U.S.C. 112) should be made by the examiner until applicant corrects the improper incorporation by reference by submitting an amendment to amend the specification or drawings to include the material incorporated by reference. A statement that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter is also required. 37 CFR 1.57(g). See also In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 569, 179 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1973); In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 579, 179 USPQ 163 (CCPA 1973); In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 577, 179 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1973). Improper incorporation by reference statements and late corrections thereof require expenditure of unnecessary examination resources and slow the prosecution process. Applicants know (or should know) whether they want material incorporated by reference, and must timely correct any incorporation by reference errors. Correction must be done within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.57(h).

An incorporation by reference that does not comply with 37 CFR 1.57(c), (d), or (e) is not effective to incorporate such material unless corrected within any time period set by the Office (should the noncompliant incorporation by reference be first noticed by the Office and applicant informed thereof), but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by 37 CFR 1.114(b) (should applicant be the first to notice the noncompliant incorporation by reference and the Office informed thereof), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The phrase “or abandonment of the application” is included in 37 CFR 1.57(h) to address the situations where an application is abandoned prior to the close of prosecution, e.g., the situation where an application is abandoned after a non-final Office action.

37 CFR 1.57(h)(1) authorizes the correction of noncompliant incorporation by reference statements that do not use the root of the words “incorporate” and “reference” in the incorporation by reference statement when the application as filed clearly conveys an intent to incorporate the material by reference. This correction can usually be made, for example, when an originally filed claim of an application identifies an amino acid or nucleotide sequence by database accession number. In making the determination of clear intent the examiner should consider the language used in referencing the sequence, the context in which it is disclosed, and any additional arguments or evidence presented by applicants.

37 CFR 1.57(h)(2) states that a citation of a document can be corrected where the document is sufficiently described to uniquely identify the document. Correction of a citation for a document that cannot be identified as the incorporated document may be new matter and is not authorized by 37 CFR 1.57(h)(2). An example would be where applicant intended to incorporate a particular journal article but supplied the citation information for a completely unrelated book by a different author, and there is no other information to identify the correct journal article. Since it cannot be determined from the citation originally supplied what article was intended to be incorporated, it would be improper (e.g., new matter) to replace the original incorporation by reference with the intended incorporation by reference. A citation of a patent application by attorney docket number, inventor name, filing date and title of invention may sufficiently describe the document, but even then correction should be made to specify the application number.

A petition under 37 CFR 1.183 to suspend the time period requirement set forth in 37 CFR 1.57(h) will not be appropriate. After the application has been abandoned, applicant must file a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 for the purpose of correcting the incorporation by reference. After the application has issued as a patent, applicant may correct the patent by filing a reissue application. Correcting an improper incorporation by reference with a certificate of correction is not an appropriate means of correction because it may alter the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims may be altered because 37 CFR 1.57(h) provides that an incorporation by reference that does not comply with paragraph (c), (d), or (e) is not an effective incorporation. For example, an equivalent means omitted from a patent disclosure by an ineffective incorporation by reference would be outside the scope of the patented claims. Hence, a correction of an incorporation by reference pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57 may alter the scope of the claims by adding the omitted equivalent means. Changes involving the scope of the claims should be done via the reissue process. Additionally, the availability of the reissue process for corrections would make a successful showing required under 37 CFR 1.183 unlikely. The following examples show when an improper incorporation by reference is required to be corrected:

The filing date of any application wherein essential material is improperly incorporated by reference will not be affected by applicant’s correction where (A) there is a clear intent to incorporate by reference the intended material and the correction is to add the root words of “incorporate” and “reference,” (B) the incorporated document can be uniquely identified and the correction is to clarify the document’s identification, and (C) where the correction is to insert the material from the reference where incorporation is to an unpublished U.S. patent application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication.

Reliance on a commonly assigned, prior filed or concurrently filed copending application by a different inventor may ordinarily be made for the purpose of completing the disclosure provided the incorporated material is directed to nonessential material. See 37 CFR 1.57(e). See In re Fried, 329 F.2d 323, 141 USPQ 27 (CCPA 1964), and General Electric Co. v. Brenner, 407 F.2d 1258, 159 USPQ 335 (D.C. Cir. 1968).

Since a disclosure must be complete as of the filing date, subsequent publications or subsequently filed applications cannot be relied on to establish a constructive reduction to practice or an enabling disclosure as of the filing date. White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc., 713 F.2d 788, 218 USPQ 961 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974); In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228, 181 USPQ 31 (CCPA 1974).

The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).

The reason for incorporation by reference practice with respect to applications which are to issue as U.S. patents is to provide the public with a patent disclosure which minimizes the public’s burden to search for and obtain copies of documents incorporated by reference which may not be readily available. Through the Office’s incorporation by reference policy, the Office ensures that reasonably complete disclosures are published as U.S. patents. The same policy concern does not apply where the sole purpose for which an applicant relies on an earlier U.S. or foreign application is to establish an earlier filing date. Incorporation by reference in the earlier application of (1) patents or applications published by foreign countries or regional patent offices, (2) nonpatent publications, (3) a U.S. patent or application which itself incorporates “essential material” by reference, or (4) a foreign application, is not critical in the case of a “benefit” application.

When an applicant, or a patent owner in a reexamination or interference, claims the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application which incorporates material by reference, the applicant or patent owner may be required to supply copies of the material incorporated by reference. For example, an applicant may claim the benefit of the filing date of a foreign application which itself incorporates by reference another earlier filed foreign application. If necessary, due to an intervening reference, applicant should be required to supply a copy of the earlier filed foreign application, along with an English language translation. A review can then be made of the foreign application and all material incorporated by reference to determine whether the foreign application discloses the invention sought to be patented in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) so that benefit may be accorded. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

As a safeguard against the omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, applicant may include a statement at the time of filing of the later application incorporating by reference the prior application. See MPEP § 201.06(c) and 211et seq. where domestic benefit is claimed. See MPEP §§ 213 - 216 where foreign priority is claimed. See MPEP § 217 regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b). The inclusion of such an incorporation by reference statement in the later-filed application will permit applicant to include subject matter from the prior application into the later-filed application without the subject matter being considered as new matter. For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). Although, as discussed above, an incorporation by reference statement can be used as a safeguard against an omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, it should be noted that an incorporation by reference statement will not satisfy the specific reference requirement of 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 or 37 CFR 1.78. See Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, 887 F.3d 1309, 126 USPQ2d 317 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Simulated or predicted test results and prophetical examples (paper examples) are permitted in patent applications. Working examples correspond to work actually performed and may describe tests which have actually been conducted and results that were achieved. Paper examples describe the manner and process of making an embodiment of the invention which has not actually been conducted. Paper examples should not be represented as work actually done. No results should be represented as actual results unless they have actually been achieved. Paper examples should not be described using the past tense. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Promega Corp., 323 F.3d 1354, 1367, 66 USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For further guidance, see “Properly Presenting Prophetic and Working Examples in a Patent Application,” 86 FR 35074 (July 1, 2021).

For problems arising from the designation of materials by trademarks and trade names, see MPEP § 608.01(v).

608.01(q) Substitute or Rewritten Specification [R-07.2015]

The specification is sometimes in such faulty English that a new specification is necessary; in such instances, a new specification should be required.

Form paragraph 6.28 may be used where the specification is in faulty English.

37 CFR 1.125(a) applies to a substitute specification required by the Office. If the number or nature of the amendments or the legibility of the application papers renders it difficult to consider the application, or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, the Office may require the entire specification, including the claims, or any part thereof be rewritten. Note that legibility includes ability to be photocopied and scanned so that suitable reprints can be made and papers can be electronically reproduced by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition. See MPEP § 608.01.

Form paragraph 6.28.01 may be used where the examiner, for reasons other than faulty English, requires a substitute specification.

37 CFR 1.125(b) applies to a substitute specification voluntarily filed by the applicant. Subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.312, a substitute specification, excluding claims, may be voluntarily filed by the applicant at any point up to the payment of the issue fee provided it is accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter. The Office will accept a substitute specification voluntarily filed by the applicant if the requirements of 37 CFR 1.125(b) are satisfied.

37 CFR 1.125(c) requires a substitute specification filed under 37 CFR 1.125(a) or (b) be submitted in clean form without markings. A marked-up copy of the substitute specification showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record must also be submitted. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown under 37 CFR 1.125(c). The paragraphs of any substitute specification, other than the claims, should be individually numbered in Arabic numerals (for example [0001]) so that any amendment to the specification may be made by replacement paragraph in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1).

A substitute specification filed under 37 CFR 1.125(b) must be accompanied by a statement indicating that no new matter was included. There is no obligation on the examiner to make a detailed comparison between the old and the new specifications for determining whether new matter has been added. If, however, an examiner becomes aware that new matter is present, an objection thereto should be made.

The filing of a substitute specification rather than amending the original application has the advantage for applicants of eliminating the need to prepare an amendment of the specification. The Office receives the advantage of saving the time needed to enter amendments in the specification and a reduction in the number of printing errors. A substitute specification is not permitted in a reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.125(d).

A substitute specification which complies with 37 CFR 1.125 should normally be entered. A substitute specification which is denied entry should be so marked.

Form paragraph 6.28.02 may be used to notify applicant that a substitute specification submitted under 37 CFR 1.125(b) has not been entered.

See MPEP § 714.20 regarding entry of amendments which include an unacceptable substitute specification.

For new matter in amendment, see MPEP § 608.04.

For application prepared for issue, see MPEP § 1302.02.

608.01(r) Derogatory Remarks About Prior Art in Specification [R-08.2012]

The applicant may refer to the general state of the art and the advance thereover made by his or her invention, but he or she is not permitted to make derogatory remarks concerning the inventions of others. Derogatory remarks are statements disparaging the products or processes of any particular person other than the applicant, or statements as to the merits or validity of applications or patents of another person. Mere comparisons with the prior art are not considered to be disparaging, per se.

608.01(s) Restoration of Canceled Matter [R-08.2012]

Canceled text in the specification can be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the previously canceled matter as a new insertion. 37 CFR 1.121(b)(4). A claim canceled by amendment (deleted in its entirety) may be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number. 37 CFR 1.121(c)(5). See MPEP § 714.

608.01(t) Use in Subsequent Application [R-10.2019]

No part of a specification can normally be transferred to another application. Similarly, drawings cannot normally be transferred to another application See MPEP § 608.02(i).

608.01(u) [Reserved]

608.01(v) Marks Used in Commerce and Trade Names [R-01.2024]

A mark as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1127 (i.e., trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark) or trade name may be used in a patent application to identify an article or product, service, or organization if:

• (A) its meaning is established by an accompanying definition in the specification which is sufficiently descriptive, enabling, precise and definite such that a claim including the mark or trade name complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, or
• (B) its meaning is well-known to one skilled in the relevant art and is satisfactorily defined in the literature.

See, e.g., United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d 1209, 1214 n.6, 37 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Condition (A) or (B) must be met at the time of filing of the complete application.

The relationship between a mark or trade name and the product, service, or organization it identifies is sometimes indefinite, uncertain, and arbitrary. For example, the formula or characteristics of a product may change from time to time and yet it may continue to be sold under the same mark or trade name. In patent specifications, the details of the product, service, or organization identified by a mark or trade name should be set forth in positive, exact, intelligible language, so that there will be no uncertainty as to what is meant. Arbitrary marks or trade names which are liable to mean different things at the pleasure of the owner do not constitute such language. Ex Parte Kattwinkle, 12 USPQ 11 (Bd. App. 1931).

If the product, service, or organization to which a mark refers is set forth in such language that its identity is clear, examiners are authorized to permit the use of the mark if it is distinguished from common descriptive nouns by capitalization. See subsection II, below. If a mark or trade name has a fixed and definite meaning, it constitutes sufficient identification unless some specific characteristic of the product, service, or organization is involved in the invention such that further description is necessary to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. In that event, as also in those cases where the mark or trade name has no fixed and definite meaning, identification by scientific or other explanatory language is necessary. See, e.g., United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F3d 1209, 1214 n.6, 37 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Gebauer-Fuelnegg, 121 F.2d 505, 50 USPQ 125 (CCPA 1941).

The matter of sufficiency of disclosure must be decided on an individual case-by-case basis. In re Metcalfe, 410 F.2d 1378, 161 USPQ 789 (CCPA 1969).

Where the identification of a mark or trade name is introduced by amendment, it must be restricted to the characteristics of the product, service, or organization known at the time the application was filed to avoid any question of new matter.

If proper identification of the product, service, or organization identified by a mark or a trade name is omitted from the specification and such identification is deemed necessary under the principles set forth above, the examiner should hold the disclosure insufficient and reject, on the ground of insufficient disclosure, any claims based on the identification of the product, service, or organization merely by mark or trade name. If, for example, a product cannot be otherwise defined, an amendment defining the process of its manufacture may be permitted unless such amendment would result in the introduction of new matter. Such amendments must be supported by satisfactory showings establishing that the specific nature or process of manufacture of the product as set forth in the amendment was known at the time of filing of the application.

Although the use of marks having definite meanings is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected. Marks should be identified by capitalizing each letter of the mark (in the case of word or letter marks) or otherwise indicating the description of the mark (in the case of marks in the form of a symbol or device or other nontextual form). Every effort should be made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as marks.

Examiners may conduct a search for registered marks by using Trademark Search which is available on the USPTO website to determine whether an apparent or identified mark in the patent application is a registered mark or to what particular goods a registered mark applies.

Form paragraph 6.20 may be used to inform applicant of the proprietary nature of marks used in commerce.

The examiner should not permit the use of language such as “the product X (a descriptive name) commonly known as Y (trade name or mark)” since such language does not bring out the fact that the latter is a trade name or mark. Language such as “the product X (a descriptive name) sold under the trademark Y” is permissible.

The use of a mark in the title of an application should be avoided as well as the use of a mark coupled with the word “type”, e.g., “Band-Aid type bandage.”

In the event that a registered mark is a “symbol or device” depicted in a drawing, either the brief description of the drawing or the detailed description of the drawing should specify that the “symbol or device” is a registered mark of Company X. The owner of a mark may be identified in the specification.

Technology Center Directors should reply to all complaint letters regarding the misuse of marks used in commerce and forward a copy of the complaint letter and reply to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents who oversees the Office of Petitions. Where a letter demonstrates the misuse of a mark in a patent application publication, the Office should, where the application is still pending, ensure that the mark is replaced by appropriate generic terminology.

608.01(w) Copyright and Mask Work Notices [R-11.2013]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will permit the inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice in a design or utility patent application, and thereby any patent issuing therefrom, which discloses material on which copyright or mask work protection has previously been established, under the following conditions:

• (A) The copyright or mask work notice must be placed adjacent to the copyright or mask work material. Therefore, the notice may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent application disclosure, including the drawing. However, if appearing in the drawing, the notice must comply with 37 CFR 1.84(s). If placed on a drawing in conformance with these provisions, the notice will not be objected to as extraneous matter under 37 CFR 1.84.
• (B) The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements required by law. For example, “©1983 John Doe”(17 U.S.C. 401) and “*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited, and under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work respectively.
• (C) Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the following authorization in 37 CFR 1.71(e) is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification to be printed for the patent:

  A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.

• (D) Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice after a Notice of Allowance has been mailed will be permitted only if the criteria of 37 CFR 1.312 have been satisfied.

The inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice in a design or utility patent application, and thereby any patent issuing therefrom, under the conditions set forth above will serve to protect the rights of the author/inventor, as well as the public, and will serve to promote the mission and goals of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, the inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice which complies with these conditions will be permitted. However, any departure from these conditions may result in a refusal to permit the desired inclusion. If the authorization required under condition (C) above does not include the specific language “(t)he (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records,...” the notice will be objected to as improper by the examiner of the application. If the examiner maintains the objection upon reconsideration, a petition may be filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.181.

608.02(a) New Drawing — When Replacement is Required Before Examination [R-07.2015]

See MPEP § 608.02 for the procedure to follow when drawings have not been filed, but a drawing will aid in the understanding of the invention. See MPEP § 601.01(f) or 601.01(g) for the procedures to follow when applications appear to be missing drawing(s). Drawings in utility and plant applications will be reviewed by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) for compliance with certain requirements of 37 CFR 1.84. OPAP will send a Notice to File Corrected Application Papers if the drawings are unacceptable for purposes of publication. The notice will give applicant a time period of two (2) months from the mailing date of the notice to file acceptable drawings. This time period for reply is extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a). OPAP will not release applications to the Technology Centers until acceptable drawings are filed in the applications.

If at the time of the initial assignment of an application to an examiner’s docket, or if at the time the application is taken up for action, the supervisory patent examiner believes the drawings to be of such a condition as to not permit reasonable examination of the application, applicant should be required to immediately submit corrected drawings. However, if the drawings do permit reasonable examination and the supervisory patent examiner believes the drawings are of such a character as to render the application defective under 35 U.S.C. 112, examination should begin immediately with a requirement for corrected drawings and a rejection of the claims as not being in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) being made.

If the drawings have been indicated by the applicant as "informal," but the drawings are considered acceptable by OPAP, the examiner should not require replacement of the drawings. If the examiner does make objections to the drawings, the examiner should require correction in reply to the Office action and not permit the objection to be held in abeyance. See MPEP § 608.02(b), § 608.02(d) - § 608.02(h) and § 608.02(p) for further information on specific grounds for finding drawings informalities.

If a drawing is not timely received in reply to a notice from the Office or a letter from the examiner who requires a drawing, the application becomes abandoned for failure to reply.

For the handling of replacement drawings, see MPEP § 608.02(h).

608.02(b) Acceptability of Drawings [R-10.2019]

In instances where the drawing is such that the prosecution can be carried on without the corrections, applicant is informed of the reasons why the drawing is objected to in an examiner’s action, and that the drawing is admitted for examination purposes only (see MPEP § 707.07(a)). To be fully responsive, an amendment must include corrected drawings. See 37 CFR 1.85(c) and 37 CFR 1.121(d). The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.

The Office no longer considers drawings as formal or informal. Drawings are either acceptable or unacceptable. Drawings will be accepted by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) if the drawings are readable and reproducible for publication purposes. See MPEP § 507.

Examiners should review the drawings for disclosure of the claimed invention and for proper use of reference numerals. Unless applicant is otherwise notified in an Office action, objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance. A request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action (37 CFR 1.135(c)). Drawing corrections should be made promptly before allowance of the application in order to avoid delays in issuance of the application as a patent or a reduction to any term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(c)(10).

If the original drawings are unacceptable, applicant will be notified and informed of what the objections are and that new corrected drawings are required. In either case, the drawings will be accepted as satisfying the requirements of 37 CFR 1.51. The examiners are directed to advise the applicants (see MPEP § 707.07(a)) in the first Office action of the reasons why the drawings are unacceptable. If the examiner discovers a defect in the content of the drawing, one or more of the form paragraphs reproduced below may be used to notify applicant.

In those situations where an application is filed with unacceptable drawings, applicants will be notified by OPAP to file new acceptable drawings complying with 37 CFR 1.84 and 1.121(d) or 37 CFR 1.1026, as applicable. If the requirement for corrected drawings appears on the notice of allowability (PTOL-37), the drawings must be filed within three months of the date of mailing of the notice of allowability. Also, each sheet of the drawing should include the application number and the art unit in the upper center margin (37 CFR 1.84(c)) and labeled, in the header, “Replacement Sheet.”

In utility applications, the examination will normally be conducted using the originally presented drawings. The sufficiency of disclosure, as concerns the subject matter claimed, will be made by the examiner utilizing the original drawings. IT IS APPLICANT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT NO NEW MATTER IS ADDED when submitting replacement drawings after allowance since they will not normally be reviewed by an examiner. Of course, if the examiner notices new matter in the replacement drawings, appropriate action to have the new matter deleted should be undertaken.

608.02(c) Location of Drawings [R-01.2024]

Black and white line drawings submitted in: (i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); (ii) nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility patent applications; (iii) international applications (PCT) and national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; and (iv) reexamination proceedings for utility patents will be converted into TIFF images and stored in IFW.

Black and white line drawings in design applications, including reissue design patent applications, international design applications, and reexamination proceedings for design patents will be stored in a content management system, and a black and white copy will be placed in the file wrapper along with a placeholder sheet.

Black and white photographs and grayscale drawings in: (i) provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); (ii) nonprovisional utility and design patent applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including reissue utility and design patent applications; (iii) national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371; (iv) international applications (PCT); (v) international design applications; (vi) reexamination proceedings for utility patents and design patents; and (vii) supplemental examination proceedings will be stored in a content management system, and a black and white copy will be placed in the file wrapper along with a placeholder sheet.

Color drawings and color photographs are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13). Except for international applications, color photographs and color drawings in utility and design applications and proceedings will be stored in a content management system and a black and white copy thereof will be placed in the file wrapper along with a placeholder sheet.

Originally submitted drawings on paper that are photographs or in color may be maintained in an artifact folder.

608.02(d) Complete Illustration in Drawings [R-07.2015]

If an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or under 35 U.S.C. 371 includes a sequence listing or a table, such a sequence listing or table should not be included in both the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification. 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 1.58(a).

Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing. (Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911).)

Form paragraph 6.22.01, 6.22.04, or 6.36, where appropriate, may be used to require illustration.

See also MPEP § 608.02.

608.02(e) Examiner Determines Completeness and Consistency of Drawings [R-07.2015]

The examiner should ensure that the figures are correctly described in the brief description of the several views of the drawing section of the specification, that the reference characters are properly applied, that no single reference character is used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part, and that there are no superfluous illustrations.

One or more of the following form paragraphs may be used to require correction.

608.02(f) Modifications in Drawings [R-08.2012]

Modifications may not be shown in broken lines on figures which show in solid lines another form of the invention. Ex parte Badger, 1901 C.D. 195, 97 OG 1596 (Comm’r Pat. 1901).

All modifications described must be illustrated, or the text canceled. (Ex parte Peck, 1901 C.D. 136, 96 OG 2409 (Comm’r Pat. 1901).) This requirement does not apply to a mere reference to minor variations nor to well-known and conventional parts.

Form paragraph 6.22.05 may be used to require correction.

608.02(g) Illustration of Prior Art [R-08.2012]

Figures showing the prior art are usually unnecessary and should be canceled. Ex parte Elliott, 1904 C.D. 103, 109 OG 1337 (Comm’r Pat. 1904). However, where needed to understand applicant’s invention, they may be retained if designated by a legend such as “Prior Art.”

If the prior art figure is not labeled, form paragraph 6.36.01 may be used.

608.02(h) Replacement Drawings [R-10.2019]

All sheets of replacement drawings will be routinely entered into the contents of the application. However, the examiner should not overlook such factors as new matter, the necessity for the replacement sheets and consistency with other sheets. If the examiner decides that the sheets should not be entered, the examiner should provide the applicant with the complete, explicit reasoning for the denial of entry. The entries previously made will be marked "not entered."

Form paragraph 6.37 may be used to acknowledge replacement drawing sheets.

Alternatively, PTOL-326 Office Action Summary includes a block for acknowledgment of replacement drawings.

When an amendment is filed stating that replacement sheets of drawings are filed with the amendment and such drawings are not in the IFW, in the next communication by the examiner, the applicant must be notified that replacement drawings do not appear to have been received and thus have not been entered in the application.

Note that drawings will not be returned to the applicant. See MPEP § 608.02(y).

608.02(i) Transfer of Drawings From Prior Applications [R-11.2013]

Drawings cannot normally be transferred from a first pending application to another as the Office no longer considers drawings as formal or informal. Drawings that do not comply with all of the form requirements of 37 CFR 1.84 may be acceptable for the purposes of publication and examination if the drawings are readable and reproducible for publication purposes.

608.02(j) - 608.02(o) [Reserved]

608.02(p) Correction of Drawings [R-07.2015]

See also MPEP § 608.02(b). For correction at allowance and issue, see MPEP § 608.02(w) and MPEP § 1302.05.

A canceled figure may be reinstated. An amendment should be made to the specification adding the brief description of the view if a canceled figure is reinstated.

The following form paragraphs may be used to notify applicants of drawing corrections.

608.02(q) - 608.02(s) [Reserved]

608.02(t) Cancelation of Figures [R-08.2012]

If a drawing figure is canceled, a replacement sheet of drawings must be submitted without the figure (see 37 CFR 1.121(d)). If the canceled drawing figure was the only drawing on the sheet, then only a marked-up copy of the drawing sheet including an annotation showing that the drawing has been cancelled is required. The marked-up (annotated) copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Sheet" and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section of the amendment document which explains the changes to the drawings (see 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1)). The brief description of the drawings should also be amended to reflect this change.

608.02(u) [Reserved]

608.02(v) Drawing Changes Which Require Annotated Sheets [R-08.2012]

When changes are to be made in the drawing itself, other than mere changes in reference characters, designations of figures, or inking over lines pale and rough, a marked-up copy of the drawing should be filed with a replacement drawing. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet.” See 37 CFR 1.84(c) and 1.121(d). Ordinarily, broken lines may be changed to full without a sketch.

Annotated sheets filed by an applicant and used for correction of the drawing will not be returned. All such annotated sheets must be in ink or permanent prints.

608.02(w) Drawing Changes Which May Be Made Without Applicant’s Annotated Sheets [R-11.2013]

Where an application is ready for issue except for a slight defect in the drawing not involving change in structure, the examiner will prepare a letter to the applicant indicating the change to be made and may include a marked-up copy of the drawing showing the addition or alteration to be made. The marked-up copy of the drawing should be attached to the letter to the applicant made of record in the application file.

As a guide to the examiner, the following corrections are illustrative of those that may be suggested without requiring annotated sheets from the applicant:

• (A) Adding two or three reference characters or exponents.
• (B) Changing one or two numerals or figure ordinals.
• (C) Removing superfluous matter.
• (D) Adding or reversing directional arrows.
• (E) Changing Roman Numerals to Arabic Numerals to agree with specification.
• (F) Adding section lines or brackets, where easily executed.
• (G) Changing lead lines.
• (H) Correcting misspelled legends.

608.02(x) Drawing Corrections or Changes Accepted Unless Notified Otherwise [R-08.2012]

Drawing corrections or changes will be entered at the time they are presented, unless applicant is notified to the contrary by the examiner in the action following the amended drawing submission.

Where the corrected or changed drawing is not accepted, for example, because the submitted corrections or changes are erroneous, or involve new matter or do not include all necessary corrections, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The examiner should explicitly and clearly set forth all the reasons for not approving the corrections to the drawings in the next communication to the applicant. See MPEP § 608.02(p) for suggested form paragraphs that may be used by examiners to notify applicants of drawing corrections.

608.02(y) Return of Drawing [R-08.2012]

Drawings will not be returned to the applicant.

608.02(z) Allowable Applications Needing Drawing Corrections or Corrected Drawings [R-07.2015]

If the drawings submitted in an application have been indicated by the applicant as “informal,” but the drawings are considered acceptable by OPAP, the examiner should not require replacement of the drawings.

In IFW applications, generally, the most recently filed drawings will be used for printing, unless they have been indicated as “Not Entered.”

If the examiner makes an objection to the drawings, the examiner should require correction in reply to the Office action that sets forth the objection. If an application is being allowed, and corrected drawings have not been filed, form PTOL-37 provides an appropriate check box for requiring corrected drawings.

Extensions of time to provide acceptable drawings in response to a notice of allowability are not permitted. If the Office of Data Management receives drawings that cannot be scanned or are otherwise unacceptable for publication, the Office of Data Management will mail a requirement for corrected drawings, giving applicant a shortened statutory period of two months to reply. The drawings will ordinarily not be returned to the examiner for corrections.

Where replacement drawings are received in utility patent applications after the Notice of Allowability was mailed, the replacement drawings are handled by the Office of Data Management. Submission to the examiner is not necessary unless an amendment to the specification accompanies the drawings, such as an amendment where the description of figures is added or canceled. It is applicant’s responsibility to see that no new matter is added when submitting replacement drawings after allowance because they will not normally be reviewed by an examiner.

For information on handling amendments to drawings filed under 37 CFR 1.312, see MPEP § 714.16.

608.03(a) Handling of Models, Exhibits, and Specimens [R-07.2015]

All models and exhibits received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should be taken to the Technology Center (TC) assigned the related application for examination. The receipt of all models and exhibits which are to be entered into the application file record must be properly recorded on an artifact sheet.

A label indicating the application number, filing date, and attorney’s name and address should be attached to the model or exhibit so that it is clearly identified and easily returned. The Office may return the model, exhibit, or specimen, at any time once it is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office and return of the model or exhibit is appropriate. See 37 CFR 1.94.

If the model or exhibit cannot be conveniently stored in an artifact folder, it should not be accepted.

Models and exhibits may be presented for demonstration purposes during an interview. The models and exhibits should be taken away by applicant or his/her attorney or agent at the conclusion of the interview since models or exhibits are generally not permitted to be admitted as part of the application or patent unless the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 are satisfied. See MPEP § 713.08. A full description of what was demonstrated or exhibited during the interview must be made of record. See 37 CFR 1.133. Any model or exhibit that is left with the examiner at the conclusion of the interview, which is not made part of the application or patent, may be disposed of at the discretion of the Office.

When applicant is notified that a model, exhibit, or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office and will be returned, applicant must make arrangements for the return of the model, exhibit, or specimen at applicant’s expense. The Office may return the model, exhibit, or specimen at any time once it is no longer necessary for the conduct of business and need not wait until the close of prosecution or later. Where the model, exhibit, or specimen is a perishable, the Office will be presumed to have permission to dispose of the item without notice to applicant, unless applicant notifies the Office upon submission of the item that a return is desired and arrangements are promptly made for the item’s return upon notification by the Office.

For models, exhibits, or specimens that are returned, applicant is responsible for retaining the actual model, exhibit, or specimen for the enforceable life of any patent resulting from the application except where: (A) the model or exhibit substantially conforms to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52 or 1.84; (B) the model or exhibit has been described by photographs that substantially conform to 37 CFR 1.84; or (C) the model, exhibit, or specimen is perishable. Applicant may be called upon to resubmit such returned model, exhibit, or specimen under appropriate circumstances, such as where a continuing application is filed.

The notification to applicant that a model, exhibit, or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office will set a time period within which applicant must make arrangements for a return of a model, exhibit, or specimen. The time period is normally two months from the mailing date of the notification, unless the item is perishable, in which case the time period will be shorter. Extensions of time are available under 37 CFR 1.136, except in the case of perishables. Failure by applicant to establish that arrangements for the return of a model, exhibit, or specimen have been made within the time period set in the notice will result in the disposal of the model, exhibit, or specimen by the Office.

Form paragraph 6.48 may be used to notify applicant that the model, exhibit, or specimen is no longer necessary for the conduct of business before the Office and that applicant must make arrangement for the return of the model, exhibit, or specimen.

For plant specimens, see MPEP § 1607 and 37 CFR 1.166.

608.04(a) Matter Not Present in Specification, Claims, or Drawings on the Application Filing Date [R-10.2019]

Matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that is added after the application filing is usually new matter. See MPEP §§ 2163.06 and 2163.07 for guidance in determining whether an amendment adds new matter, and for a discussion of the relationship of new matter to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 2163.07(a) to determine whether added characteristics such as chemical or physical properties, a new structural formula or a new use are inherent characteristics that do not introduce new matter.

New matter includes not only the addition of wholly unsupported subject matter, but may also include adding specific percentages or compounds after a broader original disclosure, or even the omission of a step from a method. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP § 2163.05 for guidance in determining whether the addition of specific percentages or compounds after a broader original disclosure constitutes new matter.

In the examination of an application following amendment thereof, the examiner must be on the alert to detect new matter. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) should be employed as a basis for objection to amendments to the abstract, specification, or drawings attempting to add new disclosure to that originally disclosed on filing. If new matter is added to the specification, it should be objected to by using Form Paragraph 7.28.

If the new matter has been entered into the claims or affects the scope of the claims, the claims affected should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, on the ground that it recites elements without support in the original disclosure. See Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 559, 31 USPQ2d 1855, 1857 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(A written-description question often arises when an applicant, after filing a patent application, subsequently adds “new matter” not present in the original application.); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).

If subject matter capable of illustration is originally claimed and it is not shown in the drawing, the claim is not rejected but applicant is required to add it to the drawing. See MPEP § 608.01(l). Replacement drawings containing new matter should not be entered and the corrections necessary to obtain entry of the drawing(s) should be explained using form paragraph 6.37. See MPEP § 608.02(h).

For completeness of specification, see MPEP § 608.01(p). For trademarks and trade names, see MPEP § 608.01(v).

608.04(b) New Matter by Preliminary Amendment [R-10.2019]

A preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application (e.g., filed along with the filing of the application) is considered a part of the original disclosure. See MPEP § 714.01(e) and § 602. A preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the application is not part of the original disclosure of the application. See MPEP § 608.04(a). For applications filed on or after September 21, 2004, the Office will automatically treat any preliminary amendment under 37 CFR 1.115(a)(1) that is present on the filing date of the application as part of the original disclosure. Applicants can avoid the need to file a preliminary amendment by incorporating any desired amendments into the text of the specification, even where the application is a continuation or divisional application of a prior-filed application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to avoid submitting any preliminary amendments so as to minimize the burden on the Office in processing preliminary amendments and reduce delays in processing the application.

608.04(c) Review of Examiner’s Holding of New Matter [R-11.2013]

Where the new matter is confined to amendments to the specification, review of the examiner’s requirement for cancelation is by way of petition. But where the alleged new matter is introduced into or affects the claims, thus necessitating their rejection on this ground, the question becomes an appealable one, and should not be considered on petition even though that new matter has been introduced into the specification also. See also MPEP § 2163.06.

608.05(a) Submission of a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” [R-01.2024]

Special procedures for presentation of computer program listings as a “Computer Program Listing Appendix in the form of ASCII plain text files in U.S. national patent applications are set forth in 37 CFR 1.96. Submission via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or the use of read-only optical disc files is desirable in view of the number of computer program listings being submitted as part of the disclosure in patent applications. Such listings are often several hundred pages in length. By filing and publishing such computer program listings in electronic form rather than on physical sheets of paper, substantial cost savings can result to the applicants, the public, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

See MPEP § 608.05, subsection I., for details pertaining to submission of ASCII plain text files via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, and subsection II., for details pertaining to submissions on read-only optical disc. Also, substantial details regarding submitting ASCII plain text files are incorporated into 37 CFR 1.96(c), which are discussed more below in subsection III.

A “computer program listing”, as used in these rules, means the document that lists, in proper order, the instructions, routines, and other contents of a program for a computer. The listing may be either in machine or machine-independent (object or source) programming language which will cause a computer to perform a desired procedure or task, such as solving a problem, regulating the flow of work in a computer, or controlling or monitoring events. The general description of the computer program listing will appear in the specification while the computer program listing may appear either directly in the specification or as a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” to the specification, submitted in an ASCII text file via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on a read-only optical disc. The specification must include an incorporation by reference statement of the “Computer Program Listing Appendix” in accordance with 37 CFR 1.96(c)(6) according to the arrangement of application elements as outlined in 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5).

Copies of publicly available computer program listings (including any “Computer Program Listing Appendix”) are available via Patent Center. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office also provides publicly available computer program listings (including any “Computer Program Listing Appendix”) at the cost set forth in 37 CFR 1.19.

The USPTO prefers that specifications and drawings are submitted electronically via the USPTO patent electronic filing system. However, any specification and/or drawings submitted on physical sheets of paper should conform to the applicable provisions of 37 CFR 1.52 and 37 CFR 1.84, and will be subject to a non-electronic filing fee. See 37 CFR 1.16(t). When lengthy computer program listings must be disclosed in a patent application in order to provide a complete disclosure, use of paper copies can become burdensome. The cost of printing long computer programs in patent documents is also very expensive to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.96, a computer program listing contained on three hundred printout lines or less may be submitted either as drawings (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84), as part of the written specification (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52), as an ASCII text file on a read-only optical disc (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e)), or as an ASCII text file via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (in compliance with the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (see MPEP § 502.05)). A computer program listing contained on three hundred and one (301) printout lines or more must be submitted as an ASCII plain text file on a read-only optical disc (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e)) or submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system. See 37 CFR 1.96(c). Regardless of the number of printout lines a computer program listing has, any computer program listing which is filed as an ASCII plain text file on a read-only optical disc or submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system is referred to as a “Computer Program Listing Appendix”, and the “Computer Program Listing Appendix” will not be printed in any patent application or part of the printed patent. See 37 CFR 1.96(c).

Form paragraph 6.64.01 or 6.64.02 may be used to notify the applicant of this requirement.

37 CFR 1.96(c) lists several requirements of a “Computer Program Listing Appendix”. Specifically, a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” must be compatible with PC or Mac^® computers and with MS-DOS^®, MS-Windows^®, Mac OS^®, or Unix^®/Linux^® operating systems. Also, a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” may only have ASCII CRLF or LF line terminators, and the data must not be dependent on control characters or codes that are not defined in the ASCII character set. See 37 CFR 1.96(c)(1)). Also, a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” must have a file name with a “.txt” extension. See 37 CFR 1.96(c)(2) (provides the requirements for the file name).

There is a 25 MB size limit for “Computer Program Listing Appendix” files submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system with file compression not being permitted. See 37 CFR 1.96(c)(3). It is noted that it may be possible to break up a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” file that is larger than 25 MB into multiple files that are 25 MB or less in size and submit those smaller files via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, as per the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (www.uspto.gov). See also MPEP § 608.05(I)(C).

A “Computer Program Listing Appendix” submitted on a read-only optical disc in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) must be submitted as a separate read-only optical disc for each applicable application, and multiple computer program listings for a single application may be placed on a single read-only optical disc. Multiple read-only optical discs, containing one or more computer program listings, may be submitted for a single application. Any computer program listing may be compressed using WinZip^®, 7-Zip, or Unix^®/Linux^® Zip, and the compressed file must not be self-extracting. However, a computer program listing which has a nested file structure is required to be compressed. If after compression, a compressed ASCII plain text file still does not fit on a single read-only optical disc, the compressed file may be split into multiple file parts in accordance with the target read-only optical disc size and labeled in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5)(vi). See 37 CFR 1.96(c)(4).

Read-only optical discs containing a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” must be submitted in duplicate and labeled as “Copy 1” and “Copy 2” respectively. The transmittal letter that accompanies the read-only optical discs must include a statement that the two read-only optical discs are identical. In the event that the two read-only optical disc copies are not identical, the Office will use the read-only optical disc labeled “Copy 1” for further processing. See 37 CFR 1.96(c)(7). Two discs would be considered not identical when, e.g., the files contained on those discs are not the same. Duplicate copies for a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” are required to be submitted since the OPAP keeps a first copy for record retention purposes and a second copy in an artifact folder for use by the examiner during the patent examination process. Any amendment to the information on a read-only optical disc must be by way of a replacement read-only optical disc in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96(c)(5), as discussed immediately below.

In order to amend a “Computer Program Listing Appendix”, a replacement ASCII plain text file, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.96(c), must be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on a read-only optical disc, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e). Any replacement ASCII plain text file submitted on read-only optical discs must be submitted in duplicate and must be labeled as “COPY 1 REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY” (with the month, day, and year of creation indicated) and “COPY 2 REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY”. When the information is filed on a read-only optical disc initially, amendments cannot be made to the information using the USPTO patent electronic filing system, but instead must be made using a replacement read-only optical disc. See 37 CFR 1.52(e)(7). Also, a request must be made that the material in the replacement ASCII plain text file be incorporated by reference in a separate paragraph of the specification (replacing any prior such paragraph, as applicable) identifying the name of the file, the date of creation, and the size of the file in bytes. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5). A statement must be provided that identifies the location of all deletions, replacements, or additions to the ASCII plain text file so that the changes made to the information contained in the submission can be more easily and accurately identified. Another statement that the replacement ASCII plain text file contains no new matter must also be provided. See 37 CFR 1.96(c)(5). The Office may also require that a replacement ASCII plain text file be submitted if, for example, the information on a read-only optical disc is corrupted.

A “Computer Program Listing Appendix” filed as an ASCII plain text file on the date that the application was accorded a filing date is to be treated as part of the originally filed disclosure even if the required “incorporation by reference” statement (see 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5)) is omitted. Similarly, if a preliminary amendment accompanies the application when it is filed in the Office and the preliminary amendment includes a “Computer Program Listing Appendix” as an ASCII plain text file, the “Computer Program Listing Appendix” will be treated as part of the original disclosure. The “Computer Program Listing Appendix” is considered part of the original disclosure by virtue of its inclusion with the application on the date the application is accorded a filing date. The incorporation by reference statement of the material in the ASCII plain text file is required to be part of the specification so it is clear to the Office, the printer, and the public that the application as originally filed includes the “Computer Program Listing Appendix”. The examiner should require applicant(s) to insert this statement if it is omitted. See 37 CFR 1.96(c)(6). Also, if the application would otherwise be in condition for allowance, the examiner may insert the statement by examiner’s amendment with a notice of allowance after receiving authorization from the applicant. See MPEP § 1302.04 and 37 CFR 1.121(g).

608.05(b) ASCII Plain Text Submissions of “Large Tables” and Treatment of Lengthy Tables in a Specification for Patents and Patent Application Publications [R-01.2024]

The USPTO prefers that specifications having tables are submitted electronically via the USPTO patent electronic filing system. However, any specification and/or tables submitted on physical sheets of paper should conform to the applicable provisions of 37 CFR 1.52 and 37 CFR 1.58 and will be subject to a non-electronic filing fee. See 37 CFR 1.16(t). When tables must be disclosed in a patent application in order to provide a complete disclosure, use of paper copies can become burdensome. In the past, all disclosures forming part of a patent application were presented on paper with the exception of “Sequence Listings” and a “Computer Program Listing Appendix”. Under 37 CFR 1.58(c)et seq., several different methods for submitting “Large Tables” are set forth, including submitting ASCII plain text files on read-only optical disc(s) in the form of CD-ROM, CD-R, DVD-R, or DVD+R. Applicant(s) may also submit “Large Tables” as ASCII plain text files via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.

See MPEP § 608.05, subsection I., for details pertaining to submission of ASCII plain text files via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, and subsection III., for details pertaining to submissions on read-only optical disc(s). Also, substantial details regarding submitting ASCII plain text files are incorporated into 37 CFR 1.58(c)et seq., which are discussed more in subsection I below, and subsection II below discusses the treatment of lengthy tables in a specification for patents and patent application publications.

As defined in 37 CFR 1.58(c), “Large Tables” that may be submitted in electronic form in ASCII plain text are 1) any individual table that is more than 50 pages in length, or 2) multiple tables, if the total number of pages of all the tables in an application exceeds 100 pages in length. A table page is a page printed on paper, in conformance with 37 CFR 1.58(b). The presentation of a subheading to divide a large table into smaller sections of less than 51 pages should not be used to prevent an applicant from submitting the table in electronic form in ASCII plain text unless the subdivided tables are presented as numerous files so as to lose their relationship to the overall large table. A single table contained on 50 pages or less and multiple tables contained on 100 pages or less must be submitted either as drawings (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84) or as part of the specification on physical sheets of paper (in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52) or via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (in compliance with the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (see MPEP § 502.05)). When submitting “Large Tables” as ASCII plain text files, each table should be submitted as a separate text file. Further, the file name for each table should indicate which table is contained therein. It is noted that “Large Tables” cannot be filed in ASCII plain text in an international application during the international stage (see 37 CFR 1.58(c)).

The text files submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or stored on read-only optical disc(s) containing the “Large Tables” must contain only ASCII characters. All printable characters (including the space character) are permitted, but no nonprintable (ASCII control) characters are permitted, except ASCII Carriage Return plus ASCII Line FEED (CRLF) or Line Feed (LF) as line terminators. No special formatting characters or proprietary file formats are permitted. Accordingly, great care must be taken so that the spatial arrangement of the data in rows and columns is maintained in the table when the file is opened for viewing at the Office. This will allow the table to be viewed with virtually any text viewer. See 37 CFR 1.58(d). “Large Tables” submitted in ASCII plain text must be compatible with PC or Mac^® computers and with MS-DOS^®, MS-Windows^®, Mac OS^®, or Unix^®/Linux^® operating systems. See 37 CFR 1.58(d)(2). Also, “Large Tables” submitted in ASCII plain text must have a file name with a “.txt” extension. See 37 CFR 1.58(d)(4), provides all the requirements for the file name. Further, “Large Tables” submitted in ASCII plain text must be incorporated by reference in a separate paragraph of the specification, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5). See 37 CFR 1.58(d)(5).

There is a 25 MB size limit for “Large Tables” files submitted in ASCII plain text via the USPTO patent electronic filing system with file compression not being permitted. See 37 CFR 1.58(e). It is noted that it may be possible to break up a “Large Tables” file that is larger than 25 MB into multiple files that are 25 MB or less in size and submit those smaller files via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, as per the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (www.uspto.gov). See also MPEP § 608.05(I)(C).

While “Large Tables” files submitted in ASCII plain text via the USPTO patent electronic filing system cannot be compressed, “Large Tables” submitted in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e) via read-only optical disc(s) are now able to be compressed. See 37 CFR 1.58(f). Compression was allowed to significantly reduce the number of physical media required to accommodate large files. The “Large Tables” file may be compressed using WinZip^®, 7-Zip, or Unix^®/Linux^® Zip, and the compressed file must not be self-extracting. If after compression, a compressed “Large Tables” file still does not fit on a single read-only optical disc, the compressed file may be split into multiple file parts in accordance with the target read-only optical disc size and labeled in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5)(vi).

In order to amend “Large Tables” in ASCII plain text format, a replacement ASCII plain text file, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.58(d)-(f), must be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on a read-only optical disc, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(e). Any read-only optical disc with a replacement ASCII plain text file must be labeled as “REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY” with the month, day, and year of creation indicated. When the information is filed on a read-only optical disc initially, amendments cannot be made to the information using the USPTO patent electronic filing system, but instead must be made using a replacement read-only optical disc. See 37 CFR 1.52(e)(7) and 1.58(j). Also, a request must be made that the material in the replacement ASCII plain text file be incorporated by reference in a separate paragraph of the specification (replacing any prior such paragraph, as applicable) identifying the name of the file, the date of creation, and the size of the file in bytes. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5). A statement must be provided that identifies the location of all deletions, replacements, or additions to the ASCII plain text file so that the changes made to the information contained in the submission can be more easily and accurately identified. Another statement that the replacement ASCII plain text file contains no new matter must also be provided. See 37 CFR 1.58(g). The Office may also require that a replacement ASCII plain text file be submitted if, for example, the information on a read-only optical disc is corrupted.

“Large Tables” filed as an ASCII plain text file on the date that the application was accorded a filing date are to be treated as part of the originally filed disclosure even if the requisite “incorporation by reference” statement (see 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5)) is omitted. Similarly, if a preliminary amendment accompanies the application when it is filed in the Office and the preliminary amendment includes “Large Tables” as an ASCII plain text file, the “Large Tables” will be treated as part of the original disclosure. The “Large Tables” are considered part of the original disclosure by virtue of its inclusion with the application on the date the application is accorded a filing date. The incorporation by reference statement of the material in the ASCII plain text file is required to be part of the specification so it is clear to the Office, the printer, and the public that the application as originally filed includes the “Large Tables” in the ASCII plain text file. The examiner should require applicant(s) to insert this statement if it is omitted. See 37 CFR 1.58(h). Also, if the application would otherwise be in condition for allowance, the examiner may insert the statement by examiner’s amendment with a notice of allowance after receiving authorization from the applicant. See MPEP § 1302.04 and 37 CFR 1.121(g).

Read-only optical discs containing “Large Tables” must be submitted in duplicate and labeled as “Copy 1” and “Copy 2” respectively. The transmittal letter that accompanies the read-only optical discs must include a statement that the two read-only optical discs are identical. In the event that the two read-only optical disc copies are not identical, the Office will use the read-only optical disc labeled “Copy 1” for further processing. See 37 CFR 1.58(i). Two discs would be considered not identical when, e.g., the files contained on those discs are not the same. Duplicate copies for “Large Tables” are required to be submitted since the OPAP keeps a first copy for record retention purposes and a second copy in an artifact folder for use by the examiner during the patent examination process.

Any amendment to the information on a read-only optical disc containing “Large Tables” must be by way of replacement read-only optical discs submitted in duplicate in compliance with 37 CFR 1.58(g). The replacement read-only optical disc and copy must be labeled “COPY 1 REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYY” (with the month, day, and year of creation indicated), and “COPY 2 REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY,” respectively. When the information is filed on a read-only optical disc initially, amendments cannot be made to the information using the USPTO patent electronic filing system, but instead must be made using a replacement read-only optical disc. See 37 CFR 1.52(e)(7) and 1.58(j).

While most tables filed with patent applications are intended to be rendered in portrait mode, “Large Tables” are permitted to be in landscape orientation if they cannot be presented satisfactorily in portrait orientation. Viewing documents in Patent Center or by examiners in their desktop examination tools permit rotating pages from portrait to landscape and vice versa.

The cost of printing long tables in patent documents is very expensive to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Accordingly, if tables on more than two hundred consecutive pages, or large numbers of tables (lengthy tables) are submitted on a read-only optical disc or as text files submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as provided in 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 1.58(c), or in an electronic format (XML, tab-delimited text, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Work, Corel WordPerfect) in response to a “Request to Voluntarily Supply Lengthy Table(s) in Electronic Format” from the Office of Data Management, these lengthy tables will not be published as part of a patent document (e.g., patent or patent application publication. The lengthy tables will be published separately on the sequence homepage of the USPTO website (https://seqdata.uspto.gov). See, for example, patent application publication nos. US 20030235811 A1 and US 20030237110 A9.

Should an applicant need to include numerous tables in the specification, and such tables are on more than two hundred consecutive pages or large numbers of tables (lengthy tables) are present in the specification, such tables may be submitted as “Large Tables” in ASCII plain text in accordance with 1.58(c). If a lengthy table is embedded in the specification of a patent application, and if the lengthy table is available in an electronic form (either XML or a format convertible to XML), when the patent or patent application publication is published, the following single-column statement will be inserted in place of each replaced table in the document.

When the lengthy tables are separately published on the USPTO website, there will be a standardized lengthy table statement, in the patent document following the detailed description (see 37 CFR 1.77(b)(10)).

For a patent application publication, the following page-wide text would appear:

For a patent, the following page-wide text would appear:

Form paragraphs 6.63.01 and 6.63.02 may be used to notify applicant of corrections needed to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52(e) and 37 CFR 1.58(c)et seq. with respect to tables.

608.05(c) Submissions of Biological Sequence Listings [R-07.2022]

Applications disclosing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences, as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) for applications filed before July 1, 2022 or as defined in 37 CFR 1.831(b) for applications filed on or after July 1, 2022, are required to provide the biological sequence information in a sequence listing.

For applications filed before July 1, 2022, the sequence listing can be a “Sequence Listing” (as an ACSII plain text file in compliance with 37 CFR 1.821-1.824) submission must be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on read-only optical disc. See MPEP §§ 2420et seq. for detailed information.

For applications filed on or after July 1, 2022, the sequence listing must be a “Sequence Listing XML” (as an XML file in compliance with 37 CFR 1.831-1.834) submission can be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on read-only optical disc. See MPEP §§ 2412-2419 for detailed information.