{"section":{"filename":"s1403.html","chapter":"1400","section_number":"1403","title":"Diligence in Filing","revision_tag":"R-08.2017","bytes":31518,"sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94","subsection_count":0,"max_depth":0,"subsections":[]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"1403","cases":[{"key":"case:190uspq202","slug":"ex-parte-lafferty","short_name":"Ex parte Lafferty","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Lafferty, 190 USPQ 202 (Bd. App. 1975)","decision_year":1975,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"When a reissue application is filed within two years from the date of the original patent, a rejection on the ground of lack of diligence or delay in filing the reissue should not normally be made.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:142f.supp.499","slug":"rohm-haas-co-v-roberts-chemical-inc","short_name":"Rohm & Haas Co. v. Roberts Chemical Inc.","canonical_citation":"Rohm & Haas Co. v. Roberts Chemical Inc., 142 F. Supp. 499, 110 USPQ 93 (S.W. Va. 1956), rev’d on other grounds, 245 F.2d 693, 113 USPQ 423 (4th Cir. 1957)","decision_year":1956,"court":"S.W. Va.","holding_summary":"Cited as contrasting authority on the timeliness and diligence expected in filing a reissue application, suggesting delay in seeking reissue is not invariably fatal.","holding_confidence":"low","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:111f.3d874","slug":"in-re-graff","short_name":"In re Graff","canonical_citation":"In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 42 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"The reissue statute does not prohibit continuation or divisional reissue applications, but broadened claims in a continuing reissue are improper unless broadening was sought, with public notice, within two years of the original patent grant.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:766f.2d524","slug":"in-re-bennett","short_name":"In re Bennett","canonical_citation":"In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 226 USPQ 413 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Where a broadening reissue application is filed within two years of the patent grant but the declaration was improperly executed by the assignee rather than the inventor, correction of the declaration may be made more than two years after the grant.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:779f.2d31","slug":"in-re-fotland","short_name":"In re Fotland","canonical_citation":"In re Fotland, 779 F.2d 31, 228 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Failure to include an oath or declaration indicating a desire to seek broadened claims within two years of the patent grant bars a subsequent attempt to broaden reissue claims after the two-year limit.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:333f.2d935","slug":"switzer-v-sockman","short_name":"Switzer v. Sockman","canonical_citation":"Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964)","decision_year":1964,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A filing made on the anniversary date of a statutory period is timely: a reissue application filed on the two-year anniversary of the patent grant is within two years, and the one-year period of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b) includes the anniversary date of patent issuance.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["a similar rule in interferences"]},{"key":"case:703f.3d511","slug":"in-re-rosuvastatin-calcium-patent-litigation","short_name":"In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation","canonical_citation":"In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F.3d 511, 105 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","decision_year":2012,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Courts have looked to whether a reissue applicant was diligent in correcting the errors in the patent, even for narrowing reissues; on the facts, the applicant was found diligent despite a multi-year delay after learning of an invalidating reference.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]}],"statutes":[{"key":"us_usc:35:251","slug":"35-usc-251","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 251","mentions":5},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.53","slug":"37-cfr-1-53","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.53","mentions":1},{"key":"us_cfr:37:1.16","slug":"37-cfr-1-16","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.16","mentions":1}],"cross_references":[{"key":"mpep:1412","section_number":"1412","title":"Content of Claims","exists":true,"mentions":1}],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"se_cukwjks7","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_cukwjks7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135032","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1403","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1403","section_number":"1403","chapter":"1400","depth":0,"title":"Diligence in Filing","revision_tag":"R-08.2017","children_ids":["pb_iaapopiu","sb_s7o6cmow","pb_2akpffub","pb_j4dzwk6y","pb_cpv4sgej","pb_xgy32xz6","pb_rikooklh","pb_rnibiqv7","pb_ee2mf7zd"]},{"id":"cs_cidb76ji","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_cidb76ji","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Lafferty, 190 USPQ 202 (Bd. App. 1975)","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"short_name":"Ex parte Lafferty","all_citations":["190 USPQ 202"],"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Lafferty, 190 USPQ 202 (Bd. App. 1975)","decision_year":1975,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_e523onoy","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_e523onoy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Rohm & Haas Co. v. Roberts Chemical Inc., 142 F. Supp. 499, 110 USPQ 93 (S.W. Va. 1956), rev’d on other grounds, 245 F.2d 693, 113 USPQ 423 (4th Cir. 1957)","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"short_name":"Rohm & Haas Co. v. Roberts Chemical Inc.","all_citations":["142 F. Supp. 499","110 USPQ 93","245 F.2d 693","113 USPQ 423"],"canonical_citation":"Rohm & Haas Co. v. Roberts Chemical Inc., 142 F. Supp. 499, 110 USPQ 93 (S.W. Va. 1956), rev’d on other grounds, 245 F.2d 693, 113 USPQ 423 (4th Cir. 1957)","decision_year":1956,"court":"S.W. Va.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_dd54njnl","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_dd54njnl","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 42 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"short_name":"In re Graff","all_citations":["111 F.3d 874","42 USPQ2d 1471"],"canonical_citation":"In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 42 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","decision_year":1997,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_ix32ko2k","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ix32ko2k","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 226 USPQ 413 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"short_name":"In re Bennett","all_citations":["766 F.2d 524","226 USPQ 413"],"canonical_citation":"In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 226 USPQ 413 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_4hjypahf","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_4hjypahf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fotland, 779 F.2d 31, 228 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"short_name":"In re Fotland","all_citations":["779 F.2d 31","228 USPQ 193"],"canonical_citation":"In re Fotland, 779 F.2d 31, 228 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_x36vcopf","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_x36vcopf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964)","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"short_name":"Switzer v. Sockman","all_citations":["333 F.2d 935","142 USPQ 226"],"canonical_citation":"Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964)","decision_year":1964,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"cs_halty2mm","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_halty2mm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F.3d 511, 105 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"short_name":"In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation","all_citations":["703 F.3d 511","105 USPQ2d 1437"],"canonical_citation":"In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F.3d 511, 105 USPQ2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","decision_year":2012,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":null,"holding_reviewer":null},{"id":"st_q4qbdygg","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_q4qbdygg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.53","subsection_path":["f"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.53(f)"},{"id":"st_ljda7rst","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ljda7rst","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"1.16","subsection_path":["f"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 1.16(f)"},{"id":"li_tbn5fz34","node_type":"list_item","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/li_tbn5fz34","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<li id=\"ch1400_d2001e_1884f_341\" class=\"nobull\">(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No\n                              reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original\n                              patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.\n                              \n                           </li>","rendered_text_plain":"(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_d2001e_1884f_341","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"enumerator_label":"(d)","enumerator_ordinal":0,"parent_list_id":"ls_t2bsdcva"},{"id":"ls_t2bsdcva","node_type":"list","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/ls_t2bsdcva","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_d2001e_1884f_341","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1403__ls_t2bsdcva","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1403#ls_t2bsdcva","enumerator_style":"alpha_lower","nesting_depth":1,"parent_list_item_id":null,"host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7","item_ids":["li_tbn5fz34"]},{"id":"sb_s7o6cmow","node_type":"statutory_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/sb_s7o6cmow","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_d2001e_1879a_347","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1403__sb_s7o6cmow","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1403#sb_s7o6cmow","authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"251","citation_title_text":"35 U.S.C. 251","heading":"Reissue of defective patents","body_list_id":"ls_t2bsdcva","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7"},{"id":"pb_2akpffub","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2akpffub","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_d2001e_1879a_347/p.0","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"kind":"excluded_text","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7","tags":["edit_history:excluded"]},{"id":"pb_iaapopiu","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_iaapopiu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e135036\">When a reissue application is filed within 2 years from the date of the\n                        original patent, a rejection on the grounds of lack of diligence or delay in filing the\n                        reissue should not normally be made. <i>Ex parte Lafferty,</i> 190 USPQ 202\n                        (Bd. App. 1975); but see <i>Rohm &amp; Haas Co. v.</i><i>Roberts Chemical Inc.,</i> 142 F. Supp. 499, 110 USPQ 93 (S.W. Va.\n                        1956),<i> rev’d on other grounds,</i> 245 F.2d 693, 113 USPQ 423 (4th Cir.\n                        1957).\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"When a reissue application is filed within 2 years from the date of the original patent, a rejection on the grounds of lack of diligence or delay in filing the reissue should not normally be made. Ex parte Lafferty, 190 USPQ 202 (Bd. App. 1975); but see Rohm & Haas Co. v.Roberts Chemical Inc., 142 F. Supp. 499, 110 USPQ 93 (S.W. Va. 1956), rev’d on other grounds, 245 F.2d 693, 113 USPQ 423 (4th Cir. 1957).","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135036","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7"},{"id":"pb_j4dzwk6y","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_j4dzwk6y","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch1400_d2001e_1892a_349\"><b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2c05a_340\">35 U.S.C. 251(d)</a></b> corresponds to the\n                        provisions of <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e305345\">pre-AIA 35\n                              U.S.C. 251</a></b>, fourth paragraph.\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"35 U.S.C. 251(d) corresponds to the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 251, fourth paragraph.","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_d2001e_1892a_349","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7"},{"id":"pb_cpv4sgej","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_cpv4sgej","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e135061\">Where any broadening reissue application is filed within two years from\n                        the date of the original patent, <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e305345\">35 U.S.C. 251</a></b> presumes diligence, and\n                        the examiner should not inquire why applicant failed to file the reissue application\n                        earlier within the two year period.\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Where any broadening reissue application is filed within two years from the date of the original patent, 35 U.S.C. 251 presumes diligence, and the examiner should not inquire why applicant failed to file the reissue application earlier within the two year period.","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135061","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7"},{"id":"pb_xgy32xz6","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_xgy32xz6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e135067\">See <b><a href=\"s1412.html#d0e137803\">MPEP §\n                              1412.03</a></b> for broadening reissue practice. See also <i>In re\n                           Graff,</i> 111 F.3d 874, 42 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997); <i>In re\n                           Bennett,</i> 766 F.2d 524, 528, 226 USPQ 413, 416 (Fed. Cir. 1985); <i>In re\n                           Fotland,</i> 779 F.2d 31, 228 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1985). \n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"See MPEP § 1412.03 for broadening reissue practice. See also In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 42 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 528, 226 USPQ 413, 416 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Fotland, 779 F.2d 31, 228 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1985).","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135067","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7"},{"id":"pb_rikooklh","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rikooklh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e135082\">A reissue application that is filed on the 2-year anniversary date of the\n                        patent grant is considered as being filed within 2 years. See <i>Switzer v.\n                           Sockman,</i> 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964) (a similar rule in\n                        interferences). \n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"A reissue application that is filed on the 2-year anniversary date of the patent grant is considered as being filed within 2 years. See Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964) (a similar rule in interferences).","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135082","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7"},{"id":"pb_rnibiqv7","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rnibiqv7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e135091\">A reissue application can be granted a filing date without an oath or\n                        declaration, or without the basic filing fee, search fee, or examination fee being present.\n                        See <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e318681\">37 CFR\n                              1.53(f)</a></b>. Applicant will be given a period of time to provide the\n                        missing parts and to pay the surcharge under <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e314702\">37 CFR 1.16(f)</a></b>. \n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"A reissue application can be granted a filing date without an oath or declaration, or without the basic filing fee, search fee, or examination fee being present. See 37 CFR 1.53(f). Applicant will be given a period of time to provide the missing parts and to pay the surcharge under 37 CFR 1.16(f).","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135091","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7"},{"id":"pb_ee2mf7zd","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ee2mf7zd","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch1400_p_273bd_209ee_3c4\">While examiners should not make rejections based on lack of\n                        diligence (which does not include rejections under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e305345912\">35 U.S.C. 251</a></b> for a broadening reissue\n                        that is impermissibly filed outside of the two year time period set in <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e305345912\">35 U.S.C. 251</a></b>),\n                        courts have looked to see if a reissue applicant was diligent in correcting the error(s) in\n                        the patent. At least one recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal\n                        Circuit discussed a diligence requirement for filing reissue applications, even narrowing\n                        reissues. See <i>In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation,</i> 703 F.3d\n                        511, 526, 105 USPQ2d 1437, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this case, the majority found the\n                        reissue applicant diligent, but the dissent (J. Mayer) believed that the patentee was not\n                        diligent in filing the narrowing reissue application because the applicant was aware of an\n                        invalidating reference for over six years and had received a rejection in a counterpart\n                        foreign application based on the same reference over two years prior to filing the reissue\n                        application. See 703 F.3d at 537-38, 105 USPQ2d at 1455-56.\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"While examiners should not make rejections based on lack of diligence (which does not include rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251 for a broadening reissue that is impermissibly filed outside of the two year time period set in 35 U.S.C. 251), courts have looked to see if a reissue applicant was diligent in correcting the error(s) in the patent. At least one recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit discussed a diligence requirement for filing reissue applications, even narrowing reissues. See In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F.3d 511, 526, 105 USPQ2d 1437, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this case, the majority found the reissue applicant diligent, but the dissent (J. Mayer) believed that the patentee was not diligent in filing the narrowing reissue application because the applicant was aware of an invalidating reference for over six years and had received a rejection in a counterpart foreign application based on the same reference over two years prior to filing the reissue application. See 703 F.3d at 537-38, 105 USPQ2d at 1455-56.","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_p_273bd_209ee_3c4","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_cukwjks7"},{"id":"se_pxf5wbuy","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_pxf5wbuy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-08.2017","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"stub-1412","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1412","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_1412","section_number":"1412","chapter":"1400","depth":0,"title":"Section 1412","children_ids":[]}],"edges":[{"id":"e_62ptj2qo","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_iaapopiu","target_id":"cs_cidb76ji","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Lafferty, 190 USPQ 202 (Bd. App. 1975)","source_offset":{"start":197,"end":214}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135036","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_wvrvhmpc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_iaapopiu","target_id":"cs_e523onoy","properties":{"citation_text":"Rohm & Haas Co. v. Roberts Chemical Inc., 142 F. Supp. 499, 110 USPQ 93 (S.W. Va. 1956), rev’d on other grounds, 245 F.2d 693, 113 USPQ 423 (4th Cir. 1957)","signal":"but_see","source_offset":{"start":254,"end":293}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135036","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_nhkhndh6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_j4dzwk6y","target_id":"sb_s7o6cmow","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 251(d)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":16}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_d2001e_1892a_349","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_yzz3zgq4","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_j4dzwk6y","target_id":"sb_s7o6cmow","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 251","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":58,"end":71}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_d2001e_1892a_349","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_gifaifcw","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_cpv4sgej","target_id":"sb_s7o6cmow","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 251","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":105,"end":118}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135061","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_niakao5i","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_xgy32xz6","target_id":"se_pxf5wbuy","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 1412.03","target_anchor":"d0e137803","source_offset":{"start":4,"end":18}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135067","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_lffahfmp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xgy32xz6","target_id":"cs_dd54njnl","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 42 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997)","signal":"see_also","source_offset":{"start":61,"end":72}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135067","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_5tcctuyc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xgy32xz6","target_id":"cs_ix32ko2k","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 528, 226 USPQ 413, 416 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","pincite":"528","source_offset":{"start":121,"end":134}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135067","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_qvqfldrp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_xgy32xz6","target_id":"cs_4hjypahf","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fotland, 779 F.2d 31, 228 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":191,"end":204}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135067","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_5gufmr4b","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rikooklh","target_id":"cs_x36vcopf","properties":{"citation_text":"Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964)","signal":"see","parenthetical":"a similar rule in interferences","source_offset":{"start":136,"end":146}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135082","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_b6k2yemo","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rnibiqv7","target_id":"st_q4qbdygg","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.53(f)","specificity":"subsection","signal":"see","source_offset":{"start":166,"end":180}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135091","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_u4tdol5i","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_rnibiqv7","target_id":"st_ljda7rst","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 1.16(f)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":283,"end":297}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"d0e135091","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_a3wfry4g","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ee2mf7zd","target_id":"sb_s7o6cmow","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 251","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":111,"end":124}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_p_273bd_209ee_3c4","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_umldweae","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ee2mf7zd","target_id":"sb_s7o6cmow","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 251","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":221,"end":234}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_p_273bd_209ee_3c4","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}},{"id":"e_mklrkyyz","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ee2mf7zd","target_id":"cs_halty2mm","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F.3d 511, 526, 105 USPQ2d 1437, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","signal":"see","pincite":"526","source_offset":{"start":521,"end":565}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s1403.html","source_anchor":"ch1400_p_273bd_209ee_3c4","source_sha256":"5096f2cf23a7829bfec5ebddacaa6e10968767dc623ca55994259e77e7a5ad94"}}]}}