Patent Bar MPEP Q & A Podcast

Question: What non-exhaustive factors may be considered to determine whether to accept a petition after the 2-month period? Answer: The following non-exhaustive factors may be considered to determine whether to accept a petition after the 2-month period: (1) Petitioner engaged in significant, constructive efforts with the examiner to resolve the issue outside of the petitions […] The post MPEP Q & A 329: Non-exhaustive factors to determine whether to accept a petition after the 2-month period. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the reasons for insisting upon a restriction? Answer: Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each inventionas claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the […] The post MPEP Q & A 328: Reasons for insisting upon a restriction? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What information should also be submitted for each patent on which a maintenance fee or surcharge is paid? Answer: The following information should also be submitted for each patent on which a maintenance fee or surcharge is paid: (A) the fee year (i.e., 3 1/2, 7 1/2, or 11 1/2 year fee); (B) the […] The post MPEP Q & A 327: Information submitted for each patent on which a maintenance fee or surcharge is paid. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What applications count for the filing limits for the purposes of establishing micro entity status under the “gross income” basis? Answer: For purposes of establishing micro entity status under the “gross income” basis, the application filing limit includes: (i) previously filed U.S. nonprovisional applications (e.g., utility, design, plant, continuation, and divisional applications), (ii) previously filed […] The post MPEP Q & A 326: Applications that count for “gross income” basis micro entity status. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two pieces of information that should be placed on the first page of a protest. Answer: Each protest should be clearly identified as a “PROTEST UNDER 37 CFR 1.291.” It is also important that any protest against a pending application specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed with the identification being […] The post MPEP Q & A 325: List the pieces of information that should be placed on the first page of a protest. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Name at least two items that must be submitted when adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date. Answer: Adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date involves the submission of: (1) a “Sequence Listing” either as a PDF image file, on physical sheets of paper, or as an ASCII plain text […] The post MPEP Q & A 324: Name items that must be submitted when adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Where a restriction (including an election of species) requirement was made in an application and applicant permitted the elected invention to issue as a patent without filing a divisional application on the non-elected invention(s) or on non-claimed subject matter distinct from the elected invention, can the non-elected invention(s) and non-claimed, distinct subject matter be […] The post MPEP Q & A 323: Can distinct subject matter be recovered by filing a reissue application in specific cases? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What type of Demand will prevent an international application designating the U.S. to enter the national stage via the U.S. Designated Office? Answer: An international application designating the U.S. will enter the national stage via the U.S. Designated Office unless a Demand electing the U.S. is filed under PCT Article 31 whereupon entry will be via […] The post MPEP Q & A 322: What type of Demand will prevent an international application designating the U.S. to enter? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the factual inquiries related to obviousness that the Court enunciates? Answer: Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: (A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art; (B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the […] The post MPEP Q & A 321: What are the factual inquiries related to obviousness? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the three types of designs the language “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture” has been interpreted by the case law to include? Answer: The language “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture” has been interpreted by the case law to include at least three kinds of designs: […] The post MPEP Q & A 320: What are the three types of designs interpreted by case law to include? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What three items must any assignment-related document for patent matters submitted by facsimile include? Answer: Any assignment-related document for patent matters submitted by facsimile must include: (A) an identified application or patent number; (B) one cover sheet to record a single transaction; and (C) payment of the recordation fee by a credit card, is […] The post MPEP Q & A 319: What must any assignment-related document for patent matters submitted by facsimile include? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Name two requirements of an oath or declaration under section 37 CFR 1.63? Answer: An oath or declaration under section 37 CFR 1.63 must: (1) Identify the inventor or joint inventor executing the oath or declaration by his or her legal name; (2) Identify the application to which it is directed; (3) Include a […] The post MPEP Q & A 318: Requirements of an oath or declaration under section 37 CFR 1.63. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: How can you determine whether the original patent requirement is satisfied in a reissue application? Answer: Examiners should review the reissue application to determine whether the original patent requirement is satisfied, by considering if: (A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original […] The post MPEP Q & A 317: How can you determine whether the original patent requirement is satisfied in a reissue application? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, and restriction is required, is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application? Answer: If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, and restriction is required, it may become necessary to […] The post MPEP Q & A 316: Is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two examples of situations that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” context of use and, therefore, do not define “substantial utilities.” Answer: The following are examples of situations that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” […] The post MPEP Q & A 315: List examples of situations that confirm a “real world” context of use. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When an examiner concludes that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised, they will prepare a decision denying the reexamination request. What will that request indicate for each patent and printed publication cited in the request? Answer: If the examiner concludes that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised, the […] The post MPEP Q & A 314: What will the request indicate for each patent and printed publication cited in the request? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Once the issue fee has been paid, list two reasons why the Office will withdraw the application from issue at its own initiative. Answer: Once the issue fee has been paid, the Office will not withdraw the application from issue at its own initiative for any reason except: (1) A mistake on the part […] The post MPEP Q & A 313: Reasons why the Office will withdraw the application from issue. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two General Plastic non-exclusive factors. Answer: The General Plastic non-exclusive factors include the following: Whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; Whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition […] The post MPEP Q & A 312: List two General Plastic non-exclusive factors. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two requirements for a petition for suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(a). Answer: A petition for suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(a) must: (A) be presented as a separate paper; (B) be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g); (C) request a specific and reasonable period of suspension not greater than […] The post MPEP Q & A 311: Two requirements for a petition for suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103(a) appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: The three-month period in 37 CFR 1.704(b) applies to the Office notices and letters issued as part of the pre-examination processing of an application (except a Notice of Omitted Items in a Nonprovisional Application as discussed above). List two examples of these notices. Answer: These notices include: A Notice of Incomplete Nonprovisional Application (except as to […] The post MPEP Q & A 310: List two examples of notices issued as part of the pre-examination processing of an application appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two requirements for adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date? Answer: Adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date involves the submission of: a “Sequence Listing” either as a PDF image file, on physical sheets of paper, or as an ASCII plain text file submitted via the USPTO patent electronic […] The post MPEP Q & A 309: List two requirements for adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What type of arguments should a patent owner preliminary response include? Answer: A patent owner preliminary response may include one or more of the following arguments: The petitioner is statutorily barred from pursuing a review; The references asserted to establish that the claims are unpatentable are not in fact printed publications; The prior art lacks a material limitation in a challenged claim; The prior art does not teach or suggest a combination that the petitioner is advocating; The petitioner's claim interpretation for the challenged claims is unreasonable; If a PGR or CBM petition raises 35 U.S.C. 101 grounds, a… The post MPEP Q & A 308: What type of arguments should a patent owner preliminary response include? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When are electronic means or medium for filing IDSs permitted? Answer: As shown in chapter 600 … Electronic means or medium for filing IDSs are not permitted except for: IDSs electronically submitted using the USPTO patent electronic filing system; or copies of large tables, computer program listings, and sequence listings submitted as a PDF file and a “Sequence Listing XML” submitted as an XML file on a read-only optical disc which are cited in a paper IDS. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 600 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Parts, Form, and Content… The post MPEP Q & A 307: When are electronic means or medium for filing IDSs permitted? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Where a petitioner files a motion to seal with the petition that seeks entry of a protective order other than the default protective order, a patent owner may only access the sealed confidential information prior to the institution of the trial by which options? Answer: Where a petitioner files a motion to seal with the petition that seeks entry of a protective order other than the default protective order, a patent owner may only access the sealed confidential information prior to the institution of the trial by: Agreeing to the terms of the protective order requested by the petitioner;… The post MPEP Q & A 306: Sealed confidential information prior to the institution of the trial by which options? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What must the supplemental search fee be accompanied by in addition to the payment? Answer: As shown in chapter 1800 … The supplemental search fee must be paid and be accompanied by: a protest and a request for refund of the supplemental search fee. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1800 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patent Cooperation Treaty. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2022, Published February 2023. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or… The post MPEP Q & A 305: What must the supplemental search fee be accompanied by in addition to the payment? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What does routine discovery include? Answer: Routine discovery includes: Production of any exhibit cited in a paper or testimony; The cross-examination of the other sides declarants; and Relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced during the proceeding. Routine discovery places the parties on a level playing field and streamlines the proceeding. Board authorization is not required to conduct routine discovery, although the Board will set the times for conducting this discovery in its Scheduling Order. Chapter Details: This question comes from the following supplement “Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019”. This is… The post MPEP Q & A 304: What does routine discovery include? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What should a request for a certificate of correction filed via the patent electronic filing system use as the document description? Answer: “A request for a certificate of correction filed via the patent electronic filing system should use the document description: Request for Certificate of Correction.” Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1400 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Correction of Patents. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2022, Published February 2023. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later… The post MPEP Q & A 303: What should a certificate of correction filed via the patent electronic filing system use as the document description? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the major differences between 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and the CREATE Act? Answer: The major differences between 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and the CREATE Act are the following: 35 U.S.C. 102(c)is keyed to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while the CREATE Act (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)) focuses on the date that the claimed invention was made; and The 2004 CREATE Act provisions (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)) only apply to obviousness rejections and not to anticipation and double patenting rejections. This follows from the fact that the CREATE Act merely provides that a reference may not be applied to support… The post MPEP Q & A 302: Major differences between 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and the CREATE Act appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: All substantive communications with the Board regarding a proceeding must include all parties to the proceeding, except as otherwise authorized. What does the prohibition on ex parte communications not extend to? Answer: All substantive communications with the Board regarding a proceeding must include all parties to the proceeding, except as otherwise authorized. The prohibition on ex parte communications does not extend to: Ministerial communications with support staff (for instance, to arrange a conference call); Conference calls or hearings in which opposing counsel declines to participate; Informing the Board in one proceeding of the existence or status of a related… The post MPEP Q & A 301: What does the prohibition on ex parte communications not extend to? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What is the difference between sequence listing requirements filed before or after July 1, 2022? Answer: 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. 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… The post MPEP Q & A 300: Difference between sequence listing requirements filed before or after July 1, 2022 appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What should a motion to exclude evidence include? Answer: A motion to exclude evidence should: (a) Identify where in the record the objection originally was made; (b) Identify where in the record the evidence sought to be excluded was relied upon by an opponent; (c) Address objections to exhibits in numerical order; and (d) Explain the basis and grounds for each objection. A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact. A motion to exclude… The post MPEP Q & A 299: What should a motion to exclude evidence include? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: A “Sequence Listing XML” may be submitted as a XML file with a “.xml” extension via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or as read-only optical discs. What does such a submission require? Answer: Such submission requires that applicant provide a statement in a separate paragraph that incorporates by reference the material in the XML file identifying the name of the XML file, the date of creation, and the size of the XML file in bytes (except that an incorporation by reference statement is not required for a sequence listing properly submitted as an XML file in an international… The post MPEP Q & A 298: Submission requirements for “Sequence Listing XML” appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two exemplary situations where a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 may not be appropriate. Answer: Exemplary situations where a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 may not be appropriate: (A) Adding or correcting a claim to a prior application having a filing date before March 16, 2013 in a patent that was examined (as indicated on the Notice of Allowance or a later Office communication such as a supplemental Notice of Allowance) under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA and where the 37 CFR 1.55/78statement is not present. (B) Correcting a claim to a prior application having… The post MPEP Q & A 297: List two situations where a certificate of correction may not be appropriate. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List the criteria for “Large Tables” that may be submitted in electronic form in ASCII plain text. Answer: “Large Tables” that may be submitted in electronic form in ASCII plain text are: any individual table that is more than 50 pages in length, or multiple tables, if the total number of pages of all the tables in an application exceeds 100 pages in length. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 600 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Parts, Form, and Content of Application. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2022, Published… The post MPEP Q & A 296: List the criteria for “Large Tables” appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Which of the following new trial proceedings can the patent owner file a preliminary response for? Answer: The patent owner is afforded an opportunity to file a preliminary response for inter partes review (IPR), postgrant review (PGR), and covered business method patents (CBM). Chapter Details: This question comes from the following supplement “Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019”. This is a special supplement that at the time of this recording is currently being tested on the Patent Bar exam. Depending on future changes to the supplement and the MPEP, the question and answer may… The post MPEP Q & A 295: Which of the new trial proceedings can the patent owner file a preliminary response for? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the two aspects every requirement to restrict has? Answer: Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimedis either independent or distinct from the other(s); and the reasons why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required, i.e., the reasons for insisting upon restriction therebetween as set forth in MPEP 800. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 800 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Restriction in Applications Filed Under… The post MPEP Q & A 294: What are the two aspects every requirement to restrict has? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Who conducts derivation proceedings, inter partes reviews, and post-grant reviews? Answer: The Board is to conduct derivation proceedings, inter partes reviews, and post-grant reviews. Chapter Details: This question comes from the following supplement “Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019”. This is a special supplement that at the time of this recording is currently being tested on the Patent Bar exam. Depending on future changes to the supplement and the MPEP, the question and answer may not be applicable. Section Summary: This question comes from the following supplement: “Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial… The post MPEP Q & A 293: Who conducts derivation proceedings, inter partes reviews, and post-grant reviews? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two changes the Hague Agreement Article 16(1) provides for in the International Register by the International Bureau. Answer: Hague Agreement Article 16(1) provides for the recording of certain changes in the International Register by the International Bureau, including: a change in ownership of the international registration; a change in the name or address of the holder; an appointment of a representative of the applicant or holder; a renunciation of the international registration with respect to any or all of the designated Contracting Parties; a limitation of the international registration with respect to any or all of the designated… The post MPEP Q & A 292: Two changes the Hague Agreement Article 16(1) provides appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When did the derivation rules go into effect? Answer: The derivation rules went into effect 18 months after AIA enactment (March 16, 2013). Chapter Details: This question comes from the following supplement “Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019”. This is a special supplement that at the time of this recording is currently being tested on the Patent Bar exam. Depending on future changes to the supplement and the MPEP, the question and answer may not be applicable. Section Summary: This question comes from the following supplement: “Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice… The post MPEP Q & A 291: When did the derivation rules go into effect? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: How should measurements be given within a patent application? Answer: In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 600 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Parts, Form, and Content of Application. The answer is… The post MPEP Q & A 290: Use of metric system of measurements in patent applications appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two situations that are not considered new grounds of rejection? Answer: Where the statutory basis for the rejection remains the same, and the evidence relied upon in support of the rejection remains the same, a change in the discussion of, or rationale in support of, the rejection does not necessarily constitute a new ground of rejection. In addition, if: (A) an amendment under 37 CFR 1.116 [or41.33] proposes to add or amend one or more claims; (B) appellant was advised (through an advisory action) that the amendment would be entered for purposes of appeal; and (C) the advisory… The post MPEP Q & A 289: List two situations that are not considered new grounds of rejection? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: How may an examiner treat an amendment not fully responsive to a non-final Office action? Answer: An examiner may treat an amendment not fully responsive to a non-final Office action by: (A) accepting the amendment as an adequate reply to the non-final Office action to avoid abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR1.135; (B) notifying the applicant that the reply must be completed within the remaining period for reply to the non-final Office action (or within any extension pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)) to avoid abandonment; or (C) setting a new time period for applicant to complete the… The post MPEP Q & A 288: How may an examiner treat an amendment not fully responsive to a non-final Office action? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When inconsistent information is given for an application data sheet, what submission will govern control according to 37 CFR 1.76(d)(1)? Answer: 37 CFR 1.76(d)(1) provides that the most recent submission will govern (control) with respect to inconsistencies as between the information provided in an application data sheet, a designation of a correspondence address, or by the inventor's oath or declaration, except that: (1) the most recent application data sheet will govern with respect to foreign priority or domestic benefit claims; and (2) the naming of the inventorship is governed by 37 CFR 1.41 and changes to inventorship or the… The post MPEP Q & A 287: When inconsistent information is given for an application data sheet, what submission will govern control? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the factual inquiries of obviousness enunciated by the Court? Answer: Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: (A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art; (B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 10.2019. Depending on future… The post MPEP Q & A 286: What are the factual inquiries of obviousness enunciated by the Court? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What do the provisions of 37 CFR 1.114, request for continued examination, not apply to? Answer: The provisions of 27 CFR 1.114, Request for continued examination, do not apply to: (1) A provisional application; (2) An application for a utility or plant patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before June 8, 1995; (3) An international application filed under 35 U.S.C.363 before June 8, 1995, or an international application that does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 371; (4) An application for a design patent; (5) An international design application; or (6) A patent under reexamination. Chapter Details: The answer to… The post MPEP Q & A 285: What don't the provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 apply to? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When will a provisional application be given a filing date? Answer: A provisional application filed on or after December 18, 2013 will be given a filing date as of the date a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 600 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Parts, Form, and Content of Application. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 10.2019. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section… The post MPEP Q & A 284: When will a provisional application be given a filing date? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List at least 3 special cases (those which are advanced out of turn for examination). Answer: The following is a list of special cases (those which are advanced out of turn for examination): (A) Applications on inventions that are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and when for that reason the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action and the Director of the USPTO so orders. (B) Applications made special as a result of a petition to make special, a request for prioritized examination, or a request for participation in a… The post MPEP Q & A 283: List of special cases appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Since CPA applications were eliminated for utility and plant applications, what should applicants who wish to continue examination of the same claimed invention after the prosecution of a utility or plant application is closed consider filing? Answer: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. Henceforth, applicants who wish to continue examination of the same claimed invention after the prosecution of a utility or plant application is closed should consider filing a request for continued examination (RCE). Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 200… The post MPEP Q & A 282: Continued prosecution application practice for utility and plant applications appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What is the time for reply to a final rejection? Answer: The time for reply to a final rejection is as follows: (A) All final rejections setting a 3-month shortened statutory period (SSP) for reply should contain a form paragraph advising applicant that if the first reply is filed within 2 months of the date of the final Office action, the shortened statutory period will expire at 3 months from the date of the final rejection or on the date the advisory action is mailed, whichever is later. Thus, a variable reply period will be established. If the last… The post MPEP Q & A 281: Time for reply to final rejection appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When does the revocation of a filing receipt license become effective? Answer: The revocation becomes effective on the date on which the notice is mailed. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Secrecy, Access, National Security, and Foreign Filing. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 10.2019. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer comes from section 140 of the MPEP.  The following is a… The post MPEP Q & A 280: When does the revocation of a filing receipt license become effective? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: How can a maintenance fee and any necessary surcharge be made? Answer: The method of payment for the maintenance fee and any necessary surcharge shall be made in U.S. dollars and in the form of a cashier's or certified check, Treasury note, national bank notes, or United States Postal Service money order as provided in 37 CFR 1.23(a). If the maintenance fee and any necessary surcharge is sent in any other form, the Office may delay or cancel the credit until collection is made. For example, a personal or other uncertified check drawn on a U.S. bank that is… The post MPEP Q & A 279: Methods of paying a maintenance fee and necessary surcharges appeared first on Patent Education Series.