MPEP Section 715.09, Seasonable Presentation

Executive summary:

This document contains Section 715.09 ("Seasonable Presentation") of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (the "M.P.E.P."), Eighth Edition, Eighth Revision (July 2010). This page was last updated in January 2011. You may return to the section index to find a particular section. Alternatively, you may search the MPEP using the search box that appears on the left side of every page of BitLaw--you may restrict your search to the MPEP on the search results page.

For more information on patent law, please see the Patent Section of BitLaw. For patent services, see the Beck & Tysver pages.

Previous Section (§715.08) | Next Section (§715.10)

715.09 Seasonable Presentation [R-3]

Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 must be timely presented in order to be admitted. Affidavits and declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.131 and other evidence traversing rejections are considered timely if submitted:

(A) prior to a final rejection;

(B) before appeal in an application not having a final rejection; *

(C) after final rejection **>, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e); or

(D) after the prosecution is closed (e.g., after a final rejection, after appeal, or after allowance) if applicant files the affidavit or other evidence with a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 in a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995; or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a design application.<

All admitted affidavits and declarations are acknowledged and commented upon by the examiner in his or her next succeeding action.

For affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 filed after appeal, see 37 CFR *>41.33(d)< and MPEP § *>1206 and §  1211.03<.

Review of an examiner's refusal to enter an affidavit as untimely is by petition and not by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. In re Deters, 515 F.2d 1152, 185 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1975); Ex parte Hale, 49 USPQ 209 (Bd. App. 1941). See MPEP § 715.08 regarding review of questions of propriety of 37 CFR 1.131 affidavits and declarations.