¶ 23.01 Request for Interference Premature; Examination Not Completed

The request for interference filed [1] is acknowledged. However, examination of this application has not been completed as required by 37 CFR 41.102(a). Consideration of a potential interference is premature. See MPEP § 2303.

¶ 23.02 Ex Parte Prosecution Is Resumed

Interference No. [1] has been terminated by a decision [2] to applicant. Ex parte prosecution is resumed.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert the interference number.

2. In bracket 2, insert whether favorable or unfavorable.

¶ 23.04 Requiring Applicant to Add Claim to Provoke Interference

The following allowable claim from [1]is required to be added for the purpose of an interference:

[2]

The claim must be copied exactly.

Applicant is given ONE MONTH or THIRTY DAYS, whichever is longer, from the mailing date of this communication to add the claim. Refusal to add a required claim will operate as a concession of priority for the subject matter of the required claim, but will not result in abandonment of this application. See 37 CFR 41.202(c) and MPEP § 2304.04(b). THE PROVISIONS OF 37 CFR 1.136 DO NOT APPLY TO THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THIS ACTION.

If the interference would be with a patent, applicant must also comply with 37 CFR 41.202(a)(2) to (a)(6).

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert the published application number if the claim is an allowed claim from a U.S. application publication or the patent number if the claim is from a U.S. patent.

2. In bracket 2, insert the claim which applicant is required to add to provoke an interference.

¶ 23.06 Applicant Suggesting an Interference

Applicant has suggested an interference pursuant to 37 CFR 41.202(a) in a communication filed [1].

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph if applicant has suggested an interference under 37 CFR 41.202(a) and applicant has failed to comply with one or more of paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(6) of 37 CFR 41.202.

2. In bracket 1, insert the date of applicant’s communication.

3. This form paragraph must be followed by one or more of form paragraphs 23.06.01 to 23.06.03 and end with form paragraph 23.06.04.

¶ 23.06.01 Failure to Identify the Other Application or Patent

Applicant failed to provide sufficient information to identify the application or patent with which the applicant seeks an interference. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(1) and MPEP § 2304.02(a).

¶ 23.06.02 Failure to Identify the Counts and Corresponding Claims

Applicant failed to (1) identify all claims the applicant believes interfere, and/or (2) propose one or more counts, and/or (3) show how the claims correspond to one or more counts. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(2) and MPEP § 2304.02(b).

¶ 23.06.03 Failure to Provide Claim Chart Comparing At Least One Claim

Applicant failed to provide a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party corresponding to the count. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(3) and MPEP § 2304.02(c).

¶ 23.06.04 Failure to Explain in Detail Why Applicant Will Prevail on Priority

Applicant failed to provide a detailed explanation as to why applicant will prevail on priority. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(4), (a)(6), (d) and MPEP § 2304.02(c).

¶ 23.06.05 Claim Added/Amended; Failure to Provide Claim Chart Showing Written Description

Claim [1] has been added or amended in a communication filed on [2] to provoke an interference. Applicant failed to provide a claim chart showing the written description for each claim in the applicant’s specification. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(5) and MPEP § 2304.02(d).

¶ 23.06.06 Time Period for Reply

Applicant is given ONE MONTH or THIRTY DAYS, whichever is longer, from the mailing date of this communication to correct the deficiency(ies). THE PROVISIONS OF 37 CFR 1.136 DO NOT APPLY TO THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THIS ACTION.

¶ 23.14 Claims Not Copied Within One Year of Patent Issue Date

Claim [l] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 135 (b)(1) as not being made prior to one year from the date on which U.S. Patent No. [2] was granted. See In re McGrew, 120 F.3d 1236, 1238, 43 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where the Court held that 35 U.S.C. 135(b) may be used as a basis for ex parte rejections.

¶ 23.14 Claims Not Copied Within One Year of Patent Issue Date

¶ 23.14.01 Claims Not Copied Within One Year Of Application Publication Date

Claim [l] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(2) as not being made prior to one year from the date on which [2] was published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). See In re McGrew, 120 F.3d 1236, 1238, 43 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where the Court held that 35 U.S.C. 135(b) may be used as a basis for ex parte rejections.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the publication number of the published application.

2. This form paragraph should only be used if the application being examined was filed after the publication date of the published application.

¶ 23.14.01 Claims Not Copied Within One Year Of Application Publication Date

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the publication number of the published application.

2. This form paragraph should only be used if the application being examined was filed after the publication date of the published application.

¶ 23.19 Foreign Priority Not Substantiated

Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action, 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).

Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.