1707 Director’s Supervisory Authority Under 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(3)
Under 35 U.S.C. §2 and 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(3), the Director may exercise supervisory authority on petition in appropriate circumstances. As noted in TMEP §1706, the Director may review the actions of an examiner or paralegal under 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(3) for clear procedural error or abuse of discretion.
In some cases, the Director will exercise supervisory authority under 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(3) even where there has been no clear procedural error or abuse of discretion, if a petitioner can show that it has substantially complied with the requirements of the statute or rules. SeeIn re Carnicon Development Co., 34 USPQ2d 1541 (Comm’r Pats. 1992) (assertion of verified date of first use, coupled with statement of current method of use, interpreted as substantially in compliance with minimum filing requirement of 37 C.F.R. §2.88(e)(3) for an allegation in a statement of use that the "mark is in use in commerce.").
The Director may also exercise supervisory authority under 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(3) to make changes to USPTO practice. See, e.g., In re L.G. Lavorazioni Grafite S.r.l., 61 USPQ2d 1063 (Comm'r Pats. 2001); In re Slack, 54 USPQ2d 1504 (Comm'r Pats. 2000); In re Moisture Jamzz, Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1762 (Comm'r Pats. 1997); In re El Taurino Restaurant, Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1220 (Comm'r Pats. 1996); In re Umax Data System, Inc., 40 USPQ2d 1539 (Comm’r Pats. 1996); In re Monte Dei Maschi Di Siena, 34 USPQ2d 1415 (Comm'r Pats. 1995).