1714.01    Procedural Requirements for Filing Petition to Revive

The procedural requirements for filing a petition to revive an application abandoned for failure to respond to an examining attorney’s Office action are set forth in 37 C.F.R. §2.66(b).  See TMEP §1714.01(a)–(a)(ii) for more information.  

The procedural requirements for filing a petition to revive an application abandoned for failure to timely file a statement of use or request for extension of time to file a statement of use are set forth in 37 C.F.R. §2.66(c).  See TMEP §1714.01(b)-(c) for more information.

When Petition Does Not Meet Procedural Requirements. When a petition does not meet the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.66, a paralegal in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy will notify the petitioner that the petition does not meet the requirements of the rule, and grant the petitioner 30 days to supplement the petition by submitting the missing element(s).  If the petitioner does not submit the necessary information or fees within the time allowed, the petition will be denied.

Generally, a petition to revive is automatically granted by the electronic system. However, if it is subsequently determined that the petition does not meet the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.66, a paralegal in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy will notify the petitioner that the granting of the petition has been rescinded because the petition does not meet the requirements of the rule.  The petitioner will then be granted 30 days to perfect the petition by submitting the missing element(s).  If the petitioner does not submit the necessary information or fee(s) within the time allowed, the petition will be denied.

1714.01(a)    Failure to Timely Respond to an Examining Attorney’s Office Action

1714.01(a)(i)    Response to Nonfinal Office Action

The procedural requirements for filing a petition to revive an application abandoned for failure to respond to an examining attorney’s nonfinal Office action are listed in 37 C.F.R. §2.66(b).  The petition must include all of the following:

  • (1) The petition fee required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6;
  • (2) A statement, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts, that the delay in filing the response on or before the due date was unintentional.  The statement does not have to be verified; and
  • (3) A properly signed response to the Office action or a statement that the applicant did not receive the Office action or the notification that an Office action issued.  

Office Actions With a Three-month Response Period and No Request for an Extension of Time to Respond Was Granted. If the applicant does not assert non-receipt of the Office action or notification, in addition to the requirements set forth above, the petition must also include the fee under 37 C.F.R §2.6(a)(28)  for a request for extension of time to respond. However, payment of this fee with the petition to revive does not provide additional time to file a further response. A response is due at the time of filing the petition to revive.

If applicant asserts non-receipt of the Office action or notification, the fee under 37 C.F.R §2.6(a)(28)  is not required.

Office Actions With an Extended Response Period. The filing of an extension of time to respond under 37 C.F.R §2.62(a)(2)  (see TMEP §711.01) presumes knowledge of the issuance of the Office action. Accordingly, in the limited circumstance in which an applicant has been granted an extension of the response period to six months and does not file a response within the extended time period, the applicant may not claim non-receipt of the Office action in any petition to revive under 37 C.F.R §2.66. In such case, the applicant must provide a response to the outstanding Office action with the petition to revive. In the rare circumstance in which the applicant alleges that an extraordinary situation resulted in non-receipt of the Office action, even though a request for an extension of time to respond was filed, the applicant may provide proof of such alleged extraordinary situation in a petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R §2.146(a)(5).

Assertion of Non-Receipt of the Office Action. An applicant may not assert again that it did not receive the same Office action or notification in a subsequent petition. 37 C.F.R. §2.66(b)(3).

If the petition states that applicant did not receive the Office action, and the petition is granted, the examining attorney will conduct a new search and issue a new Office action and provide the applicant with a new response period, or, if all issues previously raised remain the same, after reviving the application, the USPTO will issue a notice to the applicant directing the applicant to view the previously issued Office action on the TSDR portal on the USPTO website at https://tsdr.uspto.gov/, and provide the applicant with a new response period in which to file a response. See TMEP §711 regarding the deadline for response to an Office action.

See TMEP §718.02(a) regarding a petition to revive a portion of an application that was partially abandoned and §1714.01 regarding situations in which a petition to revive fails to meet the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.66(b)  (e.g., when there is no allegation that the applicant did not receive the Office action, but the petition does not include a proposed response).

1714.01(a)(ii)    Response to Final Office Action

The procedural requirements for filing a petition to revive an application abandoned for failure to respond to an examining attorney’s final Office action are listed in 37 C.F.R. §2.66(b).  The petition must include all of the following:

  • (1) The petition fee required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6;
  • (2) A statement, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts, that the delay in filing the response on or before the due date was unintentional. The statement does not have to be verified; and
  • (3) A properly signed response to the Office action or a statement that the applicant did not receive the Office action or the notification that an Office action issued. Receipt is presumed in cases where the applicant filed an extension of time to respond under 37 C.F.R §2.62(a)(2)  (see TMEP §711.01).
  • (4) If the applicant asserts unintentional delay in failing to timely respond to the Office action or notification and does not assert non-receipt of the Office action or notification, the applicant must also file: (a) a notice of appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board under §2.141  or a petition to the Director under §2.146, if permitted by §2.63(b)(2)(iii)  or (b) a statement that no appeal or petition is being filed from the final refusal(s) or requirement(s). Any response filed with the petition, or subsequently filed in response to a notice of deficiency issued by a paralegal in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, will be treated as a request for reconsideration under 37 C.F.R. §2.66(b)(3).

In some cases, an amendment requesting registration on the Supplemental Register or registration under 15 U.S.C. §1052(f)  may also be an appropriate response to a final refusal of registration on the Principal Register. See TMEP §§714.05(a)(i), 816.04, 1212.02(h) .

Generally, if the petition does not include the requirements set out in 37 C.F.R. §2.66(b), the petition will be treated as incomplete. The applicant will be given an opportunity to perfect the petition by submitting the required items or claim of non-receipt. If the applicant does not submit a proper response or claim of non-receipt within the time allowed, the petition will be denied. However, if the applicant previously filed a timely request for reconsideration that did not overcome all outstanding refusals and satisfy all outstanding requirements, a late appeal will not be accepted on petition. That is because the filing of a request for reconsideration does not stay or extend the time for filing an appeal. 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); TMEP §715.03.

Office Actions With a Three-month Response Period and No Request for an Extension of Time to Respond Was Granted. If the applicant does not assert non-receipt of the Office action or notification, in addition to the requirements set forth above, the petition must also include the fee under 37 C.F.R §2.6(a)(28)  for a request for extension of time to respond. However, payment of this fee with the petition to revive does not provide additional time to file a further response, including a further request for reconsideration, or extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. A response, including filing a notice of appeal to the Board, is due at the time of filing the petition to revive.

If applicant asserts non-receipt of the Office action or notification, the fee under 37 C.F.R §2.6(a)(28)  is not required.

Assertion of Non-Receipt of the Office Action. If the petition states that applicant did not receive the final action, and the petition is granted, the USPTO will issue a new final action and provide the applicant with a new response period. If all issues previously raised remain the same, the USPTO will issue a notice to the applicant directing the applicant to view the previously issued final action on the TSDR portal on the USPTO website and provide the applicant with a new response period in which to file a response. See TMEP §711 regarding the deadline for response to an Office action.

Office Actions With an Extended Response Period. The filing of an extension of time to respond under 37 C.F.R §2.62(a)(2)  (see TMEP §711.01) presumes knowledge of the issuance of the Office action. Accordingly, in the limited circumstance in which an applicant has been granted an extension of the response period to six months and does not file a response within the extended time period, the applicant may not claim non-receipt of the final Office action in any petition to revive under 37 C.F.R §2.66. In such case, the applicant must provide a response to the outstanding final Office action with the petition to revive. In the rare circumstance in which the applicant alleges that an extraordinary situation resulted in non-receipt of the Office action, even though a request for an extension of time to respond was filed, the applicant may provide proof of such alleged extraordinary situation in a petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R §2.146(a)(5).

The applicant may not assert again that it did not receive the final Office action or notification in a subsequent petition. 37 C.F.R. §2.66(b)(3).

See TMEP §1705.04 and §1714.01(d) regarding petition timeliness, and §1705.05 regarding due diligence in monitoring the status of an application.

1714.01(b)    Failure to File a Statement of Use or Extension Request - Notice of Allowance Received

The procedural requirements for filing a petition to revive an application abandoned for failure to respond to a notice of allowance are listed in 37 C.F.R. §2.66(c). If the applicant received the notice of allowance, the petition must include all of the following:

  • (1) The petition fee required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6;
  • (2) A statement, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts, that the delay in filing the statement of use (or request for extension of time to file a statement of use) on or before the due date was unintentional.  The statement does not have to be verified;
  • (3) Either a statement of use under 37 C.F.R. §2.88  or a request for an extension of time to file a statement of use under 37 C.F.R. §2.89; and
  • (4) The required fees for the number of extension requests that the applicant should have filed if the application had never been abandoned.

Example 1:  If a notice of allowance was issued January 14, 2009, and the applicant did not file a statement of use or extension request by July 14, 2009, the application becomes abandoned.  If a petition to revive is filed July 23, 2009, with a statement of use, the petition must include:  (1) the fee for the statement of use; (2) the fee for the extension request that was due July 14, 2009; and (3) the petition fee.

Example 2:  If a notice of allowance was issued January 14, 2009, and the applicant did not file a statement of use or extension request by July 14, 2009, the application becomes abandoned.  If a petition to revive is filed January 23, 2010, without a statement of use, the petition must be accompanied by:  (1) the second extension request that was due January 14, 2010, with the filing fee therefor; (2) the fee for the first extension request that was due July 14, 2009; and (3) the petition fee.  If the petition is granted, a statement of use or third extension request will be due July 14, 2010.

Unless a statement of use is filed with or before the petition, the applicant must file any further requests for extension of time to file a statement of use that become due while the petition is pending, or file a statement of use (37 C.F.R. §2.66(c)(3) ).  See TMEP §1714.01(b)(i).

  Example:  If a notice of allowance was issued January 14, 2009, and the applicant did not file a statement of use or extension request by July 14, 2009, the application becomes abandoned.  If a petition to revive is filed January 2, 2010, without a statement of use, the petition must include:  (1) the first extension request that was due July 14, 2009, with the filing fee therefor; and (2) the petition fee.  In addition, if the petition is pending, the applicant must submit by January 14, 2010 either: (1) a statement of use (with the required fee), or (2) a second extension request (with the required fee) before the petition can be granted.

The USPTO will not grant a petition to revive an intent-to-use application if granting the petition would extend the period for filing the statement of use beyond thirty-six months after the issue date of the notice of allowance.  15 U.S.C. §§1051(d)(1), (2); 37 C.F.R. §2.66(d).

Multiple Basis Applications.  In a multiple-basis application, if in response to a notice of abandonment the applicant elects to delete the intent-to-use basis and only keep the basis or bases to which the notice of allowance does not pertain, then the applicant does not have to file a statement of use or extension request with the petition, or file any further extension requests while the petition is pending.  Instead, applicant may submit with the petition a request to delete the intent-to-use basis or the goods/services/classes to which the intent-to-use basis applies and proceed to registration on the alternative basis or bases for registration for those goods/services/classes supported by such alternative bases.

See TMEP §1705.04 and §1714.01(d) regarding petition timeliness and §1705.05 regarding due diligence in monitoring the status of an application.

1714.01(b)(i)    Applicant Must File Statement of Use or Further Extension Requests During Pendency of a Petition

Filing a petition to revive does not stay the time for filing a statement of use or further request(s) for extension of time to file a statement of use.  When a petition is granted, the term of the six-month extension that was the subject of the petition runs from the date of the expiration of the previously existing deadline for filing a statement of use.  37 C.F.R. §2.89(g).  Thus, a petitioner must either file a statement of use or file additional extension requests as they become due during the pendency of a petition.

If the applicant fails to file a statement of use or further request(s) for extension of time to file the statement of use while the petition is pending, the USPTO will give the applicant an opportunity to perfect the petition by paying the fees for each missed extension request and filing a copy of the last extension request, or statement of use, that should have been filed. In re Moisture Jamzz, Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1762, 1764 (Comm’r Pats. 1997).

See TMEP §§1108–1108.05 regarding extension requests, and §§1109–1109.18 regarding statements of use.

1714.01(c)    Notice of Allowance Not Received

The procedural requirements for filing a petition to revive an application abandoned for failure to respond to a notice of allowance are listed in 37 C.F.R. §2.66(c). If the applicant did not receive the notice of allowance, the petition must include the following:

  • (1) The petition fee required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6;
  • (2) A statement, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts, that the delay in filing the statement of use (or request for extension of time to file a statement of use) on or before the due date was unintentional.  The statement does not have to be verified; and
  • (3) A statement that the applicant did not receive the notice of allowance and a request to cancel said notice and issue a new notice. If the applicant asserts that the unintentional delay in responding is based on non-receipt of the notice of allowance, the applicant may not again assert non-receipt of the notice of allowance in a subsequent petition.

If the applicant did not receive the notice of allowance, it is not necessary to file a statement of use or request for an extension of time to file a statement of use, or the fees for the number of extension requests that would have been due if the application had never been abandoned.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66(c)(2)(iii).  If the petition is granted, the USPTO will cancel the original notice of allowance and issue a new notice, giving the applicant a new six-month period in which to file a statement of use or extension request.

The applicant may not assert again that it did not receive the notice of allowance in a subsequent petition. Id.

If the petitioner files an extension request with a petition that alleges nonreceipt of the notice of allowance, the USPTO will presume that the applicant wants to maintain the issue date of the original notice of allowance and will process the extension request. Similarly, if the petitioner files a statement of use and the required fees for any missing extension requests with a petition that alleges nonreceipt of the notice of allowance, the USPTO will presume that the applicant intends to maintain the issue date of the original notice of allowance and will process the statement of use.

1714.01(d)    Timeliness

Under 37 C.F.R. §2.66(a), a petition to revive an abandoned application must be filed by not later than:  (1) two months after the issue date of the notice of abandonment; or (2) two months after the date of actual knowledge of the abandonment and not later than six months after the date the trademark electronic records system indicates that the application is abandoned in full, where the applicant declares under 37 C.F.R. §2.20  or 28 U.S.C. §1746  that it did not receive the notice of abandonment.  

A petition to revive an application as to goods/services/classes deleted (abandoned) for failure to respond to a partial refusal or requirement must be filed by not later than:  (1) two months after the issue date of the examiner’s amendment setting forth the changes that will be made in the identification of goods/services; or (2) two months after the date of actual knowledge of the issuance of the examiner’s amendment and not later than six months after the date the trademark electronic records system indicates that the application is abandoned in part by examiner’s amendment, where the applicant declares under 37 C.F.R. §2.20  or 28 U.S.C. §1746  that it did not receive the examiner’s amendment, provided the application has not registered. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66(a).

If a petition is untimely, the USPTO will deny the petition and the petition fee will not be refunded.  

The applicant may file a petition to revive before the applicant receives the notice of abandonment or the examiner’s amendment abandoning in part.

See TMEP §718.02(a) regarding partial abandonment, §1705.04 regarding petition timeliness, and §1705.05 regarding an applicant’s duty to exercise due diligence in monitoring the status of an application.

1714.01(e)    Signed Statement that Delay Was Unintentional

A petition to revive must include a statement, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts, that the delay in responding to the Office action or notice of allowance was unintentional.  37 C.F.R. §2.66(b)(2), (c)(2). Generally, it is not necessary to explain the circumstances that caused the unintentional delay and the statement does not have to be verified.

However, if the applicant is alleging that non-receipt of an Office action or notice of allowance caused the unintentional delay, this should be stated; no further explanation is necessary. Note, however, that an applicant may not assert again non-receipt of the same Office action, notification, or notice of abandonment in a subsequent petition.

The USPTO will generally not question the applicant’s assertion that the delay in responding to an Office action or notice of allowance was unintentional unless there is information in the record indicating that the delay was in fact intentional.  An example of an intentional delay is when an applicant intentionally decides not to file a response or intent-to-use document because it no longer wishes to pursue registration of the mark, but later changes its mind and decides that it does wish to pursue registration.

The person signing the statement must have firsthand knowledge of the facts, but it is not necessary to specifically state in the petition that the signatory has firsthand knowledge.  See TMEP §611.03(a). Generally, the USPTO will not question the signatory’s authority to sign the statement.  However, any response to an Office action accompanying the petition (see TMEP §1714.01(a)(i)-(ii)) must be signed by a qualified U.S. attorney, or by the individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership) if the applicant is not represented by a qualified U.S. attorney.  37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2), 11.18(a).  See TMEP §611.03(b) and §712–712.03 regarding signature of responses to Office actions, §602 regarding persons authorized to represent a party before the USPTO, and §§611.06–611.06(h) for guidelines on persons with legal authority to bind various types of legal entities.

See also TMEP §1705.07(b) regarding signature of petitions, and §611.01(c) regarding signature of documents filed through TEAS.

1714.01(f)    Applicability of Unintentional Delay Standard

1714.01(f)(i)    Situations Where the Unintentional Delay Standard Applies

The unintentional delay standard of Trademark Rule 2.66 applies only to the "failure" to respond to an examining attorney’s Office action or a notice of allowance.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(d)(4), 1062(b).  This includes the failure to meet minimum filing requirements for a statement of use or request for an extension of time to file a statement of use.

The minimum filing requirements for a statement of use are listed in 37 C.F.R. §2.88(c):   (1) the fee for at least a single class; (2) at least one specimen of the mark as used in commerce; and (3) a verification or declaration signed by the applicant or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant stating that the mark is in use in commerce.

For a trademark or service mark, the minimum filing requirements for a request for extension of time to file a statement of use are:  (1) a verified statement, signed by the applicant or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant, that the applicant has a continued bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce; (2) an identification of the goods/services on or in connection with which the applicant has a continued bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce; and (3) payment of the prescribed fee for at least one class of goods or services.  In re El Taurino Rest., Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1220, 1222 (Comm’r Pats. 1996); TMEP §1108.04. See TMEP §1108.04 for the minimum filing requirements for an extension request for a collective mark or certification mark.

An applicant who fails to meet the minimum filing requirements for a statement of use or request for an extension of time to file a statement of use has, in effect, not filed the statement of use or extension request.  Therefore, if the failure to meet the minimum filing requirements was unintentional, the applicant may file a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. §2.66.

An applicant may also file a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. §2.66  if the applicant timely files a notice of appeal from an examining attorney’s final refusal, but unintentionally fails to include the appeal fee required by 15 U.S.C.  §1070.

1714.01(f)(ii)    Situations Where the Unintentional Delay Standard Does Not Apply

1714.01(f)(ii)(A)    Holding of Abandonment of an Application for Incomplete Response

The unintentional delay standard of 37 C.F.R. §2.66  does not apply to an application that is abandoned for filing an incomplete response to an examining attorney’s Office action.  Incomplete responses to examining attorneys’ Office actions are governed by 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(2), which gives the examining attorney discretion to grant an applicant 30 days, or to the end of the response period for the previous Office action, whichever is longer, to perfect the response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)(2).  If the examining attorney holds the application abandoned for failure to file a complete response to an Office action, the applicant may file a petition to the Director to review the examining attorney’s action under 37 C.F.R. §2.146. The Director will reverse the examining attorney’s action only if there is clear error or an abuse of discretion, the petitioner establishes substantial compliance, or, where the application was abandoned due to an improperly signed response, the petitioner provides a properly signed response to Office action. See TMEP §§1713.01, 1713.02.

A request for reconsideration of a final refusal (see TMEP §§715.03–715.03(c)) that does not meet all legal requirements and is not accompanied by a proper notice of appeal will be treated as an incomplete response to the final Office action.  If the examining attorney denies the request for reconsideration, the time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the issuance date of the final action. TMEP §715.03(c). If the time for appeal has expired and the application is abandoned for an incomplete response, the applicant may not file a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. §2.66. The applicant may file a petition to the Director to review the examining attorney’s action under 37 C.F.R. §2.146. See TMEP §1713 regarding petitions to reverse a holding of abandonment for an incomplete response.

1714.01(f)(ii)(B)    Examining Attorney’s Refusal of Registration on Ground That Applicant Did Not Meet Statutory Requirements Before Expiration of Deadline for Filing Statement of Use

If the applicant unintentionally fails to meet the minimum requirements for filing a statement of use, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §2.88(c), the applicant may file a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. §2.66.  However, the applicant may not file a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. §2.66  if the applicant met the minimum filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.88(c), but the examining attorney later refuses registration on the ground that the applicant failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for a complete statement of use (15 U.S.C. §1051(d);  37 C.F.R. §2.88(b) ) on or before the statutory deadline (e.g., because the specimen is unacceptable or the dates of use are subsequent to the deadline for filing the statement of use).  The applicant may appeal the examining attorney’s refusal of registration to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  See TMEP §1109.16(a) regarding the requirements that must be met within the statutory period for filing the statement of use.

1714.01(f)(ii)(C)    Goods/Services Omitted from Statement of Use or Request for Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use

If the applicant lists the goods/services/classes in a statement of use or request for an extension of time to file a statement of use, and omits any goods or services that were listed in the notice of allowance, the USPTO will presume these goods/services to be deleted.  The applicant may not thereafter request that the goods/services be reinserted in the application. 37 C.F.R. §§2.88(b)(1)(iv), 2.89(f); TMEP §§1108.02(d), 1109.13.  In these situations, the applicant may not file a petition under 37 C.F.R. §2.66  claiming unintentional delay in filing a statement of use or extension request for the omitted goods/services.

1714.01(f)(ii)(D)    Registered Marks

Trademark Rule 2.66 does not apply to registrations; it only applies to applications.

Registrants must file petition to Director, not petition to revive. If a registrant fails to timely respond to an Office action regarding a §8 affidavit, §71 affidavit, or §9 renewal application, even if the electronic record does not indicate the registration is cancelled or expired, the registrant may file a petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(5)  and §2.148  to waive a rule and accept a late response.  The petition must be filed by not later than two months after the issue date of the notice of cancellation/expiration. 37 C.F.R. §2.146(d)(1). Where the registrant declares under 37 C.F.R. §2.20  or 28 U.S.C. §1746  that it did not receive the action, the petition must be filed by not later than two months of actual knowledge of the cancellation/expiration and not later than six months after the date the trademark electronic records system indicates that the registration is cancelled/expired. 37 C.F.R. §2.146(d)(2)(ii).

The Director will waive a rule only in an extraordinary situation, where justice requires, and no other party is injured.  The Director has no authority to waive a statutory requirement. See TMEP §1708 regarding the waiver of rules.

See TMEP §§1712.02–1712.02(b) regarding requests to reinstate cancelled or expired registrations.

1714.01(f)(ii)(E)    Dismissal of Appeal for Failure to File a Brief

An applicant cannot file a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. §2.66  if an application is abandoned because the Board dismisses an appeal for failure to file a brief.  In this situation, the applicant may file a motion with the Board to set aside the dismissal and accept a late-filed brief.  See TBMP §1203.02(a). If the Board denies this motion, the applicant may file a petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R. §2.146, asking the Director to reverse the Board’s order.  The petition must be filed by not later than thirty days after the issue date of the Board’s order.  37 C.F.R. §2.146(e)(2). The Director will reverse the Board’s action only if the Board clearly erred or abused its discretion.

1714.01(g)    Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Petition to Revive

Under 37 C.F.R. §2.66(e), if a petition to revive is denied, the applicant may request reconsideration by:  (1) filing the request for reconsideration by not later than two months after the issue date of the decision denying the petition or two months after the date of actual knowledge of the decision denying the petition and not later than six months after the issue date of the decision where the applicant declares under 37 C.F.R. §2.20  or 28 U.S.C. §1746  that it did not receive the decision; and (2) paying a second petition fee under 37 C.F.R. §2.6. See TMEP §1705.08. Petitioners should use the TEAS Petition to Director form to request reconsideration.