1904.02(f)(ii) Limitations vs. Amendments to Goods and Services
A limitation filed by the applicant with the IB may affect pending or registered extensions of protection in some or all of the Contracting Parties. By contrast, an amendment to the identification of goods/services in a §66(a) application is comparable to a limitation affecting only the United States in that the amendment affects only the U.S. application. Any extensions of protection to other Contracting Parties are unaffected by amendments to a §66(a) application.
While a limitation filed with the IB may render the identification of goods/services in the §66(a) application sufficiently definite, merely recording a limitation with the IB is not considered a response to an Office Action. See 37 C.F.R §§2.62, 37 C.F.R §2.65(a); TMEP §1904.03(g)(i). If the examining attorney issued an Office action requiring amendment of the identification of goods/services prior to notification of the limitation, a proper response to the Office action still must be received within the response time period. See TMEP §1904.03(g)(i).
The USPTO will review any subsequent limitation to determine its effect on the goods/services for which extension of protection is sought in the United States. Common Reg. 27(5)(a).
See TMEP §1906.01(e) regarding the filing of a request to record a limitation with the IB; TMEP §1904.03(g)(i) regarding limitations in pending requests for extension of protection (§66(a) applications); and TMEP §1904.15(a) regarding limitations in registered extensions of protection to the United States.