Chapter   1300  Allowance and Issue
---SECTION---1301 Substantially Allowable Application, Special

When an application is in condition for allowance, except as to matters
of form, the application will be considered special and prompt action
taken to require correction of formal matters.  See MPEP Section 
710.02(b).

---SECTION---1302 Final Review and Preparation for Issue

---SECTION---1302.01 General Review of Disclosure

When an application is apparently ready for allowance, it should be
reviewed by the examiner to make certain that the whole application
meets all formal and substantive (i.e., statutory) requirements and that
the language of the claims is enabled by, and finds adequate descriptive
support in, the application disclosure as originally filed.  Neglect to
give due attention to these matters may lead to confusion as to the
scope of the patent.

Frequently, the invention as originally described and claimed was of
much greater scope than that defined in the claims as allowed.  Some or
much of the subject matter disclosed may be entirely outside the bounds
of the claims accepted by the applicant. In such case, the examiner
should require the applicant to modify the brief summary of the
invention and restrict the descriptive matter so as to be in harmony
with the claims.  However valuable for reference purposes the examiner
may consider the matter which is extraneous to the claimed invention,
patents should be confined in their disclosures to the respective
inventions patented (see  37 CFR 1.71 and 1.73).  Of course, enough
background should be included to make the invention clearly
understandable. See MPEP Section  608.01(c) and Section  608.01(d). Form
Paragraphs 13.07 and 13.08 may be used.

13.07 Disclosure To Be Limited to Claimed Invention

Applicant is required to modify the brief summary of the invention and
to restrict the descriptive matter so that they are confined to and in
harmony with the invention to which the allowed claims are directed. 
See MPEP Section  1302.01.  For example,   [1].

Examiner Note:

An example should be given as to the specific sheets or drawing figures
and portions of the specification which should be cancelled.  If drawing
figures are to be cancelled, applicant should be reminded that
subsequent figures must be renumbered.

13.08 Disclosed Subject Matter Outside the Bounds of the Claims

The application contains disclosure entirely outside the bounds of the
allowed claims.  Applicant is required to modify the brief summary of
the invention and restrict the descriptive matter so as to be in harmony
with the claims (MPEP Section  1302.01).

There should be clear support or antecedent basis in the specification
for the terminology used in the claims.  Usually, the original claims
follow the nomenclature of the specification; but sometimes in amending
the claims or in adding new claims, applicant employs terms that do not
appear in the specification.  This may result in uncertainty as to the
interpretation to be given such terms.  See MPEP Section  608.01(o).  It
should be noted, however, that exact terms need not be used in haec
verba to satisfy the written description requirement of the first
paragraph of  35 U.S.C. 112. Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038, 34
USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265,
191 USPQ 90, 98 (CCPA 1976).  See also  37 CFR 1.121(a)(5) which merely
requires substantial correspondence between the language of the claims
and the language of the specification.

Where a copending application is referred to in the specification, the
examiner should ascertain whether it has matured into a patent or has
become abandoned, and "now abandoned" or the patent number should be
added to the specification.

The claims should be renumbered as required by  37 CFR 1.126, and
particular attention should be given to claims dependent on previous
claims to see that the numbering is consistent. An examiner's amendment
should be prepared if the order of the claims is changed. See MPEP
Section  608.01(j),  Section  608.01(n), and Section  1302.04(g).

The abstract should be checked for an adequate and clear statement of
the disclosed invention. See MPEP Section  608.01(b).  The length of the
abstract should be limited to 250 words.

The title should also be checked.  It should be as short and specific as
possible.  However, the title should be descriptive of the invention
claimed, even though a longer title may result. If a satisfactory title
is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may change the title on
or after allowance. See MPEP Section  606 and Section  606.01.

No pencil notes should be made in the application file by the examiner.
Any notes in the file must be erased when the application is passed to
issue.

All amendments should be reviewed to assure that they were timely filed.

---SECTION---1302.02 Requirement for a Rewritten Specification

Whenever interlineations or cancellations have been made in the
specification or amendments which would lead to confusion and mistake,
the examiner should require the entire portion of specification affected
to be rewritten before passing the application to issue. See  37 CFR
1.125 and MPEP Section  608.01(q).

Form Paragraph 13.01 should be used when making such a requirement.

13.01 Requirement for Rewritten Specification

The interlineations or cancellations made in the specification or
amendments to the claims could lead to confusion and mistake during the
issue and printing processes. Accordingly, the portion of the
specification or claims as identified below is required to be rewritten
before passing the case to issue. See  37 CFR 1.125 and MPEP Section 
608.01(q).

Examiner Note:

1. Specific discussion of the sections of the specification or claims
required to be rewritten must be set forth.

2. See form paragraph 6.28.01 for a substitute specification.

---SECTION---1302.03 Notice of Allowability

A Notice of Allowability form PTOL-37 is used whenever an application
has been placed in condition for allowance.  The date of any
communication and/or interview which resulted in the allowance should be
included in the notice.

In all instances, both before and after final rejection, in which an
application is placed in condition for allowance, applicant should be
notified promptly of allowability of the claims by a Notice of
Allowability PTOL-37.  If delays in processing the Notice of
Allowability are expected, e.g., because an extensive examiner's
amendment must be entered, and the end of a statutory period for reply
is near, the examiner should notify applicant by way of an interview
that the application has been placed in condition for allowance, and an
Interview Summary PTO-413 should be mailed.  Prompt notice to applicant
is important because it may avoid an unnecessary appeal and act as a
safeguard against a holding of abandonment.

---SECTION---1302.04 Examiner's Amendments and Changes

Except by formal amendment duly signed or as hereinafter provided, no
corrections, erasures, or interlineations may be made in the body of
written portions of the specification or any other paper filed in the
application for patent. (See  37 CFR 1.121.)

Correction of the following obvious errors and omissions only may be
made with pen by the examiner of the application who will then initial
the sheet margin and assume full responsibility for the change:

(A) Misspelled words.

(B) Disagreement of a noun with its verb.

(C) Inconsistent "case" of a pronoun.

(D) Disagreement between a reference character as used in the
description and on the drawing. The character may be corrected in the
description but only when the examiner is certain of the propriety of
the change.

(E) Entry of "Patent No. ........" to identify a patent which has been
granted on a U.S. application referred to by application number in the
specification.

(F) Entry of "abandoned" if a U.S. patent application referred to by
application number in the specification has become abandoned.

(G) Correction of reversed figure numbers. Garrett v. Cox, 233 F.2d 343,
345, 110 USPQ 52, 54 (CCPA 1956).

(H) Other obvious minor grammatical errors such as misplaced or omitted
commas, improper parentheses, quotation marks, etc.

(I) Obvious informalities in the application, other than the ones noted
above, or of purely grammatical nature.

Where a reference to the parent application in an otherwise allowable
application filed under  37 CFR 1.53(b) or former  37 CFR 1.60 or 1.62
has inadvertently been omitted by the applicant, the examiner should
insert the required reference by examiner's amendment (see MPEP Section 
201.11).  Note that the specification of an application filed under  37
CFR 1.53(d) should not contain a reference to the parent application.
See MPEP Section  201.06(d).

When correcting originally filed papers, clean red ink must be used (not
blue or black ink).

Other obvious informalities in the application may be corrected by the
examiner, but such corrections must be by a formal examiner's amendment,
signed by the primary examiner, placed in the file, and a copy sent to
the applicant. The changes specified in the amendment are entered by the
technical support staff in the regular way. An examiner's amendment
should include Form Paragraph 13.02 and Form Paragraph 13.02.01. Form
Paragraph 13.02.02 should be used if an extension of time is required.

13.02 Examiner's Amendment

An examiner's amendment to the record appears below.  Should the changes
and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed
as provided by  37 CFR 1.312.  To ensure consideration of such an
amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue
fee.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph is NOT to be used in a reexamination proceeding (use
form paragraph 22.06 instead).

13.02.01 Examiner's Amendment Authorized

Authorization for this examiner's amendment was given in a telephone
interview with [1] on [2].

13.02.02 Extension of Time and Examiner's Amendment Authorized by
Telephone

An extension of time under  37 CFR 1.136(a) is required in order to make
an examiner's amendment which places this application in condition for
allowance.  During a telephone conversation conducted on [1], [2]
requested an extension of time for [3] MONTH(S) and authorized the
Commissioner to charge Deposit Account No. [4] the required fee of $ 
[5] for this extension and authorized the following examiner's
amendment. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to
applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by  37 CFR 1.312.  To
ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later
than the payment of the issue fee.

Examiner Note:

See MPEP 706.07(f), item 10 which explains when an extension of time is
needed in order to make amendments to place the application in condition
for allowance.

The amendment or cancellation of claims by formal examiner's amendment
is permitted when passing an application to issue where these changes
have been authorized by applicant (or his attorney or agent) in a
telephone or personal interview. The examiner's amendment should
indicate that the changes were authorized, the date and type (personal
or telephone) of interview, and with whom it was held.

The examiner's amendment practice may be used to make charges against
deposit accounts under special conditions.

An examiner's amendment can be used to make a charge against a deposit
account, provided prior approval is obtained from the applicant,
attorney or agent, in order to expedite the issuance of a patent on an
application otherwise ready for allowance. When such an examiner's
amendment is prepared, the prior approval is indicated by identification
of the name of the authorizing party, the date and type (personal or
telephone) of authorization, the purpose for which the charge is made
(additional claims, etc.), and the deposit account number.

Further identifying data, if deemed necessary and requested by the
attorney, should also be included in the examiner's amendment.

For example, Form Paragraph 13.06 may be used to charge an extension of
time fee in an examiner's amendment.

13.06 Extension of Time by Examiner's Amendment

An extension of time under  37 CFR 1.136(a) is required to place this
application in condition for allowance.  During a telephone conversation
conducted on   [1], [2] requested an extension of time for   [3]
MONTH(S) and authorized the Commissioner to charge Deposit Account No.
[4] the required fee of $  [5] for this extension.

Examiner Note:

1. See MPEP Section  706.07(f), item 10 which explains when an extension
of time is needed in order to make amendments to place the application
in condition for allowance.

2. When an examiner's amendment is also authorized, use form paragraph
13.02.02 instead.

A change in the abstract may be made by examiner's amendment.

The fact that applicant is entitled to an earlier U.S. effective filing
date under  35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) or  35 U.S.C. 119(e) is
sometimes overlooked. To minimize this possibility, the statement that,
"This is a division (continuation, continuation-in-part) of Application
Number -/---, filed ---" should appear as the first sentence of the
description of applications claiming priority under  35 U.S.C. 120,
except in the case of design applications where it should appear as set
forth in MPEP Section  1503.01. In applications claiming priority under 
35 U.S.C. 119(e), a statement such as "This application claims the
benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ - --, filed - --" should
appear as the first sentence of the description. In addition, for an
application which is claiming the benefit under  35 U.S.C. 120 of a
prior application which in turn claims the benefit of a provisional
application under  35 U.S.C. 119(e), a suitable reference would read,
"This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 08/ - --,
filed - --, now abandoned, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional
Application No. 60/ - --, filed - --." The status (whether patented or
abandoned) of the nonprovisional application(s) for which priority is
claimed should also be included. Any such statements appearing elsewhere
in the specification should be relocated. The technical support staff
indicates the change for the printer in the appropriate margin when
checking new applications for matters of form.

References cited as being of interest by examiners when passing an
application to issue will not be supplied to applicant. The references
will be cited as usual on form PTO-892, a copy of which will be attached
to the Notice of Allowability, form PTOL-37.

Where an application is ready for issue except for a slight defect in
the drawing not involving a change in structure, the examiner will
prepare a letter indicating the change to be made and note in pencil on
the drawing the addition or alteration to be made. See MPEP Section 
608.02(w).

No other changes may be made by any person in any record of the Patent
and Trademark office without the written approval of the Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks.

In reviewing the application, all errors should be carefully noted. It
is not necessary that the language be the best; it is, however,
essential that it be clear in meaning, and free from errors in syntax. 
Any necessary examiner's amendment is usually made at the time an
application is being prepared for issue by the examiner. However, the
need for such may not be noted until after the proof of the patent is
read and the application is sent to the examiner with a "printer
waiting" slip (form PTO-97). A copy of any formal examiner's amendment
is sent to applicant even if the application is already in the printer's
hands. See MPEP Section  1309.02.

Examiners will not cancel claims on the basis of an amendment which
argues for certain claims and, alternatively, purports to authorize
their cancellation by the examiner if other claims are allowed  . See
generally   In re Willingham, 282 F.2d 353, 356, 127 USPQ 211, 215 (CCPA
1960).

In all instances, both before and after final rejection, in which an
application is placed in condition for allowance as by an interview or
amendment, applicant should be notified promptly of this fact by means
of a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37). See MPEP Section  714.13 and
Section  1302.03.

If after reviewing, screening, or surveying an allowed application in
the Office of Patent Quality Review, an error or omission of the type
noted in items (A) through (I) under the second paragraph of this
section is noted, the error or omission may be corrected by the
Patentability Review Examiner in the same manner as set forth in the
second paragraph. Since all other obvious informalities may only be
corrected by a formal examiner's amendment, if the Office of Patent
Quality Review discovers any such informality, the Patentability Review
Examiner will return the application to the Group examining personnel
via the Group Director suggesting, as appropriate, specific changes for
approval and correction by the examiner through the use of an examiner's
amendment.

---SECTION---1302.04(a) Title of Invention

Where the title of the invention is not specific to the invention as
claimed, see MPEP Section  606.01.

---SECTION---1302.04(b) Cancellation of Nonstatutory Claim

When a case is otherwise in condition for allowance the examiner may
cancel an obviously nonstatutory claim such as one to  "A device
substantially as shown and described." Applicant should be notified of
the cancellation of the claim by an examiner's amendment.

---SECTION---1302.04(c) Cancellation of Claims to Nonelected Invention

See MPEP Section  821.01 and Section  821.02.

---SECTION---1302.04(d) Cancellation of Claim Lost in Interference

See MPEP Section  2363.03.

---SECTION---1302.04(e) Cancellation of Rejected Claims Following Appeal

See MPEP Section  1214.06, Section  1215.03, and Section  1215.04.

---SECTION---1302.04(f) Data of Copending Application Referred to Should
Be Brought Up-to-Date

Where a patent application which is ready for issue refers by
application number to a U.S. nonprovisional application which has
matured into a patent, the examiner is authorized to enter the patent
number without a formal examiner's amendment. This entry should be in
the following form: ", Patent No. .........".  The entry is to be
initialed and dated in the margin by the examiner to fix responsibility
for the same. The entry and the initials should be in red ink.

If the nonprovisional application referred to has become abandoned, the
entry "abandoned" should be made in red ink, and initialed and dated by
the examiner in the margin. A formal examiner's amendment is not
required.

---SECTION---1302.04(g) Identification of Claims

To identify a claim, a formal examiner's amendment should refer to it by
the original number and, if renumbered in the allowed application, also
by the new number.

---SECTION---1302.05 Correction of Drawing

Where an application otherwise ready for issue requires correction of
the drawing, the examiner should send the revised application to the
Publishing Division after requiring corrected drawings.

---SECTION---1302.05(a) Original Drawings Cannot Be Located

When the original drawings cannot be located and the application is
otherwise in condition for allowance, no "Official Search" need be
undertaken. The Examining Group should check its own area and attempt to
obtain the drawing from abandoned files. If the drawing cannot be
located, a yellow tag should be placed on the application to flag it as
having a drawing problem. A memorandum as outlined below should be
stapled to the outside of the file when forwarding it to the Publishing
Division.

Memorandum

Application No.______________

Date forwarded_______________

ATTENTION PUBLISHING DIVISION, DRAWING MISSING

I have attempted to locate the drawing in this application without
success. The drawing cannot be located in the Examining Group. (The
drawing cannot be obtained from Abandoned Files.)

Print O.G. Fig____________

Class____________________

Subclass_________________

---SECTION---1302.06 Prior Foreign Application

  See MPEP Section  201.14(c) and Section  202.03.

---SECTION---1302.07 Use of Retention Labels To Preserve Abandoned
Companion Applications

Related applications referred to in patent specifications are preserved
from destruction by a retention label (form PTO-150) which is attached
to the outside of the file wrapper. The technical support staff of the
group prepares such a label for use as indicated below on each
application (which has not become a patent) which is referred to in the
specification or oath or declaration of the application ready for
allowance (or in any Office letter therein).

If the application referred to is:

(A) Still pending: Fill in and paste label on the face of the pending
file wrapper in the space provided.  Make no change in specification of
the allowable application.

(B) Abandoned for failure to pay issue fee:  If file has been forwarded
to Files Repository, fill in label and send it to Files Repository for
attachment to the wrapper. If not forwarded, treat the same as pending
case.

(C) Abandoned:  If file has been forwarded to the Files Repository, fill
in label and send it to Files Repository for attachment to the wrapper.
If not forwarded, treat the same as pending case. Add "abandoned" in red
ink and initials to the allowable application.

(D) Already patented:  No label is required. Insert patent number in
specification if not already present. Formal examiner's amendment not
necessary if this is only change.

(E) In issue:  Fill in label. Make no change in the specification of the
allowable application.

Examiners are reminded that only one retention label is necessary. Thus,
if a retention label is already present, it is sufficient to merely add
"et al." to the application number cited thereon.

---SECTION---1302.08 Interference Search

Assuming that the application is found ready for issue, the examiner
makes an interference search and notes the date and class and subclasses
searched in the file wrapper. To do this, the examiner inspects all the
pending prints and drawings (or all the claims if the invention is not
susceptible of illustration) in the interference files of the relevant
subclasses of the class in which the application is classified, and all
other pertinent classes, whether in his or her group or elsewhere, in
order to ascertain whether any other applicant is claiming substantially
the same subject matter as is being allowed in the case in hand.  When
any of the drawings or claims shows such a condition to be likely, the
corresponding file is reviewed.

Note also MPEP Section  2301.01(b).

If the search does not disclose any interfering application, the
examiner should prepare the application for issue.

An interference search may be required in Group 3640. Inspection of
pertinent prints, drawings, brief cards, and applications in Group 3640
will be done on request by an examiner in Group 3640.

---SECTION---1302.09 Notations on File Wrapper

The examiner preparing the application for issue fills out, in black
ink, the appropriate spaces on the face of the file wrapper.

To aid the Publishing Division and the printers, examiners should write
the class and subclass on the outside of the file wrapper as carefully
and legibly as possible. Each numeral should be distinct and any decimal
point should be shown clearly and in its proper position.

Spaces are provided on the file wrapper label or PALM bib-data sheet for
identifying data of a prior abandoned application for which the instant
application is a substitute, and of parent application(s) and prior
provisional and foreign application(s). Examiners must review the data
regarding prior U.S. applications to make sure that the information is
correct when preparing the application for issue. If any claim to
priority under  35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is added, deleted, and/or
modified during prosecution of the application and such addition,
deletion, and/or modification has been approved, the examiner must make
sure that the information on the file wrapper label or PALM bib-data
sheet and in the PALM data base are current and up to date.  If the PALM
system has not been updated, the application must be forwarded to Office
of Initial Patent Examination Customer Corrections, accompanied by a
completed Application Branch Data Base Routing Slip, with an explanation
of the correction to be made.  Examiners should also review the data
regarding prior provisional and foreign applications for accuracy.

The class and subclass and the name of the examiner which are written in
pencil on the file wrapper should correspond to the class and subclass
in which the patent will issue and to the name of the examiner preparing
the application for issue.

See MPEP Section  202.02 for notation as to parent or prior U.S.
application, including provisional application, to be placed on file
wrapper.

See MPEP Section  202.03 for notation as to foreign patent application
to be placed on file wrapper.

See MPEP Section  1302.13 for name of examiner.

Examiners, when preparing an application for issue, are to record the
number of the claim selected for printing in the Official Gazette in the
box labeled "PRINT CLAIM" on the face of the file wrapper.

The claim or claims should be selected in accordance with the following
instructions:

(A) The broadest claim should be selected.

(B) Examiners should ordinarily designate but one claim on each
invention, although when a plurality of inventions are claimed in an
application, additional claims up to a maximum of five may be designated
for publication.

(C) A dependent claim should not be selected unless the independent
claim on which it depends is also printed. In the case where a multiple
dependent claim is selected, the entire chain of claims for one
embodiment should be listed.

(D) In reissue applications, the broadest claim with changes or the
broadest additional reissue claim should be selected for printing.

When recording this information in the box provided, the following items
should be kept in mind:

(A) Write the claim number clearly in black ink.

(B) If multiple claims are selected, the claim numbers should be
separated by commas.

(C) The claim designated must be referred to by using the renumbered
patent claim number rather than the original application claim number.

---SECTION---1302.10 Notations on Drawings and on Issue Classification
Slip

On the margin of the first sheet of drawing, the examiner indicates in
black ink in the spaces provided by the Draftsperson's stamp the figure
to be printed in the   Official Gazette and also the final official
classification of the case.  Ordinarily a single figure is selected for
printing. This figure should be consistent with the claim to be printed
in the Official Gazette. The numerals should fill as much of the space
provided as feasible. The figure to be printed in the Official Gazette
must not be one that is labeled "prior art."

If the selected figure is not on the first sheet, the examiner should
indicate it also on the sheet where it does appear. If there is no
figure illustrative of or helpful in understanding the claimed
invention, no figure need be selected. "None" may be written after "O.G.
Fig." If, through inadvertence, the stamped legend for O.G. Fig. and
class and subclass appears within the margin of the drawing, the
examiner should make the notations outside of the margin.

Under current practice, the technical support staff of the Examining
Group does NOT enter any date when the application is "sent to issue." 
See MPEP Section  903.07,  Section  903.07(b) and Section  903.09 for
notations to be applied to the Issue Classification Slip (form PTO-270
or PTO-328).

In all reissue applications, the number of the original patent which is
being reissued should be placed in the box provided therefor below the
box for the applicant's name.

To ensure that both copies of the slip do not become separated from the
file, examiners should affix the entire form to the inside left flap of
the file wrapper by stapling it in the area above the perforation.

The Allowed Files Unit of the Publishing Division removes the original
for use by Machine Operations Branch and leaves a copy in the file for
use by the printer.

---SECTION---1302.11 Reference to Assignment Division

The practice of referring certain applications to the Assignment
Division when passing them to issue is no longer followed.  See MPEP
Section  303.

---SECTION---1302.12 Listing of References

All references which have been cited by the examiner during the
prosecution, including those appearing in Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences decisions or listed in the reissue oath, must be listed on
either a form PTO-892 or PTO-1449. All such reference citations will be
printed in the patent.

At time of allowance, the examiner may cite pertinent art in an
examiner's amendment or statement of reasons for allowance.  Such
pertinent art should be listed as usual on form PTO-892, a copy of which
is attached to the Notice of Allowability form PTOL-37. Such pertinent
art, other than foreign patent documents and nonpatent literature, is
not sent to the applicant. Such citation of art is important in the case
of continuing applications where significant prior art is often of
record in the parent case. In the rare instance where no art is cited in
a contin uation application, all the references cited during the
prosecution of the parent application will be listed at allowance for
printing in the patent.  See MPEP Section  707.05 and Section 
707.05(a).

When preparing an application for allowance, the technical support staff
will verify that there is at least one list of references (PTO-892 or
PTO-1449) in the application. All lists of references are maintained in
the center section of the file wrapper.

In the first action after termination of an interference, the examiner
should make of record in each application all references not already of
record which were pertinent to any preliminary motions and which were
discussed in the decision on motion.

In any application, otherwise ready for issue, in which an erroneous
citation has not been formally corrected in an official paper, the
examiner is directed to correct the citation by an examiner's amendment.
See MPEP Section  707.05(g).

Any new reference cited when the application is in issue, under the
practice of MPEP Section  1308.01, should be added by way of a PTO-892
or PTO-1449.

All copies of references placed in the file wrapper during prosecution
should be retained therein when the allowed application is forwarded to
the Publishing Division.

---SECTION---1302.13 Signing

The primary examiner and the assistant examiner involved in the
allowance of an application will print or stamp their names on the file
wrapper in the appropriate boxes. The assistant examiner shall place his
or her initials after his or her printed or stamped name. The primary
examiner will place his or her signature in the appropriate box on the
file wrapper so that the stamped or printed name can still be easily
read. A primary examiner who prepares an application for issue prints or
stamp his or her name and signs the file wrapper only in the "Primary
Examiner" box. A line should be drawn through the "Assistant Examiner"
box to make it clear that the absence of a name in the box was not an
oversight.

Only the names of the primary examiner and the assistant examiner
appearing on the face of the application file wrapper will be listed in
the printed patent.

---SECTION---1302.14 Reasons for Allowance

37 CFR 1.104 Nature of examination.

                  +++    

(e)  	Reasons for allowance. If the examiner believes that the record of
the prosecution as a whole does not make clear his or her reasons for
allowing a claim or claims, the examiner may set forth such reasoning.
The reasons shall be incorporated into an Office action rejecting other
claims of the application or patent under reexamination or be the
subject of a separate communication to the applicant or patent owner.
The applicant or patent owner may file a statement commenting on the
reasons for allowance within such time as may be specified by the
examiner. Failure to file such a statement does not give rise to any
implication that the applicant or patent owner agrees with or acquiesces
in the reasoning of the examiner.

REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE

One of the primary purposes of  37 CFR 1.104(e) is to improve the
quality and reliability of issued patents by providing a complete file
history which should clearly reflect, as much as is reasonably possible,
the reasons why the application was allowed. Such information
facilitates evaluation of the scope and strength of a patent by the
patentee and the public and may help avoid or simplify litigation of a
patent.

The practice of stating the reasons for allowance is not new, and the
rule merely formalizes the examiner's existing authority to do so and
provides applicants or patent owners an opportunity to comment upon any
such statement of the examiner.

It should be noted that the setting forth of reasons for allowance is
not mandatory on the examiner's part.  However, in meeting the need for
the application file history to speak for itself, it is incumbent upon
the examiner in exercising his or her responsibility to the public, to
see that the file history is as complete as is reasonably possible.

When an application is finally acted upon and allowed, the examiner is
expected to determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the
application is being allowed are evident from the record.

In determining whether reasons for allowance should be recorded, the
primary consideration lies in the first sentence of  37 CFR 1.104(e)
which states:

If the examiner believes that the record of the prosecution as a whole
does not make clear his or her reasons for allowing a claim or claims,
the examiner may set forth such reasoning.  (Emphasis added).

In most cases, the examiner's actions and the applicant's replies make
evident the reasons for allowance, satisfying the "record as a whole"
proviso of the rule.  This is particularly true when applicant fully
complies with  37 CFR 1.111 (b) and (c) and  37 CFR 1.133(b). Thus,
where the examiner's actions clearly point out the reasons for rejection
and the applicant's reply explicitly presents reasons why claims are
patentable over the reference, the reasons for allowance are in all
probability evident from the record and no statement should be
necessary. Conversely, where the record is not explicit as to reasons,
but allowance is in order, then a logical extension of  37 CFR 1.111 and
1.133 would dictate that the examiner should make reasons of record and
such reasons should be specific.

Where specific reasons are recorded by the examiner, care must be taken
to ensure that such reasons are accurate, precise, and do not place
unwarranted interpretations, whether broad or narrow, upon the claims.
The examiner should keep in mind the possible misinterpretations of his
or her statement that may be made and its possible estoppel effects.
Each statement should include at least (1) the major difference in the
claims not found in the prior art of record, and (2) the reasons why
that difference is considered to define patentably over the prior art if
either of these reasons for allowance is not clear in the record. The
statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for
allowance or all the details why claims are allowed and should not be
written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for
allowance are set forth.

Under the rule, the examiner must make a judgment of the individual
record to determine whether or not reasons for allowance should be set
out in that record. These guidelines, then, are intended to aid the
examiner in making that judgment. They comprise illustrative examples as
to applicability and appropriate content. They are not intended to be
exhaustive.

EXAMPLES OF WHEN IT IS LIKELY THAT A STATEMENT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE
RECORD

(A) Claims are allowed on the basis of one (or some) of a number of
arguments and/or affidavits presented, and a statement is necessary to
identify which of these were persuasive, for example:

(1) When the arguments are presented in an appeal brief.

(2) When the arguments are presented in an ordinary reply, with or
without amendment of claims.

(3) When both an affidavit under  37 CFR 1.131 and arguments concerning
rejections under  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are presented.

(B) First action issue:

(1) Of a noncontinuing application, wherein the claims are very close to
the cited prior art and the differences have not been discussed
elsewhere.

(2) Of a continuing application, wherein reasons for allowance are not
apparent from the record in the parent case or clear from preliminary
filed matters.

(C) Withdrawal of a rejection for reasons not suggested by applicant,
for example:

(1) As a result of an appeal conference.

(2) When applicant's arguments have been misdirected or are not
persuasive alone and the examiner comes to realize that a more cogent
argument is available.

(3) When claims are amended to avoid a rejection under  35 U.S.C. 102,
but arguments (if any) fail to address the question of obviousness.

(D) Allowance after remand from the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences.

(E) Allowance coincident with the citation of newly found references
that are very close to the claims, but claims are considered patentable
thereover:

(1) When reference is found and cited (but not argued) by applicant.

(2) When reference is found and cited by examiner.

(F) Where the reasons for allowance are of record but, in the examiner's
judgment, are unclear (e.g., spread throughout the file history) so that
an unreasonable effort would be required to collect them.

(G) Allowance based on a claim interpretation which might not be readily
apparent, for example:

(1) Article claims in which method limitations impart patentability.

(2) Method claims in which article limitations impart patentability.

(3) Claim is so drafted that "nonanalogous" art is not applicable.

(4) Preamble or functional language "breathes life"  into claim.

(H) Allowance following decision by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or District Court of the District of Columbia.

The reasons for allowance should refer to and incorporate the briefs and
the court decision.

EXAMPLES OF STATEMENTS OF SUITABLE CONTENT

(A) The primary reason for allowance of the claims is the inclusion of
.03 to .05 percent nickel in all of the claims. Applicant's second
affidavit in example 5 shows unexpected results from this restricted
range.

(B) During two telephonic interviews with applicant's attorney, Mr.
............ on 5/6 and 5/10/77, the examiner stated that applicant's
remarks about the placement of the primary teaching's grid member were
persuasive, but he pointed out that applicant did not claim the member
as being within the reactor.  Thus, an amendment doing such was agreed
to.

(C) The instant application is deemed to be directed to an unobvious
improvement over the invention patented in Pat. No. 3,953,224. The
improvement comprises baffle means 12 whose effective length in the
extraction tower may be varied so as to optimize and to control the
extraction process.

(D) Upon reconsideration, this application has been awarded the
effective filing date of application number -/---.  Thus the rejection
under  35 U.S.C. 102(d) and 103 over Belgium Patent No. 757,246 is
withdrawn.

(E) The specific limitation as to the pressure used during compression
was agreed to during the telephone interview with applicants' attorney.
During said interview, it was noted that applicants contended in their
amendment that a process of the combined applied teachings could not
result in a successful article within a particular pressure range (see
page 3, bottom, of applicant's amendment). The examiner agreed and
allowed the application after incorporating the pressure range into the
claim.

(F) In the examiner's opinion, it would not have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art first to eliminate one of top
members 4, second to eliminate plate 3, third to attach remaining member
4 directly to tube 2 and finally to substitute this modified handle for
the handle 20 of Nania (see Fig. 1) especially in view of applicant's
use of term "consisting."

(G) The application is allowable for the reasons set forth on page -- of
the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is
hereby incorporated by reference. As noted therein, and as argued on
page -- of Appellant's brief, the claimed invention requires a one piece
tubular member whereas the closest prior art requires a multiple piece
assembly which does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.

EXAMPLES OF STATEMENTS THAT ARE NOT SUITABLE AS TO CONTENT

(A) The 3-roll press couple has an upper roll 36 which is swingably
adjustable to vary the pressure selectively against either of the two
lower rolls. (NOTE: The significance of this statement may not be clear
if no further explanation is given.)

(B) The main reasons for allowance of these claims are applicant's
remarks in the appeal brief and an agreement reached in the appeals
conference.

(C) The instant composition is a precursor in the manufacture of
melamine resins. A thorough search of the prior art did not bring forth
any composition which corresponds to the instant composition. The
examiner in the art also did not know of any art which could be used
against the instant composition.

(D) Claims 1-6 have been allowed because they are believed to be both
novel and unobvious.

The examiner should not include in his or her statement any matter which
does not relate directly to the reasons for allowance. For example:

(E) Claims 1 and 2 are allowed because they are patentable over the
prior art.  If applicants are aware of better art than that which has
been cited, they are required to call such to the attention of the
examiner.

(F) The reference Jones discloses and claims an invention similar to
applicant's.  However, a comparison of the claims, as set forth below,
demonstrates the conclusion that the inventions are noninterfering.

Most instances when the examiner finds a need to place in the file a
statement of the reasons for allowing a claim or claims will come at the
time of allowance. In such cases, the examiner should (a) check the
appropriate box on the form PTOL-37 and (b) attach thereto a paper
containing the examiner's statement of reasons for allowance. Such a
statement should be typewritten. The paper should identify the
application number and be clearly labeled "Statement of Reasons for
Allowance."  It should also specify that comments may be filed by the
applicant on the statement and should preferably be submitted with the
payment of the issue fee so as not to delay processing of the
application and in any event no later than payment of the issue fee.

Form Paragraph 13.03 may be used for this purpose.

13.03 Reasons for Allowance

The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: [1]

Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no
later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays,
should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be
clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."

Examiner Note:

Do not use this form paragraph in reexamination proceedings, see form
paragraph 22.16.

Such comments will be entered in the application file by the Allowed
Files Correspondence Branch with an appropriate notation on the
"Contents" list on the file wrapper.

A statement may be sent to applicant with other communications, where
appropriate, but should be clearly labeled as a "Statement of Reasons
for Allowance" and contain the data indicated above. Examiners are
expected to prepare any statement of their reasons for allowance (or
indication of allowable subject matter) accurately and precisely so as
not to place unwarranted interpretations, whether broad or narrow, on
the claims. Where the examiner has a large number of reasons for
allowing a claim, it may suffice to state only the major or important
reasons, being careful to so couch the statement. For example, a
statement might start: "The primary reason for the allowance of the
claims is the inclusion of the limitation .................. in all the
claims which is not found in the prior art references," with further
amplification as necessary.

Stock paragraphs with meaningless or uninformative statements of the
reasons for the allowance should not be used. The statement of reasons
for allowance by the examiner is intended to provide information
equivalent to that contained in a file in which the examiner's Office
actions and the applicant's replies make evident the examiner's reasons
for allowing claims.

Examiners are urged to carefully carry out their responsibilities to see
that the application file contains a complete and accurate picture of
the Office's consideration of the patentability of the application.

Finally, comments made by applicants on the examiner's statement of
reasons for allowance will not be returned to the examiner after their
entry in the file and will not be commented upon by the examiner.

Form Paragraph 13.13.01 may be used to specify the reasons for
indicating allowable subject matter in a communication prior to
allowance.

13.03.01 Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter

The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable
subject matter: [1]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is for use in an Office action prior to allowance
of the application.  Use form paragraph 13.03 in the Notice of
Allowability.

2. In bracket 1, provide a detailed statement of the reason(s) certain
claim(s) have been indicated as being allowable or as containing
allowable subject matter.

---SECTION---1303 Notice of Allowance

37 CFR 1.311 Notice of Allowance.

(a) If, on examination, it shall appear that the applicant is entitled
to a patent under the law, a notice of allowance will be sent to
applicant at the correspondence address indicated in Section  1.33,
calling for the payment of a specified sum constituting the issue fee
(Section  1.18), which shall be paid within three months from the date
of the mailing of the notice of allowance.

(b) An authorization to charge the issue fee (Section  1.18) to a
deposit account may be filed in an individual application, either before
or after mailing of the notice of allowance. Where an authorization to
charge the issue fee to a deposit account has been filed before the
mailing of the notice of allowance, the issue fee will be automatically
charged to the deposit account at the time of mailing the notice of
allowance.

A Notice of Allowance is prepared and mailed, and the mailing date
appearing thereon is recorded on the file wrapper.

---SECTION---1303.01 Amendment Received After Allowance

If the amendment is filed under  37 CFR 1.312, see MPEP Section  714.15
to Section  714.16(e).  If the amendment contains claims copied from a
patent, see MPEP Section  2307.03.

ISSUE BATCH NUMBER

All papers filed by applicant in the Office after receiving the Notice
of Allowance and before the time the Issue Fee Receipt is received
should include the Issue Batch Number. The Issue Batch Number is printed
on the Notice of Allowance form. The Issue Batch Number consists of a
capital letter followed by two digits, for example, "A03", "D18", "F42"
or "J79".  Use of the Issue Batch Numbers is important since the allowed
applications are filed by these numbers.

Any paper filed after receiving the Issue Fee Receipt should include the
indicated patent number rather than the Issue Batch Number.  At this
time in the processing, the Issue Batch Number is no longer useful since
the application has been removed from the batch at the time the patent
number was assigned.

---SECTION---1303.02 Undelivered

In case a Notice of Allowance is returned, and a new notice is sent (see
MPEP Section  707.13), the date of sending the notice must be changed in
the file to agree with the date of such remailing.

---SECTION---1303.03 Not Withheld Due to Death of Inventor

The Notice of Allowance will not be withheld due to death of the
inventor if the executor or administrator has not intervened.  See MPEP
Section  409.01(f).

---SECTION---1304 Amendments After D-10 Notice

For amendments received after D-10 Notice, see MPEP Section  130.

---SECTION---1304.01 Withholding From Issue of "Secrecy Order"
Applications

"Secrecy Order" applications are not sent to issue even when all of the
claims have been allowed. Instead of mailing a Notice of Allowance, a
D-10 Notice is sent. See MPEP Section  130.

If the "Secrecy Order" in an application is withdrawn after the D-10
notice is mailed, the application should then be treated like an
ordinary application in condition for allowance.

---SECTION---1305 Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of the application remains with the primary examiner until
the Notice of Allowance is mailed.  However, the examiner may make
examiner's amendments correcting obvious errors, as when brought to the
attention of the examiner by the printer, and also may admit amendments
under  37 CFR 1.312  which are confined to matters of form in the
specification or claims, or to the cancellation of a claim or claims.
The examiner's action on other amendments under  37 CFR 1.312 consists
of a recommendation to the Commissioner.

To regain jurisdiction over the case, the examiner must write a letter
to the Commissioner requesting it. See MPEP Section  1308 and Section 
1308.02.

Once the patent has been granted, the Patent and Trademark Office can
take no action concerning it, except as provided in  35 U.S.C. 135 and 
35 U.S.C. 251 through 256 and  35 U.S.C. 302 through 307.

---SECTION---1306 Issue Fee

The issue fee is due 3 months from the date of the Notice of Allowance. 
The amount of the issue fee is shown on the Notice of Allowance.
However, because the amount of the issue fee due is determined by the
fees set forth in  37 CFR 1.18 which are in effect as of the date of
submission of payment of the issue fee, the amount due may differ from
the amount indicated on the Notice of Allowance. Accordingly, applicants
are encouraged, at the time of submitting payment of the issue fee, to
determine whether the amount of the issue fee due has changed.  The
amounts due under  35 U.S.C. 41(a) are reduced by 50 per centum for
small entities.

Applicants and their attorneys or agents are urged to use the special
fee transmittal form (PTOL-85B) provided with the Notice of Allowance
when submitting their payments.

The payment of the issue fee due may be simplified by using a Patent and
Trademark Office Deposit Account for such a fee.  However, any such
payment must be specifically authorized by reference to the "issue fee"
or  "fees due under  37 CFR 1.18."

The issue fee will be accepted from the applicant, assignee, or a
registered attorney or agent, either of record or under  37 CFR 1.34(a).

The Commissioner has no authority to extend the time for paying the
issue fee. Intentional failure to pay the issue fee within the 3 months
permitted by  35 U.S.C. 151 does not amount to unavoidable or
unintentional delay in making payment.

---SECTION---1306.01 Deferring Issuance of a Patent

37 CFR 1.314 Issuance of patent.

If payment of the issue fee is timely made, the patent will issue in
regular course unless the application is withdrawn from issue (Section 
1.313), or issuance of the patent is deferred. Any petition by the
applicant requesting a deferral of the issuance of a patent must be
accompanied by the fee set forth in Section  1.17(i) and must include a
showing of good and sufficient reasons why it is necessary to defer
issuance of the patent.

There is a public policy that the patent will issue in regular course
once the issue fee is timely paid.  37 CFR 1.314. It has been the policy
of the Patent and Trademark Office to defer issuance of a patent, upon
request, for a period of up to 1 month only, in the absence of
extraordinary circumstances or requirement of the regulations (e.g.,  37
CFR 1.177) which would dictate a longer period.  Situations like
negotiation of licenses, time for filing in foreign countries,
collection of data for filing a continuation-in-part application, or a
desire for simultaneous issuance of related applications are not
considered to amount to extraordinary circumstances.

A petition to defer issuance of a patent is not appropriate until the
issue fee is paid. Issuance of a patent cannot be deferred after an
allowed application receives a patent number and issue date unless the
application is withdrawn from issue under  37 CFR 1.313(b). The petition
to defer is considered at the time the petition is correlated with the
application file before the appropriate deciding official  (MPEP Section 
1002.02(b)). In order to facilitate consideration of a petition for
deferment of issue, the petition should be firmly attached to the Issue
Fee Transmittal form (PTOL-85B) and clearly labeled as a Petition to
Defer Issue; Attention: Office of the Assistant Commissioner for
Patents.

---SECTION---1306.02 Simultaneous Issuance of Patents 

Where applications have been allowed and a Notice of Allowance and Issue
Fee Due (PTOL-85) has been mailed in each application, a request for
simultaneous issuance will be granted. Unless all the applications have
reached this stage of processing, or a specific requirement of the
regulations is involved (e.g.,  37 CFR 1.177), a request for
simultaneous issuance generally will not be granted.

Applicants and their attorneys who desire the simultaneous issue of
allowed applications must submit the request to: Commissioner of Patents
and Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231, Attention: Office of Patent
Publication.

The request must contain the following information about each allowed
application for which simultaneous issue is requested:

(A) Application number,

(B) Filing date,

(C) Name(s) of inventor(s),

(D) Title of invention, and

(E) Date of allowance.

Separate copies of the request must accompany each Issue Fee Transmittal
(PTOL-85B).

---SECTION---1306.03 Practice After Payment of Issue Fee

Since a patent number and issue date are assigned to an application
approximately within 6-8 weeks after the issue fee is received in the
Patent and Trademark Office, and this event starts a printing routine
that takes about 8 weeks, the availability of an application file being
processed into a patent is restricted. Relief may not be available under
some circumstances because of the requirements of processing the
application into a patent grant, even though relief would have been
appropriate. Accordingly, it is most important that application files be
reviewed thoroughly upon receiving the Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee
Due to ensure that the application is complete in all respects and ready
for printing.

---SECTION---1307 Change in Classification of Cases Which Are in Issue

See MPEP Section  903.07.

---SECTION---1308 Withdrawal From Issue

37 CFR 1.313 Withdrawal from issue.

(a) Applications may be withdrawn from issue for further action at the
initiative of the Office or upon petition by the applicant. Any such
petition by the applicant must include a showing of good and sufficient
reasons why withdrawal of the application is necessary and, if the
reason for the withdrawal is not the fault of the Office, must be
accompanied by the fee set forth in Section   1.17(i). If the
application is withdrawn from issue, a new notice of allowance will be
sent if the application is again allowed. Any amendment accompanying a
petition to withdraw an application from issue must comply with the
requirements of Section  1.312.

(b) When the issue fee has been paid, the application will not be
withdrawn from issue for any reason except:

(1) A mistake on the part of the Office;

(2) A violation of Section  1.56 or illegality in the application;

(3) Unpatentability of one or more claims;

(4) For interference; or

(5) For abandonment to permit consideration of an information disclosure
statement under Section  1.97 in a continuing application.

If the applicant wishes to have an application withdrawn from issue, he
or she must petition the Commissioner. Once the issue fee is paid
withdrawal is permitted only for the reasons stated in  37 CFR 1.313(b).
The status of the application at the time the petition is filed is
determinative of whether the petition is considered under  37 CFR
1.313(a) or  37 CFR 1.313(b).  Petitions to have an application
withdrawn from issue before payment of the issue fee should be directed
to the Group Director of the examining group to which the application is
assigned (see MPEP Section  1002.02(c)).  Petitions to have an
application withdrawn after payment of the issue fee should be directed
to the Director of the Office of Patent Publication (see MPEP Section 
1002.02(r)).  The Commissioner may also withdraw an application from
issue under  37 CFR 1.313 on his or her own initiative. See Harley v.
Lehman, 981 F. Supp. 9, 12, 44 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (D.D.C. 1997) (adoption
of  37 CFR 1.313(b) permitting applications to be withdrawn from issue
under certain narrow circumstances not directly covered by the statute
was not unreasonable).

In addition to the specific reasons identified in  37 CFR
1.313(b)(1)-(4), applicant should be able to identify some specific and
significant defect in the allowed application before the application
will be withdrawn from issue. It is the policy of the Patent and
Trademark Office to permit an application to be withdrawn from issue
under  37 CFR 1.313(a) to file a continuing application, unless the
application to be withdrawn is itself a continuing application. This
policy does not affect applicant's right and ability to file a
continuing application on or before the last day the issue fee is due
and permit the parent application to become abandoned for failure to pay
the issue fee (35 U.S.C. 151).

For withdrawal from issue pursuant to  37 CFR 1.313(b)(5), see the
discussion in MPEP Section  609, paragraph B(4).

Unless applicant receives a written communication from the Office that
the application has been withdrawn from issue, the issue fee must be
timely submitted to avoid abandonment.

---SECTION---1308.01 Rejection After Allowance

A claim noted as allowable shall thereafter be rejected only with the
approval of the primary examiner. Great care should be exercised in
authorizing such rejection. See MPEP Section  706.04.

When a new reference is discovered, which obviously is applicable to one
or more of the allowed claims in an application in issue, a letter is
addressed to the Group Director, requesting that the application be
withdrawn from issue for the purpose of applying the new reference. 
This letter should cite the reference, and, if need be, briefly state
its application. The letter should be submitted with the reference and
the file wrapper. If the examiner's proposed action is not approved, the
letter requesting withdrawal from issue should not be placed in the
file.

If the request to withdraw from issue is approved, the letter is taken
to the Publishing Division and the application is stamped "Withdrawn"
over the name stamp and initials of the primary examiner.  It is then
returned to the group from which it came; the withdrawal from issue is
entered on the PALM system, and the application is thus restored to its
former status as a pending application awaiting action by the examiner.
The examiner at once prepares an Office action stating that the
application has been withdrawn from issue, citing the new reference, and
rejecting the claims met thereby.

The action is given a paper number and placed in the file.

If the issue fee has already been paid and prosecution is reopened, the
applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a
deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is
either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a
new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously
submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request
refund or credit to a deposit account.

If the issue fee has been paid, the examiner should forward the request
to withdraw the application from issue to the Office of Patent
Publication after the request is approved by the Group Director. The
actual withdrawal will be handled by the Office of Patent Publication
and then the application will be returned to the examiner for prompt
action as noted above.

---SECTION---1308.02 For Interference Purposes

It may be necessary to withdraw a case from issue for reasons connected
with an interference. For the procedure to be followed, see MPEP Section 
2305.04 and Section  2307.03.

---SECTION---1308.03 Quality Review Program for Examined Patent
Applications

The Office of Patent Quality Review administers a program for reviewing
the quality of the examination of patent applications. The general
purpose of the program is to improve patent quality and increase the
likelihood of patents being found to be valid.

The quality review is conducted by Patentability Review Examiners on a
randomly selected sample of allowed applications from each Art Unit. The
sample is computer generated under the office-wide computer system
(PALM), which selects a predetermined number of allowed applications
from each Art Unit per year for review only, and which selects from each
Art Unit's sample a sub-sample of allowed applications for both review
and full re-search. The only applications excluded from the sample are
those in which there has been a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences, or by a court.

The Patentability Review Examiner independently reviews each sampled
application assigned to his or her docket to determine whether any
claims may be unpatentable. The Patentability Review Examiner may
consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer
or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who
acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional
search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which
will assist in improving the quality of issued applications. The program
shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying problem areas
in the examining groups.

Reviewed applications may be returned to the examining groups for
consideration of the reviewer's question(s) as to adequacy of the search
and/or patentability of a claim(s).

If, during the quality review process, it is determined that one or more
claims of a reviewed application are unpatentable, the prosecution of
the application will be reopened. The Office action should contain, as
an opening, Form Paragraph 13.04.

13.04 Reopen Prosecution - After Notice of Allowance

Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claim  [1]
considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:

[2]

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph should be used when a rejection is made on any
previously allowed claim(s) which for one reason or another is
considered unpatentable after the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) has been
mailed. 

2. Make appropriate rejection(s) as in any other action.

3. In bracket 1, identify claim(s) that are considered unpatentable.

4. In bracket 2, state all appropriate rejections for each claim
considered unpatentable.

If the issue fee has already been paid in the application, the
application must be withdrawn from issue by the Office of Patent
Publication, and the action should contain not only the above quoted
paragraph, but also Form Paragraph 13.05.

13.05 Reopen Prosecution - Vacate Notice of Allowance

Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed [1] is vacated. 
If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund
or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account.  However,
applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or
held abandoned.  If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance,
applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be
applied.  If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a
specified Deposit Account.

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph must be used when the prosecution is reopened after
the mailing of the Notice of Allowance.

2. In bracket 1, insert date of the Notice of Allowance.

Quality Review forms and papers are not to be included with Office
actions, nor should such forms or papers be retained in the file of any
reviewed application whether or not prosecution is to be reopened. The
application record should not indicate that a review has been conducted
by Quality Review.

Whenever an application has been returned to the Group under the Quality
Review Program, the Group should promptly decide what action is to be
taken in the application and inform the Office of Patent Quality Review
of the nature of that action by use of the appropriate form.  If
prosecution is to be reopened or other corrective action taken, only the
forms should be returned to the Office of Patent Quality Review
initially, with the application being returned to the Office of Patent
Quality Review when action is completed. In all other instances, both
the application and the forms should be returned to the Office of Patent
Quality Review.

---SECTION---1309 Issue of Patent

The files of allowed applications (not patented files) are kept in the
Publishing Division, arranged in batch number order. When the issue fee
is paid within the time allowed by law, the file is given a patent
number and issue date, after which it is sent for printing of the
specification. A bond paper copy of the drawing and specification is
ribboned and sealed in the Publishing Division and finally signed.

See MPEP Section  1303.01 for explanation of "Issue Batch Number."

PATENT PRINTING PRIORITY

The applications placed in the weekly formulation of an issue set aside
for printing will be selected according to the following priorities:

(A) Allowed cases which were made special by the Commissioner (including
those under the Special Examining Procedure).

(B) Allowed cases that have a U.S. effective filing date more than 5
years old.

(C) Allowed reissue applications.

(D) Allowed applications having an effective filing date earlier than
that required for declaring an interference with a copending application
claiming the same subject matter.

(E) Allowed application of a party involved in a terminated
interference.

(F) Allowed applications in which the applicant has filed a request in
the nature of a petition setting forth reasons for advancing the
printing date.

(G) Allowed applications ready for printing and not covered by any of
the six preceding categories. The selection of cases in the involved
category will be by chronological sequence based on the date the issue
fee was paid.

To ensure that any application falling within the scope of the
categories outlined above and identified by (A) to (E) receives special
treatment, the examiner should staple on the file wrapper a tag entitled
"Special in Publishing Division." The special tag, PTO-1101, may be
obtained from the technical support staff.  The examiner shall print
directly on the tag the recitation "In Publishing Division" and the
appropriate printing category outlined above. The application is then
forwarded to Publishing Division.

The personnel in the Publishing Division will then set the tagged cases
aside and make a notation that further processing of this application
will be "special."

In cases falling in category (F), the request must be filed after the
Notice of Allowance has been received and no later than the date the
issue fee is paid. The request must be directed to the Manager of the
Publishing Division.

35 U.S.C. 2 Seal.

The Patent and Trademark Office shall have a seal with which letters
patent, certificates of trademark registrations, and papers issued from
the Office shall be authenticated.

35 U.S.C. 153 How issued.

Patents shall be issued in the name of the United States of America,
under the seal of the Patent and Trademark Office, and shall be signed
by the Commissioner or have his signature placed thereon and attested by
an officer of the Patent and Trademark Office designated by the
Commissioner, and shall be recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office.

PRINTING NAMES OF PRACTITIONERS AND FIRM ON PATENTS

The Issue Fee Transmittal form provides a space (item 2) for the person
submitting the base issue fee to indicate, for printing, (1) the names
of up to three registered patent attorneys or agents or, alternatively,
(2) the name of a single firm, which has as a member at least one
registered patent attorney or agent, and the names of up to two
registered patent attorneys or agents. If the person submitting the
issue fee desires that no name of practitioner or firm be printed on the
patent, the space on the Issue Fee Transmittal form should be left
blank. If no name is listed on the form, no name will be printed on the
patent.

ASSIGNMENT PRINTED ON PATENT

The Issue Fee Transmittal form portion (PTOL -85B) of the Notice of
Allowance provides a space (item 3) for assignment data which should be
completed in order to comply with  37 CFR 3.81. Unless an assignee's
name and address are identified in item 3 of the Issue Fee Transmittal
form PTOL-85B, the patent will issue to the applicant. Assignment data
printed on the patent will be based solely on the information so
supplied.  See MPEP Section  307. 

ASSIGNEE NAMES

Only the first appearing name of an assignee will be printed on the
patent where multiple names for the same party are identified on the
Issue Fee Transmittal form, PTOL-85B.  Such multiple names may occur
when both a legal name and an  "also known as"  or  "doing business as" 
name is also included. This printing practice will not, however, affect
the practice of recording assignments with the Office in the Assignment
Division. The assignee entry on form PTOL-85B should still be completed
to indicate the assignment data as recorded in the Office.  For example,
the assignment filed in the Office and therefore the PTOL-85B assignee
entry might read "Smith Company doing business as (d.b.a.) Jones
Company."  The assignee entry on the printed patent will read "Smith
Company."

Various officials including the manager of the Publishing Division have
been designated as attesting officers to attest to the name of the
Commissioner. The assistant manager of the Publishing Division acts as
attesting officer in the absence or unavailability of the manager of the
Division.

---SECTION---1309.01 Patent Terms and Extensions

35 U.S.C. 154 Contents and term of patent.

(a) IN GENERAL.-

(1) CONTENTS.-Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention
and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, of the right to
exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the
invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into
the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to
exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the
United States, or importing into the United States, products made by
that process, referring to the specification for the particulars
thereof.

(2) TERM.-Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant
shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and
ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent
was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a
specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under
section 120, 121, or 365(c) of this title, from the date on which the
earliest such application was filed.

(3) PRIORITY.-Priority under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b) of this
title shall not be taken into account in determining the term of a
patent.

(4) SPECIFICATION AND DRAWING.-A copy of the specification and drawing
shall be annexed to the patent and be a part of such patent.

(b) TERM EXTENSION.-

(1) INTERFERENCE DELAY OR SECRECY ORDERS.-If the issue of an original
patent is delayed due to a proceeding under section 135(a) of this
title, or because the application for patent is placed under an order
pursuant to section 181 of this title, the term of the patent shall be
extended for the period of delay, but in no case more than 5 years.

(2) EXTENSION FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.-If the issue of a patent is delayed
due to appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
or by a Federal court and the patent is issued pursuant to a decision in
the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability, the term
of the patent shall be extended for a period of time but in no case more
than 5 years.  A patent shall not be eligible for extension under this
paragraph if it is subject to a terminal disclaimer due to the issue of
another patent claiming subject matter that is not patentably distinct
from that under appellate review. 

(3) LIMITATIONS.-The period of extension referred to in paragraph (2)-

(A) shall include any period beginning on the date on which an appeal is
filed under section 134 or 141 of this title, or on which an action is
commenced under section 145 of this title, and ending on the date of a
final decision in favor of the applicant;

(B) shall be reduced by any time attributable to appellate review before
the expiration of 3 years from the filing date of the application for
patent; and

(C) shall be reduced for the period of time during which the applicant
for patent did not act with due diligence, as determined by the
Commissioner.

(4) LENGTH OF EXTENSION.-The total duration of all extensions of a
patent under this subsection shall not exceed 5 years.

(c) CONTINUATION.-

(1) DETERMINATION.-The term of a patent that is in force on or that
results from an application filed before the date that is 6 months after
the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act shall be
the greater of the 20-year term as provided in subsection (a), or 17
years from grant, subject to any terminal disclaimers.

(2) REMEDIES.-The remedies of sections 283, 284, and 285 of this title
shall not apply to Acts which -

(A) were commenced or for which substantial investment was made before
the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act; and

(B) became infringing by reason of paragraph (1).

(3) REMUNERATION.-The acts referred to in paragraph (2) may be continued
only upon the payment of an equitable remuneration to the patentee that
is determined in an action brought under chapter 28 and chapter 29
(other than those provisions excluded by paragraph (2)) of this title.

For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, utility and plant
patents (other than those granted on reissue applications) will be
granted for a term which begins on the date the patent issues and ends
twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was
filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific
reference to an earlier filed application or applications under  35
U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), twenty years from the earliest effective
U.S. filing date. Patents on design applications will be granted for a
term of 14 years which begins on the date the patent issues.

A patent granted on an application which resulted from an international
application after compliance with  35 U.S.C. 371 will have a term which
ends twenty years from the filing date of the international application.

A continuation or a continuation-in-part application of an international
application filed under  35 U.S.C. 363 designating the United States
will have a term which ends twenty years from the filing date of the
parent international application.

Foreign priority under  35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), 365(a), or 365(b) is not
considered in determining the term of a patent.  Likewise, priority
under  35 U.S.C. 119(e) to one or more U.S. provisional applications is
not considered in the calculation of the twenty year term.

TRANSITIONAL RULES

All patents that are in force on June 8, 1995, or that will issue on an
application that is filed before June 8, 1995, will automatically have a
term that is the greater of the twenty year term discussed above or
seventeen years from the patent grant. This provision affects all
patents that are in force on June 8, 1995, and all patents issued
thereafter on applications filed prior to June 8, 1995.  The terms of
these patents are, of course, subject to reduction by any applicable
terminal disclaimers.

Applications filed on or after June 8, 1995 will be subject only to the
twenty year term discussed above.

TERM EXTENSIONS

The twenty year patent term may be extended for a maximum of five years
for delays in the issuance of the patent due to interferences, secrecy
orders and/or successful appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences or the Federal courts in accordance with  37 CFR 1.701.
Extensions for successful appeals are limited in that the patent must
not be subject to a terminal disclaimer. Further, the period of
extension will be reduced by any time attributable to appellate review
within three years of the filing date of the application and the period
of extension for appellate review will be reduced by any time during
which the applicant did not act with due diligence. The patent term
extension that may be available under  35 U.S.C. 156 for premarket
regulatory review is separate from and will be added to any extension
that may be available under  35 U.S.C. 154.

At the time of issue, examiners will make no decisions regarding patent
term extensions. Extensions under  35 U.S.C. 156 will be handled by the
Office of the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Patent Policy and
Projects. Extensions related to interferences and successful appellate
review will be calculated by PALM. Any patent term extension granted as
a result of administrative delay pursuant to  37 CFR 1.701 will be
printed on the face of the patent. The term of a patent will be readily
discernible from the face of the patent (i.e., from the filing date,
continuing data, issue date and any patent term extensions printed on
the patent).

CONTINUED PROSECUTION APPLICATIONS

The application number of a continued prosecution application (CPA) will
be the application number of the prior application, and the filing date
indicated on any patent issuing from a continued prosecution application
will be the filing date of the prior application (or, in a chain of
continued prosecution applications, the filing date of the application
immediately preceding the first continued prosecution application in the
chain). As the continued prosecution application practice was not in
effect prior to June 8, 1995, no patent issuing from a continued
prosecution application is entitled to the provisions of  35 U.S.C.
154(c). However, any patent issuing from a continued prosecution
application, where the prior application was filed prior to June 8,
1995, will indicate that the filing date of the application for that
patent was prior to June 8, 1995.  To avoid confusion as to the term of
any patent issuing on a CPA of an application filed before June 8, 1995,
the Office will include a notice on any patent issuing on a CPA, other
than a reissue or a design patent, that: (1) the patent issued on a CPA;
and (2) the patent is subject to the twenty year patent term set forth
in  35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) and (b). 

The term of a design patent is defined in  35 U.S.C. 173 as 14 years
from the date of grant.  The term of a reissue patent is defined in  35
U.S.C. 251 as the unexpired part of the term of the original patent.
Since the term of any reissue or design patent is not affected by the
filing of a CPA, no notice will be printed on either a reissue or a
design patent.

---SECTION---1309.02 "Printer Waiting" Cases

When the printer finds an apparent error in an application, the file is
returned to the Office with an attached "Printer Waiting"  slip noting
the supposed error.

The Publishing Division forwards such "printer waiting" applications to
the Group Director's secretary.  The secretary acts as a control center
in each examining group and forwards the applications to the examiner by
the appropriate route. The application should be taken up and acted on
immediately and returned to the Group Director's secretary within 24
hours (excluding weekends and holidays). Either necessary corrective
action should be taken or an indication should be made that the
application is considered to be correct as it stands.

If the examiner concurs in the criticisms, the errors should, if
possible, be corrected in clean red ink and initialed or be corrected by
examiner's amendment.  See MPEP Section  1302.04.

If the required correction cannot be cured by examiner's amendment, the
application may have to be withdrawn from issue. This may sometimes be
avoided if the applicant or his or her representative is telephoned
immediately, and the error is corrected by amendment under  37 CFR
1.312.

The applications are picked up from the secretary's office by the
messenger and returned to the Publishing Division for forwarding to the
printer.

THESE APPLICATIONS SHOULD NOT BE MAILED TO THE PUBLISHING DIVISION.

