<div dir="ltr"><div>Scott - Thanks. I will update my own forms, accordingly. Rick</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:04\u202fAM Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>I never thought of this. This is smart. Thank you for posting.</p>
<div>On 9/18/2025 10:56 PM, Scott Nielson
via Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
Jamie, in response to your inquiry, I use my own IDS form, which
includes a section titled "Other Information" where the examiner
can confirm compliance with MPEP 609.02.</div>
<div>
<img src="cid:ii_199632248dacb971f161"></div>
<div>
I also include the following paragraph in the body of the IDS:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
According to MPEP 609.02(I) and (II)(A)(2), any information
previously reviewed in a parent application will automatically
be considered in a continuing application. There is no need to
resubmit this information. The \u201cOther Information\u201d table above
includes an item for information from parent patent
applications. Applicant requests that the Examiner initial the
space next to this item to confirm that all information
considered in the parent patent application(s) has been
considered as part of evaluating this application.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
Examiners occasionally cross out this line due to the absence of
a publisher name, title, date, etc. However, I can typically
resolve this by calling them, explaining that this information
is not required, and resubmitting the IDS for consideration.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Timothy, in response to your question, my notes from MPEP
609.03, which I compiled when the IDS fee was introduced in
January, state that the examiner is required to consider certain
items from the international phase but can disregard others.
Additionally, the examiner is not required to provide any record
indicating that the information was considered.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
The examiner is required to consider:</div>
<div>
i. International search report (including supplementary ISR) and
written opinion as long as form PCT/DO/EO/903 (issued by USPTO)
says copies are in the file (usually the case).</div>
<div>
ii. US references even if they are not in the file.</div>
<div>
iii. Non-US references in English that form PCT/DO/EO/903 says
are in the file.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
The examiner is not required to consider:</div>
<div>
i. IPEA documents including any newly cited references, written
opinion of IPEA, IPRP, etc.</div>
<div>
ii. Non-English references</div>
<div>
iii. Non-US references in English but not listed on form
PCT/DO/EO/903</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
If there are any items in the international phase that the
examiner is not required to consider, then you must file an IDS.
However, if there are only items the examiner must consider,
then I have another line in my "Other Information" table that
says:</div>
<div>
<img src="cid:ii_199632248dacb971f162"></div>
<div>
I also include the following paragraph in the body of the IDS:</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div id="m_-7772692580782140186Signature">
<div>
According to MPEP 609.03 and 1893.03(g), the examiner must
consider the following information identified during the
international phase without requiring any further action
from the applicant:</div>
<div>
1. All U.S. patents identified in the international search
report and written opinion (ISRWO) and/or any supplemental
international search report and written opinion (SISRWO).</div>
<div>
2. All U.S. patent application publications identified in
the ISRWO and/or SISRWO.</div>
<div>
3. All U.S. unpublished pending applications identified in
the ISRWO and/or SISRWO.</div>
<div>
4. Any of the following items identified in the national
phase acceptance letter (Form PCT/DO/EO/903) as being
present in the file: (i) the ISRWO, (ii) any SISRWO, and/or
(iii) any other documents cited in the ISRWO or SISRWO.</div>
<div>
The "Other Information" table above includes an item for
information from the international phase. Applicant requests
that the Examiner initial the space next to this item to
confirm that the above information from the international
phase has been considered as part of evaluating this
application.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<p>
<span><b>Scott Nielson</b></span></p>
<p>
<span>801-660-4400</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<hr>
<div>
<b>From:</b> Patentpractice
<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"><patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a> on behalf of
Timothy Snowden via Patentpractice
<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"><patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 18, 2025 7:23 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>
<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"><patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Timothy Snowden <a href="mailto:tdsnowden@outlook.com" target="_blank"><tdsnowden@outlook.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] Information Disclosure
Statement (IDS) filings in Divisional or Continuation
Applications
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<p>Which also brings a tangential question: when entering national
stage, I normally file an IDS citing all art known (including
from the ISR and/or IPRP) from the international application.
However, technically, these are the 'same' application -- I've
had some applicants push back on this. Does anybody have any
insight on whether it's
<i>required </i>(assume the benefits have been explained to the
applicant, and they don't care whether it's listed on the front
of the application as being considered)? Based on my reading of
things, I think the answer is no, because the USPTO is
'inheriting' the entire file wrapper from the IB, including the
ISR/IPEA documents and it's the same application. I'm mainly
looking whether there's some wrinkle of US law that I haven't
considered that might change this analysis.</p>
<p>Jamie, I normally file an IDS with all the prior art. I would
also be interested if anybody has had success getting examiners
to acknowledge prior art from parent applications without doing
so.</p>
<div>On 9/17/2025 8:45 PM, Jamie Sheridan via Patentpractice
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
Listserv Members -</div>
<div id="m_-7772692580782140186x_mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
With the new fees for the filing of an Information
Disclosure Statement (IDS) and previous guidance in the MPEP
regarding prior art submissions, please let me know if
anyone is taking steps to alert the patent examiner that the
application contains prior art references in a parent
application. If so, can you share a copy of the filing
template to alert the patent examiner? </div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Alternatively, in order to have the prior art listed on the
patent, Applicants could continue to file IDS in every
application. This will incur additional costs (time to
prepare the IDS and USPTO fees). However, this seems like
the prudent manner to fully ensure that the patent examiner
has reviewed the prior art in each application (short of
some sort of an acknowledgement by the examiner that all of
the parent application prior art has been considered.) I\u2019m
just not certain how to get the examiner\u2019s acknowledgement
of review of all previously cited prior art in one or more
parent application.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Thoughts? Suggestions?</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div id="m_-7772692580782140186x_ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<p><span>Thank you.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>All the best,</span></p>
<p><span>-- Jamie</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>James A. Sheridan | Registered Patent Attorney |
Member Manager | Sheridan Law LLC</span></p>
<p><span>14143 Denver West Parkway, Suite 100 | Golden, CO
80401 | T: 303-953-9083 x101 | F: 720-548-9810</span></p>
<p><span><u><a title="mailto:jsheridan@sheridanlaw.com" id="m_-7772692580782140186OWAf91c427f-caaf-3170-02e3-27b7d6cc1753" href="mailto:jsheridan@sheridanlaw.com" target="_blank">jsheridan@sheridanlaw.com</a></u></span><span> |
</span><span><u><a title="http://www.sheridanlaw.com" id="m_-7772692580782140186OWAe634d27e-5a6d-69ba-6647-84240626fe8a" href="http://www.sheridanlaw.com/" target="_blank">www.sheridanlaw.com</a></u></span><span> |
Connect on LinkedIn: </span><span><u><a title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamiesheridan" id="m_-7772692580782140186OWAdd45cc03-3684-ef97-5dd6-15d9b52f9358" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamiesheridan" target="_blank">www.linkedin.com/in/jamiesheridan</a></u></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span><img height="56" width="319" id="m_-7772692580782140186x_Picture_x0020_1" alt="signature_2050086367" src="cid:ii_199632248da4cff313"></span></p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>