<img width="1" height="1" src="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/op/hh7SYdifdgHZf1w5tkjGKpvKAcy0nI8lzWjqzfl1BBL86c9BLaqELxHUWNO_7KV5SGR_vyeYWkBXZhjl1Xp4ppx5DJ7B9GFwGLbf3oKo5myAYf4y0PM_PZkE1bbDGqSvHgoMqqskBtuPFTo9uJ5CGIMcslA6q9h1h5YGNoNRXMjSmRyKOZGRimHrtyvUd-EGm5x0J98lA4QYtWMOY6SySv7ALx3lH7Ahdoeo" style="mso-hide:all"/><div dir="ltr"><div>Ron, your post got me to thinking: I don't see how laches in filing a continuation or presenting particular claims becomes a matter for the PTO to deal with during prosecution or even afterward. It's a judicially created doctrine, having nothing to do with 35 USC 102, 103, 112 or even 101 (and the term "laches" doesn't even appear in 35 USC or 37 CFR). And since it's a matter that goes to an applicant's state of mind and accompanying facts (viz. why an applicant might have delayed filing
those claims), which are things PTO can't readily probe, and that a court is better situated to assess, I don't think it's part of the PTO's purview in examining applications. Unfortunately, I'm not on the CAFC, and the CAFC has held differently, so my view on this point doesn't matter. :-(</div><div><br></div><div>Of course, even if the PTO was overstepping its authority in making laches rejections, overstepping its authority has never bothered the PTO before. </div><div><br></div><div>But the real question in my mind is, is the PTO actually issuing rejections, on the basis of a continuation allegedly being filed late, against any inventor/applicant whose name isn't Gilbert Hyatt? I personally have not encountered such, and I don't see anything in the MPEP that explicitly instructs examiners to reject an application for prosecution laches if that application was filed as a continuation more than X years after its earliests progenitor application was filed. The word "laches" appears in only two MPEP sections, 211.01(b) and 2190. The former explicitly says, "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">There is no limit to the number of prior applications through which a chain of copendency may be traced to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the earliest of a chain of prior copending applications. See<span> </span></span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">In re Henriksen,</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none"><span> </span>399 F2.d 253, 158 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1968).</span>" The next sentence does caution, "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">But see<span> </span></span><b style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/ILvFAegpGCnBeEkS17_gvV-1dvWWU4l1SsfEFvkRZZJL7MQ90SusWhwEIgRgqagVUBM4HDv--p-Z-Zp1hoFJX9fWnZ1FGt-pHkb47SZng99gbxlvdrOkVqA6I2L14Bngdd10--H-3CH2KmhJT4t91k9l05ECaBkwFmEObHV3qlM9481ncW8GRayMYJZp2HINZu6fCSo4xPFWrIefgsoYvjLNDZoZpmO7beAk812aLMVbIfIceM9tqwVwLEwIBCvHHil4xwkDUXDgQq0mVtr8diaz3bxYZ_1Vhe-GXVos7C4ghoaK--KnTOFlhLJzoD5X5cTI6TsCTA2jOkF8Zh9YKN8PKcC1" style="color:rgb(0,140,255);text-decoration:none">MPEP § 2190</a></b><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none"><span> </span>(prosecution<span> laches</span></span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">)</span>", but 2190 does not establish a default for the PTO making a laches rejection. Rather, it states,</div><div><br></div><div style="margin-left:40px">"<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">The Federal Circuit affirmed a rejection of claims in a patent application on the ground that applicant had forfeited his right to a patent under the doctrine of prosecution history<span> laches</span></span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none"> for unreasonable and undue delay in prosecution.<span> </span></span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">In re Bogese,</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none"><span> </span>303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Applicant "filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year period and did not substantively advance prosecution when required and given an opportunity to do so by the PTO."). See also<span> </span></span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Hyatt v. Hirshfeld,</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none"><span> </span>998 F.3d 1347, 2021 USPQ2d 591 (Fed. Cir. 2021). While there are no firm guidelines for determining when<span> laches </span></span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">is triggered, it applies only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution. For example, where there are "multiple examples of repetitive filings that demonstrate a pattern of unjustified delayed prosecution,"<span> laches </span></span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">may be triggered.<span> </span></span><i style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found.,</i><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none"><span> </span>422 F.3d 1378, 1385, 76 USPQ2d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(Court discussed difference between legitimate reasons for refiling patent applications and refilings for the business purpose of delaying the issuance of previously allowed claims.). An examiner should obtain approval from the TC Director before making a rejection on the grounds of prosecution history laches</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:-moz-left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">.</span>"</div><div><br></div><div>That sounds like a laches rejection is supposed to be exceptional, not routine. Again, does the reality in prosecution deviate from what the MPEP instructs?</div><div><br></div><div>I also would find it odd if the PTO were, on the one hand, to significantly raise fees for continuations filed X amount of time after the earliest application in the chain (which the PTO did earlier this year), but then turn around and on the basis of that application being filed after said amount of time, reject the application for laches in the filing of the application. It's not quite as bad as Elijah saying to Ahab, \u05d4\u05e8\u05e6\u05d7\u05ea \u05d5\u05d2\u05dd \u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea, but it's a similar idea. If the right circumstances arose, I would even argue that the imposition of the higher fees, and the acceptance of such payment, estops the PTO from making such a rejection on a <i>per se</i> basis. If the PTO wants applicants to file more continuations earlier - something that, again, is out of its purview, because it's not for the PTO to tell applicants what their IP protections strategy should be - then it can do so by simply making more laches rejections of continuations, rather than demanding higher-than-usual fees to file those applications. By opting for the latter course of action, the PTO has implicitly admitted - so I would argue - that it isn't authorized to make laches rejections. In fact, the higher fees are meant ot offset the supposedly additional work for the PTO to examine continuation applications (something it complained about in its litigation with Hyatt, when it said the PTO's costs in examining his applications were greater than the fees Hyatt had paid).</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/Ee_XzF60KCTL85c_Fbe7XfwXAtXybsPtc3xZyqF02UhvpXTNzO3DWVQ1z00OikH594ieTtC-XbjuI9FUWrju4r9zOsNrzjRvUP37Q0dpuvCuVE0ANg2GqFjE5MMbwvhDJlL6ZT1LFFKbz9QMzuJym5AViWzVpEzH0Mlk5umjhnIBq-p2Y-8P23spAVnNJqIgAyyCewx4LaVd1pRruaOq25sVh9SGfd40Yb1iovnq9wsf8C6tSS19L1yZhUGbmpB8rT2HT48HNM9axwI4qyIB-aoM-R_q907e745oOXui6V_cfoZ9vDB3LVNHTOF8kOH9T14qTibDALwSSD3IKoWTjkK2YXkRKs3n6Cbeuo3mLA">Hyatt v Hirschfeld</a> (the first of the three such titled cases from 2021), that case was decided on facts that don't apply anymore: it dealt with a pre-GATT case in which Hyatt's patent would run for 17 years from grant. It addresses four patent applications each of which had multiple progenitor applications, many of which had matured into patents, and in which Hyatt had filed hundreds of claims, making it exceedingly difficult for the PTO to examine those applications, and which - so the PTO claimed - the cost of examination far exceeded the fees paid by Hyatt for examination. The decisions also relied on articles written by academics (including then-professor Kimberly Moore, in the infamous 2004 paper she co-authored with Mark Lemley) in which they whined about submarine patents but which were written post-1995, at a time that submarine patents were vanishing from the scene. I understand that the writers of the MPEP do not always look at such distinctions (the reference to Hyatt v Hirschfeld in MPEP 2190 makes no comment on the case), and indeed sometimes the CAFC itself does not seem to acknowledge such changed circumstances. But those distinctions <b>are</b> relevant, and today one filing a continuation 10 years after his first application was filed has cut 10 years off his patent life. So unlike the applications at issue Hyatt, today an applicant takes a risk by delaying the filing of a continuation. And what the original poster, Bill, proposed was nothing like what Hyatt did. He's talking about filing a single application, presumably with just a few claims and only a few members in the continuation chain, and trying to delay payment of the continuation fee, by filing that application as a PCT. I don't see Hyatt v Hirschfeld as being applicable, and I think Bill's approach is a sound one to achieve his client's goal.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally,
Hyatt v Hirschfeld doesn't come right out and say that a 6 year gap between the earliest application and the filing of the continuation is presumptively unreasonable. Hyatt v Hirschfeld
cites an earlier case, <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/N-If_nm1TYP-HglwwIeI_GSyknzc2_C6uqSC2eVIYg-7wJCjDULZ_Cy54gji4LtlpErCzKVjwEJOzd4iSX7zCRacBI7wsZ6RfmaLNZzp_CNtmfPbGQ8wm1QN6Vtg7RoH5vJez5fnSuxh9BuiLFjHjt1uB5Bqkr1C1e3ptXLKP9QidI_w_2WiraKGsM6Pnj9qrzCPXk1xzMP4LOtpTlWvG9KYE_96UlU7jN2tZfJqfaKpi1lUPT6JcojjOVVRLiyCi9hyUavnq9aFbEXKBZBX7j2rNgsp5TJYEaCEoNKIcedISQ8nHESP-q0r52oV2MUuqsRoa5B1ziGbqXS-YKs2f610v24xt-4ICmFdnTj0V6J-LcEkSE9_I_wbhwgZn6wgn5L5s1vamJOuEuIx3j-6yu8EELo8NvUt1Dvyz13wqFRAUArtzJ5GZ64QGkidTUXpA4LhtexCvSa3dJebWs7SMeAlTnVM7QyLNYenQjFnh_4s--kwfRsCLMDiVJXJ86fvoBGp1X0zHHF6YWlFyo8">Wanlass v General Electric</a>, which says that a six year delay in <i>filing suit for patent infringement</i> is presumptively unreasonable and prejudicial to potential infringers. That's why Hyatt v Hirschfeld cites Wanlass not in discussing unreasonable delay (in whatever context), but in discussing whether such delay is <u>prejudicial</u> to third parties (a question the court needed to consider since the PTO was a defendant in an action under 35 USC 145), and states "In the context of laches, we have held that a delay of
more than six years raises a 'presumption that it is unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial.' That presumption shifts the burden to the patentee to prove that 'either the patentee\u2019s delay was reasonable or excusable
under the circumstances or the defendant suffered neither
economic nor evidentiary prejudice.' " Now, I wouldn't put it beyond the PTO to take that statement about Wanlass from Hyatt and to use it to assert that a six gap in filing a continuation is presumptively unreasonable - the authors of the MPEP have misrepresented cases before, always to the PTO's benefit - but thus far, the PTO has not done so, as noted above regarding laches (and in fact Wanlass is not cited anywhere in the MPEP, and 2190 is the only place in which Hyatt v Hirshfeld is cited).</div><div><br></div><div>Dan</div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 1:33\u202fAM Ron D. Katznelson via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">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">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="serif" style="text-decoration:none;line-height:1.5;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Bill,</font><span style="text-decoration:none;display:inline;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></span>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5">Under your fact pattern of original priority date longer than six years ago, and regardless of the filing route you choose, your filing of continuation now will
be <i><b>presumed</b></i> prosecution conduct with "unreasonable and unexplained delay" and therefore subject to PTO laches rejection even on the first action. </font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5">This six-year presumption of prosecution laches was recently introduced by the Federal Circuit, which stated: \u201cwe have held that a delay of more than six years
raises a \u2018presumption that it is unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial.\u2019\u201d <i>Hyatt v. Hirshfeld</i>, 998 F.3d 1347, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Court even extended the presumption to the existence of intervening rights, explaining that "an unreasonable
and unexplained prosecution delay of six years or more raises a presumption of prejudice, including intervening rights." <i>Id.</i> at 1370.</font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)" dir="ltr"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5">My study shows that 8.6% of all utility patents issued in the last two months have priority longer than 6 years -- priority date earlier than August 1, 2019. Kate
Gaudry\u2019s studies show that under this Federal Circuit presumption, more than one-third of patents on the top pharmaceuticals, and 18% of all patents issued from continuing applications, are now <i><b>presumed unenforceable</b>. </i><i>See</i> her articles
on the impacts of such decision in <i>IPWatchdog</i> on <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/ipZCG_BpoNfAFulxBsNZGpZqx4FPKCRLJmtPG9r-o8hIFvhCUmgybDjbJRm2pci0IYjrEVjD1uMzy6NeZ51Ig0dvFMPrY4KM6OW9uIPqsKNEdwAcTZMyJEo58z3bm5evyqEVGFymmSE2d7XZsC0V3b_SSyXEAKit7MhNhn1DUeUgpHmqc-1fTtoyTDmKQj6iGRbvs3Vkp9ho9EVxcAUzSHKNPrPeiAbBGWRC3-PxKUUyItbvmzCoj_mLbBE8Gn8nUpAArpQp3bpmNBHq2P6JmcT9AuIGDEEKvAvZTWCmWfJ_IGkaRHjJaBZ6hGiwnMAlKziDVcEfDhtXjPUGPsrloaWwNtcc9K45REsAg9Omk0ojRSY8YyAH5S1kRZZevTXDXbkA8d5uMLeEf5u2d_S_g2fzQ8YZC7iyYhi-mMrlA4MM" style="color:rgb(0,134,240)" target="_blank">February
6, 2023</a>, and on <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/OoyCrlLyix4QujC5B8Dlhyqagtp58qyqCv_-dCSiEbBLhNjjOeuZRpAZkrtThkT8sh-7CAWVNUK3G00nQjA40ogYVZhqqje_Nyf8zg_SiwBZyUjFjcHzAtPq_pUd2DEdkw6zIqgF3oDI-KHp4N8sj6Y6pJzPzL6lbOEuItnBE8YwtnrFl0foiyc-gXLq3ZO_iXy_g0cZMN9yoc8SxP1axHtOx_FX3QvYy7OHcg2UR8UT_zwoO_8VTZ0oi3BDfwGLz4k6MKQM_dWcstBR9AXUOxzc4EDZMeyEkMg46Hy10P8Bj8b4gPj8-hoWG0I23y4EsanHS2fkL-YodD7-ZC3E-wJ9OXffq-r1n3Dqf0nSq0Zz86iqO6X14PJi__FJ7B_jtrjK9TixBLGomU6duP3-uOS8x7L7CmGJ_wc" style="color:rgb(0,134,240)" target="_blank">July
18, 2021</a>.</font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)" dir="ltr"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5">I am working on an <i>amicus</i> brief on behalf of IEEE-USA in support of rehearing <i>en banc</i> to vacate this decision. Any of you interested in the legal
and equitable issues involved, or know of organizations that would be willing to sign on an <i>amicus</i> brief, are welcome to contact me by the email below. </font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)" dir="ltr"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5">Thanks, </font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)" dir="ltr"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="serif" style="line-height:1.5">Ron</font></div>
<div style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;line-height:1.5">-------------------------------------------------------</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ron D. Katznelson, Ph.D.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2020 Chairman,<span> </span><a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/3_sBbpnUftbLy-NrH-jvz7exfOKVDXZYarAvbl-Sthn89_wkPT-vh32C2wRARkiEUOVAotBAvWsheZK_KYOTI2YY_ah2eWVvdTEh4AIJV2JPEoXfTVG7v6NigaCzQikGGfyF25sXXMwVZZnsWyaqsZOaHSAHu0mAwtzIfC8KGkd-RrE8mmxhSikO55ckMMJ6mfd_jSEHIXlhvtiVxI2waKzdCUyAjY1s8vX6yTuuDZqXHDW5tFjat0vdzDwhrskQnXRe1w8oOyI_4XPPmx4KMh_mujicDF-A27-bKHpbp3_47uKu0SY3SPWXriOnPNU" style="color:rgb(0,134,240)" target="_blank">IEEE-USA IP Committee</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Email:<span> </span><a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/WjxE7mDfjkqtcZmdxYQ-1x-3Tt4T_m2NDtAHobEJCldulf1rsY57Zgk8XNmW8dvzmHmRgo3fF0Up89NCJIzpA1isOEE3iA9nIMng9-T97covSWVz-H5wyQyi3d8QnAnpuLRafu0PlRqwd2mXQ-DKp7bqohAyRkbJMPdrLokRLN0BgLODtJY8Tu_Yu8mSez4i_DOPb_tW1S7YFe7hAjlBaVCUtT63p3N7A11qihY25TIovzxsac7MxVRicXnB4M7JODVL8_D64vu2POGzDFrzA-U" style="color:rgb(0,134,240)" target="_blank">rkatznelson@roadrunner.com</a> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_-8787987737707677268m_-8933176117358368142ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div><br>
</div>
Get <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/FmWhUh35OLHF8cOGUkVuGKlkRXfrEc3FzUEqUS3NgveqOIX7DDqXHWH9M-IVl3NOinkLlAnzefaH7Vltd6xaIW6FiHU3Y9lzr042rPCq93xZ-HnECRF-YWZf1PbnZDk07ybvb-ylRO5Z7wzm-gY1tJ_yVI7HZ5cuk_lJX-8b5OBCdGmnC2tUhDYA6bXvTokvkCAIMW9cTGufMz4wJ6HuWOwCQDk9iKcIEVo5l9zRws0gSIfxHoArAc46YopRdX_nVdii-EyPlEmQx0WHGoNsNw" target="_blank">Outlook for iOS</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="m_-8787987737707677268m_-8933176117358368142divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> on behalf of William Ahmed via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, October 5, 2025 11:48:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>; Randall Svihla <<a href="mailto:rsvihla@nsiplaw.com" target="_blank">rsvihla@nsiplaw.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> William Ahmed <<a href="mailto:ahmed.william@ymail.com" target="_blank">ahmed.william@ymail.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] clever way to avoid $4000 USPTO fee for "9-year-old-old benefit claim" -file it as a PCT --> would this work ??? or is it to dangerous ??</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<div></div>
<div dir="ltr">Yes but that is 30 months from now. $3,000 to postpone a $6,000 fee [plus prosecution costs - they already have all the grants they wants] seems cheap IF this works.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Could someone complain about prosecution latches because of this strategy? I suppose I could reduce the chance of that by filing the PCT with an early publication request, so that noone can complain about a 'submarine patent'</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">THOUGHTS? Would this work???</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_-8787987737707677268m_-8933176117358368142x_yahoo_quoted_0618850045">
<div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(38,40,42)">
<div>On Sunday, October 5, 2025 at 09:44:48 PM GMT+3, Randall Svihla <<a href="mailto:rsvihla@nsiplaw.com" target="_blank">rsvihla@nsiplaw.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="m_-8787987737707677268m_-8933176117358368142x_yiv0571242238">
<div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:sans-serif">Setting aside everything else, you are still going to have to pay that $4,000 fee when you enter the national state with that ADS adding the
benefit claims.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
<div id="m_-8787987737707677268m_-8933176117358368142x_yiv0571242238yqt23792">
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p><b><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><span> Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">On Behalf Of </span></b>William Ahmed via Patentpractice<br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, October 5, 2025 2:31 PM<br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> For Patent Practitioners. This Is Not for Laypersons To Seek Legal Advice. <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> William Ahmed <<a href="mailto:ahmed.william@ymail.com" target="_blank">ahmed.william@ymail.com</a>><br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> [Patentpractice] clever way to avoid $4000 USPTO fee for "9-year-old-old benefit claim" -file it as a PCT --> would this work ??? or is it to dangerous ??</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear All,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">CURRENT SITUATION</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I have an allowed US non-provisional patent application where the oldest benefit claim is from May 2016.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">The client wants to file a continuation to 'keep something alive' - there is no other reason for now to submit the CON.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">The client also believes that investors would prefer a portfolio where the US grants have a CON alive.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">THE PROBLEM</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Since the client is a large entity, the filing fees would be approximately $6,000 since we would be stuck paying </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">$4,000 for "Filing an application or presentation of benefit claim more than nine years after earliest benefit date"</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">$6,000 is a lot of money.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">PROPOSED SOLUTION -- file the CON as a PCT</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">On the other hand, if we file this continuation in the PCT, the fees now would only be around $3,000, especially if we request a search</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">in Philippines [</span></font><font size="2" color="#1b1b1b" face="Segoe UI"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:sans-serif;color:rgb(27,27,27)"> (IPOPHL)</span></font><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">]
or in KIPO.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">The search report would be 'negative' but "who cares."</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">This PCT would have no Paris convention claim, so it would have a lifespan of 30 months - keeping it alive for 2.5 years for only $3,000
in fees is great.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">POTENTIAL PROBLEM --> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">When the PCT enters into the US national phase, I would submit an ADS with many many many benefit claims [the allowed application is a
CON of a CON of a CON of a 371 of a PCT]. This ADS adding MULTIPLE benefit claims [of multiple generations] would need to be submitted within 4 months of national phase entry.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">MY QUESTION --> this seems too good to be true. Could something go wrong?</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Many thanks,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2" face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Bill</span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/VsMAghJ8_J_W2bb3IBuwA-r93S4iXqAVPd5GtHEMkYTBgjm8iFGid-39Kki2mN-d4ZyZxHEkokM-xaWJaO_QBV5mhCvTpG7YNcfwOiKxZhUdsdJ7ioatUZ59-EnG2eje6W9-mHzrkw-wnZHFBgsh5NnhEJsvb_82me8a2bW2WtG8kEGdtAqc8K3-vpFkQBPLSMBmUdGeJUevFRekBqyWyGHXBNO1v_cctnHN0dmlTsrc66_dFIMk2skYjySEqWdfXQA5_hNnTmQw9IDhJMVUZosKWVHZPXjbX_M99aJBeDVCDDUBnFb0vUf8pEG2oxAoljxcsoKG90-op0AcFvXu7ATK0TRxx_BKWQZB" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>