[Patentpractice] Responding to a Rule 105 Request for Information

Sun Jun 1 08:19:38 UTC 2025

I've never had a request under Rule 105. But I don't see in the wording of
the rule how 105 authorizes an examiner to ask for information about "the
appropriate priority date" of a claim. 105 deals with providing information
regarding prior art or the finding of prior art, which is why it refers to
rule 56. Entitlement to priority (or to the benefit of an earlier filing
date) is (a) tangential to finding prior art (it determines whether or not
a publication may be cited against a particular claim, but is not necessary
for finding the publication), and (b) something that the examiner can
determine on his own: he can read through the priority document(s) and/or
the earlier US applications for which the benefit of an earlier filing date
is claimed, and determine earliest priority or benefit date for each claim.

Does anyone know what statutory section serves as the basis for rule 105?

Dan

On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 6:11 PM Robert Blaha via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
>
>
> I’ve received a heads-up from an examiner that he has issued a first
> office action in a CIP application that includes a request for information
> from the applicant for the appropriate priority date for each of the
> pending claims. The office action is still in the pipeline. I do not recall
> ever coming across an office action with a request under Rule 105.
>
>
>
> The MPEP indicates that a reasonable investigation and response is
> required to avoid abandonment. My gut tells me that a response including
> any facts beyond the filing date of the parent patent application, or the
> filing date of the CIP application, will open up a huge mess if the parent
> patent and any subsequent patent were to ever be licensed or enforced. My
> gut further informs me that if facts beyond the specifications are included
> that I should have at least some evidence of reasonable diligence in my
> possession from the applicant.
>
>
>
> Any advice from those that have responded to a Rule 105 request would be
> appreciated. CFR and MPEP excerpts below
>
>
>
> *§ 1.105 Requirements for information. *(
> https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR4f6faa3f96af06d/section-1.105
> )
>
> (a)
>
> (1) In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or
> abandoned application, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding,
> including a reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental
> examination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require
> the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c)
> <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/section-1.56#p-1.56(c)>, or any
> assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly
> examine or treat the matter . . .
>
>
>
> MPEP 704.11 (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s704.html)
>
> The terms “factual” and “facts” are included in *37 CFR 1.105
> <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322262> to
> make it clear that it is facts and factual information, that are known to
> applicant, or readily obtained after reasonable inquiry by applicant, that
> are sought, and that requirements under 37 CFR 1.105
> <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322262> are
> not requesting opinions that may be held or would be required to be
> formulated by applicant. Where the factual information requested related to
> the subject application, and details thereof, applicant would be expected
> to make a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances to find the factual
> information requested (37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)
> <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e351262>).
> Applicant need not, however, derive or independently discover a fact, such
> as by experimentation, in response to a requirement for information. The
> purpose of 37 CFR 1.105
> <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322262> is
> to improve patent quality, and render better decisions, and not to put
> applicants in jeopardy of meeting their duties of candor and good faith in
> their replies to a requirement for information.*
>
> *INFORMATION REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR FINDING PRIOR ART*
>
> The criteria stated in *37 CFR 1.105
> <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322262> for
> making a requirement for information is that the information be reasonably
> necessary to the examination or treatment of a matter in an application.
> The information required would typically be that necessary for finding
> prior art or for resolving an issue arising from the results of the search
> for art or from analysis of the application file. A requirement for
> information necessary for finding prior art is not a substitute for the
> examiner performing a search of the relevant prior art; the examiner must
> make a search of the art according to MPEP §§ 704.01
> <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s704.html#d0e55732> and 904
> <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s904.html#d0e115569> – 904.03
> <https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s904.html#d0e115840>.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob Blaha
>
> Partner
>
>
>
>
>
> *Smith Tempel Blaha LLC*
>
> 1600 Parkwood Circle SE, Suite 620
>
> Atlanta, Georgia 30339
>
> (770) 709-0069 Direct
>
> (770) 804-0900 Fax
>
> (678) 357-3655 Mobile
>
> Email: *rblaha at srtslaw.com <rblaha at srtslaw.com>*
>
> *https://www.srtslaw.com <https://www.srtslaw.com/>*
>
>
>
> This e-mail transmission is covered by the Electronic Communications
> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. This e-mail transmission and any
> documents or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain
> confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
> distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to
> this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this e-mail
> transmission in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail or telephone
> and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading
> them or saving them in any manner.
>
>
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250601/549ae74f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250601/549ae74f/attachment.png>