Comments on: Q) Missing Parts (30 days) – PCT http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Tue, 22 May 2012 00:33:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sol http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-37735 Sol Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:07:57 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-37735 Agree Agree

]]> By: Sol http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-37734 Sol Sat, 07 Apr 2012 19:06:37 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-37734 today, cannot be found today, cannot be found

]]> By: Bigbadvoododaddy http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-12787 Bigbadvoododaddy Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:20:20 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-12787 To clarify: 1. The fees must be submitted in 1 MONTH 2. Missing parts in 2 MONTHS THis is per 1801 (for fees, under RO) and rule 20.7 for missing parts. These revs are valid for the E8R8 revisions. Nonetheless the filing date cannot be obtained by fax, so C in the prior questions will still remain the answer. BUT NOTE THE CHANGES To clarify:
1. The fees must be submitted in 1 MONTH
2. Missing parts in 2 MONTHS

THis is per 1801 (for fees, under RO)
and rule 20.7 for missing parts.

These revs are valid for the E8R8 revisions.
Nonetheless the filing date cannot be obtained by fax, so C in the prior questions will still remain the answer.

BUT NOTE THE CHANGES

]]> By: studier http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-5043 studier Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:24:16 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-5043 How, specifically do you correct? How, specifically do you correct?

]]> By: toomuch23 http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-4496 toomuch23 Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:37:14 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-4496 uuuhhh, not sure why the double post happened? Wish there was a way to delete your own post uuuhhh, not sure why the double post happened? Wish there was a way to delete your own post

]]> By: toomuch23 http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-4428 toomuch23 Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:58:12 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-4428 see oct.2003.pm A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an “Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application,” dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date? (A) Yes. The application will be accorded a filing date of January 8, 2003. (B) Yes. The application will be accorded an international filing date of February 10, 2003. (C) No. The application will not be accorded an international filing date because the failure to designate at least one contracting State cannot be cured by a facsimile transmission. (D) No. The application was given a one-month period for response. The practitioner would have had to have filed the response on Friday, February 7, 2003 in order to have been timely. (E) None of the above Answer is (C) Can't correct via facsimile see oct.2003.pm

A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an “Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application,” dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date?

(A) Yes. The application will be accorded a filing date of January 8, 2003.
(B) Yes. The application will be accorded an international filing date of February 10,
2003.
(C) No. The application will not be accorded an international filing date because the
failure to designate at least one contracting State cannot be cured by a facsimile
transmission.
(D) No. The application was given a one-month period for response. The practitioner
would have had to have filed the response on Friday, February 7, 2003 in order to
have been timely.
(E) None of the above

Answer is (C) Can’t correct via facsimile

]]> By: toomuch23 http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-4427 toomuch23 Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:57:52 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-4427 see oct.2003.pm A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an “Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application,” dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date? (A) Yes. The application will be accorded a filing date of January 8, 2003. (B) Yes. The application will be accorded an international filing date of February 10, 2003. (C) No. The application will not be accorded an international filing date because the failure to designate at least one contracting State cannot be cured by a facsimile transmission. (D) No. The application was given a one-month period for response. The practitioner would have had to have filed the response on Friday, February 7, 2003 in order to have been timely. (E) None of the above Answer is (C) Can't correct via facsimile see oct.2003.pm

A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an “Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application,” dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date?

(A) Yes. The application will be accorded a filing date of January 8, 2003.
(B) Yes. The application will be accorded an international filing date of February 10,
2003.
(C) No. The application will not be accorded an international filing date because the
failure to designate at least one contracting State cannot be cured by a facsimile
transmission.
(D) No. The application was given a one-month period for response. The practitioner
would have had to have filed the response on Friday, February 7, 2003 in order to
have been timely.
(E) None of the above

Answer is (C) Can’t correct via facsimile

]]> By: Matt http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-3426 Matt Sun, 08 Aug 2010 04:34:30 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-3426 The best answer I could find in 1810 was: "If the defect under PCT Article 11(1) is not timely corrected, the receiving Office will promptly notify the applicant that the application is not and will not be treated as an international application" In regards to not paying the fees on time, the MPEP is clearer and states that the app is "withdrawn." The best answer I could find in 1810 was:

“If the defect under PCT Article 11(1) is not timely corrected, the receiving Office will promptly notify the applicant that the application is not and will not be treated as an international application”

In regards to not paying the fees on time, the MPEP is clearer and states that the app is “withdrawn.”

]]> By: sethz http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-1384 sethz Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:54:53 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-1384 20.2 Receipt on Different Days (a) In cases where all the sheets pertaining to the same purported international application are not received on the same day by the receiving Office, that Office shall correct the date marked on the request (still leaving legible, however, the earlier date or dates already marked) so that it indicates the day on which the papers completing the international application were received, provided that (i) where no invitation under Article 11(2)(a) to correct was sent to the applicant, the said papers are received within 30 days from the date on which sheets were first received; (ii) where an invitation under Article 11(2)(a) to correct was sent to the applicant, the said papers are received within the applicable time limit under Rule 20.6; (iii) in the case of Article 14(2), the missing drawings are received within 30 days from the date on which the incomplete papers were filed; (iv) the absence or later receipt of any sheet containing the abstract or part thereof shall not, in itself, require any correction of the date marked on the request. (b) Any sheet received on a date later than the date on which sheets were first received shall be marked by the receiving Office with the date on which it was received. 20.2 Receipt on Different Days
(a)
In cases where all the sheets pertaining to the same purported international application are not received on the same day by the receiving Office, that Office shall correct the date marked on the request (still leaving legible, however, the earlier date or dates already marked) so that it indicates the day on which the papers completing the international application were received, provided that
(i)
where no invitation under Article 11(2)(a) to correct was sent to the applicant, the said papers are received within 30 days from the date on which sheets were first received;
(ii)
where an invitation under Article 11(2)(a) to correct was sent to the applicant, the said papers are received within the applicable time limit under Rule 20.6;
(iii) in the case of Article 14(2), the missing drawings are received within 30 days from the date on which the incomplete papers were filed;
(iv)
the absence or later receipt of any sheet containing the abstract or part thereof shall not, in itself, require any correction of the date marked on the request.
(b)
Any sheet received on a date later than the date on which sheets were first received shall be marked by the receiving Office with the date on which it was received.

]]> By: cdv http://mypatentbar.com/2008/08/18/q-missing-parts-pct/#comment-1383 cdv Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:07:05 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/?p=576#comment-1383 20.6 Invitation to Correct (a) The invitation to correct under Article 11(2) shall specify the requirement provided for under Article 11(1) which, in the opinion of the receiving Office, has not been fulfilled. (b) The receiving Office shall promptly mail the invitation to the applicant and shall fix a time limit, reasonable under the circumstances of the case, for filing the correction. The time limit shall not be less than 10 days, and shall not exceed one month, from the date of the invitation. If such time limit expires after the expiration of one year from the filing date of any application whose priority is claimed, the receiving Office may call this circumstance to the attention of the applicant. 20.6 Invitation to Correct
(a)
The invitation to correct under Article 11(2) shall specify the requirement provided for under Article
11(1) which, in the opinion of the receiving Office, has not been fulfilled.
(b)
The receiving Office shall promptly mail the invitation to the applicant and shall fix a time limit, reasonable under the circumstances of the case, for filing the correction. The time limit shall not be less than 10 days, and shall not exceed one month, from the date of the invitation. If such time limit expires after the expiration of one year from the filing date of any application whose priority is claimed, the receiving Office may call this circumstance to the attention of the applicant.

]]>