[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37826-37830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-12717]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2025-0413]
RIN 0651-AD92
Conditions for Additional Information and Fee in Petitions Filed
in Patent Applications and Patents Based on Unintentional Delay
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is
revising its practice of requiring additional information for delays in
taking certain actions in patent applications and patents from
requiring additional information for delays exceeding two years to
requiring additional information for delays exceeding one year. This
action is being taken to increase certainty and predictability
concerning patent rights, and to encourage the timely filing of
grantable petitions to revive applications, accept delayed maintenance
fee payments, accept delayed priority or benefit claims, and excuse an
applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in connection
with international design applications. In addition, the USPTO is
changing the conditions for when the corresponding petition fee is
required.
DATES: This rule is effective August 13, 2026, and will be applicable
to any new petition filed after the effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Tartera Donnell, Attorney
Advisor, Office of Petitions, or Douglas I. Wood, Attorney Advisor,
Office of Petitions, by telephone at 571-272-3282; or by mail addressed
to: Mail Stop Comments-Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; or Brannon Smith, Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration, at 571-270-1601.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USPTO is revising the rules in part 1 of
title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations to increase certainty and
predictability concerning patent rights and to improve efficiency of
patent operations.
[[Page 37827]]
I. Background
The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) amended
the provisions of title 35, United States Code (U.S.C.) to implement
the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) and the Hague Agreement Concerning
International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague Agreement). See
Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527, (2012). Section 101 of the PLTIA
added a new chapter under title 35, including a new section, 35 U.S.C.
387, which provides that an applicant's failure to act within
prescribed time limits in connection with requirements pertaining to an
international design application may be excused as to the United States
upon a showing of unintentional delay and under such conditions,
including a requirement for payment of a fee, as may be prescribed by
the Director. See Public Law 112-211, sec. 101, 126 Stat. at 1527.
Furthermore, Section 201(b) of the PLTIA added 35 U.S.C. 27, which
expressly provides that the Director of the USPTO may establish
procedures to revive an unintentionally abandoned application for
patent or accept an unintentionally delayed issue fee payment, upon
petition by the applicant for patent. See Public Law 112-211, sec.
201(b)(1)(B), 126 Stat. at 1534. Section 202(b)(1)(B) of the PLTIA
amended 35 U.S.C. 41(c)(1) to provide that the Director may accept the
payment of any maintenance fee required by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) after the
six-month grace period if the delay is shown to the satisfaction of the
Director to have been unintentional. See Public Law 112-211, sec.
202(b)(1)(B), 126 Stat. at 1535-36. The 18-month publication provisions
of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) amended 35
U.S.C. 119 and 120 to provide that a priority claim to a foreign or
international application, a benefit claim of an earlier domestic
provisional or nonprovisional application, and a benefit claim of an
international application designating the United States must be filed
within the period required by the USPTO, but that the USPTO may
establish procedures to accept an unintentionally delayed priority or
benefit claim. See Public Law 106-113, sec. 4503, 113 Stat. 1501,
1501A-563 through 1501A-564 (1999).
The USPTO revised the rules of practice to implement the 18-month
publication provisions of section 4503 of the AIPA in September 2000.
This included revising the rules of practice pertaining to foreign
priority and domestic benefit claims at 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 to set a
time period within which such priority and benefit claims must be
submitted and provide for the acceptance of unintentionally delayed
priority or benefit claims. See Changes to Implement Eighteen-Month
Publication of Patent Applications, 65 FR 57023, 57024-25, 57030-31,
57053-55 (September 20, 2000). The USPTO revised the rules of practice
for consistency with the PLT and Title II of the PLTIA in October 2013.
This included revising the rules of practice pertaining to the revival
of abandoned applications at 37 CFR 1.137 and acceptance of delayed
maintenance fee payments 37 CFR 1.378 to provide for the revival of
abandoned applications and acceptance of delayed maintenance fee
payments solely on the basis of unintentional delay, as well as
revisions to the rules of practice pertaining to foreign priority and
domestic benefit claims at 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78. See Changes to
Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368, 62377-78, 62380-83,
62399-400, 62402-07 (October 21, 2013).
The provisions for the revival of an abandoned application in 37
CFR 1.137 require a petition including, inter alia, a statement that
the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date of the
reply until the filing of a grantable petition was unintentional, but
also provide that ``[t]he Director may require additional information
where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.'' 37 CFR
1.137(b)(4)). The provisions for the acceptance of a delayed
maintenance fee payment at 37 CFR 1.378 similarly require a petition
including, inter alia, a statement that the delay in payment of the
maintenance fee was unintentional, but also provide that ``[t]he
Director may require additional information where there is a question
whether the delay was unintentional.'' 37 CFR 1.378(b)(3). The
provisions for the acceptance of a delayed priority or benefit claim at
37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 likewise require a statement that the delay
between the date the claim was due and the date the claim was filed was
unintentional, but also provide that ``[t]he Director may require
additional information where there is a question whether the delay was
unintentional.'' 37 CFR 1.55(e)(4), 1.78(c)(3) and (e)(3). Furthermore,
the provisions for excusing the failure to act within prescribed time
limits under the Hague Agreement in connection with requirements
pertaining to an international design application (37 CFR 1.1051)
require a statement that the entire delay in filing the ``required
reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable
petition pursuant to this paragraph was unintentional'' and that the
``Director may require additional information where there is a question
whether the delay was unintentional.'' (37 CFR 1.1051(a)(5)).
On March 2, 2020, the USPTO clarified its practice as to situations
that require additional information about whether a delay in seeking
the revival of an abandoned application, acceptance of a delayed
maintenance fee payment, or acceptance of a delayed priority or benefit
claim was unintentional. See Clarification of the Practice for
Requiring Additional Information in Petitions Filed in Patent
Applications and Patents Based on Unintentional Delay, 85 FR 12222
(March 2, 2020). Specifically, the USPTO clarified that it required
additional information in the following three cases. First, when a
petition to revive an abandoned application was filed more than two
years after the date the application became abandoned. Second, when a
petition to accept a delayed maintenance fee payment was filed more
than two years after the date the patent expired for nonpayment. Third,
when a petition to accept a delayed priority or benefit claim was filed
more than two years after the date the priority or benefit claim was
due. See also Changes to Patent Practice and Procedure, 62 FR 53131,
53158-59, 53161 (October 10, 1997) (the length of the delay in filing a
petition to revive may itself raise a question as to whether the delay
was unintentional, and thus the USPTO may require additional
information as to the cause of the delay when a petition to revive is
not filed promptly). The reason for requiring additional information in
cases where there had been an extended delay--a delay of more than two
years from the date the application became abandoned, the patent
expired, or a priority or benefit claim was due--until the filing of a
petition, was to ensure that, in situations where there had been such
an extended delay in filing the petition, the USPTO is provided with
sufficient information of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
entire delay to support a conclusion that the entire delay was
``unintentional.'' In addition, the USPTO emphasized that it may
require additional information whenever there is a question as to
whether the delay was unintentional, and that it may revisit the two-
year period established in the notice and evaluate whether the two-year
period is an appropriate threshold.
The USPTO has decided to shorten the two-year period for requiring
additional information to one year. The USPTO will now require
additional information when the petition is filed
[[Page 37828]]
more than one year after the date the application became abandoned, the
patent expired, a priority or benefit claim was due, or the applicable
prescribed time limit under the Hague Agreement expired. If the period
of delay is more than one year, there is a sufficient concern that the
entire delay may not be unintentional and thus warrant a requirement
for an additional explanation of the circumstances surrounding the
delay. The benefits of requiring such a showing or explanation for
petitions filed more than one year after the date of abandonment, the
date of patent expiration, the date a priority or benefit claim is due,
or the date of expiration of the applicable time limit under the Hague
Agreement outweigh the additional burden to patent applicants and
patentees of providing this information. As noted in the Clarification
of the Practice for Requiring Additional Information in Petitions Filed
in Patent Applications and Patents Based on Unintentional Delay, 85 FR
at 12223, the purpose of the original two-year practice was to reduce
uncertainty and unpredictability relating to patent rights. The longer
the delay in filing a petition to revive an application, accept a
delayed maintenance fee, accept a delayed priority or benefit claim, or
excuse an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in
international design applications, the greater the likelihood that the
entire delay may not be unintentional.
Accordingly, this change from a two-year period to a one-year
period will further increase certainty and predictability concerning
patent rights, by requiring that applicants and patentees provide, on
the record, an adequate explanation that the entire delay is
unintentional. Such an explanation or showing both safeguards a
patentee's rights by establishing on the record that the delay was
unintentional, and protects the public by prohibiting revival,
reinstatement, entry of a benefit or priority claim, or excuse of
delay, when unintentional delay cannot be established. Further, this
change from a two-year period to a one-year period aligns with USPTO
efforts to reduce application pendency and promote efficient patent
operations by encouraging applicants to regularly monitor patent files
and promptly take corrective actions when needed, such as the timely
filing of grantable petitions to revive applications, accept delayed
maintenance fee payments, accept delayed priority or benefit claims, or
to excuse an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits
in international design applications. Prompt, corrective actions are
more likely to be associated with unintentional delay and assist in
streamlining examination.
Section 711.03(c) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) (9th Edition, Rev. 01.2024, November 2024) discusses the
unintentional delay standard with respect to petitions to revive an
abandoned application, but its discussion of the unintentional delay is
generally applicable to any petition under the unintentional delay
standard. The USPTO usually relies upon the applicant's duty of candor
and good faith and accepts the statement that the entire delay was
unintentional without requiring further information because the
applicant or patentee is obligated under 37 CFR 11.18 to inquire into
the underlying facts and circumstances when providing this statement to
the USPTO. See MPEP section 711.03(c), subsection II.C. An extended
period of delay in filing a petition to revive an application, accept a
delayed maintenance fee payment, accept a delayed priority or benefit
claim, or excuse a failure to act within prescribed time limits under
the Hague Agreement, however, raises a question as to whether the
entire delay was unintentional. This may create uncertainty and
unpredictability relating to patent rights in that there is a greater
likelihood that the entire delay may not be unintentional within the
meaning of 37 CFR 1.55, 1.78, 1.137, 1.378, and 1.1051, as compared to
a petition that was filed within a shorter time period after the
abandonment of the application, expiration of the patent, due date for
a priority or benefit claim, or expiration of an applicable time limit
under the Hague Agreement. An applicant or patentee cannot meet the
``unintentional delay'' standard in 37 CFR 1.55(e), 1.78(c) and (e),
1.137(a), 1.378(b), or 1.1051 if the entire delay is not unintentional.
See MPEP section 711.03(c), subsections II.C. through F.
Providing an inaccurate statement that the entire delay was
unintentional may have an adverse effect when attempting to enforce the
patent. See In re Rembrandt Technologies LP Patent Litigation, 899 F.3d
1254, 1272-73, 127 USPQ2d 1826, 1837-38 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patents held
unenforceable due to a finding of inequitable conduct in submitting an
inappropriate statement that the delay was unintentional).
Revival of an application, reinstatement of a patent, acceptance of
a priority or benefit claim, or excusal of a failure to act within
prescribed time limits after an extended delay can also create
uncertainty and unpredictability relating to patent rights because the
abandoned status of an application, or the expired status of a patent,
or an absence of the priority or benefit claim, or the consequences of
failing to act within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement,
may be relied upon by other parties. Requiring additional information
when the delay is more than one year since the date of abandonment,
expiration of the patent, the due date of the priority or benefit
claim, or the expiration of an applicable prescribed time limit will
improve the reliability and predictability of patent rights by ensuring
that only applications and patents in which the entire delay was
unintentional are revived or reinstated, and only priority or benefit
claims for which the entire delay was unintentional are accepted.
Any applicant filing a petition to revive an abandoned application
under 37 CFR 1.137 more than one year after the date of abandonment,
any patentee filing a petition to accept a delayed maintenance fee
under 37 CFR 1.378 more than one year after the date of expiration for
nonpayment of a maintenance fee, any applicant or patent owner filing a
petition to accept a delayed priority or benefit claim under 37 CFR
1.55(e) or 1.78(c) and (e), and any applicant filing a petition to
excuse an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits
under the Hague Agreement in connection with requirements pertaining to
an international design application under 37 CFR 1.1051 more than one
year after the date the action was required must provide an additional
explanation of the circumstances surrounding the delay that establishes
that the entire delay was unintentional. This requirement is in
addition to the requirement to provide a statement that the entire
delay was unintentional in 37 CFR 1.137(b)(4), or 1.378(b)(3), or
1.55(e)(4), 1.78(c)(3) and (e)(3), or 1.1051(a)(5). The MPEP will be
updated in due course to incorporate these requirements.
Nothing in this notice should be construed as an indication that
the USPTO will only require additional information in consideration of
a petition to revive an abandoned application under 37 CFR 1.137 filed
more than one year after the date the application became abandoned, a
petition to accept a delayed maintenance fee payment in an expired
patent under 37 CFR 1.378 filed more than one year after the date the
patent expired, a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or 1.78(c) or (e) to
accept a delayed priority or benefit claim filed more than one year
after the due date of the priority or benefit claim, or a petition
[[Page 37829]]
under 37 CFR 1.1051 to excuse the failure to act as to the United
States within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement in
connection with the requirements pertaining to an international design
application under 37 CFR 1.1051 filed more than one year after the
expiration of the time limit. Separate and apart from the one-year
period in this notice, the USPTO may require additional information
whenever there is a question as to whether the delay was unintentional.
Because the USPTO is revising the requirement for additional
information in petitions filed in patent applications and patents based
on unintentional delay where the petition is filed more than one year
after the date when the required action was due, the evidentiary
requirements in such petitions will increase, as well as the cost to
review and treat these petitions. Therefore, the USPTO is changing the
threshold for imposing the higher petition fee to recover the
additional costs associated with the change in practice set forth in
this notice. Additionally, changing the threshold for imposing the
higher fee will further encourage applicants to file their petitions in
a timely manner. Timely filing of petitions based on unintentional
delay benefits applicants because it avoids delays in the examination
process, and it also benefits the patent system as a whole by reducing
uncertainty and unpredictability relating to patent rights, inasmuch as
the abandoned status of an application, the expired status of a patent,
or an absence of the priority or benefit claim could be relied upon by
other parties.
Therefore, to reflect the changes in practice with respect to
petitions to revive an abandoned application under 37 CFR 1.137, to
accept a delayed maintenance fee payment in an expired patent under 37
CFR 1.378, to accept a delayed priority or benefit claim under 37 CFR
1.55(e) or 1.78(c) or (e), or a petition to excuse the failure to act
as to the United States within prescribed time limits under the Hague
Agreement in connection with the requirements pertaining to an
international design application under 37 CFR 1.1051, the rules are
revised to clarify that the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) will apply when
the petition is filed more than one year after the date when the
required action was due. The fee rates in 37 CFR 1.17(m) will remain
the same.
II. Discussion of Specific Rules
Section 1.17(m): Section 1.17(m)(1) is amended to state that the
fee under (m)(1) for filing a petition under a section that refers to
paragraph (m) will apply when the petition is filed more than one year
after the date when the required action was due. Previously, the rule
stated that the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) was due when the petition
was filed more than two years after the date when the required action
was due. However, additional information is now required in petitions
filed in patent applications and patents based on unintentional delay
whenever the delay in taking certain actions in patent applications and
patents is more than one year. Therefore, to align with the changes to
practice and encourage the timely filing of petitions based on
unintentional delay, 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) is amended accordingly. Section
1.17(m)(1) now applies when the petition is filed more than one year
after the date when the required action was due.
III. Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: This final rule amends the fee
under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) such that it will apply when a relevant
petition is filed more than one year after the date when the required
action was due. The change in this final rule does not change the
substantive criteria of patentability. Therefore, the change in this
rulemaking involves a rule of agency practice and procedure and/or an
interpretive rule and does not require notice-and-comment rulemaking,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575
U.S. 92, 97, 101 (2015) (explaining that interpretive rules ``advise
the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which
it administers'' and do not require notice-and-comment when issued or
amended); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not
require notice-and-comment rulemaking for ``interpretative rules,
general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice''); In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105, 1110
(Fed. Cir. 2024) (noting that rule changes that ``do[ ] not alter the
substantive standards by which the USPTO evaluates trademark
applications'' are procedural in nature and thus ``exempted from
notice-and-comment rulemaking.''); and JEM Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C.,
22 F.3d 320, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (``[T]he `critical feature' of the
procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] `is that it covers agency
actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of
parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties
present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.''' (quoting
Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity
for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any
other law, neither a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis nor a
certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review): The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (January 18,
2011). Specifically, and as discussed above, the USPTO has, to the
extent feasible and applicable: (1) reasonably determined that the
benefits of the rule justify its costs; (2) tailored the rule to impose
the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the agency's
regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that
maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5)
identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public
in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in
relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and
the public as a whole, and provided online access to the rulemaking
docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and
harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed
to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens
while maintaining flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and
(9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information
and processes.
E. Executive Order 14192 (Deregulation): This regulation is not an
Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it has been determined
to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking pertains
strictly to federal agency procedures and does not contain policies
with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999).
G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking
will not: (1) have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not
[[Page 37830]]
required under Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000).
H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this
rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001).
I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking
meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity,
and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996).
J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking
does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (April
21, 1997).
K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This
rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (March 15, 1988).
L. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the USPTO will submit a report containing
the final rule and other required information to the United States
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this
rulemaking are not expected to result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices,
or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to result in
a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in
this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that
will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in any one
year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the
expenditure by the private sector of $100 million (as adjusted) or more
in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
N. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: This rulemaking will
not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995: The
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because
this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of
technical standards.
P. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the USPTO consider the
impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on
the public. The collections of information involved in this final rule
have been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers
0651-0016, 0651-0021, 0651-0031, 0651-0032, and 0651-0075. In view of
this final rule, the USPTO will submit updates to the 0651-0016, 0651-
0021, 0651-0031, 0651-0032, and 0651-0075 information collections in
the form of nonsubstantive change requests.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Q. E-Government Act Compliance: The USPTO is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes.
List of Subjects
37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom
of information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the USPTO amends 37 CFR
part 1 as follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.17 is amended by revising paragraph (m)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.17 Patent application and reexamination processing fees.
* * * * *
(m)(1) For filing a petition under one of the following sections
which refers to this paragraph (m), when the petition is filed more
than one year after the date when the required action was due:
Table 18 to Paragraph (m)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By a micro entity (Sec. 1.29).............................. $600.00
By a small entity (Sec. 1.27(a))........................... 1,200.00
By other than a small or micro entity........................ 3,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 6 to table 18 to paragraph (m)(1).
1.55(e)--for the delayed submission of a priority claim, when the
petition is filed more than one year after the date when the priority
claim was due.
Sec. 1.78(c) or (e)--for the delayed submission of a benefit
claim, when the petition is filed more than one year after the date
when the benefit claim was due.
Sec. 1.137--for filing a petition for the revival of an abandoned
application for a patent, or for the delayed payment of the fee for
issuing each patent, when the petition is filed more than one year
after the abandonment of the application.
Sec. 1.137--for filing a petition for the revival of a
reexamination proceeding that was terminated or limited due to a
delayed response by the patent owner, when the petition is filed more
than one year after the termination or limitation of the reexamination
proceeding.
Sec. 1.378--for filing a petition to accept a delayed payment of
the fee for maintaining a patent in force, when the petition is filed
more than one year after the patent expiration date.
Sec. 1.1051--for filing a petition to excuse an applicant's
failure to act within prescribed time limits in an international design
application, when the petition is filed more than one year after the
abandonment of the application.
* * * * *
John A. Squires,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2026-12717 Filed 6-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P