8.3 Correcting Non-Disclosure & Duty Compliance

Compliance with the duty of disclosure is not a one-time event; it is an ongoing responsibility that spans related U.S. applications, foreign counterpart prosecutions, and post-issuance proceedings. On the Patent Bar exam, test questions frequently probe how applicants must handle prior art discovered late in prosecution, cross-citation obligations between copending applications, post-issuance disclosure rules, and the legal effect of submitting disclosures under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(h).

Cross-Citation in Copending Applications & PCT Reports

When an applicant or assignee maintains multiple copending patent applications that share related subject matter, prior art cited in one application may be highly material to the patentability of claims in another application. The duty of disclosure under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 requires that material information cited by an examiner or foreign patent office in one proceeding be promptly brought to the attention of the examiner in all related copending U.S. applications.

Key Scenarios Tested on the Exam:

• Copending U.S. Applications: If Examiner A cites a material prior art reference in Parent Application X, the practitioner prosecuting Copending Application Y (which claims related subject matter) must file an IDS disclosing that reference in Application Y, provided the reference is material to Y's claims.
• PCT international search reports in a national stage: The examiner considers U.S. patent documents cited in the ISR when they are electronically in the file. Other ISR documents are considered when the national-stage file indicates that the ISR and required copies are present. A separate IDS listing is not required for consideration in that circumstance, although a separate compliant list may be needed for citations to print on the patent; missing required copies remain the applicant’s burden.
• Foreign Counterpart Prosecutions: Prior art cited by foreign examiners (e.g., EPO, JPO, KIPO) in counterpart applications must be evaluated immediately. If material, references must be disclosed to the USPTO, typically utilizing the 3-month window provided by 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e)(1) to avoid statutory fees.

---

Post-Grant Proceedings & Ongoing Duty of Disclosure

The duty of candor and good faith does not terminate when a patent issues if the patent subsequently enters post-grant administrative proceedings at the USPTO:

In reissue and reexamination proceedings, failing to disclose material prior art known during the proceeding can result in administrative rejection or subsequent judicial invalidation / unenforceability.

---

Supplemental IDS & Post-Issue Fee Practice

During application prosecution, an applicant may discover additional references after having already filed an initial IDS. An applicant may submit an additional IDS before issue, but each submission independently must satisfy the applicable timing, fee, certification, and content requirements. Rule 1.97(i) is not authority for a special supplemental-IDS procedure; it provides that filing an IDS is not an admission that the cited information is material.

Disclosing Prior Art After Issue Fee Payment

Once the Issue Fee has been paid, the USPTO lacks jurisdiction to consider an IDS under normal prosecution rules. If material prior art is discovered after issue fee payment, the applicant has two primary procedural mechanisms:

1. Petition to Withdraw Application from Issue under 37 C.F.R. § 1.313(c)(2):
   • The applicant files a petition under § 1.313(c)(2) requesting that the application be withdrawn from issue for the express purpose of filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under § 1.114.
   • The petition is accompanied by the RCE fee, an RCE submission, and the new IDS.
   • Filing the RCE reopens prosecution, placing the application back into Tier 1 for IDS purposes.
2. Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) Program:
   • Designed to avoid unnecessary prosecution delay when material art is discovered post-issue fee payment.
   • The applicant files a QPIDS submission containing: (a) a petition to withdraw from issue under § 1.313(c)(3), (b) an IDS with a § 1.97(e) certification, (c) the statutory IDS fee, and (d) a conditional RCE fee.
   • If the examiner reviews the IDS and determines that no reference requires reopening prosecution, the examiner initials the IDS, issues a corrected Notice of Allowance, and the conditional RCE fee is refunded.
   • If the examiner determines that a reference requires reopening prosecution, the petition to withdraw is granted, the conditional RCE fee is processed, and prosecution reopens.

---

Non-Admission Rules & Reference Withdrawal

Applicants sometimes worry that submitting a large volume of prior art in an IDS will be construed by courts as an admission that the cited references are material or constitute prior art against the invention. Regulation 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(h) directly addresses this concern:

37 C.F.R. § 1.97(h): "The filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed to be a representation that a search has been made or that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability."

Legal Impact of § 1.97(h):

• No Search Representation: Submitting an IDS does not represent that a comprehensive prior art search was conducted.
• No Admission of Prior Art Status: Listing a document on Form PTO/SB/08a does not automatically turn that document into prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 (e.g., if a cited document was authored by the inventor within the 1-year grace period).
• Express Admissions: While merely listing a reference is not an admission, making explicit technical statements in the IDS narrative or specification admitting that a reference is "prior art" will bind the applicant as an express admission.