No need for Extension of Time Petitions

A question came up the other day in the listserv for patent practitioners (EFS-Web).  A list member asked how one should fill in the various fields in Form PTO/AIA/22 (Petition for Extension of Time).  One of the fields is “FOR” and the list member wondered whether the title should be pasted into that field.

One thing about this is that in my view (see blog), no field other than the application number actually matters or is required.  But more importantly, in my view Form PTO/AIA/22 (and its companion form PTO/SB/22) is completely unnecessary.  Here’s why.

The fact is that the mere act of paying the extension-of-time fee counts as petitioning for an extension of time.  See MPEP section 710 which says:

Submission of the fee set forth in § 1.17(a) [the extension-of-time fee] will also be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under this paragraph for its timely submission.

In other words, if you actually pay fee code 1251 (for example) then you are deemed to have petitioned for a one-month extension of time for a large entity.

It is many, many years since our firm has filed a Petition for Extension of Time form or used a word processor equivalent thereof.  When we wish to obtain an extension of time, we simply pay the appropriate fee and that is the end of the matter.  I am sure we have saved dozens of hours of professional time per year over the years by eliminating this unnecessary step from our filing procedures.


4 Replies to “No need for Extension of Time Petitions”

  1. Can you shed light on what exactly they want us to put in the “FOR” field on that form?
    Inventor name?
    Patent title?
    Length of extension sought?

    1. The designer of the form intended that the filer would enter the title into the “for” field. But, as mentioned above, only the application number is actually required, so the “for” field may be left blank. And, as mentioned above, the entire form is unneeded because simply paying the extension of time fee, all by itself, counts as a complete request for an extension of time.

      But yes, the answer to your question is “the title”.

  2. Your website is such a godsend. Quite often after I bang my head against a wall with a USPTO issue, I end up on your blog, and find the answer I am looking for. Today is yet another case like that. I should probably download your entire blog to my hard disk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *