If the changes would amount to the introduction of new matter had the change been made to a filed application, however, then the inventor should execute a new oath or declaration after reviewing the amended application. 2/2

If the wording is not correct or if all of the required affirmations have not been made, or if it has not been properly subscribed to, a new oath or declaration should be submitted. 2/2

… not totally inconsistent and unrelated to the original description and photograph of the plant may be submitted in reply to an Office action. Such submission will not constitute new matter under 35 U.S.C. 132. Jessel v. Newland, 195 USPQ 678, 684 (Dep. Comm’r Pat. 1977). 2/2

… the entire delay was unintentional, including the period from discovery that the maintenance fee was not timely paid until payment of the maintenance fee. 2/2

The preparation of claims to any claimed invention for which patent protection is desired and the inclusion of such claims with the application on filing will help ensure that the application satisfies the disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for any such claimed invention. 3/3

However, these minimal formal requirements should not be viewed as prescribing a best practice for the preparation and filing of a patent application. 2/3

… unless an amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 41.33(b)(2) rewriting such claims in independent form is filed within the period for seeking review under 37 CFR 90.3. 2/2

Applicants must still provide priority and/or benefit information under the domestic benefit information heading or foreign priority information heading, as appropriate, in the application data sheet even if utilizing the reference filing provisions of 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a). 2/2

… courts have looked to see if a reissue applicant was diligent in correcting the error(s) in the patent. 2/2