About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Genetic Research Continues to Reveal Ancestry Relationships in Early Human Migrations | Main | Barbaro Technologies, LLC v. Niantic, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020) »

May 27, 2020


I have a somewhat different reading of the Notice. It says:
"Specifically, for small and micro entities, filings that would have been deemed timely filed, if filed by June 1, 2020 pursuant to the CARES Act Notice dated April 28, 2020, will now be deemed timely filed if filed by July 1, 2020".
Suppose an office action has a due date of June 2. A response filed on June 1 would be timely filed for this deadline. Therefore, the date to respond is extended to July 1.
What is your analysis?


Thanks for your comment. My reading of the USPTO's latest notice is that the Office has merely extended the applicable date of its original COVID-19-related extensions from June 1 to July 1, but ONLY for small and micro entities. Therefore, any deadlines for the actions specified in the Office's April 28 notice – again, ONLY for small and micro entities – that fall in June can be extended to July 1 with the submission of the required COVID-19 statement. I think that the omission of large entities from the latest round of extensions may be the reason why the notice was perhaps not as clear as the first two notices (at least to me).


Well, that would be the expected interpretation, but how do you get there from the text the statement? What am I missing?

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30