(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Director to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) or (e) of this section or upon filing a petition or request under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section with a showing which, in the opinion of the Director, will justify so advancing it.
(b) Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.
(c) A petition to make an application special may be filed without a fee if the basis for the petition is the inventor's or a joint inventor's age or health.
(d) A petition to make an application special on grounds other than those referred to in paragraph (c) of this section must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(h).
(e) A request for prioritized examination under this paragraph (e) must comply with the requirements of this paragraph (e) and be accompanied by the prioritized examination fee set forth in § 1.17(c), the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), and if not already paid, the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d). An application for which prioritized examination has been requested may not contain or be amended to contain more than four independent claims, more than thirty total claims, or any multiple dependent claim. Prioritized examination under this paragraph (e) will not be accorded to international applications that have not entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, design applications, reissue applications, provisional applications, or reexamination proceedings. A request for prioritized examination must also comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. No more than 20,000 requests for such prioritized examination will be accepted in any fiscal year.
(1) A request for prioritized examination may be filed with an original utility or plant nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The application must include a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 including at least one claim, a drawing when necessary, and the inventor's oath or declaration on filing, except that the filing of an inventor's oath or declaration may be postponed in accordance with § 1.53(f)(3) if an application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i) is present upon filing. If the application is a utility application, it must be filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system and include the filing fee under § 1.16(a), search fee under § 1.16(k), and examination fee under § 1.16(o) upon filing. If the application is a plant application, it must include the filing fee under § 1.16(c), search fee under § 1.16(m), and examination fee under § 1.16(q) upon filing. The request for prioritized examination in compliance with this paragraph must be present upon filing of the application, except that the applicant may file an amendment to cancel any independent claims in excess of four, any total claims in excess of thirty, and any multiple dependent claim not later than one month from a first decision on the request for prioritized examination. This one-month time period is not extendable.
(2) A request for prioritized examination may be filed with or after a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114. If the application is a utility application, the request must be filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system. The request must be filed before the mailing of the first Office action after the filing of the request for continued examination under § 1.114. Only a single such request for prioritized examination under this paragraph may be granted in an application.
(36 U.S.C. 6; 15 U.S.C. 1113, 1123)
[24 FR 10332, Dec. 22, 1959, as amended at 47 FR 41276, Sept. 17, 1982; 54 FR 6903, Feb. 15, 1989; 60 FR 20226, Apr. 25, 1995; 62 FR 53191, Oct. 10, 1997; 65 FR 54671, Sept. 8, 2000; 69 FR 56542, Sept. 21, 2004; 76 FR 59054, Sept. 23, 2011; 76 FR 78569, Dec. 19, 2011; 79 FR 12390, Mar. 5, 2014; 84 FR 45910, Sept. 3, 2019; 86 FR 52991, Sept. 24, 2021; 90 FR 29993, July 8, 2025; 90 FR 24326, June 10, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Select Creations, Inc. v. Paliafito Am., Inc., 828 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D. Wis. 1992).
· cites it 2× “In the “Petition to Make Special under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 (d),” transmitted to the PTO by means of interstate facsimile, Nowak warranted to the PTO that he “ha[d] made or caused to be made a careful and thorough search of the prior art or has good knowledge of the pertinent prior…”
StairMaster Sports/Med. Prods., Inc. v. Groupe Procycle, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 270 (D. Del. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Potts filed a Petition *275 to Make Special to have his patent application granted “special status” and examined on an expedited basis under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 (d). 1 Under this special expedited procedure, the patent examiner’s search is limited to the subject matter encompassed…”
Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Mass. 2009).
“See 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 (1999). The PTO allowed the PTMS the following month, then, after a single office action in February 2000, allowed the application in April 2000.”
Birchwood Labs., Inc. v. Battenfeld Tech., Inc., 762 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Minnesota 2011).
“” On April 10, 2006, it filed a “Petition to Make Special Under 37 CFR 1.102(d),” asking the PTO to expedite the processing of this patent application.”
Gentile v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 211 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D. Mass. 2002).
“Shortly thereafter, in or about September 1995, Gentile filed a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 (d) to have his application advanced out of turn due to the entry into the market of Sun Hockey’s Zero Ball which he believed infringed on his claims.”
Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 530 F. Supp. 303 (N.D. Tex. 1981).
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 , reissue applications arising out of stayed litigation are to be given “priority” over initial applications and other reissue applications.”
Step Co. v. Consum. Direct, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 960 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
“On January 20, 1990, they filed a Petition to Make Special pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 (d), alleging that an infringing product was already on the market, referring to Defendant’s product here at issue.”
Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 3d 998 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 3× “) Defendant Orexi-gen also requested prioritized examination of the ’810 Application pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 (e). (Id. at 9-10.) On September 10, 2014, the FDA approved Contrave for commercial use (CC ¶¶ 14, 55, 126, ECF No.”
Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2022).
“16/507,839 or the “’839 Application”) via a request for prioritized examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 (e)(1). (DX-0006 at 448; DX-1209 ¶¶ 38, 65; DX-1212 at 111:10–112:02, 141:09–10).”
Welytok (E.D. Va. 2025).
“A15—16; see 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 . The ALJ also found that Welytok did not act with reasonable diligence when “she neglected to prepare, file, and prosecute a patent application for Mr.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(d) — 2 cases
Birchwood Labs., Inc. v. Battenfeld Tech., Inc., 762 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Minnesota 2011).
“” On April 10, 2006, it filed a “Petition to Make Special Under 37 CFR 1.102(d),” asking the PTO to expedite the processing of this patent application.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(e) — 1 case
Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 3d 998 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
“) Defendant Orexi-gen also requested prioritized examination of the ’810 Application pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.102 (e). (Id. at 9-10.) On September 10, 2014, the FDA approved Contrave for commercial use (CC ¶¶ 14, 55, 126, ECF No.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.