The Intellectual Property Forum

Any help with the below would be so appreciated!

Does the following sequence of events cause Continuation B to be abandoned, such that its issued patent is ineffective?

1) Parent Application A is filed with a request for nonpublication
2) Continuation B is filed claiming priority to Parent App A, and with a request for nonpublication
3) PCT is filed claiming priority to Application A
4) years go by...
5) Continuation B issues (but was not rescinded, revived or published prior to issuance) and no foreigns are filed that claim priority to Continuation B
6) Request for Recission and Petition to Revive are filed for Parent App A, which is still alive

I'm interested in knowing what other attorneys do when Examiners want to communicate by email.  For example, when an Examiner sends proposed amendments and there is some back and forth from there via email.  My experience has been that Examiners typically just summarize the interview, but do not put in a copy of the emails in the file unless specifically requested to do so.  It seems to me that a copy should be filed by the Examiner (or the Applicant) per MPEP 713.04:

(H) in the case of an interview via electronic mail, a paper copy of the Internet e-mail contents MUST be made and placed in the patent application file as required by the Federal Records Act in the same manner as an Examiner Interview Summary Form, PTOL 413, is entered. 

So my question is, how do other attorneys handle the Interview Summary requirements after email communications with an Examiner?

It seems to me that a more general power of attorney that gives an attorney "the power to act on behalf of the assignee" is needed in order for the attorney to sign a 3.73 statement. Just having a Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO does not seem to give the attorney sufficient authority to sign a 3.73 statement.  Am I right?  See the below passages. 

From MPEP Sec. 324 V(A):
A power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32(b)(4)) to a patent practitioner to prosecute a patent application executed by the applicant or the assignee of the entire interest does not make that practitioner an official of an assignee or empower the practitioner to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. 

BUT - the very next sentence says: The submission may be signed by any person, if the submission sets forth that the person signing is authorized (or empowered) to act on behalf of the assignee

From the POA form from the USPTO:
A copy of this form, together with a statement under 37 CFR 3.73(b) (Form PTO/SB/96 or equivalent) is required to be filed in each application in which this form is used. The statement under 37 CFR 3.73(b) may be completed by one of the practitioners appointed in this form if the appointed practitioner is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee, and must identify the application in which this Power of Attorney is to be filed.

I have the following scenario.  8-way restriction requirement.  The first group of claims was elected without traverse and prosecuted to allowance.  Question:  When filing a divisional (before the first patent issues) can we now traverse the restriction requirement to get some of the 7 leftover groups possibly combined?  Or does the election without traverse make it the restriction final and therefore not open to traversal even for the non-elected species?

I know traversal is not usually successful, but this one seems like it would be worth it and it might save the client a little money.