The Reference Arrived After the Issue Fee: A Practical Guide to QPIDS

Executive Summary: The Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) program provides a conditional procedure for obtaining examiner consideration of newly identified information after the issue fee has been paid but before the patent issues. Its use depends on a truthful certification under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e), a complete electronic filing package, and timely completion of the required web-based ePetition; counsel should verify and retain both the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and Grant Letter and should not assume that a paper or faxed petition will preserve conditional QPIDS treatment during a system outage. If the examiner determines that the submitted information does not require further examination, the conditional request for continued examination is not entered, the RCE fee is returned, and the application resumes the issue process. If further examination is required, the RCE is entered and prosecution reopens. Practitioners must also account for the IDS size-fee requirements, distinguish the § 1.97(e) deadline from the separate patent-term-adjustment safe harbor under § 1.704(d), and act promptly because the interval between an Issue Notification and issuance may leave only a narrow filing window.

The Post Allowance Reference

 

The issue fee has been paid, and the application appears headed toward issuance. Then foreign counsel forwards an office action citing two references that have not been submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The references may be cumulative, or they may affect patentability, but the ordinary period for filing an information disclosure statement has closed and the patent may issue within days. Counsel must quickly determine whether the information can be submitted through the Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement program, whether prosecution must instead be reopened, and what consequences will follow.

The duty to disclose information known to be material continues after allowance with respect to each claim remaining under consideration. Payment of the issue fee does not end that duty. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a) (2026); MPEP § 2001.04 (9th ed. Rev. 01.2024, Nov. 2024). QPIDS provides a narrow procedure for seeking examiner consideration of information submitted after payment of the issue fee but before issuance. The USPTO now describes the program as permanent, despite the word pilot that remains in some older materials. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (last updated Jan. 19, 2025), https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/quick-path-information-disclosure-statement-qpids. Filing an IDS is not, by itself, an admission that the information is material. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(h) (2026).

The available time has also contracted. Since May 13, 2025, the USPTO has reduced the average interval between an Issue Notification and the Issue Date from about three weeks to about two weeks. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, USPTO Modernization Efforts Successfully Expedite Patent Issuance (Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-modernization-efforts-successfully-expedite-patent-issuance. An assigned patent number does not necessarily make QPIDS unavailable, but it leaves little margin for investigating when the references became known, obtaining client instructions, and filing a complete electronic package.

The Procedural Gap QPIDS Fills

 

Section 1.97 divides IDS practice into several periods. During early prosecution, an IDS may be considered under § 1.97(b). Later submissions may require a certification or fee under § 1.97(c). After prosecution closes, § 1.97(d) permits consideration only when the IDS is filed on or before payment of the issue fee and includes both the § 1.97(e) statement and the § 1.17(p) fee. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(d)–(e) (2026); MPEP § 609.04(b)(III)–(IV). After the calendar date on which the issue fee was paid, an ordinary IDS is generally placed in the record without examiner consideration unless the application is withdrawn from issue.

Before QPIDS, an applicant seeking consideration of post-payment information generally had to petition to withdraw the application from issue and file an RCE, even if the examiner ultimately viewed the information as cumulative. QPIDS changes the order of operations. The examiner reviews the IDS before the Office decides whether the RCE must take effect. See Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) Pilot Program, 77 Fed. Reg. 27,443, 27,443–45 (May 10, 2012).

QPIDS as a Conditional RCE

 

A QPIDS submission includes a petition to withdraw the application from issue, an RCE, and the applicable fees. Those components do different work. The petition must be granted to remove the application from issue; the conditional treatment determines whether the RCE is entered and prosecution reopens. If no cited item requires further examination, the RCE is not entered, the RCE fee is returned, and the application resumes the issue process. If an item requires further examination, the RCE becomes effective and prosecution reopens.

That conditional structure defines the program's value. QPIDS does not prevent reopening when the submitted information warrants it. Instead, it avoids automatic reopening solely because the IDS was submitted after the issue fee. The examiner, rather than the applicant, makes the initial determination whether the allowance can stand.

The Eligibility Analysis

 

The threshold questions are largely binary. Current Patent Center guidance describes QPIDS as available for nonprovisional utility applications, including national-stage and reissue applications. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Center Quick Start Guide for Quick Path IDS (QPIDS) 5, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PATENTCENTER_QPIDS_QSG.pdf (last visited Sept. 22, 2026). It does not apply to design applications, plant applications, or reexamination proceedings. All associated papers must be filed through the USPTO patent electronic filing system. The filing must occur after the calendar date on which the issue fee was paid and before the patent's issue date.

The same day matters. If the applicant pays the issue fee on Monday, an IDS filed later that Monday remains within § 1.97(d); it is not a proper QPIDS submission. The QPIDS window begins the following day. At the other end, QPIDS cannot be filed on the issue date. When an Issue Notification has assigned a patent number, the filer must use the ePetition option for withdrawal from issue with an assigned patent number.

Filing before the scheduled issue date is necessary but not sufficient. Under § 1.313(d), a petition to withdraw from issue is ineffective unless it is actually received and granted by the appropriate Office officials before that date. For a compliant web-based ePetition, counsel should verify the complete and accurate Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and Grant Letter generated by the system rather than treat the filing receipt, standing alone, as proof that issuance has been stopped. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.313(d) (2026); U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, ePetition Resource Page (last updated Sept. 8, 2026), https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/epetition-resource-page [hereinafter ePetition Resource Page]; U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Frequently Asked Questions—QPIDS Program, Qs. 5–13 (updated Jan. 19, 2025), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/qpids_faq.pdf [hereinafter QPIDS FAQ]; MPEP § 1308.

The remaining eligibility question requires more judgment: which § 1.97(e) certification, if any, can the applicant truthfully make? Under paragraph (e)(1), the qualifying foreign-office citation history controls. Under paragraph (e)(2), counsel must examine provenance, knowledge history, and the reasonable inquiry. A favorable view of the reference's patentability effect does not answer either procedural question.

The Timeliness Certification

 

Section 1.97(e) provides two routes. Under paragraph (e)(1), the filer states that each item in the IDS was first cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application no more than three months before the IDS. Under paragraph (e)(2), the filer states that no item was cited in such a foreign-office communication and, after reasonable inquiry, no item was known to any person identified in § 1.56(c) more than three months before the IDS.

For the foreign-office route, the date on the communication starts the period. If the communication has two dates, the mailing date controls. The period does not begin when a foreign associate or U.S. practitioner receives the document. Nor does a later citation revive an item that any foreign patent office first cited more than three months earlier. Counsel should therefore obtain the underlying communication rather than rely on the date of a forwarding email.

The two routes use knowledge differently. For paragraph (e)(1), it does not matter whether an individual with a duty of disclosure knew of the cited item before receiving the qualifying foreign-office communication. Paragraph (e)(2), by contrast, makes knowledge after reasonable inquiry an express condition. Procedural eligibility under either route does not resolve whether the duty of disclosure was satisfied earlier; the disclosure-duty and late-IDS inquiries remain separate. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e) (2026); MPEP § 609.04(b)(V).

The term counterpart also has limits. It generally covers applications linked by a priority claim or having substantively identical disclosures. A PCT application designating the United States is not a counterpart foreign application for purposes of § 1.97(e)(1), although paragraph (e)(2) may be available. Attaching a dated search report does not replace the express certification.

The reasonable-inquiry language in paragraph (e)(2) also requires attention. A practitioner who receives a reference without learning when it became known cannot make the certification without inquiry. Knowledge is measured when the information became known in association with the application, even if someone appreciated its possible materiality only later. If an inventor named in the U.S. application is also a named inventor of the cited item, paragraph (e)(2) cannot properly cover that item. If the inventor instead authored a cited publication, counsel should investigate when the information became known in association with the application. Authorship is relevant evidence, but the cited MPEP guidance does not make authorship itself a categorical disqualification. A statement based merely on information and belief is insufficient.

Mixed reference sets can be handled, but the certifications must be mapped carefully. The MPEP permits two lists with two statements or one list with both statements when the applicant expressly identifies which statement applies to which citations. See MPEP § 609.04(b)(V). If neither certification can properly cover an item, QPIDS is unavailable for having that item considered.

Building a Complete QPIDS Submission

 

Once eligibility is established, execution becomes equally important. A complete submission should include the following components on the same filing date. See QPIDS FAQ, Qs. 2–4, 20, 23–25; U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, PTO/SB/09, Certification and Request for Consideration of an Information Disclosure Statement Filed After Payment of the Issue Fee Under the QPIDS Program (rev. Jan. 2025), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0009.pdf [hereinafter PTO/SB/09].

1. A separate transmittal identifying the filing as a QPIDS submission. The current PTO/SB/09 is strongly recommended, although an equivalent separate transmittal may be used.

2. A compliant IDS under §§ 1.97 and 1.98, including the applicable § 1.97(e) certification, the § 1.17(p) timing fee, the IDS size fee assertion, and any size fee due under § 1.17(v).

3. A web-based petition to withdraw the application from issue under § 1.313(c)(2), together with the § 1.17(h) petition fee.

4. An RCE under § 1.114 and the applicable first or subsequent RCE fee under § 1.17(e).

5. Authorization to charge all QPIDS fees to an established USPTO deposit account.

The current FAQ also instructs that the full name of the person signing the fee authorization should match that person's name as an authorized fee payer in Financial Manager. See QPIDS FAQ, at 5 (Financial Manager fee-payer requirement). This administrative detail can matter when the filing window is short and a rejected payment or petition cannot be corrected after issuance.

An amendment should not accompany QPIDS. Including one causes the conditional RCE to be entered and treated as an ordinary RCE. Failure to use the web-based petition interface has the same consequence. See QPIDS FAQ, Qs. 24–25; PTO/SB/09, at 1, item 6. If claim amendments or substantive remarks are needed, the applicant should ordinarily choose an actual RCE rather than attempt to preserve the conditional path.

The Two Examiner Outcomes

 

Once the withdrawal petition has been received and granted before issuance, a procedurally complete QPIDS submission places the newly cited information before the examiner for a determination whether further examination is required. It does not promise continued allowance. The two branches carry different communications and refund consequences.

Table 1  QPIDS examiner outcomes

Examiner finding	Application status	Office communication	Fee result
No item requires reopening	Conditional RCE is not entered and the application returns to the issue queue	Corrected Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), with the considered IDS listing	RCE fee returned; IDS timing and petition fees retained
At least one item requires reopening	Conditional RCE is entered and prosecution resumes	PTO-2300, followed by an Office action	RCE fee retained; IDS timing fee returned; petition fee retained

When no item requires reopening, the Office issues a corrected Notice of Allowability on form PTOL-37. The notice identifies the IDS and includes the examiner-marked citation listing. No new Notice of Allowance and Fee Due issues, and the applicant need not respond. The RCE fee should be returned automatically; if it has not been returned within three months after the corrected notice, the applicant may request the return in writing.

When an item requires reopening, the Office issues form PTO-2300 and later an Office action. The RCE fee remains with the Office, while the IDS timing fee should be returned because the IDS falls within the post-RCE period of § 1.97(b)(4). The petition fee is not returned under either branch. The USPTO does not identify a properly due IDS size fee as automatically refundable under either outcome. A previously paid issue fee is not refunded, but it may be reapplied if the application is later allowed again.

If another item arrives while the first QPIDS submission remains pending, the applicant may not simply add an ordinary IDS or file a second QPIDS submission before the examiner acts on the first. If the Office issues a corrected Notice of Allowability on form PTOL-37, the application returns to the issue queue and the applicant may file another QPIDS submission, provided the new submission independently satisfies the program's requirements. If the Office instead issues PTO-2300 and reopens prosecution, the additional item may be submitted in an IDS complying with § 1.97; no second QPIDS submission is needed. Counsel should reassess the matter immediately because the pendency of the first submission does not extend the applicable certification or issuance deadlines. See QPIDS FAQ, Qs. 14–19, 27–35.

The IDS Size Fee Trap

 

Older descriptions of QPIDS omit a requirement that took effect on January 19, 2025. Every IDS must now include a clear written assertion that the appropriate IDS size fee accompanies the submission or that no size fee is required. The assertion is mandatory even when the cumulative number of applicant-provided items remains below the first fee threshold. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.17(v), 1.97(a), 1.98(a)(4) (2026); Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2025, 89 Fed. Reg. 91,898 (Nov. 20, 2024).

The size fee is based on the cumulative number of applicant-provided or patent-owner-provided items in the application. The fee is $200 when the cumulative count reaches 51 through 100 items, $500 total less prior size-fee payments for 101 through 200 items, and $800 total less prior payments for 201 or more items. These amounts are the same for large, small, and micro entities.

The cumulative count includes applicant-provided citations submitted before January 19, 2025, but the new rule does not impose a retrospective fee merely because the application had already crossed a threshold before that date. An IDS filed on or after January 19, 2025 triggers a size fee only if that filing causes the cumulative count to cross a higher threshold. Thus, an application containing 55 applicant-provided items before January 19, 2025 does not incur a size fee when a later IDS adds ten items, bringing the total to 65, although the later IDS must still assert that no fee is due. By contrast, if the application contained 70 items before that date and a later IDS adds 40, bringing the total to 110, the $500 second-tier fee is due if no size fee was previously paid.

Each listing generally counts, so the same item listed on multiple IDSs ordinarily counts each time. The USPTO recognizes a narrow exception when a particular item was not considered because it was noncompliant: resubmitting that item in the same application or patent does not count it a second time. Filing an RCE does not reset the count. A new continuation, divisional, continued prosecution application, or reissue application begins a new count. A general deposit-account authorization is not enough unless it identifies and authorizes the applicable § 1.17(v) fee. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Quick Reference Guide to the Information Disclosure Statement Size Fee and Size Fee Assertion 3–8, Questions 9, 12–14, and Examples 6 and 8 (Jan. 2025), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/quick-reference-guide-to-the-information-disclosure-statement-ids.pdf.

Table 2  Base QPIDS Fees Payable at Filing

Fee component	Large entity	Small entity	Micro entity
First RCE	$1,500	$600	$300
IDS timing fee	$280	$112	$56
Petition to withdraw	$150	$60	$30
First RCE upfront subtotal	$1,930	$772	$386
Second or later RCE	$2,860	$1,144	$572
Second or later RCE subtotal	$3,290	$1,316	$658

The table states the upfront base amounts payable as of September 22, 2026 and excludes any IDS size fee. Those amounts are not necessarily the ultimate net cost because the examiner's determination affects which fees are returned. The applicable RCE charge depends on whether an earlier RCE was filed in the application. Because USPTO fees change, counsel should confirm the current schedule on the filing date. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, USPTO Fee Schedule (last revised Aug. 14, 2026), https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule.

The consequence of omitting the size-fee assertion, an applicable size fee, or both is especially severe. The conditional RCE is entered, the IDS timing fee is returned, and the Office issues PTO-2300, but the defective IDS is placed in the record without examiner consideration. Once the RCE is entered, § 1.97(b)(4) opens a new window for a compliant IDS. To obtain consideration in that window, the applicant must resubmit the IDS before the mailing of the first Office action after the RCE. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(b)(4) (2026); QPIDS FAQ, Qs. 16–17, 39; MPEP § 609.04(b)(I). A filing intended to avoid an unnecessary RCE can therefore produce both an entered RCE and an unconsidered IDS if the new requirement is missed.

Patent Term Adjustment as a Separate Inquiry

 

QPIDS eligibility and the patent term adjustment safe harbor are governed by different rules. A § 1.97(e) certification does not substitute for the statement required by § 1.704(d). The clocks also differ. Section 1.97(e)(1) generally measures three months from the date or mailing date of the qualifying foreign-office communication. Section 1.704(d) generally requires filing within 30 days after the earliest receipt of the qualifying communication by any individual identified in § 1.56(c), rather than from the later date on which the communication reaches the U.S. prosecution team.

Since July 17, 2023, an applicant seeking the safe harbor must use an unaltered PTO/SB/133, file it on the same date as the IDS, and select the document code PTA.IDS. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(d)(3) (2026); MPEP § 2732(IV). The 30-day period is not extendable. For the cited-reference route under § 1.704(d)(1)(i), a later repeat citation does not restart the 30-day period after an individual identified in § 1.56(c) received the earlier communication in which the information was first cited. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(d)(1)(i) (2026); MPEP § 2732(IV). The safe harbor covers a different set of communications than § 1.97(e)(1), including qualifying communications from the USPTO and in counterpart international applications. Independently discovered information may support a § 1.97(e)(2) certification yet fall outside the office-communication safe harbor. If an amendment accompanies the RCE, the RCE safe harbor is unavailable because the submission is not limited to the IDS.

The PTA consequence depends on the examiner's branch. If prosecution is not reopened, the post-allowance IDS may reduce otherwise available PTA under § 1.704(c)(10), generally for the period beginning the day after the mailing date of the applicable Notice of Allowance and ending when the QPIDS submission is filed, unless § 1.704(d) applies. If the conditional RCE is entered, § 1.704(c)(12) may impose a comparable pre-RCE reduction unless the safe harbor applies. If the application has no positive PTA to reduce, the practical term effect may be zero. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(c)(10), (12) (2026); MPEP § 2732(III)(J), (III)(L).

The § 1.704(d) safe harbor addresses specified applicant-delay reductions. It does not eliminate the separate exclusion of time consumed by an entered RCE from the B-delay calculation. Under the current rule, that continued-examination period runs from the RCE filing date through the mailing of the next Notice of Allowance, not through patent issuance. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.703(b)(1) (2026); MPEP § 2731; Novartis AG v. Lee, 740 F.3d 593, 601–02 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Some older QPIDS materials reflect the former rule and should not be used as the sole PTA authority. The practical approach is to analyze § 1.704(d) at the same time as § 1.97(e), while keeping the two certifications and their deadlines distinct.

Choosing QPIDS

 

QPIDS is generally attractive when the issue fee has been paid, the applicant can make a proper § 1.97(e) certification, no amendment is needed, enough time remains to complete and verify the web-based ePetition before issuance, and prompt issuance remains valuable if the information proves cumulative. The client must nevertheless accept that the examiner may enter the RCE and resume examination.

A conventional RCE may be the clearer choice when the certification cannot be made, claim amendments or substantive remarks are necessary, or the information appears likely to require reopening. Issuance timing may also be less important than creating a clearer prosecution record. QPIDS should not be selected merely because an RCE fee may be refunded. Its substantive advantage is preserving issuance when the examiner concludes that further examination is unnecessary.

If no § 1.97(e) certification is available, the applicant may petition under § 1.313(c)(2) to withdraw the application for an entered RCE and IDS, subject to the same requirement that the petition be received and granted before issuance. Section 1.313(c)(3) permits express abandonment, including in favor of a continuing application. A petition under § 1.313(c)(1) is narrower: it requires an unequivocal statement that one or more claims are unpatentable, an amendment to those claims, and an explanation of how the amendment makes them patentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.313(c)–(d) (2026); QPIDS FAQ, Q. 9; MPEP § 1308. After patent issuance, QPIDS is no longer available, and any post-grant response requires a separate, case-specific analysis.

A Worked Example

 

Assume that an applicant pays the issue fee on May 1. On June 12, the European Patent Office mails an examination report in a counterpart application that first cites two documents. An inventor receives the report on June 14, and foreign counsel forwards it to U.S. counsel on June 18. Assume that no other individual identified in § 1.56(c) received the report before June 14. An Issue Notification identifies July 7 as the scheduled issue date. No amendment is needed. The applicant files the complete QPIDS submission on June 25.

Those facts require three distinct timing inquiries. First, the § 1.97(e)(1) period begins on June 12, the mailing date of the qualifying foreign-office communication, not on June 14 or June 18. The June 25 IDS therefore falls within the three-month period. Second, the § 1.704(d) PTA inquiry runs from June 14, the earliest receipt of the communication by an individual identified in § 1.56(c), rather than from the later date on which U.S. counsel receives it. If the other safe-harbor requirements are satisfied, the applicant should file the unaltered PTO/SB/133 with the IDS on June 25 using the PTA.IDS document code. Third, June 25 falls within the QPIDS filing window because it is after the calendar date on which the issue fee was paid and before July 7.

A compliant web-based ePetition is ordinarily granted automatically when submitted, provided all requirements are met. Counsel should verify and retain both the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and the Grant Letter on June 25. The Grant Letter—not the filing acknowledgment alone—confirms that the application has been withdrawn from issue before July 7. If either document is not generated, counsel should investigate immediately and follow the USPTO's troubleshooting guidance rather than assume that manual processing is underway. See ePetition Resource Page. For an outage or ePetition malfunction affecting a QPIDS submission, counsel should also consult the QPIDS-specific outage guidance and contact the Petitions Help Desk when immediate filing is necessary. See QPIDS FAQ, at 8 (Procedure in the Event of a System Outage). A paper or faxed withdrawal petition should not be assumed to preserve conditional QPIDS treatment. See PTO/SB/09, at 1, item 6. Withdrawal from issue is not the same as reopening prosecution: prosecution reopens only if the conditional RCE is entered after the examiner determines that further examination is required.

If the examiner finds the two documents cumulative, the application returns to the issue process and the RCE fee is returned. If either document raises a new patentability issue, the RCE is entered and examination resumes. A timely § 1.704(d) statement may prevent the specified applicant-delay reduction, but it does not eliminate every term consequence of an entered RCE, including the separate treatment of continued-examination time in the B-delay calculation.

Now add an article that an inventor supplied to the prosecution team on February 15. Assume that the article was not cited in the June 12 EPO report or any other qualifying foreign-office communication. Paragraph (e)(1) does not cover it, and paragraph (e)(2) is unavailable because a person identified in § 1.56(c) knew of the article more than three months before the June 25 IDS. QPIDS therefore cannot be used to obtain consideration of an IDS that includes the article.

Change that premise, however, and the result may differ. If the article itself was first cited in the qualifying June 12 EPO report, paragraph (e)(1) may cover it even though the inventor personally knew of the article earlier. Unlike paragraph (e)(2), paragraph (e)(1) does not make the absence of earlier personal knowledge a condition of the certification. That procedural conclusion does not determine whether the applicant satisfied the duty of disclosure at an earlier stage; the disclosure-duty inquiry and eligibility for late IDS consideration remain separate.

The three-month certification period, the 30-day PTA inquiry, and the scheduled issue date answer different questions. Counsel should evaluate them together without treating any one as a substitute for the others.

A Filing and Follow Up Checklist

 

1. Confirm that the application is eligible for QPIDS and that all papers will be filed through the USPTO patent electronic filing system.

2. Confirm that the issue fee was paid on an earlier calendar date, identify the scheduled issue date, and verify that the patent has not issued.

3. Prepare a reference-by-reference timeline identifying the first qualifying foreign-office citation, when each item became known in association with the application, and the earliest receipt of a qualifying communication by any individual identified in § 1.56(c).

4. Obtain the underlying foreign-office communication and confirm that the cited application is a counterpart foreign application for purposes of § 1.97(e)(1).

5. Determine whether § 1.97(e)(1) or § 1.97(e)(2) applies to each item, map each item to the applicable statement, and document the reasonable inquiry supporting any paragraph (e)(2) certification.

6. Consider separately whether the timing of the disclosure raises an issue under the duty of disclosure; procedural eligibility under § 1.97(e) does not resolve that inquiry.

7. Docket three separate dates: the applicable § 1.97(e) deadline, the § 1.704(d) deadline measured from the earliest relevant § 1.56(c) receipt, and the scheduled issue date, before which the withdrawal petition must be received and granted. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.313(d) (2026).

8. Confirm that no amendment or other accompanying submission will cause automatic entry of the conditional RCE. Count the cumulative applicant-provided IDS items, include the required written size-fee assertion, and pay any fee due under § 1.17(v).

9. Evaluate the § 1.704(d) safe harbor separately and, when applicable, file an unaltered PTO/SB/133 on the same date as the IDS using the PTA.IDS document code.

10. Use the current QPIDS transmittal and IDS forms, select the correct web-based petition, assemble the complete filing package, and verify the deposit-account authority and Financial Manager identity of the signer.

11. Complete the web-based ePetition early enough to resolve any system problem before issuance, and verify and retain the complete and accurate Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt and Grant Letter. If either is not generated, investigate immediately under the USPTO's troubleshooting procedures; do not assume that manual processing is underway. See ePetition Resource Page. For a QPIDS outage or malfunction requiring immediate filing, also consult the QPIDS-specific outage guidance and contact the Petitions Help Desk. See QPIDS FAQ, at 8 (Procedure in the Event of a System Outage). Do not assume that a paper or faxed withdrawal petition preserves conditional QPIDS treatment. See PTO/SB/09, at 1, item 6.

12. Docket the expected PTOL-37 or PTO-2300, any automatic fee return, and immediate reassessment if additional information arrives while the QPIDS submission is pending.

Conclusion

 

QPIDS is most useful when information must be submitted after payment of the issue fee but may not justify the cost and delay of reopening prosecution. Its conditional structure lets the examiner make that determination while preserving prompt issuance when the information does not alter the allowance.

The procedure remains narrow. Counsel must be able to make the § 1.97(e) certification, submit every component of the filing package, comply with the current IDS size fee rules, and analyze PTA separately. Counsel must also be prepared for the conditional RCE to become an actual RCE.

Effective practice begins before a late reference appears. Applicants should maintain reporting procedures that quickly route foreign-office communications and other potentially relevant information to U.S. counsel, particularly after allowance. With the shortened issuance timeline, the opportunity to use QPIDS may be measured in days.