The following is output from ProSearch + AI, lightly formatted, in answer to: “What are the most common rejections in reissue applications?” I’ve verified the cited documents.
Note at the outset that these are examiner actions and applicant responses in individual prosecutions. They are not precedent, though they may be a relevant consideration. Section 251 itself is the governing statute.
The most common rejections are as follows.
Defective reissue oath/declaration. This is by far the most frequently recurring rejection. Examiners repeatedly reject the claim because the declaration fails to properly identify an error. In application 29/883,945, the examiner found the declaration “defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application” RE29883945. The same defect appears in application 29/695,315 RE29695315. Relatedly, the error identification must be specific: in application 29/218,399, the examiner explained that “any error in the claim(s) must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s)” RE29218399, and in application 29/267,723 the declaration was rejected because the identified error “is not an error upon which a reissue can be based” RE29267723. A related sub-form is the requirement of a supplemental oath/declaration reciting that every corrected error arose without deceptive intent; in application 29/333,210 the examiner stated that “Receipt of an appropriate supplemental oath/declaration under 37 CFR 1.175(b)(1) will overcome this rejection” RE29333210.
New matter. A second common § 251 rejection is that the reissue introduces new matter, which the statute forbids. In application 29/332,239, the claim was “rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought” RE29332239. The same rejection appears in application 29/485,999, where the examiner noted that “35 U.S.C. 251 states that ‘no new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue'” RE29485999, and in applications 29/486,002 RE29486002, 29/329,689 RE29329689, and 29/193,473 RE29193473.
Lack of an “error.” A third recurring rejection is that there is no correctable error at all—the original patent is unchanged or the departure does not qualify as an error. In application 29/695,315, the examiner rejected the reissue “based on the fact that there is no ‘error’ in the non-amended original patent claim” and reasoned that “there is nothing in this application to correct under 35 U.S.C. 251” RE29695315. Similar “lack of error” rejections appear in applications 29/510,717 RE29510717, 29/382,614 RE29382614, and 29/421,144 RE29421144.
Failure of the original patent to support the amendment. Related to both new matter and lack of error, some examiners reject because the original disclosure does not support the change. In application 29/315,487, the claim was “rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 because the original patent does not support the changes the applicant is trying to make to their design” RE29315487.
Section 251 rejections tied to § 112. Examiners frequently pair § 251 with § 112 defects. In application 29/438,425, the examiner rejected the claim “under 35 U.S.C. § 251 for failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) and (b)” RE29438425. In application 29/485,999 the § 251 rejection was based on failure “to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph” RE29485999, and in application 29/382,614 the claim stood “rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being indefinite and non-enabling” RE29382614.
Defective disclosure. Closely related, application 29/329,689 shows a claim “rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as having a defective disclosure” RE29329689.
Improper inventorship correction. Less common but present: in application 29/651,249, filed to correct inventorship, the examiner rejected the claim “under 35 U.S.C. 251 because this application fails to correct the error as intended,” the defect being non-compliance with § 256 RE29651249.
Formal/drawing objections under 37 CFR 1.173. Separate from § 251, reissue-specific formality objections recur, particularly for unlabeled drawings. In application 29/763,794, the office noted the reissue “contains added and/or amended drawings that are not labeled as ‘New’ or ‘Amended’ or ‘Canceled’ as required by 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3)” 29763794.
Two caveats. First, all of the above are individual prosecution records and not controlling authority; the binding law is the text of 35 U.S.C. § 251 and the reissue rules (e.g., 37 CFR 1.173, 1.175), while the MPEP provisions some examiners cite (e.g., MPEP 1414, 1457) are examiner guidance without the force of law. Second, several of these files reference declaration language about errors arising “without any deceptive intention”; note that the AIA amended § 251 to remove the “without any deceptive intention” requirement for applications, so older declaration formalities reflected in these files may not track the current statutory text—verify against the current version of § 251 for any given filing date.
