# MPEP § 2001.06(b): Information Relating to or From Copending United States Patent Applications > Federal · Agency guidance · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.06(b) ## Section - **Citation:** MPEP § 2001.06(b) - **Heading:** Information Relating to or From Copending United States Patent Applications - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Agency guidance - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** USPTO MPEP / Chapter 2000 - Duty of Disclosure / MPEP § 2001.06(b) ## Text The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question. This may include providing the identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee as the current application that disclose similar subject matter that are not otherwise identified in the current application. As set forth by the court in Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co. , 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972): [W]e think that it is unfair to the busy examiner, no matter how diligent and well informed he may be, to assume that he retains details of every pending file in his mind when he is reviewing a particular application . . . [T]he applicant has the burden of presenting the examiner with a complete and accurate record to support the allowance of letters patent. See also MPEP § 2004 , paragraph 9. Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V. , 144 F. Supp. 3d 530, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications , 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are “material to patentability” of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808. If the application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the prior art properly cited in the earlier application. See MPEP § 609 and MPEP § 719.05 , subsection (II)(A), example J. The examiner must indicate in the first Office action whether the prior art in a related earlier application has been reviewed. Accordingly, no separate citation of the same prior art need be made in the later application, unless applicant wants a listing of the prior art printed on the face of the patent. ## Nearby sections - [MPEP § 2000.01 Introduction](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2000.01.md) - [MPEP § 2001 Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.md) - [MPEP § 2001.01 Who Has Duty To Disclose](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.01.md) - [MPEP § 2001.02 [Reserved]](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.02.md) - [MPEP § 2001.03 To Whom Duty of Disclosure Is Owed](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.03.md) - [MPEP § 2001.04 Information Under 37 CFR 1.56(a)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.04.md) - [MPEP § 2001.05 Materiality Under 37 CFR 1.56(b)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.05.md) - [MPEP § 2001.06 Sources of Information under 37 CFR 1.56](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.06.md) - [MPEP § 2001.06(a) Prior Art Cited in Related Foreign Applications](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.06(a).md) - [MPEP § 2001.06(b) Information Relating to or From Copending United States Patent Applications](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.06(b).md) - [MPEP § 2001.06(c) Information From Related Litigation and/or Trial Proceedings](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.06(c).md) - [MPEP § 2001.06(d) Information Relating to Claims Copied From a Patent](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.06(d).md) - [MPEP § 2001.06(e) Information Relating to Regulatory Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.06(e).md) - [MPEP § 2002 Disclosure — By Whom and How Made](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2002.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2001.06(b). Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.