Under 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a), an application may become abandoned when an applicant’s response, although received within the response period, is incomplete. See TMEP §§718.03–718.03(b) regarding incomplete responses.

When an examining attorney holds an application abandoned because the applicant’s response is incomplete, the applicant may petition the Director to reverse the holding under 37 C.F.R. §2.146. See TMEP §718.02(a) regarding partial abandonment for failure to respond completely to a final refusal or final requirement that is expressly limited to only certain goods/services/class(es) and §718.03(a) for failure to respond completely in all other situations. See TMEP §1705.07(a) regarding the requirement for representation of a non-U.S. domiciled petitioner.

However, the Director will reverse the examining attorney’s holding of abandonment only (1) if there has been clear error or an abuse of discretion, (2) where a petitioner can show that it has substantially complied with the requirements of the statute or rules, or (3) when an application was abandoned due to an improperly signed response to Office action and the petitioner submits evidence that the response was properly signed. See In re P.T. Polymindo Permata, 109 USPQ2d 1256, 1257 (Dir USPTO 2013); In re GTE Educ. Servs., 34 USPQ2d 1478, 1479-80 (Comm’r Pats. 1994); In re Legendary, Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1478, 1479 (Comm’r Pats. 1992); see also TMEP §1713.02.

Questions of substance arising during the ex parte prosecution of applications, or expungement or reexamination of registrations, including, but not limited to, questions arising under Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16A, 16B, and 23 of the Trademark Act, are not appropriate subject matter for petitions to the Director. 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b). For example, petitions requesting the following will generally be denied:

1. consideration of additional arguments against substantive refusals; the proper venue to present arguments against a substantive refusal is an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board), not a petition to the Director. 37 C.F.R. §§2.63(b)(1)(i)-(ii), 2.146(b);
2. amendments to the application, such as filing-basis amendments;
3. amendments to the Supplemental Register; and
4. consideration of new evidence in the nature of consent agreements or substitute specimens.

A petition to the Director is also not a means for submitting an additional request for reconsideration, or a request to extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal to the Board, after the application has been abandoned for incomplete response.

The "unintentional delay" standard for reviving abandoned applications pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.66 does not apply to applications held abandoned because a response was deemed incomplete under 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). See TMEP §1714.01(f)(ii)(A).