Worked Example
A complete 3PPS filing from start to finish — the cover sheet, a compliant Concise Description, the mapping behind it, and what the file wrapper shows afterward.
Below is every piece of a compliant submission: the scenario, the PTO/SB/429 fields, a full Concise Description built from an element mapping, and the three possible aftermaths (entered, refused, cited). The parties and documents are invented for teaching; the structure is exactly what you file.
The application, references, names, and numbers below are fictional, chosen to make the mechanics concrete. Do not copy the citations. Real submissions from real file wrappers are public — here's how to find them.
The Scenario
Your company sells an electric bicycle conversion kit. You discover published application US 2025/0123456 A1, "Motor-Assisted Wheel Hub with Integrated Battery," claiming a hub assembly you believe was on the market years before the application's 2023 priority date. The independent claim recites: a wheel hub comprising (a) an electric motor within the hub shell, (b) a battery integrated in the hub shell, and (c) a controller that varies motor output based on rider torque.
Your prior art search turns up two references that predate the priority date:
- Reference 1: US Patent 8,987,654 ("Nakamura"), filed 2013 — discloses a hub motor with an internal battery.
- Reference 2: "TorqueDrive H2 Owner's Manual" (2019), a product manual archived online — describes torque-responsive motor control in a hub unit.
The calculator confirms the window is open (published 4 months ago, no Office Action yet). Two references, first submission: the § 1.290(g) exemption applies — $0 fee.
The Cover Sheet: Form PTO/SB/429
The PTO/SB/429 ↗ is administrative — it identifies the target application and lists what you're submitting. In Patent Center, most of this is entered as web-form fields rather than a paper form, but the content is the same:
| Field | What goes there (our example) | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|
| Application number | 17/987,654 | The application number, not the publication number. Both appear on the published application's front page. |
| First named inventor / title | As shown on the published application | Copy exactly — mismatches cause processing delays. |
| Documents listed | 1. US 8,987,654 (patent — identified by number only) 2. TorqueDrive H2 Owner's Manual, 2019 (NPL — full PDF attached) | US patents: number only. Non-patent literature: full copy required, plus evidence of its publication date if not printed on it. |
| Concise description | Attached as a separate document (next section) | One description per reference. This is where filings fail. |
| Fee | $0 — first submission by this party, ≤3 documents | The exemption requires the accompanying statement; it isn't automatic. |
| Statements | Timeliness under § 122(e); filer is not the applicant and has no duty to assign to the applicant | Required. The filer's identity is not — anonymous filing is permitted. |
The Concise Description of Relevance
Built with the mapping technique: first a private claim-element table, then prose that states only locations and contents. Here is the mapping for Reference 1:
| Claim element (US 2025/0123456, claim 1) | Location in Nakamura (US 8,987,654) |
|---|---|
| (a) electric motor within the hub shell | Fig. 2, item 24; col. 3, lines 40–55 |
| (b) battery integrated in the hub shell | Fig. 2, item 30; col. 4, lines 10–22 |
| (c) torque-responsive controller | — (supplied by Reference 2) |
And the description as filed — note that it never says what the Examiner should conclude:
Document 1 — US 8,987,654 (Nakamura), issued Mar. 3, 2015.
Nakamura discloses a bicycle wheel hub assembly (Fig. 2). An electric motor (item 24) is located within the hub shell; column 3, lines 40–55 state "the stator and rotor are housed entirely within the hub shell (22)." A battery pack (item 30) is integrated inside the same hub shell; column 4, lines 10–22 describe "battery cells (30) arranged annularly within shell (22), sharing the enclosure with motor (24)."
Document 2 — TorqueDrive H2 Owner's Manual (TorqueDrive GmbH, 2019), 44 pages.
The manual describes the TorqueDrive H2 hub drive unit. Page 12 states "the integrated controller measures rider torque at the axle 500 times per second and scales motor assistance proportionally." Page 13, Figure 7 shows the controller board mounted inside the hub housing. Page 3 identifies the publication date as "© 2019, Rev. B." Page 12 further states the H2 unit "retrofits any standard hub-motor wheel, including internally batteried hubs."
Why this passes review: every sentence is a location plus a quotation or factual paraphrase. The final sentence of Document 2 places the two references in the same context using the document's own words — the compliant way to suggest a combination without ever writing "it would be obvious to combine."
What would sink it: adding a sentence like "Together these references disclose every element of claim 1, which is therefore anticipated." That single sentence converts a compliant filing into one of the 23% that get refused.
What Happens After — Three Endings
1. Entered
Within a few weeks, the file wrapper shows the submission documents with an entry such as "Third-Party Submission Under Rule 290 — Entered." The references now appear on the application's list of cited art, and the Examiner must consider them in the next Office Action. You are not notified — you see it by checking Patent Center.
2. Refused entry
If the submission is non-compliant (arguments in the description, missing translation, late filing), the wrapper shows a notification of non-compliance and the documents are not entered. There is no correction procedure — you may refile properly only if the window is still open, which is why the checklist exists.
3. Cited in a rejection
The outcome you're hoping for: a later Office Action lists your reference on the citation form (PTO-892) and uses it as the basis of a rejection — in our example, "Claims 1–8 rejected over Nakamura in view of TorqueDrive H2." From there the applicant must respond, typically by arguing or narrowing. Remember the double-edged sword: a narrowed claim that survives is presumed valid over your art.
Finding Real Examples in Patent Center
Every accepted 3PPS is public. To study real filings:
- Open Patent Center ↗ and pull up any application of interest, then open "Documents & Transactions."
- Look for document codes/descriptions containing "3rd Party" or "Rule 290" — e.g., the concise description, the SB/429, and the entry/non-compliance notices all appear as separate entries.
- Compare an entered submission's description against a refused one — the difference is almost always argumentative language.
Applications in crowded software and consumer-electronics art units are the richest hunting ground, since that's where most submissions are filed.