3

It's more than not necessary. It's not possible. 37 CFR § 1.51(d) provides: Applicants are encouraged to file an information disclosure statement in nonprovisional applications. See § 1.97 and § 1.98. No information disclosure statement may be filed in a provisional application. MPEP § 609 discusses this a little more: Information Disclosure ...


3

The duty does not end at allowance - From the MPEP 2001.04 Information Under 37 CFR 1.56(a) [R-08.2017] 37 CFR 1.56(a) states that the duty to disclose information exists until the application becomes abandoned. The duty to disclose information, however, does not end when an application becomes allowed but extends until a patent is granted on that ...


2

It lasts until the patent issues, which occurs both after notice of allowance and issue fee payments. See MPEP 2001: The duty to disclose information, however, does not end when an application becomes allowed but extends until a patent is granted on that application. However, per the "intelproplaw" links in the comments of another answer ([1], [2]), ...


2

The examiners that I know would see through this and be at least slightly annoyed. This would not help you. I look at the IDS as a list of references that I am aware of and that I have had time to make an argument against. I would place it first on the list and let it stand there to suggest that I am aware of it and I'm ready to defend against it.


1

The QPIDS is not a "requirement", it is a way of avoiding filing a petition to withdraw from issue and then file an RCE, because the duty of disclosure is still in force, as noted. Such a petition requires that you identify a defect in the application. Who wants to do that? The idea behind the QPIDS is that you have art you want the Examiner to consider (...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible