The one-year mark for a patent unintentional-delay petition is a fee-and-explanation step — not a deadline

Effective August 13, 2026, the USPTO raises the fee tier and asks for additional explanation when a petition relying on unintentional delay is filed more than one year after the delay began. It is an administrative escalation, not a bar: petitions remain available beyond one year.

Short answer: Starting August 13, 2026, when a patent petition that relies on a showing of unintentional delay is filed more than one year after the delay began, the USPTO applies a higher petition-fee tier (37 CFR 1.17(m)(1)) and asks for “an additional explanation of the circumstances surrounding the delay.” That one-year mark is an administrative escalation — more fee, more explanation. It is not a deadline, not a bar, and not a loss of rights. Petitions relying on unintentional delay remain available beyond one year.

What actually changes on August 13, 2026

The change is set out at 91 FR 37826–37830, effective August 13, 2026. It affects petitions whose basis is a statement that the entire delay was unintentional — for example, a petition to revive an unintentionally abandoned application.

Two things happen when such a petition is filed more than one year after the delay began (or after the date of abandonment):

A higher petition-fee tier applies under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1).
The USPTO asks for an additional explanation of the circumstances surrounding the delay — beyond the bare statement that the delay was unintentional.

Before this rule, that request-for-additional-explanation point sat at two years. The rule moves it to one year. Nothing else about the availability of the petition changes.

Why it is not a deadline

This is the part that is easy to get wrong, and worth stating plainly. The one-year mark does not cut off the right to file. In the words of the rulemaking, the USPTO “may require additional information — not a bar or deadline,” and petitions remain available beyond one year.

So the accurate mental model is a fee-and-explanation tier, not a cliff:

Before one year: ordinary fee tier; the standard unintentional-delay showing.
After one year: higher fee tier, plus additional explanation of the circumstances of the delay.
The right to petition itself: unchanged — it does not expire at one year.

Calling this a “new one-year deadline to revive” would be wrong, and it would create urgency the rule does not. There is no statutory right being forfeited at the twelve-month mark.

What it means in practice

The practical takeaway is modest and unglamorous, which is the point:

Revive promptly when you can. Filing within a year keeps the fee lower and the showing simpler — you avoid the higher tier and the additional-explanation requirement.
A late petition is still a petition. If more than a year has passed, the path is not closed. You pay the higher fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) and provide the additional explanation of the delay.
Keep the delay record. Because the post-one-year showing asks for the circumstances of the delay, contemporaneous notes on why a response or payment was missed become the raw material for that explanation.

For how an application becomes abandoned in the first place — the missed reply that a revival petition addresses — see our reference on patent non-final Office Action response deadlines.