Examination of Patent Applications That Include Claims Containing Alternative Language, 12679-12684 [E8-4744]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
12679
TABLE 1 TO § 100.501.—ALL COORDINATES LISTED IN TABLE 1 REFERENCE DATUM NAD 1983—Continued
No.
Date
56 .....
September—4th
or last Sunday.
57 .....
September—last
Saturday.
§ 100.502
Event
Sponsor
Location 1
Crystal Coast
Super Boat
Grand Prix.
Super Boat International Productions Inc.
Wilmington YMCA
Triathlon.
Wilmington, NC,
YMCA.
The waters of Bogue Sound, adjacent to Morehead City, NC, from the
southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island approximate position latitude
34°42′55″ N, longitude 076°42′48″ W, thence westerly to Morehead
City Channel Day beacon 7 (LLNR 38620), thence southwest along the
channel line to Bogue Sound Light 4 (LLRN 38770), thence southerly
to Causeway Channel Day beacon 2 (LLNR 38720), thence southeasterly to Money Island Day beacon 1 (LLNR 38645), thence easterly to
Eight and One Half Marina Day beacon 2 (LLNR 38685), thence easterly to the western most shoreline of Brant Island approximate position
latitude 34°42′36″ N, longitude 076°42′11″ W, thence northeasterly
along the shoreline to Tombstone Point approximate position latitude
34°42′14″ N, longitude 076°41′20″ W, thence southeasterly to the east
end of the pier at Coast Guard Sector North Carolina approximate position latitude 34°42′00″ N, longitude 076°40′52″ W, thence easterly to
Morehead City Channel Buoy 20 (LLNR 29427), thence northerly to
Beaufort Harbor Channel LT 1BH (LLNR 34810), thence northwesterly
to the southern tip of Radio Island approximate position latitude
34°42′22″ N, longitude 076°40′52″ W, thence northerly along the
shoreline to approximate position latitude 34°43′00″ N, longitude
076°41′25″ W, thence westerly to the North Carolina State Port Facility, thence westerly along the State Port to the southwest corner approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N, longitude 076°42′12″ W,
thence westerly to the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island the point of origin.
The waters of, and adjacent to, Wrightsville Channel, from Wrightsville
Channel Day beacon 14 (LLNR 28040), located at 34°12′18″ N, longitude 077°48′10″ W, to Wrightsville Channel Day beacon 25 (LLNR
28080), located at 34°12′51″ N, longitude 77°48′53″ W.
[Removed].
§ 100.517
3. Remove section 100.502.
§ 100.504
[Removed].
§ 100.505
[Removed].
§ 100.506
[Removed].
§ 100.520
6. Remove section 100.506.
§ 100.507
[Removed].
[Removed].
§ 100.509
[Removed].
[Removed].
§ 100.511
[Removed].
§ 100.512
[Removed].
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
§ 100.513
[Removed].
13. Remove section 100.513.
§ 100.514
[Removed].
14. Remove section 100.514.
§ 100.515
[Removed].
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:37 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
[Removed].
28. Remove section 100.532.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. PTO–P–2006–0004]
Examination of Patent Applications
That Include Claims Containing
Alternative Language
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comment on initial regulatory flexibility
analysis.
AGENCY:
[Removed].
27. Remove section 100.531.
§ 100.532
15. Remove section 100.515.
[Removed].
26. Remove section 100.530.
§ 100.531
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
RIN 0651–AC00
[Removed].
25. Remove section 100.529.
§ 100.530
Dated: February 28, 2008.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8–4707 Filed 3–7–08; 8:45 am]
37 CFR Part 1
[Removed].
24. Remove section 100.527.
§ 100.529
12. Remove section 100.512.
[Removed].
23. Remove section 100.526.
§ 100.527
11. Remove section 100.511.
[Removed].
32. Remove section 100.536.
[Removed].
22. Remove section 100.525.
§ 100.526
10. Remove section 100.510.
[Removed].
21. Remove section 100.523.
§ 100.525
9. Remove section 100.509.
§ 100.510
20. Remove section 100.522.
§ 100.523
8. Remove section 100.508.
[Removed].
[Removed].
31. Remove section 100.535.
§ 100.536
[Removed].
19. Remove section 100.520.
§ 100.522
7. Remove section 100.507.
§ 100.508
18. Remove section 100.519.
[Removed].
30. Remove section 100.534.
§ 100.535
[Removed].
[Removed].
29. Remove section 100.533.
§ 100.534
[Removed].
17. Remove section 100.518.
§ 100.519
5. Remove section 100.505.
§ 100.533
16. Remove section 100.517.
§ 100.518
4. Remove section 100.504.
[Removed].
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
12680
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (Office) published a
notice proposing to revise the rules of
practice pertaining to any claim using
alternative language to claim two or
more independent and distinct
inventions (Alternative Claims Notice of
Proposed Rule Making). The Office has
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) on this proposed change
to the rules of practice. This notice
publishes the IRFA and requests public
comment on the IRFA. This notice also
invites public comment on the
Alternative Claims Notice of Proposed
Rule Making.
DATES: Written comments on the IRFA
or Alternative Claims Notice of
Proposed Rule Making must be received
on or before April 9, 2008. No public
hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
by electronic mail message over the
Internet. Comments on the IRFA should
be addressed to markushirfa.comments@uspto.gov, and
comments on the proposed rule changes
in the Alternative Claims Notice of
Proposed Rule Making should be
addressed to
markush.comments@uspto.gov.
Comments may also be submitted by
mail addressed to: Mail Stop
Comments—Patents, Commissioner for
Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313–1450, or by facsimile to (571)
273–7754, marked to the attention of
Kathleen Kahler Fonda, Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration.
Although comments may be submitted
by mail or facsimile, the Office prefers
to receive comments via the Internet.
Comments may also be sent by
electronic mail message over the
Internet via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking
Portal Web site (https://
www.regulations.gov) for additional
instructions on providing comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
The comments will be available for
public inspection at the Office of the
Commissioner for Patents, located in
Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany
Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and will be
available on the Office’s Internet Web
site at (https://www.uspto.gov). Because
comments will be made available for
public inspection, information that the
submitter does not desire to make
public, such as an address or phone
number, should not be included in the
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen Kahler Fonda, Legal Advisor,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner for
Patent Examination Policy, by telephone
at (571) 272–7754; by mail addressed to:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:37 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
Box Comments Patents, Commissioner
for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
VA 22313–1450; or by facsimile to (571)
273–7754, marked to the attention of
Kathleen Kahler Fonda.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office
published the Alternative Claims Notice
of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal
Register in August of 2007. See
Examination of Patent Applications
That Include Claims Containing
Alternative Language, 72 FR 44992
(Aug. 10, 2007), republished at 1322 Off.
Gaz. Pat. Office 22 (Sept. 4, 2007). This
notice supplements the Alternative
Claims Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
The Alternative Claims Notice of
Proposed Rule Making indicated that
the changes being proposed involve
rules of agency practice and procedure
for which prior notice and an
opportunity for public comment are not
required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (or
any other law), and thus neither a
regulatory flexibility analysis nor a
certification under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is
required under 5 U.S.C. 603. See
Examination of Patent Applications
That Include Claims Containing
Alternative Language, 72 FR at 44999.
The Office received several comments
concerning the impact of the proposed
rules on small businesses and
independent inventors. The Office
continues to believe that a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required for
the Alternative Claims Notice of
Proposed Rule Making. The Office,
however, has decided to subject the
proposed rules to a regulatory flexibility
analysis to provide a further
opportunity for comment on the small
business impact of the proposed rules.
Specifically, the Office has
commissioned a detailed analysis of the
impact of the proposed rules on small
entities, and has prepared an IRFA. This
notice publishes and requests public
comment on the IRFA.
The Alternative Claims Notice of
Proposed Rule Making indicated that
comments on the proposed changes to
the rules of practice were to have been
submitted by October 9, 2007. This
notice also provides another
opportunity to submit comments on the
changes to the rules of practice
proposed in the Alternative Claims
Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
1. Description of the reasons that
action by the agency is being
considered: The Office is proposing to
revise the rules of practice pertaining to
any claim using alternative language
because patent applicants sometimes
use Markush or other alternative formats
to claim two or more independent and
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
distinct inventions and/or to recite
hundreds, if not thousands, of
alternative embodiments in one claim.
Such claims are confusing, difficult to
understand, and frequently border on
being unmanageable. Proper search of
such complex claims, particularly those
using Markush language, often consume
a disproportionate amount of Office
resources as compared to other types of
claims. The prosecution of these
complex claims likewise often requires
separate examination and patentability
determinations for each of the
alternatives within the claim, e.g., if the
alternatives raise separate prior art,
enablement, or utility issues.
Furthermore, the variety and frequency
of alternatives recited in claims filed in
applications pending before the Office,
driven in part by trends in emerging
technologies, have exacerbated
problems with pendency. See
Examination of Patent Applications
That Include Claims Containing
Alternative Language, 72 FR at 44992–
97.
2. Succinct statement of the objectives
of, and legal basis for, the proposed
rules: The objective of the proposed
changes is to improve practices
pertaining to claims that recite
alternatives in a manner that will
enhance the Office’s ability to grant
quality patents that effectively promote
innovation in a timely manner. See
Examination of Patent Applications
That Include Claims Containing
Alternative Language, 72 FR at 44992.
The authority for the proposed changes
is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A) and (C)
(authorizes the establishment of
regulations to govern the conduct of
proceedings in the Office and facilitate
and expedite the processing of patent
applications), 112 (requires applicants
to submit one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the
applicant regards as his invention), 121
(authorizes the Office to restrict an
application to a single invention when
two or more independent and distinct
inventions are claimed), and 131
(authorizes the Office to cause an
examination to be made of an
application). See In re Harnisch, 631
F.2d 716, 722 n.6, 206 USPQ 300, 306
n.6 (CCPA 1980) (inviting the Office to
exercise its rule making powers to
forestall procedural problems arising
from Markush claims).
3. Description and estimate of the
number of affected small entities: The
Small Business Administration (SBA)
small business size standards applicable
to most analyses conducted to comply
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act are
set forth in 13 CFR 121.201. These
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
regulations generally define small
businesses as those with fewer than a
maximum number of employees or less
than a specified level of annual receipts
for the entity’s industrial sector or North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code. The Office,
however, has formally adopted an
alternate size standard as the size
standard for the purpose of conducting
an analysis or making a certification
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for
patent-related regulations. See Business
Size Standard for Purposes of United
States Patent and Trademark Office
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
Patent-Related Regulations, 71 FR
67109 (Nov. 20, 2006).1
Unlike the SBA small business size
standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.201,
this size standard is not industryspecific. Specifically, the Office’s
definition of small business concern for
Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes is a
business or other concern that: (1) Meets
the SBA’s definition of a ‘‘business
concern or concern’’ set forth in 13 CFR
121.105; and (2) meets the size
standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.802
for the purpose of paying reduced
patent fees, namely an entity: (a) Whose
number of employees, including
affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons;
and (b) which has not assigned, granted,
conveyed, or licensed (and is under no
obligation to do so) any rights in the
invention to any person who made it
and could not be classified as an
independent inventor, or to any concern
which would not qualify as a non-profit
organization or a small business concern
under this definition. See Business Size
Standard for Purposes of United States
Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for Patent-Related
Regulations, 71 FR at 67112.
The proposed rule will apply to any
such small entity who files a patent
application and chooses to use
alternative language in claiming his or
her invention. To estimate the number
of applications containing alternative
language that are submitted by small
entities, Office staff analyzed
applications filed in fiscal year 2005
(FY05) (the most recent year for which
complete eighteen-month publication
data are available). Using the preceding
12681
definition of small entity, the Office
screened these published applications
for commonly used alternative language
(e.g., ‘‘contains one selected from the
group consisting of’’) and identified
20,824 small entity applications as
containing alternative language and,
therefore, as potentially affected by the
proposed rule. The Office estimates that
this represents approximately 31
percent of total applications containing
alternative language.
As anticipated, a larger proportion of
applications containing alternative
language is concentrated in the
biotechnology/chemical arts (an
estimated 9,186 of the 21,187 small
entity applications in the
biotechnology/chemical arts or 43.4
percent). The remaining applications
with alternative language are distributed
throughout the electrical and
mechanical arts (an estimated 11,638 of
the 73,831 small entity applications in
the electrical/mechanical arts or 15.8
percent). These results are summarized
in Table 1.
TABLE 1.—SMALL ENTITY APPLICATIONS (FY05)
Number of
small entity
applications
Type of art
Number of
small entity
applications
containing
alternative language
Percent
21,187
73,831
9,186
11,638
43.4
15.8
Total Applications .................................................................................................................
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Biotechnology/Chemical Applications ..........................................................................................
Electrical/Mechanical Applications ...............................................................................................
95,018
20,824
21.9
4. Description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rules, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will
be subject to the requirement and the
type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record: The
proposed rule could potentially impact
applicants in two ways. First, it would
require that a claim must be limited to
a single invention. Consequently, if a
submitted application contains a single
claim that defines multiple independent
and distinct inventions, then the
examiner may apply a restriction
requirement. See Examination of Patent
Applications That Include Claims
Containing Alternative Language, 72 FR
at 44995. In this case of an intra-claim
restriction, applicants who wish to
pursue patent protection for the full
scope covered by their initial
application would have to file a
divisional application for each
additional invention defined in that
original claim. For example, if a single
claim contains three independent and
distinct inventions and the Office
requires restriction, the applicant could
file two divisional applications to
prosecute the full scope of the original
claims. Alternatively, the applicant
could elect not to file any divisional
applications, in which case he or she
would be limited to the one invention
elected in the initial application.
To estimate the costs of one divisional
application, the Office is using unit cost
data from the American Intellectual
Property Law Association (AIPLA)
Report of the Economic Survey 2 and the
Office fee schedule for fiscal year 2007.
Based on these data, the Office estimates
that the cost of filing one divisional
application is $10,258 (expressed in
present value terms using a 7 percent
discount rate). The cost faced by
applicants could be greater than this
amount if the applicant files more than
one divisional.
Second, the proposed rule allows
examiners to require applicants to
simplify the presentation of claims with
alternative language so that:
1 This alternate small business size standard is the
previously established size standard that identifies
the criteria entities must meet to be entitled to pay
reduced patent fees. See 13 CFR 121.802. If patent
applicants identify themselves on the patent
application as qualifying for reduced patent fees,
the Office captures this data in the Patent
Application Location and Monitoring (PALM)
database system, which tracks information on each
patent application submitted to the Office.
2 AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2007.
Table Q33g, Third Quartile, ‘‘Patent application
amendment/argument, relatively complex,
biotechnology/chemical (Preparation and Filing).’’
Page I–74; Table Q33l, Third Quartile, ‘‘Issuing an
allowed application (all post-allowance activity).’’
Page I–81; Table Q33n, Third Quartile, ‘‘Pay a
Maintenance Fee.’’ Page I–76.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:37 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
12682
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(1) The number and presentation of
alternatives in a single claim are not
difficult to construe.
(2) No alternative is itself defined as
a set of further alternatives within the
claim.
(3) No alternative is encompassed by
any other alternative within a list of
alternatives unless there is no other
practical way to define the invention.
(4) All alternatives are substitutable
for each other.
See Examination of Patent
Applications That Include Claims
Containing Alternative Language, 72 FR
at 44996.
Consequently, if an examiner
determines that a claim does not comply
with one or more of the format
requirements listed above, the applicant
can be required to correct the claim. The
applicant would provide this correction
to the claim by submitting an
amendment to the application.
To estimate the cost of amending an
application in order to correct the
format of the claim(s), the Office is
using unit cost data on amendments
from the AIPLA Report of the Economic
Survey.3 Based on the AIPLA data, the
Office estimates that the cost of filing
one amendment to correct the format of
the claim(s) is $4,029 (expressed in
present value terms using a 7 percent
discount rate). The cost faced by
applicants could be less than or greater
than this amount, depending on how
difficult it is to correct the format of the
claim(s).
Any particular application containing
alternative language could be impacted
by either, both, or neither of these two
effects, and would fall into one of the
following four categories:
(1) Applications with alternative
language that do not claim multiple
inventions in a single claim and have
claim(s) in a proper format.
(2) Applications with alternative
language that claim multiple inventions
in a single claim and have claim(s) in a
proper format.
(3) Applications with alternative
language that do not claim multiple
inventions in a single claim but have
claim(s) in an improper format.
(4) Applications with alternative
language that claim multiple inventions
in a single claim and have claim(s) in an
improper format.
Applications within the first of these
categories have ‘‘acceptable’’ alternative
language, and small entities submitting
such applications would not incur any
incremental costs of note. The
remaining three categories, however,
contain applications that generally
would lead to incremental costs.
Applications in category 4, which
require both a divisional application
and an amendment, incur the greatest
cost ($14,287). Table 2 summarizes the
compliance activities and corresponding
cost estimates.
TABLE 2.—INCREMENTAL COST ESTIMATES
Cost (present
value)
Compliance activity
Category
Category
Category
Category
1
2
3
4
applications
applications
applications
applications
containing acceptable alternative language .................................................................................................
needing one divisional application ...............................................................................................................
needing one amendment to correct the format of the claim(s) ...................................................................
needing one divisional application and one amendment to correct the format of the claim(s) ...................
To estimate the number of small
entity applications in each category, the
Office examined a sample of 102 FY05
small entity applications with
alternative language from the
biotechnology/chemical arts and 57
FY05 small entity applications with
alternative language from the electrical/
mechanical arts. For these applications,
the Office identified and categorized the
impact of the proposed rule. The Office
then scaled these findings to the overall
number of small entity applications.
Using this methodology, the Office
estimates that 82 percent of affected
small entity applications in the
biotechnology/chemical arts and 98
percent of affected small entity
applications in the electrical/
mechanical arts would fall into category
1 and would not incur any notable
incremental costs associated with the
rule. The remaining 18 percent of
n.a.
$10,258
4,029
14,287
affected small entity applications in the
biotechnology/chemical arts and 2
percent of affected small entity
applications in the electrical/
mechanical arts would incur costs to
comply with the proposed rule
requirements. In total, the analysis
shows that an estimated 1,825 small
entity applications would incur
compliance costs under the proposed
rule. Table 3 summarizes these results.
TABLE 3.—SMALL ENTITY APPLICATIONS CONTAINING ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE BY COST IMPACT CATEGORY
Category 1: Small entity applications with acceptable alternative language ....................................................................................................
Category 2: Small entity applications with alternative language that
claim multiple inventions in a single claim ...........................................
Category 3: Small entity applications with alternative language that
have claim(s) in an improper format ....................................................
Category 4: Small entity applications with alternative language that
claim multiple inventions in a single claim and have claim(s) in an
improper format ....................................................................................
Total Small Entity Applications with Alternative Language (Categories
1–4) ......................................................................................................
3 AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2007.
Table Q33g, Third Quartile, ‘‘Patent application
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:37 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
Electrical/mechanical
applications FY05
Number
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Biotechnology/chemical applications FY05
Number
Percent
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Number
Percent
7,565
82
11,434
98
18,999
91
991
11
204
2
1,195
6
270
3
0
0
270
1
360
4
0
0
360
2
9,186
100
11,638
100
20,824
100
amendment/argument, relatively complex,
PO 00000
Percent
Total
Sfmt 4702
biotechnology/chemical (Preparation and Filing).’’
Page I–74.
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
12683
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—SMALL ENTITY APPLICATIONS CONTAINING ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE BY COST IMPACT CATEGORY—Continued
Biotechnology/chemical applications FY05
Number
Total Small Entity Applications with a Cost Impact (Categories 2–4) .....
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
In the Office’s analysis of these
applications, the number of claims in an
improper format ranged from one to four
claims per application. Some
applications had only dependent claims
that were in an improper format, while
others had only independent claims that
were in an improper format. One
application had independent and
dependent claims in an improper
format. Although the incremental cost
faced by applicants could vary
depending on the complexity and
number of claims needing correction,
the Office’s use of AIPLA’s 75th
percentile unit cost estimate for an
amendment already accounts for some
variation in costs (i.e., the 75th
percentile may be a high estimate for
most applications) and would seem to
be a conservative figure.
In the Office’s analysis of the sampled
applications containing two or more
independent and distinct inventions
that are claimed in the alternative in a
single claim, the median number of
divisional applications required to
maintain the scope of the application
was 5, although some applications
would have required more than 100
divisional applications to maintain
scope.
The wide variation in the estimated
number of divisional applications is
informative when considering the cost
impact of the proposed rule for small
entity applicants. However, the Office
believes that an applicant would need to
file at most approximately seven
divisional applications following an
examiner’s restriction requirement, even
if more were needed to seek patent
protection for the full scope of the
originally claimed inventions.4
Therefore, while the cost impact of
intra-claim restrictions could be as low
as zero for applicants that elect not to
maintain scope, it could range as high
4 Applicants may file divisional applications
sequentially to keep a case pending for the lifetime
of a patent (twenty years) to take advantage of the
time to determine whether any of their inventions
turn out to have market value. The least-cost
method of achieving this result would involve an
applicant pursuing one divisional application at a
time over a twenty-year period. Assuming the
prosecution of each divisional application lasts
three years, an applicant would be able to minimize
the total cost by filing approximately seven
divisional applications during this period.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:37 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
Electrical/mechanical
applications FY05
Number
1,621
Percent
18
as the cost of seven divisional
applications (present value of
approximately $42,000). However, the
Office believes these applications are
relatively few in number and the impact
for most applicants will be far less.
5. Description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rules which
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and which minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposed rules on small entities: The
Office has considered a number of
alternatives; however, none of these
alternatives would accomplish the
stated objectives of applicable statutes
with a lesser economic impact on small
entities.
(1) Hiring more examiners: This
alternative would increase the number
of examiners available to review patent
applications in general, thereby
improving pendency. It would not lead
to impacts on small entities. However,
this alternative also would not make it
any easier to review applications
containing problematic alternative
language. The Office is currently hiring
as many examiners as resources permit.
The Office’s ability to hire qualified new
examiners is affected by many
components, such as budget, the
economy, the availability of scientists
and engineers, and the ability to absorb
and train new employees. Thus, the
Office already is employing this
‘‘alternative’’ to the extent that its
resources permit, but relying upon this
alternative ‘‘alternative’’ alone without
taking additional steps would frustrate
the Office’s ability to grant quality
patents in a timely manner that
effectively promote innovation.
(2) Charging additional fees for
applications containing claims using
alternative language: This option could
reduce the number of affected small
entities by creating a financial
disincentive to submitting applications
containing claims using alternative
language. However, the Office’s past
efforts to seek patent fee adjustments
does not lead to an expectation that the
Office would be successful in obtaining
a patent fee adjustment that would in
fact recover the Office’s actual cost of
examining applications containing
claims using alternative language. In
addition, any patent fee adjustment for
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Percent
204
2
Total
Number
1,825
Percent
9
applications containing claims using
alternative language that was sufficient
to recover the Office’s actual cost of
examining applications would likely
have a greater economic impact on a
larger number of small entities than the
proposed rule changes. Finally, for
applicants that chose to submit
alternative language despite the
requirement to pay additional fees, this
alternative would not improve the
patent prosecution process or result in
higher quality patents.
(3) Limiting the number of species
that may be presented in an application:
The rules of practice currently provide
that if an ‘‘application contains claims
directed to more than a reasonable
number of species, the examiner may
require restriction of the claims to not
more than a reasonable number of
species before taking further action in
the application.’’ See 37 CFR 1.146. A
rule that set out a per se limit on the
number of species that may be claimed
in an application would not accomplish
the objective of the proposed rules of
treating applications with two or more
independent and distinct inventions
presented in a single claim.
Furthermore, the potential change in the
scope of protection available via a single
patent application likely would have a
greater economic impact on larger
number of small entities than the
proposed rule changes.
(4) Exempting small entities (or take
no action): While exempting small
entities from coverage of the proposed
rules or any part thereof (or taking no
action) would avoid any incremental
economic impact on small entities, such
exemption (or lack of action) would
frustrate the Office’s ability to grant
quality patents in a timely manner that
effectively promote innovation. It also
would result in small entity
applications (or, in the case of no action,
all applications) with two or more
independent and distinct inventions
presented in single claim that either: (1)
Consume a disproportionate share of
Office examination resources per
application and thus not effectively
promoting innovation in a timely
manner; or (2) receive a less thorough
examination, which would decrease,
rather than enhance, the Office’s ability
to grant quality patents. Finally, given
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
12684
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the Office’s estimate (as previously
noted) that close to one third of all
patent applications containing
alternative language are submitted by
small entities, this alternative would
greatly diminish the rule making’s
ability to improve the patent
prosecution process and result in higher
quality patents.
6. Identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
which may duplicate, overlap or conflict
with the proposed rules: The Office is
the sole U.S. government agency
responsible for administering the
provisions of title 35, United States
Code, pertaining to examination and
granting patents. Therefore, no other
federal, state, or local entity shares
jurisdiction over the examination and
granting patents.
Other countries, however, have their
own patent laws, and an entity desiring
a patent in a particular country must
make an application for patent in that
country, in accordance with the
applicable law. Although the potential
for overlap exists internationally, this
cannot be avoided except by treaty
(such as the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property, or the
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)).
Nevertheless, the Office believes that
there are no other duplicative or
overlapping rules.
7. Request for data and information in
support of the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis: The Office
welcomes comments addressing the
economic impact on small entities of
any or all provisions of the proposed
rule. In particular, however, the Office
is soliciting information on the
following:
1. Alternative approaches that would
reduce the burden of the rule for small
entities while meeting the Office’s
objectives.
2. The costs of modifying an
application that already is under review
as needed to comply with the rule:
a. The cost of filing one or more
divisional applications.
b. The cost of correcting a claim that
is in an improper format, and factors
that might cause this cost to vary.
3. The number of patent applications
submitted by unique small entities per
year (or per decade).
4. Factors that influence an
applicant’s decision to file divisional
applications.
5. Issues that might affect the
combined impact of alternative language
that requires intra-claim restriction and
is of an improper format.
6. The extent to which applicants will
adjust to the new rules over time, such
that future initial patent applications
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:37 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
containing alternative language will
comply with the proposed rule (i.e., the
applications will not need to incur the
cost of amendments or divisional
applications due to alternative language
that is of an improper format or requires
intra-claim restriction).
7. The benefits of the rule making.
8. Other information related to this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
including any assumptions or findings
stated above.
Dated: March 5, 2008.
John Doll,
Commissioner for Patents.
[FR Doc. E8–4744 Filed 3–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA–B–7765]
Proposed Flood Elevation
Determinations
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Comments are requested on
the proposed Base (1 percent annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and
proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below.
The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment
regarding the proposed regulatory flood
elevations for the reach described by the
downstream and upstream locations in
the table below. The BFEs and modified
BFEs are a part of the floodplain
management measures that the
community is required either to adopt
or show evidence of having in effect in
order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition,
these elevations, once finalized, will be
used by insurance agents, and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings and
the contents in those buildings.
DATES: Comments are to be submitted
on or before June 9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: The corresponding
preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each
community are available for inspection
at the community’s map repository. The
respective addresses are listed in the
table below.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You may submit comments, identified
by Docket No. FEMA–B–7765, to
William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–3151, or (email)
bill.blanton@dhs.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–3151 or (e-mail)
bill.blanton@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make
determinations of BFEs and modified
BFEs for each community listed below,
in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified
BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR
60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean
that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more
stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The
community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or
pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities.
These proposed elevations are used to
meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also
used to calculate the appropriate flood
insurance premium rates for new
buildings built after these elevations are
made final, and for the contents in these
buildings.
Comments on any aspect of the Flood
Insurance Study and FIRM, other than
the proposed BFEs, will be considered.
A letter acknowledging receipt of any
comments will not be sent.
Administrative Procedure Act
Statement. This matter is not a
rulemaking governed by the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood
elevation determinations for notice and
comment; however, they are governed
by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.
4001 et seq., and do not fall under the
APA.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This proposed rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44
CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 47 (Monday, March 10, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12679-12684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4744]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2006-0004]
RIN 0651-AC00
Examination of Patent Applications That Include Claims Containing
Alternative Language
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment on initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12680]]
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office)
published a notice proposing to revise the rules of practice pertaining
to any claim using alternative language to claim two or more
independent and distinct inventions (Alternative Claims Notice of
Proposed Rule Making). The Office has prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) on this proposed change to the rules of
practice. This notice publishes the IRFA and requests public comment on
the IRFA. This notice also invites public comment on the Alternative
Claims Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
DATES: Written comments on the IRFA or Alternative Claims Notice of
Proposed Rule Making must be received on or before April 9, 2008. No
public hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the
Internet. Comments on the IRFA should be addressed to markush-
irfa.comments@uspto.gov, and comments on the proposed rule changes in
the Alternative Claims Notice of Proposed Rule Making should be
addressed to markush.comments@uspto.gov. Comments may also be submitted
by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments--Patents, Commissioner for
Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, or by facsimile to
(571) 273-7754, marked to the attention of Kathleen Kahler Fonda, Legal
Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration. Although comments may
be submitted by mail or facsimile, the Office prefers to receive
comments via the Internet.
Comments may also be sent by electronic mail message over the
Internet via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal
eRulemaking Portal Web site (https://www.regulations.gov) for additional
instructions on providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
The comments will be available for public inspection at the Office
of the Commissioner for Patents, located in Madison East, Tenth Floor,
600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and will be available on the
Office's Internet Web site at (https://www.uspto.gov). Because comments
will be made available for public inspection, information that the
submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or phone
number, should not be included in the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Kahler Fonda, Legal Advisor,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by
telephone at (571) 272-7754; by mail addressed to: Box Comments
Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-
1450; or by facsimile to (571) 273-7754, marked to the attention of
Kathleen Kahler Fonda.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office published the Alternative Claims
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register in August of
2007. See Examination of Patent Applications That Include Claims
Containing Alternative Language, 72 FR 44992 (Aug. 10, 2007),
republished at 1322 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 22 (Sept. 4, 2007). This
notice supplements the Alternative Claims Notice of Proposed Rule
Making. The Alternative Claims Notice of Proposed Rule Making indicated
that the changes being proposed involve rules of agency practice and
procedure for which prior notice and an opportunity for public comment
are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law), and thus
neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is required under 5
U.S.C. 603. See Examination of Patent Applications That Include Claims
Containing Alternative Language, 72 FR at 44999.
The Office received several comments concerning the impact of the
proposed rules on small businesses and independent inventors. The
Office continues to believe that a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required for the Alternative Claims Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
The Office, however, has decided to subject the proposed rules to a
regulatory flexibility analysis to provide a further opportunity for
comment on the small business impact of the proposed rules.
Specifically, the Office has commissioned a detailed analysis of the
impact of the proposed rules on small entities, and has prepared an
IRFA. This notice publishes and requests public comment on the IRFA.
The Alternative Claims Notice of Proposed Rule Making indicated
that comments on the proposed changes to the rules of practice were to
have been submitted by October 9, 2007. This notice also provides
another opportunity to submit comments on the changes to the rules of
practice proposed in the Alternative Claims Notice of Proposed Rule
Making.
1. Description of the reasons that action by the agency is being
considered: The Office is proposing to revise the rules of practice
pertaining to any claim using alternative language because patent
applicants sometimes use Markush or other alternative formats to claim
two or more independent and distinct inventions and/or to recite
hundreds, if not thousands, of alternative embodiments in one claim.
Such claims are confusing, difficult to understand, and frequently
border on being unmanageable. Proper search of such complex claims,
particularly those using Markush language, often consume a
disproportionate amount of Office resources as compared to other types
of claims. The prosecution of these complex claims likewise often
requires separate examination and patentability determinations for each
of the alternatives within the claim, e.g., if the alternatives raise
separate prior art, enablement, or utility issues. Furthermore, the
variety and frequency of alternatives recited in claims filed in
applications pending before the Office, driven in part by trends in
emerging technologies, have exacerbated problems with pendency. See
Examination of Patent Applications That Include Claims Containing
Alternative Language, 72 FR at 44992-97.
2. Succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rules: The objective of the proposed changes is to improve
practices pertaining to claims that recite alternatives in a manner
that will enhance the Office's ability to grant quality patents that
effectively promote innovation in a timely manner. See Examination of
Patent Applications That Include Claims Containing Alternative
Language, 72 FR at 44992. The authority for the proposed changes is 35
U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A) and (C) (authorizes the establishment of regulations
to govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office and facilitate and
expedite the processing of patent applications), 112 (requires
applicants to submit one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as
his invention), 121 (authorizes the Office to restrict an application
to a single invention when two or more independent and distinct
inventions are claimed), and 131 (authorizes the Office to cause an
examination to be made of an application). See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d
716, 722 n.6, 206 USPQ 300, 306 n.6 (CCPA 1980) (inviting the Office to
exercise its rule making powers to forestall procedural problems
arising from Markush claims).
3. Description and estimate of the number of affected small
entities: The Small Business Administration (SBA) small business size
standards applicable to most analyses conducted to comply with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are set forth in 13 CFR 121.201. These
[[Page 12681]]
regulations generally define small businesses as those with fewer than
a maximum number of employees or less than a specified level of annual
receipts for the entity's industrial sector or North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code. The Office, however, has formally
adopted an alternate size standard as the size standard for the purpose
of conducting an analysis or making a certification under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. See Business
Size Standard for Purposes of United States Patent and Trademark Office
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Patent-Related Regulations, 71 FR
67109 (Nov. 20, 2006).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This alternate small business size standard is the
previously established size standard that identifies the criteria
entities must meet to be entitled to pay reduced patent fees. See 13
CFR 121.802. If patent applicants identify themselves on the patent
application as qualifying for reduced patent fees, the Office
captures this data in the Patent Application Location and Monitoring
(PALM) database system, which tracks information on each patent
application submitted to the Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the SBA small business size standards set forth in 13 CFR
121.201, this size standard is not industry-specific. Specifically, the
Office's definition of small business concern for Regulatory
Flexibility Act purposes is a business or other concern that: (1) Meets
the SBA's definition of a ``business concern or concern'' set forth in
13 CFR 121.105; and (2) meets the size standards set forth in 13 CFR
121.802 for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees, namely an
entity: (a) Whose number of employees, including affiliates, does not
exceed 500 persons; and (b) which has not assigned, granted, conveyed,
or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the
invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an
independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a
non-profit organization or a small business concern under this
definition. See Business Size Standard for Purposes of United States
Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Patent-
Related Regulations, 71 FR at 67112.
The proposed rule will apply to any such small entity who files a
patent application and chooses to use alternative language in claiming
his or her invention. To estimate the number of applications containing
alternative language that are submitted by small entities, Office staff
analyzed applications filed in fiscal year 2005 (FY05) (the most recent
year for which complete eighteen-month publication data are available).
Using the preceding definition of small entity, the Office screened
these published applications for commonly used alternative language
(e.g., ``contains one selected from the group consisting of'') and
identified 20,824 small entity applications as containing alternative
language and, therefore, as potentially affected by the proposed rule.
The Office estimates that this represents approximately 31 percent of
total applications containing alternative language.
As anticipated, a larger proportion of applications containing
alternative language is concentrated in the biotechnology/chemical arts
(an estimated 9,186 of the 21,187 small entity applications in the
biotechnology/chemical arts or 43.4 percent). The remaining
applications with alternative language are distributed throughout the
electrical and mechanical arts (an estimated 11,638 of the 73,831 small
entity applications in the electrical/mechanical arts or 15.8 percent).
These results are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.--Small Entity Applications (FY05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
small entity
Number of applications
Type of art small entity containing Percent
applications alternative
language
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biotechnology/Chemical Applications............................. 21,187 9,186 43.4
Electrical/Mechanical Applications.............................. 73,831 11,638 15.8
-----------------------------------------------
Total Applications.......................................... 95,018 20,824 21.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rules, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record: The proposed rule could potentially impact applicants
in two ways. First, it would require that a claim must be limited to a
single invention. Consequently, if a submitted application contains a
single claim that defines multiple independent and distinct inventions,
then the examiner may apply a restriction requirement. See Examination
of Patent Applications That Include Claims Containing Alternative
Language, 72 FR at 44995. In this case of an intra-claim restriction,
applicants who wish to pursue patent protection for the full scope
covered by their initial application would have to file a divisional
application for each additional invention defined in that original
claim. For example, if a single claim contains three independent and
distinct inventions and the Office requires restriction, the applicant
could file two divisional applications to prosecute the full scope of
the original claims. Alternatively, the applicant could elect not to
file any divisional applications, in which case he or she would be
limited to the one invention elected in the initial application.
To estimate the costs of one divisional application, the Office is
using unit cost data from the American Intellectual Property Law
Association (AIPLA) Report of the Economic Survey \2\ and the Office
fee schedule for fiscal year 2007. Based on these data, the Office
estimates that the cost of filing one divisional application is $10,258
(expressed in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate). The
cost faced by applicants could be greater than this amount if the
applicant files more than one divisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2007. Table Q33g, Third
Quartile, ``Patent application amendment/argument, relatively
complex, biotechnology/chemical (Preparation and Filing).'' Page I-
74; Table Q33l, Third Quartile, ``Issuing an allowed application
(all post-allowance activity).'' Page I-81; Table Q33n, Third
Quartile, ``Pay a Maintenance Fee.'' Page I-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the proposed rule allows examiners to require applicants to
simplify the presentation of claims with alternative language so that:
[[Page 12682]]
(1) The number and presentation of alternatives in a single claim
are not difficult to construe.
(2) No alternative is itself defined as a set of further
alternatives within the claim.
(3) No alternative is encompassed by any other alternative within a
list of alternatives unless there is no other practical way to define
the invention.
(4) All alternatives are substitutable for each other.
See Examination of Patent Applications That Include Claims
Containing Alternative Language, 72 FR at 44996.
Consequently, if an examiner determines that a claim does not
comply with one or more of the format requirements listed above, the
applicant can be required to correct the claim. The applicant would
provide this correction to the claim by submitting an amendment to the
application.
To estimate the cost of amending an application in order to correct
the format of the claim(s), the Office is using unit cost data on
amendments from the AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey.\3\ Based on
the AIPLA data, the Office estimates that the cost of filing one
amendment to correct the format of the claim(s) is $4,029 (expressed in
present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate). The cost faced by
applicants could be less than or greater than this amount, depending on
how difficult it is to correct the format of the claim(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2007. Table Q33g, Third
Quartile, ``Patent application amendment/argument, relatively
complex, biotechnology/chemical (Preparation and Filing).'' Page I-
74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any particular application containing alternative language could be
impacted by either, both, or neither of these two effects, and would
fall into one of the following four categories:
(1) Applications with alternative language that do not claim
multiple inventions in a single claim and have claim(s) in a proper
format.
(2) Applications with alternative language that claim multiple
inventions in a single claim and have claim(s) in a proper format.
(3) Applications with alternative language that do not claim
multiple inventions in a single claim but have claim(s) in an improper
format.
(4) Applications with alternative language that claim multiple
inventions in a single claim and have claim(s) in an improper format.
Applications within the first of these categories have
``acceptable'' alternative language, and small entities submitting such
applications would not incur any incremental costs of note. The
remaining three categories, however, contain applications that
generally would lead to incremental costs. Applications in category 4,
which require both a divisional application and an amendment, incur the
greatest cost ($14,287). Table 2 summarizes the compliance activities
and corresponding cost estimates.
Table 2.--Incremental Cost Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost (present
Compliance activity value)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1 applications containing acceptable n.a.
alternative language...................................
Category 2 applications needing one divisional $10,258
application............................................
Category 3 applications needing one amendment to correct 4,029
the format of the claim(s).............................
Category 4 applications needing one divisional 14,287
application and one amendment to correct the format of
the claim(s)...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the number of small entity applications in each
category, the Office examined a sample of 102 FY05 small entity
applications with alternative language from the biotechnology/chemical
arts and 57 FY05 small entity applications with alternative language
from the electrical/mechanical arts. For these applications, the Office
identified and categorized the impact of the proposed rule. The Office
then scaled these findings to the overall number of small entity
applications.
Using this methodology, the Office estimates that 82 percent of
affected small entity applications in the biotechnology/chemical arts
and 98 percent of affected small entity applications in the electrical/
mechanical arts would fall into category 1 and would not incur any
notable incremental costs associated with the rule. The remaining 18
percent of affected small entity applications in the biotechnology/
chemical arts and 2 percent of affected small entity applications in
the electrical/mechanical arts would incur costs to comply with the
proposed rule requirements. In total, the analysis shows that an
estimated 1,825 small entity applications would incur compliance costs
under the proposed rule. Table 3 summarizes these results.
Table 3.--Small Entity Applications Containing Alternative Language by Cost Impact Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biotechnology/ Electrical/ Total
chemical mechanical ---------------------
applications FY05 applications FY05
-------------------------------------------- Number Percent
Number Percent Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1: Small entity applications with 7,565 82 11,434 98 18,999 91
acceptable alternative language..............
Category 2: Small entity applications with 991 11 204 2 1,195 6
alternative language that claim multiple
inventions in a single claim.................
Category 3: Small entity applications with 270 3 0 0 270 1
alternative language that have claim(s) in an
improper format..............................
Category 4: Small entity applications with 360 4 0 0 360 2
alternative language that claim multiple
inventions in a single claim and have
claim(s) in an improper format...............
Total Small Entity Applications with 9,186 100 11,638 100 20,824 100
Alternative Language (Categories 1-4)........
[[Page 12683]]
Total Small Entity Applications with a Cost 1,621 18 204 2 1,825 9
Impact (Categories 2-4)......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Office's analysis of these applications, the number of
claims in an improper format ranged from one to four claims per
application. Some applications had only dependent claims that were in
an improper format, while others had only independent claims that were
in an improper format. One application had independent and dependent
claims in an improper format. Although the incremental cost faced by
applicants could vary depending on the complexity and number of claims
needing correction, the Office's use of AIPLA's 75th percentile unit
cost estimate for an amendment already accounts for some variation in
costs (i.e., the 75th percentile may be a high estimate for most
applications) and would seem to be a conservative figure.
In the Office's analysis of the sampled applications containing two
or more independent and distinct inventions that are claimed in the
alternative in a single claim, the median number of divisional
applications required to maintain the scope of the application was 5,
although some applications would have required more than 100 divisional
applications to maintain scope.
The wide variation in the estimated number of divisional
applications is informative when considering the cost impact of the
proposed rule for small entity applicants. However, the Office believes
that an applicant would need to file at most approximately seven
divisional applications following an examiner's restriction
requirement, even if more were needed to seek patent protection for the
full scope of the originally claimed inventions.\4\ Therefore, while
the cost impact of intra-claim restrictions could be as low as zero for
applicants that elect not to maintain scope, it could range as high as
the cost of seven divisional applications (present value of
approximately $42,000). However, the Office believes these applications
are relatively few in number and the impact for most applicants will be
far less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Applicants may file divisional applications sequentially to
keep a case pending for the lifetime of a patent (twenty years) to
take advantage of the time to determine whether any of their
inventions turn out to have market value. The least-cost method of
achieving this result would involve an applicant pursuing one
divisional application at a time over a twenty-year period. Assuming
the prosecution of each divisional application lasts three years, an
applicant would be able to minimize the total cost by filing
approximately seven divisional applications during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rules which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and
which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rules on
small entities: The Office has considered a number of alternatives;
however, none of these alternatives would accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes with a lesser economic impact on
small entities.
(1) Hiring more examiners: This alternative would increase the
number of examiners available to review patent applications in general,
thereby improving pendency. It would not lead to impacts on small
entities. However, this alternative also would not make it any easier
to review applications containing problematic alternative language. The
Office is currently hiring as many examiners as resources permit. The
Office's ability to hire qualified new examiners is affected by many
components, such as budget, the economy, the availability of scientists
and engineers, and the ability to absorb and train new employees. Thus,
the Office already is employing this ``alternative'' to the extent that
its resources permit, but relying upon this alternative ``alternative''
alone without taking additional steps would frustrate the Office's
ability to grant quality patents in a timely manner that effectively
promote innovation.
(2) Charging additional fees for applications containing claims
using alternative language: This option could reduce the number of
affected small entities by creating a financial disincentive to
submitting applications containing claims using alternative language.
However, the Office's past efforts to seek patent fee adjustments does
not lead to an expectation that the Office would be successful in
obtaining a patent fee adjustment that would in fact recover the
Office's actual cost of examining applications containing claims using
alternative language. In addition, any patent fee adjustment for
applications containing claims using alternative language that was
sufficient to recover the Office's actual cost of examining
applications would likely have a greater economic impact on a larger
number of small entities than the proposed rule changes. Finally, for
applicants that chose to submit alternative language despite the
requirement to pay additional fees, this alternative would not improve
the patent prosecution process or result in higher quality patents.
(3) Limiting the number of species that may be presented in an
application: The rules of practice currently provide that if an
``application contains claims directed to more than a reasonable number
of species, the examiner may require restriction of the claims to not
more than a reasonable number of species before taking further action
in the application.'' See 37 CFR 1.146. A rule that set out a per se
limit on the number of species that may be claimed in an application
would not accomplish the objective of the proposed rules of treating
applications with two or more independent and distinct inventions
presented in a single claim. Furthermore, the potential change in the
scope of protection available via a single patent application likely
would have a greater economic impact on larger number of small entities
than the proposed rule changes.
(4) Exempting small entities (or take no action): While exempting
small entities from coverage of the proposed rules or any part thereof
(or taking no action) would avoid any incremental economic impact on
small entities, such exemption (or lack of action) would frustrate the
Office's ability to grant quality patents in a timely manner that
effectively promote innovation. It also would result in small entity
applications (or, in the case of no action, all applications) with two
or more independent and distinct inventions presented in single claim
that either: (1) Consume a disproportionate share of Office examination
resources per application and thus not effectively promoting innovation
in a timely manner; or (2) receive a less thorough examination, which
would decrease, rather than enhance, the Office's ability to grant
quality patents. Finally, given
[[Page 12684]]
the Office's estimate (as previously noted) that close to one third of
all patent applications containing alternative language are submitted
by small entities, this alternative would greatly diminish the rule
making's ability to improve the patent prosecution process and result
in higher quality patents.
6. Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rules: The Office is the sole U.S. government agency
responsible for administering the provisions of title 35, United States
Code, pertaining to examination and granting patents. Therefore, no
other federal, state, or local entity shares jurisdiction over the
examination and granting patents.
Other countries, however, have their own patent laws, and an entity
desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for
patent in that country, in accordance with the applicable law. Although
the potential for overlap exists internationally, this cannot be
avoided except by treaty (such as the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property, or the Patent Cooperation Treaty
(PCT)).
Nevertheless, the Office believes that there are no other
duplicative or overlapping rules.
7. Request for data and information in support of the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: The Office welcomes comments
addressing the economic impact on small entities of any or all
provisions of the proposed rule. In particular, however, the Office is
soliciting information on the following:
1. Alternative approaches that would reduce the burden of the rule
for small entities while meeting the Office's objectives.
2. The costs of modifying an application that already is under
review as needed to comply with the rule:
a. The cost of filing one or more divisional applications.
b. The cost of correcting a claim that is in an improper format,
and factors that might cause this cost to vary.
3. The number of patent applications submitted by unique small
entities per year (or per decade).
4. Factors that influence an applicant's decision to file
divisional applications.
5. Issues that might affect the combined impact of alternative
language that requires intra-claim restriction and is of an improper
format.
6. The extent to which applicants will adjust to the new rules over
time, such that future initial patent applications containing
alternative language will comply with the proposed rule (i.e., the
applications will not need to incur the cost of amendments or
divisional applications due to alternative language that is of an
improper format or requires intra-claim restriction).
7. The benefits of the rule making.
8. Other information related to this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, including any assumptions or findings stated above.
Dated: March 5, 2008.
John Doll,
Commissioner for Patents.
[FR Doc. E8-4744 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
