Changes in the Requirements for Filing Requests for Reconsideration of Final Office Actions in Trademark Cases, 6984-6986 [E7-2519]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6984
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Related Information
´
(h) Refer to MCAI Direccion Nacional de
Aeronavegabilidad AD No. RA 2006–06–01,
Rev. 1 LAVIA S.A., Amendment No. 39/03–
041, dated November 17, 2006; and
´
Latinoamericana de Aviacion S.A. Service
Bulletin No. 25/53/03, dated May 10, 2006,
for related information.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
February 8, 2007.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–2508 Filed 2–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
errors that may prove to be misleading
and are in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of
proposed rulemaking (REG–159444–04),
which was the subject of FR Doc. E7–
219, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 1302, column 1, in the
preamble, under the paragraph heading
‘‘Background’’, sixth line from the
bottom of the second paragraph of the
column, the language ‘‘addition these
provisions to the Code,’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘addition of these provisions to the
Code,’’.
§ 301.6325–1
[Corrected]
2. On page 1306, column 3,
§ 301.6325–1(a)(2)(i), fourth paragraph
of the column, sixth line from the
bottom of the paragraph, the language
‘‘been put into the matter. In no case’’
is corrected to read ‘‘been put in the
matter. In no case’’.
LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E7–2496 Filed 2–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[REG–159444–04]
RIN 1545–BE35
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
Release of Lien or Discharge of
Property; Correction
37 CFR Part 2
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: This document contains
corrections to a notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–159444–04) that was
published in the Federal Register on
Thursday, January 11, 2007 (72 FR
1301) relating to release of lien and
discharge of property under sections
6325, 6503, and 7426 of the Internal
Revenue Code.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Debra A. Kohn, (202) 622–7985 (not tollfree number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The correction notice that is the
subject of this document is under
sections 6325, 6503, and 7426 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–159444–04) contains
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
[Docket No. PTO–T–2006–0011]
RIN 0651–AC05
Changes in the Requirements for Filing
Requests for Reconsideration of Final
Office Actions in Trademark Cases
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’) proposes
to amend 37 CFR 2.64 to require a
request for reconsideration of an
examining attorney’s final refusal or
requirement to be filed through the
Trademark Electronic Application
System (‘‘TEAS’’) within three months
of the mailing date of the final action.
DATES: Comments must be received by
April 16, 2007 to ensure consideration.
ADDRESSES: The Office prefers that
comments be submitted via electronic
mail message to TM RECON
COMMENTS@USPTO.GOV. Written
comments may also be submitted by
mail to Commissioner for Trademarks,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313–
1451, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by
hand delivery to the Trademark
Assistance Center, Concourse Level,
James Madison Building-East Wing, 600
Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by
electronic mail message 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 on the Office’s Web
site at https://www.uspto.gov. and will
also be available at the Office of the
Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison
East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Trademark
Examination Policy, by telephone at
(571) 272–8742.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
USPTO proposes the amendment of 37
CFR 2.64 to streamline and promote
efficiency in the process once a final
action has issued in an application for
trademark registration. By setting a
three-month period in which to file a
request for reconsideration of the final
action, and by requiring that the request
be filed through TEAS, the proposed
amendment would facilitate the likely
disposition of an applicant’s request for
reconsideration prior to the six-month
deadline for filing an appeal to the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
(‘‘TTAB’’) or petition to the Director on
the same final action. This may
eliminate the need for some appeals or
petitions, and reduces the need for
remands and transfers of applications
on appeal.
A request for reconsideration of a
final action does not extend the time for
filing an appeal or petitioning the
Director on that action. Under the
current version of the rule, wherein the
applicant may file a request for
reconsideration at any time between the
final action and the six-month deadline
for appealing or petitioning, many
applicants simultaneously seek
reconsideration and file an appeal.
Because the examining attorney loses
jurisdiction over the application upon
the filing of an appeal to the TTAB, this
simultaneous pursuit of reconsideration
and appeal often necessitates a remand
by the TTAB to the examining attorney
for a decision on the request for
reconsideration. If the request is denied,
then the case is transferred back to the
TTAB. If the request is granted, and the
examining attorney reconsiders the final
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
action, the appeal or petition may
become moot. The need for these
remands and transfers contributes to the
burden on the applicant and the
USPTO, and prolongs the pendency of
the case.
In order to eliminate some appeals
and petitions and reduce the need for
these remands and transfers, the
proposed rule provides that a request for
reconsideration must be filed within
three months of the final action, while
the six-month period for appeal or
petition remains unchanged. Normally,
the examining attorney will reply to the
request for reconsideration before the
end of the six-month period to appeal or
petition. To facilitate the prompt
consideration by the examining
attorney, the proposed rule further
provides that the request must be filed
through TEAS, which expedites the
examining attorney’s notice of and
access to the request.
The proposed earlier deadline and
mandatory TEAS filing facilitate the
likely disposition of the request for
reconsideration prior to the deadline to
petition or appeal. A grant of
reconsideration within this time frame
will obviate the need for an applicant to
file an appeal or petition, thus also
saving the applicant the filing fee for an
appeal or petition. A denial of
reconsideration within this time frame
will obviate the need for a case on
appeal to be remanded and transferred
between the TTAB and the examining
attorney. Under either scenario, the time
frame in the proposed rule promotes
more efficient and prompt handling of
the case, and achieves benefits both for
the applicant and the USPTO.
References in this notice to ‘‘the Act,’’
‘‘the Trademark Act,’’ or ‘‘the statute’’
refer to the Trademark Act of 1946, 15
U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as amended.
‘‘TMEP’’ refers to the Trademark
Manual of Examining Procedure, 4th
Edition, April 2005.
Discussion of Specific Rule
The Office proposes to revise current
§ 2.64(b). This section concerns the time
frame for and effect of filing a request
for reconsideration of a final action, as
well as the treatment of amendments
accompanying such requests. The
proposed revision changes the period
for filing a request for reconsideration of
a final action to three months from the
date of the action. The proposed
revision also introduces a requirement
that any request for reconsideration be
filed through TEAS. In addition, the
proposed revision eliminates the
aspirational statement in the current
rule as to when an examining attorney
would ‘‘normally’’ act on such requests,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
as unnecessary to the rule. Nonetheless,
the USPTO anticipates that an
examining attorney will continue to act
promptly on such requests, and in any
event, before the end of the six-month
period to petition or appeal.
The proposed rule still affords
applicants the opportunity to submit
amendments for the full six-month
period from the date of the final action,
and maintains the practice under the
current rule that such amendments are
entered if they comply with the
applicable rules and statutory
provisions. As in the current version of
the rule, the filing of such amendments
does not extend the time for filing an
appeal or petitioning the Director.
The Office proposes a technical
correction to § 2.64(c), for consistency
with the proposed amendment to
§ 2.64(b), to eliminate the reference to
‘‘the six-month response period after
issuance of the final action.’’ The
reference would be changed to ‘‘the sixmonth period after issuance of the final
action.’’
Rule Making Requirements
Executive Order 13132: This rule does
not contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment
under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4,
1999).
Executive Order 12866: This rule has
been determined not to be significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866
(Sept. 30, 1993).
Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Deputy
General Counsel for General Law of the
United States Patent and Trademark
Office has certified to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that the proposed rule
changes will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b)). The changes proposed in
this notice would not impose any
additional fees on trademark applicants.
Rather, the proposed changes would
facilitate the likely disposition of the
request for reconsideration prior to the
deadline to petition or appeal. A grant
of reconsideration within this time
frame will obviate the need for an
applicant to file an appeal or petition,
thus also saving the applicant the filing
fee for an appeal or petition.
Paperwork Reduction Act: This notice
involves information collection
requirements which are subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The collection of information
involved in this notice has been
reviewed and previously approved by
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6985
OMB under OMB control number 0651–
0050. This notice proposes to require a
request for reconsideration of an
examining attorney’s final refusal or
requirement to be filed through TEAS
within three months of the mailing date
of the final action. The United States
Patent and Trademark Office is
resubmitting an information collection
package to OMB for its review and
approval because the changes in this
notice do affect the information
collection requirements associated with
the information collection under OMB
control number 0651–0050.
The estimated annual reporting
burden for OMB control number 0651–
0050 Electronic Response to Office
Action and Preliminary Amendment
Forms is 117,400 responses and 19,958
burden hours. The estimated time per
response is 10 minutes. The time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information is included in the
estimate. The collection is approved
through April of 2009.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether
the collection of information is
necessary for proper performance of the
functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy
of the agency’s estimate of the burden;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
to respondents.
Interested persons are requested to
send comments regarding these
information collections, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
the Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O.
Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313–1451
(Attn: Cynthia C. Lynch), and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, New Executive Office Building,
Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: Desk
Officer for the Patent and Trademark
Office).
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and
procedure, Trademarks.
For the reasons stated, title 37 CFR
part 2 is proposed to be amended as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
6986
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
TRADEMARK CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR
part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 2.64 by revising
paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 2.64
Final action.
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) During the three-month period
after issuance of a final action, the
applicant may request that the
examining attorney reconsider the final
action. The request must be filed
through TEAS. The filing of a request
for reconsideration will not extend the
time for filing an appeal or petitioning
the Director.
(2) During the six-month period after
issuance of a final action, the applicant
may submit amendments. Any such
amendments will be examined, and will
be entered if they comply with the rules
of practice in trademark cases and the
Act of 1946. The filing of such an
amendment will not extend the time for
filing an appeal or petitioning the
Director.
(c)(1) If an applicant in an application
under section 1(b) of the Act files an
amendment to allege use under § 2.76
during the six-month period after
issuance of a final action, the examiner
shall examine the amendment. The
filing of such an amendment will not
extend the time for filing an appeal or
petitioning the Director.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 8, 2007.
Jon W. Dudas,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. E7–2519 Filed 2–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0101; FRL–8277–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes: California
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a
request submitted by the State to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
redesignate the South Coast from
nonattainment to attainment for the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to
approve a state implementation plan
(SIP) revision for the South Coast
nonattainment area in California as
meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for maintenance plans for
carbon monoxide (CO). EPA is
proposing to find adequate and approve
motor vehicle emission budgets, which
are included in the maintenance plan.
Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the
California motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program as meeting
the low enhanced I/M requirements for
CO in the South Coast.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2007–0101, by one of the
following methods:
1. Agency Web site: https://
www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this
electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions
to submit comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
3. E-mail: jesson.david@epa.gov
4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office
of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or
e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are anonymous
access systems, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Jesson, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415–
972–3961, david.jesson@epa.gov or
https://www.epa.gov/region09/air/
actions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action
II. CO SIPs for the South Coast
A. Requirements for Serious CO
Nonattainment Areas
B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast
C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South
Coast
III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment
A. Attainment of the NAAQS
1. Basis for Determining Attainment
2. Record of Attainment in the South Coast
B. Fully Approved Applicable
Implementation Plan Under CAA
Section 110(k) Meeting Requirements
Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation
Under Section 110 and Part D
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA
Section 110
2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding Part
D Requirements
a. Introduction
b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration
c. Contingency Provisions
(1) Introduction
(2) CAA Section 172(c)(9)
(3) CAA Section 187(a)(3)
d. Conclusion
3. TCMs to Offset Growth in Emissions
From VMT Increases
4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M Program
5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline
Program
6. Conclusion
C. Improvement in Air Quality is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Measures
D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
1. Applicable Requirements
2. Maintenance Plan Provisions
a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment
Year and Future Years
b. Maintenance Demonstration
c. Monitoring Network and Verification of
Continued Attainment
d. Contingency Provisions
e. Commitment to Submit Subsequent
Maintenance Plan Revision
f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
g. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 14, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6984-6986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2519]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. PTO-T-2006-0011]
RIN 0651-AC05
Changes in the Requirements for Filing Requests for
Reconsideration of Final Office Actions in Trademark Cases
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'')
proposes to amend 37 CFR 2.64 to require a request for reconsideration
of an examining attorney's final refusal or requirement to be filed
through the Trademark Electronic Application System (``TEAS'') within
three months of the mailing date of the final action.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 16, 2007 to ensure
consideration.
ADDRESSES: The Office prefers that comments be submitted via electronic
mail message to TM RECON COMMENTS@USPTO.GOV. Written comments may also
be submitted by mail to Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451,
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by hand
delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James
Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by electronic mail message 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 on the
Office's Web site at https://www.uspto.gov. and will also be available
at the Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison East, Tenth
Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by telephone at (571)
272-8742.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USPTO proposes the amendment of 37 CFR
2.64 to streamline and promote efficiency in the process once a final
action has issued in an application for trademark registration. By
setting a three-month period in which to file a request for
reconsideration of the final action, and by requiring that the request
be filed through TEAS, the proposed amendment would facilitate the
likely disposition of an applicant's request for reconsideration prior
to the six-month deadline for filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board (``TTAB'') or petition to the Director on the same
final action. This may eliminate the need for some appeals or
petitions, and reduces the need for remands and transfers of
applications on appeal.
A request for reconsideration of a final action does not extend the
time for filing an appeal or petitioning the Director on that action.
Under the current version of the rule, wherein the applicant may file a
request for reconsideration at any time between the final action and
the six-month deadline for appealing or petitioning, many applicants
simultaneously seek reconsideration and file an appeal. Because the
examining attorney loses jurisdiction over the application upon the
filing of an appeal to the TTAB, this simultaneous pursuit of
reconsideration and appeal often necessitates a remand by the TTAB to
the examining attorney for a decision on the request for
reconsideration. If the request is denied, then the case is transferred
back to the TTAB. If the request is granted, and the examining attorney
reconsiders the final
[[Page 6985]]
action, the appeal or petition may become moot. The need for these
remands and transfers contributes to the burden on the applicant and
the USPTO, and prolongs the pendency of the case.
In order to eliminate some appeals and petitions and reduce the
need for these remands and transfers, the proposed rule provides that a
request for reconsideration must be filed within three months of the
final action, while the six-month period for appeal or petition remains
unchanged. Normally, the examining attorney will reply to the request
for reconsideration before the end of the six-month period to appeal or
petition. To facilitate the prompt consideration by the examining
attorney, the proposed rule further provides that the request must be
filed through TEAS, which expedites the examining attorney's notice of
and access to the request.
The proposed earlier deadline and mandatory TEAS filing facilitate
the likely disposition of the request for reconsideration prior to the
deadline to petition or appeal. A grant of reconsideration within this
time frame will obviate the need for an applicant to file an appeal or
petition, thus also saving the applicant the filing fee for an appeal
or petition. A denial of reconsideration within this time frame will
obviate the need for a case on appeal to be remanded and transferred
between the TTAB and the examining attorney. Under either scenario, the
time frame in the proposed rule promotes more efficient and prompt
handling of the case, and achieves benefits both for the applicant and
the USPTO.
References in this notice to ``the Act,'' ``the Trademark Act,'' or
``the statute'' refer to the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et
seq., as amended. ``TMEP'' refers to the Trademark Manual of Examining
Procedure, 4th Edition, April 2005.
Discussion of Specific Rule
The Office proposes to revise current Sec. 2.64(b). This section
concerns the time frame for and effect of filing a request for
reconsideration of a final action, as well as the treatment of
amendments accompanying such requests. The proposed revision changes
the period for filing a request for reconsideration of a final action
to three months from the date of the action. The proposed revision also
introduces a requirement that any request for reconsideration be filed
through TEAS. In addition, the proposed revision eliminates the
aspirational statement in the current rule as to when an examining
attorney would ``normally'' act on such requests, as unnecessary to the
rule. Nonetheless, the USPTO anticipates that an examining attorney
will continue to act promptly on such requests, and in any event,
before the end of the six-month period to petition or appeal.
The proposed rule still affords applicants the opportunity to
submit amendments for the full six-month period from the date of the
final action, and maintains the practice under the current rule that
such amendments are entered if they comply with the applicable rules
and statutory provisions. As in the current version of the rule, the
filing of such amendments does not extend the time for filing an appeal
or petitioning the Director.
The Office proposes a technical correction to Sec. 2.64(c), for
consistency with the proposed amendment to Sec. 2.64(b), to eliminate
the reference to ``the six-month response period after issuance of the
final action.'' The reference would be changed to ``the six-month
period after issuance of the final action.''
Rule Making Requirements
Executive Order 13132: This rule does not contain policies with
federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
Executive Order 12866: This rule has been determined not to be
significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Deputy General Counsel for General
Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
that the proposed rule changes will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b)). The changes proposed in this notice would not impose
any additional fees on trademark applicants. Rather, the proposed
changes would facilitate the likely disposition of the request for
reconsideration prior to the deadline to petition or appeal. A grant of
reconsideration within this time frame will obviate the need for an
applicant to file an appeal or petition, thus also saving the applicant
the filing fee for an appeal or petition.
Paperwork Reduction Act: This notice involves information
collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection of information involved in
this notice has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under OMB
control number 0651-0050. This notice proposes to require a request for
reconsideration of an examining attorney's final refusal or requirement
to be filed through TEAS within three months of the mailing date of the
final action. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is
resubmitting an information collection package to OMB for its review
and approval because the changes in this notice do affect the
information collection requirements associated with the information
collection under OMB control number 0651-0050.
The estimated annual reporting burden for OMB control number 0651-
0050 Electronic Response to Office Action and Preliminary Amendment
Forms is 117,400 responses and 19,958 burden hours. The estimated time
per response is 10 minutes. The time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information is included in the estimate. The
collection is approved through April of 2009.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the agency; (2)
the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information to respondents.
Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding these
information collections, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to the Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria,
VA 22313-1451 (Attn: Cynthia C. Lynch), and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: Desk Officer for the Patent and Trademark
Office).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.
For the reasons stated, title 37 CFR part 2 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
[[Page 6986]]
PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 2.64 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 2.64 Final action.
* * * * *
(b)(1) During the three-month period after issuance of a final
action, the applicant may request that the examining attorney
reconsider the final action. The request must be filed through TEAS.
The filing of a request for reconsideration will not extend the time
for filing an appeal or petitioning the Director.
(2) During the six-month period after issuance of a final action,
the applicant may submit amendments. Any such amendments will be
examined, and will be entered if they comply with the rules of practice
in trademark cases and the Act of 1946. The filing of such an amendment
will not extend the time for filing an appeal or petitioning the
Director.
(c)(1) If an applicant in an application under section 1(b) of the
Act files an amendment to allege use under Sec. 2.76 during the six-
month period after issuance of a final action, the examiner shall
examine the amendment. The filing of such an amendment will not extend
the time for filing an appeal or petitioning the Director.
* * * * *
Dated: February 8, 2007.
Jon W. Dudas,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. E7-2519 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
