Fee for Filing a Patent Application Other Than by the Electronic Filing System, 70651-70653 [2011-29462]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
docket where indicated under
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a
category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule
involves the establishment of a safety
zone. An environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the
16:12 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ADDRESSES.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects under
Executive Order 13211.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
70651
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Patent and Trademark Office
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
37 CFR Part 1
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165, as follows:
RIN 0651–AC64
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for Part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T13–200 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T13–200 Safety Zone; Department of
Defense Exercise, Hood Canal, Washington.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All waters encompassed
within 1000 yards of any vessel that is
involved in the Department of Defense
exercise while such vessel is transiting
Hood Canal, WA between Foul Weather
Bluff and the entrance to Dabob Bay.
Vessels involved will be various sizes,
including 25, 33, and 64 feet in length
and can be identified as being gray in
color with an orange United States Coast
Guard stripe on the vessels’ hull.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with
the general regulations in 33 CFR part
165, subpart C, no person may enter or
remain in the safety zone created in this
rule unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port or his Designated
Representative. See 33 CFR part 165,
subpart C, for additional information
and requirements. Vessel operators
wishing to enter the zone during the
enforcement period must request
permission for entry by contacting the
on-scene patrol commander on VHF
channel 13 or 16, or the Sector Puget
Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center at
(206) 217–6001.
(c) Enforcement Period. This rule is
effective on November 21, 2011 from 6
a.m. to 11:59 p.m., unless canceled
sooner by the Captain of the Port.
Dated: October 27, 2011.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011–29408 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[Docket No. PTO–P–2011–0065]
Fee for Filing a Patent Application
Other Than by the Electronic Filing
System
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act provides an additional fee
of $400 for applications not filed
electronically. This final rule revises the
rules of practice to include the fee for
applications not filed electronically.
DATES: Effective Date: November 15,
2011.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James J. Engel, Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration,
Office of the Associate Commissioner
for Patent Examination Policy, by
telephone at (571) 272–7725; or by mail
addressed to: Mail Stop Comments
Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
10(h) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act provides that an additional
fee of $400 shall be established for each
application for an original (i.e., nonreissue) patent, except for a design,
plant, or provisional application, that is
not filed by electronic means as
prescribed by the Director of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO). See Public Law 112–29, 125
Stat. 283, 319 (2011). Section 10(h) also
provides that this fee is reduced by 50
percent for small entities under
35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1). See id. Section 10(h)
also provides that this new fee is
effective on November 15, 2011 (sixty
days after the date of enactment of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act). See
id. This final rule revises 37 CFR 1.16
and 1.445 to include the fee for
applications not filed electronically.
The USPTO encourages applicants to
file their applications via its electronic
filing system (EFS-Web) to avoid the fee
provided for by section 10(h) of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
Information concerning electronic filing
via EFS-Web is available from the
USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at https://www.uspto.gov/
patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp.
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
70652
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Section-by-Section Discussion
Title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1, is amended as
follows:
Section 1.16: Section 1.16(t) is added
to require the non-electronic filing fee of
$400 ($200 for a small entity) for any
application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (i.e.,
any nonprovisional application) that is
filed on or after November 15, 2011,
other than by the USPTO’s electronic
filing system (EFS-Web), except for a
reissue, design, or plant application.
Section 1.445: The introductory text
of § 1.445(a) is amended to add ‘‘by law
or’’ prior to ‘‘by the Director under the
authority of 35 U.S.C. 376’’ because the
fee for filing an application other than
by the USPTO’s electronic filing system
is established by law (section 10(h) of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act).
Section 1.445(a) is amended to set out
the current transmittal fee as a basic fee
in § 1.445(a)(1)(i) and to add a new
§ 1.445(a)(1)(ii) setting out the nonelectronic filing fee of $400 ($200 for a
small entity) for any Patent Cooperation
Treaty (PCT) international application
designating the United States of
America that is filed on or after
November 15, 2011, other than by the
USPTO’s electronic filing system (EFSWeb), except for a plant application.
Section 1.445(a)(1)(ii) does not contain
a reference to reissue, design, or
provisional applications as these types
of applications cannot be filed via the
PCT. While § 1.445(a)(1)(ii) contains a
reference to plant applications, the
USPTO advises against filing a plant
application under the PCT because
many countries do not consider this
subject matter to be patent-eligible, and
the color drawings or color photographs
that are often necessary for plant
applications (§ 1.165(b)) are not
permitted in PCT international
applications (PCT Applicant’s Guide
(¶ 5.159) (Oct. 2011)).
The USPTO will consider
applications filed with the USPTO via
the Department of Defense Secret
Internet Protocol Router Network
(SIPRNET) as filed via the USPTO’s
electronic filing system for purposes of
§ 1.16(t) and § 1.445(a)(1)(ii).
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Rule Making Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act
(APA): Section 10(h) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act provides that an
additional fee of $400 ($200 for a small
entity) shall be established for each
application for an original (i.e., nonreissue) patent, except for a design,
plant, or provisional application, that is
not filed by electronic means as
prescribed by the Director of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
USPTO. The changes in this final rule
simply reiterate the provisions of
section 10(h) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act and are thus
merely interpretative. See Gray Panthers
Advocacy Comm. v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d
1284, 1291–1292 (DC Cir. 1991)
(regulation that reiterates statutory
language does not require notice and
comment procedures). Accordingly,
prior notice and an opportunity for
public comment are not required
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) or any
other law. See Cooper Techs. Co. v.
Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–37 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and
thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require
notice and comment rule making for
‘‘interpretative rules, general statements
of policy, or rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice.’’)
(quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). In
addition, thirty-day advance publication
is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d) or any other law. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d) (requiring thirty-day advance
publication for substantive rules).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior
notice and an opportunity for public
comment are not required pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither
a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a
certification under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is
required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
C. Executive Order 13132
(Federalism): This rule making does not
contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment
under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4,
1999).
D. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review): This rule making
has been determined not to be
significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as
amended by Executive Order 13258
(Feb. 26, 2002) and Executive Order
13422 (Jan. 18, 2007).
E. Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review): The
USPTO has complied with Executive
Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011).
Specifically, the USPTO has, to the
extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made
a reasoned determination that the
benefits justify the costs of the rule;
(2) tailored the rule to impose the least
burden on society consistent with
obtaining the regulatory objectives;
(3) selected a regulatory approach that
maximizes net benefits; (4) specified
performance objectives; (5) identified
and assessed available alternatives;
(6) involved the public in an open
exchange of information and
perspectives among experts in relevant
disciplines, affected stakeholders in the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
private sector, and the public as a
whole, and provided on-line access to
the rule making docket; (7) attempted to
promote coordination, simplification,
and harmonization across government
agencies and identified goals designed
to promote innovation; (8) considered
approaches that reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public; and (9) ensured
the objectivity of scientific and
technological information and
processes.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation): This rule making will
not: (1) Have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal government; or (3) preempt
tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required under
Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).
G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Effect): This rule making is not
significant energy action under
Executive Order 13211 because this rule
making is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore,
a Statement of Energy Effects is not
required under Executive Order 13211
(May 18, 2001).
H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform): This rule making meets
applicable standards to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden as set forth in sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children): This rule making is not an
economically significant rule and does
not concern an environmental risk to
health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children under
Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property): This rule making will
not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications
under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15,
1988).
K. Congressional Review Act: Under
the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the USPTO
will submit a report containing this final
rule and other required information to
the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the Government
Accountability Office. The change in
this rule making is not expected to
result in an annual effect on the
economy of 100 million dollars or more,
a major increase in costs or prices, or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, this rule making is not
expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995: The changes proposed in this
notice do not involve a Federal
intergovernmental mandate that will
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or
more in any one year, or a Federal
private sector mandate that will result
in the expenditure by the private sector
of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or
more in any one year, and will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions are
necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
M. National Environmental Policy
Act: The rule making will not have any
effect on the quality of the environment
and is thus categorically excluded from
review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1968. See
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
N. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act: The requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are
inapplicable, because this rule making
does not involve the use of technical
standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act: This
rule making 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.). As discussed
previously, the changes in this final rule
simply reiterate the provisions of
section 10(h) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act. The collection of
information involved in this rule
making has been reviewed and
previously approved by OMB under
OMB control numbers 0651–0021 and
0651–0032. This notice does not add
any additional information collection
requirements for patent applicants or
patentees. Therefore, the USPTO is not
resubmitting information collection
packages to OMB for its review and
approval because the changes proposed
in this notice do not affect the
information collection requirements
associated with the information
collections under OMB control numbers
0651–0021 and 0651–0032. The USPTO
will update fee calculations for the
currently approved information
collections associated with this rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
making upon submission to the OMB of
the renewals of those information
collections.
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 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Inventions and patents,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses, and
Biologics.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended as
follows:
PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
PATENT CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR
part 1 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 1.16 is amended by adding
paragraph (t) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.16 National application filing, search,
and examination fees.
*
*
*
*
*
(t) Non-electronic filing fee for any
application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that
is filed on or after November 15, 2011,
other than by the Office electronic filing
system, except for a reissue, design, or
plant application:
By a small entity (§ 1.27(a)) ........
By other than a small entity .......
*
*
*
*
70653
$200.00
$400.00
*
Dated: November 7, 2011.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–29462 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3055
[Docket No. RM2011–14; Order No. 947]
Performance Measurement
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is adopting
a rule addressing reporting requirements
for the measurement of the level of
service the Postal Service provides in
connection with Stamp Fulfillment
Services following consideration of
comments filed in response to a
proposed rule. No commenter opposed
the proposed rule. The final rule is
therefore adopted as proposed.
Adoption of this rule will foster greater
transparency and accountability.
DATES: Effective date: December 15,
2011.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
at (202) 789–6820 or
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
By a small entity (§ 1.27(a)) ........
By other than a small entity .......
*
*
*
*
$200.00
$400.00
*
Regulatory History: 76 FR 55619
(September 8, 2011).
Table of Contents
3. Section 1.445 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.445 International application filing,
processing and search fees.
(a) The following fees and charges for
international applications are
established by law or by the Director
under the authority of 35 U.S.C. 376:
(1) A transmittal fee (see 35 U.S.C.
361(d) and PCT Rule 14) consisting of:
I. Introduction
II. Procedural History
III. Background of Postal Service Proposals
IV. Service Performance Measurement
Reporting
V. Service Performance Measurement
Reporting Rules
VI. Review of Comments
VII. Final Rule
VIII. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
This rulemaking is part of the series
of rulemakings initiated by the Postal
(i) A basic portion .......................
$240.00
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
(ii) A non-electronic filing fee portion to fulfill its responsibilities under the
for any international application
Postal Accountability and Enhancement
designating the United States of
Act (PAEA), Public Law 109–435, 120
America that is filed on or after
Stat. 3198 (2006). The final rules
November 15, 2011, other than by the
described herein, which establish
Office electronic filing system, except
reporting requirements for the
for a plant application:
measurements of level of service
afforded by the Postal Service in
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70651-70653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29462]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2011-0065]
RIN 0651-AC64
Fee for Filing a Patent Application Other Than by the Electronic
Filing System
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provides an additional fee
of $400 for applications not filed electronically. This final rule
revises the rules of practice to include the fee for applications not
filed electronically.
DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James J. Engel, Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Associate
Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-
7725; or by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments Patents, Commissioner
for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 10(h) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act provides that an additional fee of $400 shall be
established for each application for an original (i.e., non-reissue)
patent, except for a design, plant, or provisional application, that is
not filed by electronic means as prescribed by the Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See Public Law 112-
29, 125 Stat. 283, 319 (2011). Section 10(h) also provides that this
fee is reduced by 50 percent for small entities under 35 U.S.C.
41(h)(1). See id. Section 10(h) also provides that this new fee is
effective on November 15, 2011 (sixty days after the date of enactment
of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act). See id. This final rule
revises 37 CFR 1.16 and 1.445 to include the fee for applications not
filed electronically.
The USPTO encourages applicants to file their applications via its
electronic filing system (EFS-Web) to avoid the fee provided for by
section 10(h) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Information
concerning electronic filing via EFS-Web is available from the USPTO's
Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp.
[[Page 70652]]
Section-by-Section Discussion
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, is amended as
follows:
Section 1.16: Section 1.16(t) is added to require the non-
electronic filing fee of $400 ($200 for a small entity) for any
application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (i.e., any nonprovisional
application) that is filed on or after November 15, 2011, other than by
the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS-Web), except for a reissue,
design, or plant application.
Section 1.445: The introductory text of Sec. 1.445(a) is amended
to add ``by law or'' prior to ``by the Director under the authority of
35 U.S.C. 376'' because the fee for filing an application other than by
the USPTO's electronic filing system is established by law (section
10(h) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act). Section 1.445(a) is
amended to set out the current transmittal fee as a basic fee in Sec.
1.445(a)(1)(i) and to add a new Sec. 1.445(a)(1)(ii) setting out the
non-electronic filing fee of $400 ($200 for a small entity) for any
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international application designating
the United States of America that is filed on or after November 15,
2011, other than by the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS-Web),
except for a plant application. Section 1.445(a)(1)(ii) does not
contain a reference to reissue, design, or provisional applications as
these types of applications cannot be filed via the PCT. While Sec.
1.445(a)(1)(ii) contains a reference to plant applications, the USPTO
advises against filing a plant application under the PCT because many
countries do not consider this subject matter to be patent-eligible,
and the color drawings or color photographs that are often necessary
for plant applications (Sec. 1.165(b)) are not permitted in PCT
international applications (PCT Applicant's Guide (] 5.159) (Oct.
2011)).
The USPTO will consider applications filed with the USPTO via the
Department of Defense Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET)
as filed via the USPTO's electronic filing system for purposes of Sec.
1.16(t) and Sec. 1.445(a)(1)(ii).
Rule Making Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Section 10(h) of the Leahy-
Smith America Invents Act provides that an additional fee of $400 ($200
for a small entity) shall be established for each application for an
original (i.e., non-reissue) patent, except for a design, plant, or
provisional application, that is not filed by electronic means as
prescribed by the Director of the USPTO. The changes in this final rule
simply reiterate the provisions of section 10(h) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act and are thus merely interpretative. See Gray
Panthers Advocacy Comm. v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1284, 1291-1292 (DC Cir.
1991) (regulation that reiterates statutory language does not require
notice and comment procedures). Accordingly, prior notice and an
opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A) or any other law. See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d
1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35
U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice and comment rule making for
``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice.'') (quoting 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A)). In addition, thirty-day advance publication is not required
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) or any other law. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
(requiring thirty-day advance publication for substantive rules).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity
for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any
other law, neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a
certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rule making does not
contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132
(Aug. 4, 1999).
D. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rule making has been determined not to be significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as amended by Executive Order
13258 (Feb. 26, 2002) and Executive Order 13422 (Jan. 18, 2007).
E. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review): The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18,
2011). Specifically, the USPTO has, to the extent feasible and
applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify
the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden
on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3)
selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4)
specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available
alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of
information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines,
affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole,
and provided on-line access to the rule making docket; (7) attempted to
promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across
government agencies and identified goals designed to promote
innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the
objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rule making
will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
government; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6,
2000).
G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effect): This rule making is not
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rule
making is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001).
H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rule making
meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity,
and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rule making
is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately
affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rule
making will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
K. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the USPTO will submit a report containing
this final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the
U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
Government Accountability Office. The change in this rule making is not
expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million
dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
[[Page 70653]]
productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. Therefore, this rule making is not expected to result
in a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes proposed in
this notice do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that
will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any
one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the
expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted)
or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.
M. National Environmental Policy Act: The rule making will not have
any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1968. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are inapplicable, because
this rule making does not involve the use of technical standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule making 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.). As discussed previously, the changes in this
final rule simply reiterate the provisions of section 10(h) of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The collection of information involved
in this rule making has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB
under OMB control numbers 0651-0021 and 0651-0032. This notice does not
add any additional information collection requirements for patent
applicants or patentees. Therefore, the USPTO is not resubmitting
information collection packages to OMB for its review and approval
because the changes proposed in this notice do not affect the
information collection requirements associated with the information
collections under OMB control numbers 0651-0021 and 0651-0032. The
USPTO will update fee calculations for the currently approved
information collections associated with this rule making upon
submission to the OMB of the renewals of those information collections.
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 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses, and Biologics.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended
as follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
0
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.16 is amended by adding paragraph (t) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.16 National application filing, search, and examination fees.
* * * * *
(t) Non-electronic filing fee for any application under 35 U.S.C.
111(a) that is filed on or after November 15, 2011, other than by the
Office electronic filing system, except for a reissue, design, or plant
application:
By a small entity (Sec. 1.27(a))........................... $200.00
By other than a small entity................................. $400.00
* * * * *
0
3. Section 1.445 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.445 International application filing, processing and search
fees.
(a) The following fees and charges for international applications
are established by law or by the Director under the authority of 35
U.S.C. 376:
(1) A transmittal fee (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 14)
consisting of:
(i) A basic portion.......................................... $240.00
(ii) A non-electronic filing fee portion for any international
application designating the United States of America that is filed on
or after November 15, 2011, other than by the Office electronic filing
system, except for a plant application:
By a small entity (Sec. 1.27(a))........................... $200.00
By other than a small entity................................. $400.00
* * * * *
Dated: November 7, 2011.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2011-29462 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P