Changes to Continued Prosecution Application Practice, 12384-12386 [2014-04807]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12384
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
PART 1005—LOAN GUARANTEES
FOR INDIAN HOUSING
1. The authority citation for part 1005
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1715z–13a, 15 U.S.C.
1639c, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
2. Revise § 1005.109 to read as
follows:
■
§ 1005.109
Guarantee Fees.
HUD shall establish and collect, at the
time of issuance of the guarantee, a fee
for the guarantee of loans under this
section, in an amount not exceeding 3
percent of the principal obligation of the
loan, or any increase established by
statute. HUD shall establish the amount
of the fee by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register, and shall deposit any
fees collected under this section in the
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund.
Dated: February 21, 2014.
Sandra B. Henriquez,
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing.
[FR Doc. 2014–04514 Filed 3–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO–P–2014–0001]
RIN 0651–AC92
Changes to Continued Prosecution
Application Practice
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Interim rule.
AGENCY:
The Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act (AIA) revised and
streamlined the requirements for the
inventor’s oath or declaration. In
implementing the AIA inventor’s oath
or declaration provisions, the United
States Patent and Trademark Office
(Office) provided that an applicant may
postpone the filing of the inventor’s
oath or declaration until allowance if
the applicant provides an application
data sheet indicating the name,
residence, and mailing address of each
inventor. The rules pertaining to
continued prosecution applications
(which are applicable only to design
applications) require that the prior
nonprovisional application of a
continued prosecution application be
complete, which requires that the prior
nonprovisional application contain the
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:46 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
inventor’s oath or declaration. This
interim rule revises the rules pertaining
to continued prosecution applications to
permit the filing of a continued
prosecution application even if the prior
nonprovisional application does not
contain the inventor’s oath or
declaration if the continued prosecution
application is filed on or after
September 16, 2012, and the prior
nonprovisional application contains an
application data sheet indicating the
name, residence, and mailing address of
each inventor.
DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2014.
Comment Deadline Date: Written
comments must be received on or before
May 5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
by electronic mail message over the
Internet addressed to: AC92.comments@
uspto.gov. Comments also may be
submitted by postal mail addressed to:
Mail Stop Comments—Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450,
marked to the attention of Eugenia A.
Jones, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of
Patent Legal Administration, Office of
the Deputy Commissioner for Patent
Examination Policy.
Comments likewise may 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.
Although comments may be
submitted by postal mail, the Office
prefers to receive comments by
electronic mail message over the
Internet because sharing comments with
the public is more easily accomplished.
Electronic comments in plain text are
preferred, but comments in ADOBE®
portable document format or
MICROSOFT WORD® format are also
acceptable. Comments not submitted
electronically should be submitted on
paper in a format that facilitates
convenient digital scanning into
ADOBE® portable document format.
Comments will be available for
viewing via the Office’s Internet Web
site (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:
Eugenia A. Jones, Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner for
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Patent Examination Policy, at (571) 272–
7727.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary: Purpose: This
interim rule permits the filing of a
continued prosecution application even
if the prior nonprovisional application
does not contain the inventor’s oath or
declaration. This change is to avoid the
need for applicants to file the inventor’s
oath or declaration in an application in
order to file a continued prosecution
application of that application.
Summary of Major Provisions: This
interim rule provides that the prior
nonprovisional application of a
continued prosecution application that
was filed on or after September 16, 2012
is not required to contain the inventor’s
oath or declaration if the prior
nonprovisional application contains an
application data sheet indicating the
name, residence, and mailing address of
each inventor.
Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is
not economically significant under
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
Background: The Office has revised
the rules of practice pertaining to the
inventor’s oath or declaration to permit
an applicant to postpone the filing of
the inventor’s oath or declaration until
payment of the issue fee if the applicant
provides an application data sheet
indicating the name, residence, and
mailing address of each inventor. See
Changes To Implement the Inventor’s
Oath or Declaration Provisions of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77
FR 48776, 48779–80 (Aug. 14, 2012),
and Changes to Implement the Patent
Law Treaty, 78 FR 62367, 62376 (Oct.
21, 2013). The rules of practice
pertaining to continued prosecution
applications (which are applicable only
to design applications) require that the
prior nonprovisional application of a
continued prosecution application be a
design application that is complete as
defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b). See 37 CFR
1.53(d)(1)(ii) (requires that the prior
nonprovisional application of a
continued prosecution application be a
design application that is complete as
defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b)). 37 CFR
1.51(b) in turn requires that an
application contain the inventor’s oath
or declaration to be complete. See 37
CFR 1.51(b)(2). This interim rule
amends 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1)(ii) to permit
the filing of a continued prosecution
application even if the prior
nonprovisional application does not
contain the inventor’s oath or
declaration if the continued prosecution
application is filed on or after
September 16, 2012, and the prior
nonprovisional application contains an
E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM
05MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
application data sheet indicating the
name, residence, and mailing address of
each inventor. This change is to avoid
the need for applicants to file the
inventor’s oath or declaration in an
application in order to file a continued
prosecution application of that
application.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Discussion of Specific Rules
The following is a discussion of the
amendments to Title 37 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 1.
Section 1.53: Section 1.53(d)(1)(ii) is
amended to change ‘‘[t]he prior
nonprovisional application is a design
application that is complete as defined
by § 1.51(b)’’ to ‘‘[t]he prior
nonprovisional application is a design
application that is complete as defined
by § 1.51(b), except for the inventor’s
oath or declaration if the application is
filed on or after September 16, 2012,
and the prior nonprovisional
application contains an application data
sheet meeting the conditions specified
in § 1.53(f)(3)(i).’’
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: This
interim rule revises the procedures that
apply to the filing of a continued
prosecution application. The changes in
this interim rule do not change the
substantive criteria of patentability.
Therefore, the changes proposed in this
rulemaking involve rules of agency
practice and procedure, and/or
interpretive rules. See JEM Broad. Co. v.
FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
(‘‘[T]he critical feature of the procedural
exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] is that
it covers agency actions that do not
themselves alter the rights or interests of
parties, although [they] may alter the
manner in which the parties present
themselves or their viewpoints to the
agency’’) (quoting Batterton v. Marshall,
648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see
also Bachow Commc’ns Inc. v. F.C.C.,
237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules
governing an application process are
procedural under the Administrative
Procedure Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp.
v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir.
2001) (rules for handling appeals were
procedural where they did not change
the substantive standard for reviewing
claims).
In addition, the Office, pursuant to
authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), finds
good cause to adopt the changes in this
interim rule without prior notice and an
opportunity for public comment, as
such procedures are contrary to the
public interest. Delay in the
promulgation of this rule to provide
notice and comment procedures would
cause harm to those applicants who file
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:46 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
a continued prosecution application
where the prior nonprovisional
application does not contain the
inventor’s oath or declaration.
Immediate implementation of the
changes in this interim rule is in the
public interest because: (1) The public
does not need time to conform its
conduct as the changes in this interim
rule merely ease the requirements for
filing a continued prosecution
application; and (2) those applicants
who are currently ineligible to file a
continued prosecution application
because the prior nonprovisional
application does not contain the
inventor’s oath or declaration will
benefit from the changes in this interim
rule. See Nat’l. Customs Brokers &
Forwarders Ass’n v. U.S., 59 F.3d 1219,
1223–24 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, prior notice and
opportunity for public comment are not
required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or
(c), 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), 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), does not require notice
and comment rulemaking 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, pursuant to authority at 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the changes in this
interim rule may be made immediately
effective because they relieve
restrictions in the requirements for
filing a continued prosecution
application.
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 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review): This rulemaking
has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review): The
Office has complied with Executive
Order 13563. Specifically, the Office
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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12385
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
rulemaking 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.
E. Executive Order 13132
(Federalism): This rulemaking does not
contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment
under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4,
1999).
F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation): This rulemaking will not:
(1) Have substantial direct effects on one
or more Indian tribes; (2) impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments; 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
Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under
Executive Order 13211 because this
rulemaking 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 rulemaking 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 rulemaking 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 rulemaking will
not affect 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.), prior to
issuing any final rule, the United States
Patent and Trademark Office will
E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM
05MRR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
12386
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
submit a report containing the rule and
other required information to the United
States Senate, the United States House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the Government
Accountability Office. The changes in
this interim rule are 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,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, this interim rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995: The changes set forth 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: This rulemaking 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 1969. 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 not
applicable because this rulemaking does
not contain provisions which involve
the use of technical standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the
Office consider the impact of paperwork
and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. This
interim rule 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. 3501–3549). This rulemaking
does not impose any additional
collection requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act which are
subject to further review by OMB.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:46 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
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).
2. Section 1.53 is amended by revising
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.53 Application number, filing date, and
completion of application.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The prior nonprovisional
application is a design application that
is complete as defined by § 1.51(b),
except for the inventor’s oath or
declaration if the application is filed on
or after September 16, 2012, and the
prior nonprovisional application
contains an application data sheet
meeting the conditions specified in
§ 1.53(f)(3)(i).
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 27, 2014.
Michelle K. Lee,
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office.
[FR Doc. 2014–04807 Filed 3–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO–P–2014–0003]
RIN 0651–AC93
Changes to Permit Delayed
Submission of Certain Requirements
for Prioritized Examination
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
Interim rule.
The Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act includes provisions for
prioritized examination of patent
applications (also referred to as ‘‘Track
I’’), which have been implemented by
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (Office) in previous rulemakings.
This interim rule simplifies the Track I
prioritized examination practice to
reduce the number of requests for
prioritized examination that must be
dismissed. In order to enable rapid
processing and examination of those
applications, the previous rulemakings
provided that an application having a
request for Track I prioritized
examination requires, upon filing of the
application, an inventor’s oath or
declaration and all required fees, and
contains no more than four independent
claims, thirty total claims, and no
multiple dependent claims.
Accordingly, any request for Track I
prioritized examination not meeting all
of the requirements on filing must be
dismissed. The Office has found that
many such dismissals are due to the
application as filed not including a
properly executed inventor’s oath or
declaration, not including the excess
claims fees or application size fee due,
or improperly including a multiple
dependent claim or claims in excess of
the permitted number. The Office has
determined that the time periods for
meeting those requirements when filing
a request for Track I prioritized
examination could be expanded while
maintaining the Office’s ability to timely
examine the patent application.
DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2014.
Applicability Date: The changes to 37
CFR 1.102 apply only to applications
filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after
September 16, 2012, in which a first
action has not been mailed.
Comment Deadline Date: Written
comments must be received on or before
May 5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
by electronic mail message over the
Internet addressed to: AC93.comments@
uspto.gov. Comments also may be
submitted by postal mail addressed to:
Mail Stop Comments—Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450,
marked to the attention of John R.
Cottingham, Director, Office of
Petitions, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy.
Comments further may be sent by
electronic mail message over the
Internet via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking
Portal Web site (https://
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MRR1.SGM
05MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12384-12386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04807]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2014-0001]
RIN 0651-AC92
Changes to Continued Prosecution Application Practice
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) revised and
streamlined the requirements for the inventor's oath or declaration. In
implementing the AIA inventor's oath or declaration provisions, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) provided that an
applicant may postpone the filing of the inventor's oath or declaration
until allowance if the applicant provides an application data sheet
indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor.
The rules pertaining to continued prosecution applications (which are
applicable only to design applications) require that the prior
nonprovisional application of a continued prosecution application be
complete, which requires that the prior nonprovisional application
contain the inventor's oath or declaration. This interim rule revises
the rules pertaining to continued prosecution applications to permit
the filing of a continued prosecution application even if the prior
nonprovisional application does not contain the inventor's oath or
declaration if the continued prosecution application is filed on or
after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application
contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and
mailing address of each inventor.
DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2014.
Comment Deadline Date: Written comments must be received on or
before May 5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the
Internet addressed to: AC92.comments@uspto.gov. Comments also may be
submitted by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments--Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450,
marked to the attention of Eugenia A. Jones, Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.
Comments likewise may 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.
Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office
prefers to receive comments by electronic mail message over the
Internet because sharing comments with the public is more easily
accomplished. Electronic comments in plain text are preferred, but
comments in ADOBE[supreg] portable document format or MICROSOFT
WORD[supreg] format are also acceptable. Comments not submitted
electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that
facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE[supreg] portable
document format.
Comments will be available for viewing via the Office's Internet
Web site (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: Eugenia A. Jones, Senior Legal
Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, at (571) 272-7727.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary: Purpose: This interim rule permits the filing of
a continued prosecution application even if the prior nonprovisional
application does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration. This
change is to avoid the need for applicants to file the inventor's oath
or declaration in an application in order to file a continued
prosecution application of that application.
Summary of Major Provisions: This interim rule provides that the
prior nonprovisional application of a continued prosecution application
that was filed on or after September 16, 2012 is not required to
contain the inventor's oath or declaration if the prior nonprovisional
application contains an application data sheet indicating the name,
residence, and mailing address of each inventor.
Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant
under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
Background: The Office has revised the rules of practice pertaining
to the inventor's oath or declaration to permit an applicant to
postpone the filing of the inventor's oath or declaration until payment
of the issue fee if the applicant provides an application data sheet
indicating the name, residence, and mailing address of each inventor.
See Changes To Implement the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Provisions
of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 48776, 48779-80 (Aug. 14,
2012), and Changes to Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62367,
62376 (Oct. 21, 2013). The rules of practice pertaining to continued
prosecution applications (which are applicable only to design
applications) require that the prior nonprovisional application of a
continued prosecution application be a design application that is
complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b). See 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1)(ii)
(requires that the prior nonprovisional application of a continued
prosecution application be a design application that is complete as
defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b)). 37 CFR 1.51(b) in turn requires that an
application contain the inventor's oath or declaration to be complete.
See 37 CFR 1.51(b)(2). This interim rule amends 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1)(ii)
to permit the filing of a continued prosecution application even if the
prior nonprovisional application does not contain the inventor's oath
or declaration if the continued prosecution application is filed on or
after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application
contains an
[[Page 12385]]
application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing
address of each inventor. This change is to avoid the need for
applicants to file the inventor's oath or declaration in an application
in order to file a continued prosecution application of that
application.
Discussion of Specific Rules
The following is a discussion of the amendments to Title 37 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1.
Section 1.53: Section 1.53(d)(1)(ii) is amended to change ``[t]he
prior nonprovisional application is a design application that is
complete as defined by Sec. 1.51(b)'' to ``[t]he prior nonprovisional
application is a design application that is complete as defined by
Sec. 1.51(b), except for the inventor's oath or declaration if the
application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior
nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet meeting
the conditions specified in Sec. 1.53(f)(3)(i).''
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: This interim rule revises the
procedures that apply to the filing of a continued prosecution
application. The changes in this interim rule do not change the
substantive criteria of patentability. Therefore, the changes proposed
in this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/
or interpretive rules. See JEM Broad. Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326
(D.C. Cir. 1994) (``[T]he critical feature of the procedural exception
[in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] is that it covers agency actions that do not
themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although [they]
may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their
viewpoints to the agency'') (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d
694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. F.C.C.,
237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an application
process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act); Inova
Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules
for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the
substantive standard for reviewing claims).
In addition, the Office, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), finds good cause to adopt the changes in this interim
rule without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, as
such procedures are contrary to the public interest. Delay in the
promulgation of this rule to provide notice and comment procedures
would cause harm to those applicants who file a continued prosecution
application where the prior nonprovisional application does not contain
the inventor's oath or declaration. Immediate implementation of the
changes in this interim rule is in the public interest because: (1) The
public does not need time to conform its conduct as the changes in this
interim rule merely ease the requirements for filing a continued
prosecution application; and (2) those applicants who are currently
ineligible to file a continued prosecution application because the
prior nonprovisional application does not contain the inventor's oath
or declaration will benefit from the changes in this interim rule. See
Nat'l. Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass'n v. U.S., 59 F.3d 1219, 1223-
24 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are
not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B),
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), does not require notice and comment rulemaking 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, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1),
the changes in this interim rule may be made immediately effective
because they relieve restrictions in the requirements for filing a
continued prosecution application.
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 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review): The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563.
Specifically, the Office 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 rulemaking 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.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking does not
contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132
(Aug. 4, 1999).
F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking
will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; 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 Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this
rulemaking 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 rulemaking
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 rulemaking
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
rulemaking will not affect 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.), prior to issuing any final rule, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office will
[[Page 12386]]
submit a report containing the rule and other required information to
the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives,
and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office.
The changes in this interim rule are 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, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this
interim rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth 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: This rulemaking 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
1969. 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 not applicable because
this rulemaking does not contain provisions which involve the use of
technical standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the Office consider the impact of
paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the
public. This interim rule 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. 3501-3549).
This rulemaking does not impose any additional collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act which are subject to further review
by OMB.
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.
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).
0
2. Section 1.53 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of
application.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The prior nonprovisional application is a design application
that is complete as defined by Sec. 1.51(b), except for the inventor's
oath or declaration if the application is filed on or after September
16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an
application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in Sec.
1.53(f)(3)(i).
* * * * *
Dated: February 27, 2014.
Michelle K. Lee,
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-04807 Filed 3-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
