Date of Receipt of Electronic Submissions of Patent Correspondence, 68900-68904 [2022-24335]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68900
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
paragraphs (j)(3)(i)(B)(3) introductory
text and (j)(3)(i)(B)(3)(i) through (iii).
■ f. Redesignating paragraphs
(j)(3)(i)(B)(4) introductory text and
(j)(3)(i)(B)(4)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs
(j)(3)(i)(B)(4) introductory text and
(j)(3)(i)(B)(4)(i) and (ii).
■ g. Redesignating paragraph
(j)(3)(i)(B)(5) as paragraph (j)(3)(i)(B)(5).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1.199A–9
receipts.
Domestic production gross
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * * A Specified Cooperative’s
applicable gross receipts as provided in
§ 1.199A–8(b) and/or (c) may be treated
as non-DPGR if less than 10 percent of
the Specified Cooperative’s total gross
receipts are DPGR. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The warranty is neither separately
offered by the Specified Cooperative nor
separately bargained for with customers
(that is, a customer cannot purchase the
agricultural or horticultural products
without the warranty).
*
*
*
*
*
Par. 5. Section 1.199A–12 is amended
by:
■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(i) and
(ii) as paragraph (e)(1) and (2).
■ b. Further redesignating newly
redesiganted paragraphs (e)(2)(A) and
(B) as paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii).
■ c. Revising the last sentence of newly
redesignated paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
The revision reads as follows:
■
§ 1.199A–12
Expanded affiliated groups.
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * * Accordingly, P is allocated
$1,080 ($1,350 × $16,000/$20,000) and S
is allocated $270 ($1,350 × $4,000/
$20,000).
*
*
*
*
*
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
*
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
34 CFR Parts 600, 668, and 690
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket ID ED–2022–OPE–0062]
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO–P–2017–0011]
RIN 1840–AD54, 1840–AD55, 1840–AD66,
1840–AD69
Pell Grants for Prison Education
Programs; Determining the Amount of
Federal Education Assistance Funds
Received by Institutions of Higher
Education (90/10); Change in
Ownership and Change in Control
Correction
1. On page 65486, in the second
column, on the twentieth line, the
section heading titled ‘‘§ 600. Institution
of higher education.’’ is corrected to
read as set forth below.
■
§ 600.4 Institution of higher education.
[Corrected]
*
*
*
*
2. On page 65490, in the first column,
on the thirty-sixth line, the section
heading titled ‘‘§ 668.1 Program
participation agreement.’’ is corrected to
read as set forth below.
■
§ 668.14 Program participation agreement.
[Corrected]
*
*
*
*
*
3. On page 65495, in the second
column, on the seventeenth line, in the
‘‘contents section’’ listing, the entry
titled ‘‘668.23 Scope and purpose.’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘668.234 Scope and
purpose.’’
*
*
*
*
*
■
4. On the same page, in the same
column, the section heading titled
‘‘§ 668.23 Scope and purpose.’’ is
corrected to read as set forth below.
■
§ 668.234
*
*
Scope and purpose. [Corrected]
*
*
*
[FR Doc. C1–2022–23078 Filed 11–14–22; 2:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 0099–10–D
Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,
Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division,
Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and
Administration).
[FR Doc. 2022–24576 Filed 11–16–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Date of Receipt of Electronic
Submissions of Patent
Correspondence
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is
amending the patent rules of practice to
provide that the receipt date of
correspondence officially submitted
electronically by way of the USPTO
patent electronic filing system is the
date in the Eastern time zone of the
United States (Eastern Time) when the
USPTO received the correspondence
rather than the date on which the
correspondence is received at the
correspondence address in Alexandria,
Virginia. This change is necessary
because the USPTO is expecting to
provide servers for receiving electronic
submissions in locations that are
separate from the USPTO headquarters
in Alexandria, Virginia. This change
will ensure consistency and
predictability with respect to
correspondence receipt dates, as the
date of receipt accorded to
correspondence submitted
electronically will not depend on the
location of USPTO servers. The USPTO
is also amending the patent rules of
practice to make other clarifying
changes regarding the receipt of
electronic submissions, including
providing a definition for Eastern Time.
These changes harmonize the patent
rules with the trademark rules and
provide clarity regarding the date of
receipt of electronic submissions.
DATES: This rule is effective on
December 19, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
patent-related inquiries, please contact
Mark O. Polutta, Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration, at
571–272–7709; or Kristie M. Kindred,
Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal
Administration, at 571–272–9016; or
you can send inquiries to
patentpractice@uspto.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
USPTO’s servers that receive electronic
submissions are currently located in
Alexandria, Virginia. However, to
enhance resiliency, the USPTO is in the
SUMMARY:
In Rule Document 2022–23078,
appearing on pages 65426–65498 in the
issue of Friday, October 28, 2022, make
the following corrections:
*
RIN 0651–AD21
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
process of providing servers in
Manassas, Virginia, and in the future,
may provide servers outside of the
Eastern time zone. Once the USPTO
begins receiving electronically
submitted patent correspondence at
locations other than Alexandria,
Virginia, the rule language that defines
the receipt date as the date the
correspondence is received at the
correspondence address in Alexandria,
Virginia, would be inapplicable. Thus,
the USPTO is revising 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4)
to specify that the receipt date of
correspondence that is officially
submitted electronically by way of the
USPTO patent electronic filing system is
the date in Eastern Time when the
USPTO received the correspondence,
regardless of the physical location of the
USPTO server that receives the
correspondence. Other clarifying
changes regarding the receipt date of
electronic submissions, including
providing a definition for Eastern Time,
are also being made.
In addition, the changes align the
patent rules with the Legal Framework
for the Patent Electronic System
(October 23, 2019) (Legal Framework),
available at www.uspto.gov/patents/
apply/filing-online/legal-framework-efsweb and incorporated in the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (9th ed.,
Rev. 10.2019) (MPEP) section 502.05,
subsection I. The Legal Framework
indicates that the time and date of
receipt of an application filed via the
USPTO patent electronic filing system is
the local time and date (Eastern Time)
at the USPTO headquarters in
Alexandria, Virginia, when the USPTO
received the submission. The date of
receipt is recorded after the user clicks
the ‘‘Submit’’ button on the ‘‘Confirm
and Submit’’ screen. This is the date
shown on the Electronic
Acknowledgement Receipt. Similarly,
follow-on documents filed in a patent
application after the initial filing of the
application are also accorded the date
(Eastern Time) when the document is
received at the USPTO as the date of
receipt under existing practice. See
MPEP section 502.05, subsection I.C.
With respect to patent
correspondence, any reference to the
USPTO patent electronic filing system
(EFS) in this final rule (including in 37
CFR part 1) includes EFS-Web and
Patent Center. Patent Center is a new
tool for the electronic filing and
management of patent applications.
Patent Center is available for all users.
Patent Center has replaced the public
Patent Application Information
Retrieval (PAIR) system and, once fully
developed, will replace EFS-Web and
the private PAIR system as well. Users
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
of Patent Center are required to abide by
the Legal Framework to the extent
applicable and the Patent Electronic
System Subscriber Agreement. See the
Patent Center information web page
available at www.uspto.gov/patents/
apply/patent-center. In the future, as
Patent Center gets closer to full
development, the Legal Framework will
be revised to expressly refer to and more
specifically cover electronic
submissions via Patent Center. The rules
use generic terminology to refer to the
system for electronically filing patent
applications and patent correspondence
in order to accommodate any name
changes to the system that may occur in
the future.
The rules of practice in trademark
cases already provide that filing dates of
electronic submissions are based on
Eastern Time. See 37 CFR 2.195(a).
Therefore, it is unnecessary to amend
the trademark rules of practice.
Discussion of Specific Rules
The following is a discussion of the
amendments to 37 CFR part 1.
Section 1.1: Section 1.1(a) is amended
to clarify the appropriate address
information for patent-related
correspondence. In particular, the
clause ‘‘[e]xcept as provided in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this
section’’ is being changed to ‘‘[e]xcept
for correspondence submitted via the
USPTO patent electronic filing system
in accordance with § 1.6(a)(4).’’ Further,
the phrase ‘‘to specific areas within the
Office as set out in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(3)(iii) of this section’’ is being
replaced with ‘‘to specific areas within
the Office as provided in this section.’’
Since the USPTO does not strictly
require the provision of an address
when patent-related correspondence is
submitted via the USPTO patent
electronic filing system, it is appropriate
to exclude such correspondence from
the address marking requirements of
§ 1.1(a). Applicants may continue to
provide an address on correspondence
submitted via the USPTO patent
electronic filing system consistent with
§ 1.1(a), but it is not mandatory. The
removal of references to specific
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) from the
introductory text of paragraph (a) is a
technical correction in view of the
remaining language in this section.
Section 1.6: Section 1.6(a)(4) is
amended to remove the reference to the
physical location where correspondence
must be received, and to provide that
the receipt date of patent
correspondence submitted using the
USPTO patent electronic filing system is
the date in Eastern Time when the
correspondence is received in the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68901
USPTO. Specifically, the phrase
‘‘Correspondence submitted to the
Office by way of the Office electronic
filing system will be accorded a receipt
date, which is the date the
correspondence is received at the
correspondence address for the Office
set forth in § 1.1 when it was officially
submitted’’ has been changed to
‘‘Correspondence officially submitted to
the Office by way of the USPTO patent
electronic filing system will be accorded
a receipt date, which is the date in
Eastern Time when the correspondence
is received in the Office.’’ In view of the
relocation of the servers, it is
appropriate to eliminate the reference to
the correspondence address set forth in
§ 1.1 in connection with the receipt date
of correspondence being filed
electronically. Correspondence
submitted via the USPTO patent
electronic filing system will be accorded
a receipt date based on the local time
and date at the USPTO headquarters in
Alexandria, Virginia, when the
correspondence is received in the
USPTO. Specifically, the USPTO patent
electronic filing system will record the
receipt date in Eastern Time after the
user officially submits the
correspondence by clicking the
‘‘Submit’’ button on the ‘‘Confirm and
Submit’’ screen and the correspondence
is fully, successfully, and officially
received in the USPTO. Furthermore,
the phrase ‘‘regardless of whether that
date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal
holiday within the District of Columbia’’
is being added to provide clarity in the
rule. This is not a change in practice.
See MPEP section 502.05, subsection
I.C3.
One should note that the Legal
Framework does not permit certain
patent correspondence to be officially
submitted via the USPTO patent
electronic filing system. See MPEP
section 502.05, subsection I.B2. Such
correspondence will not be accorded a
date of receipt or considered officially
filed in the USPTO when submitted via
the USPTO patent electronic filing
system. For example, notices of appeal
to a court, district court complaints, or
other complaints or lawsuits involving
the USPTO may not be filed via the
USPTO patent electronic filing system.
See MPEP section 1216 for instructions
on how to properly serve and/or file
documents seeking judicial review of a
decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board.
Section 1.9: Section 1.9 is amended to
add a new paragraph (o) to set forth a
definition for Eastern Time. In
particular, Eastern Time is defined as
meaning Eastern Standard Time or
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
68902
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Eastern Daylight Time in the United
States, as appropriate.
Changes to standardize references to
the USPTO patent electronic filing
system: 37 CFR part 1 is amended to
revise all references to ‘‘Office’s
electronic filing system’’ and ‘‘Office
electronic filing system’’ to ‘‘USPTO
patent electronic filing system.’’
Comments and Responses
The USPTO published a notice of
proposed rulemaking on December 7,
2021, at 86 FR 69195, soliciting public
comments on the proposed amendments
to 37 CFR part 1 being adopted in this
final rule. The USPTO received written
input from three commenters on the
proposed rule. Summaries of the
comments and the Office’s responses to
the written comments follow.
Comment 1: One commenter
expressed support for the rule changes.
Response: The USPTO appreciates the
feedback from the commenter.
Comment 2: One commenter
questioned whether the new definition
of filing in the Eastern time zone will
have any effect on the use of a certificate
of transmission based on the local time
zone for patent filings.
Response: There is no change being
made to certificate of mailing or
transmission practice under 37 CFR 1.8.
Applicants may still use a certificate of
mailing or transmission in accordance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.8 for the
filing of patent correspondence in
patent applications where permitted.
One should note that the certificate of
mailing or transmission practice under
37 CFR 1.8 is not applicable to the filing
of new patent applications or other
patent correspondence necessary for the
purpose of obtaining an application
filing date.
Comment 3: One commenter stated
that the definition in the notice of
proposed rulemaking of the ‘‘Office
electronic filing system’’ as including
EFS-Web and Patent Center was
ambiguous since it was unclear whether
it applies to other Office electronic
filing systems in addition to EFS-Web
and Patent Center.
Response: This final rule amends 37
CFR part 1 to replace all references to
‘‘Office electronic filing system’’ to
‘‘USPTO patent electronic filing
system.’’ The only electronic filing
systems for filing new patent
applications or correspondence in
existing patent applications are EFSWeb and Patent Center. While other
electronic systems exist, such as the
Electronic Patent Assignment System
for recording assignment documents or
the Certified Copy Center for ordering
patent and trademark documents, these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
are not electronic filing systems
encompassed by the phrase ‘‘Office
electronic filing system’’ or ‘‘USPTO
patent electronic filing system’’ as used
in the notice of proposed rulemaking or
in this final rule. These other electronic
systems are not used for filing new
patent applications or correspondence
in existing patent applications. While it
is possible to indicate on the cover sheet
for the assignment document that the
document also serves as the inventor’s
oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63,
and the USPTO will then place a copy
of the document in the application file,
this is not a situation in which an
applicant is filing correspondence
directly into an existing application.
The rules use generic terminology to
refer to the electronic filing system
because the system name(s) may change
over time. As mentioned in this final
rule, EFS-Web is being phased out and
will be replaced by Patent Center.
Comment 4: One commenter stated
that the notice of proposed rulemaking
is inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(4)
regarding filing dates for patent
applications. The commenter noted that
the statute does not state that the filing
date is the date after the user clicks the
‘‘Submit’’ button on the ‘‘Confirm and
Submit’’ screen, and the statute does not
state that the filing date is the date
shown on the Electronic
Acknowledgement Receipt. The
commenter also noted that the USPTO
server may delay generating ‘‘the date
shown on the Electronic
Acknowledgement Receipt.’’ The
commenter further stated that the filing
date for an application should be the
date a specification, with or without
claims, is received by a USPTO server,
which occurs prior to the USPTO server
acknowledging receipt, and prior to the
filer pressing the ‘‘Submit’’ button.
Response: As noted by the
commenter, 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(4) provides
that ‘‘[t]he filing date of an application
shall be the date on which a
specification, with or without claims, is
received in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office.’’ Similarly, 35 U.S.C.
111(b)(4) provides that ‘‘[t]he filing date
of a provisional application shall be the
date on which a specification, with or
without claims, is received in the
United States Patent and Trademark
Office.’’ The regulations at 37 CFR 1.6
define what ‘‘received in the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office’’ in the statute
means, and it is consistent with the
statute. Contrary to the argument made
by the commenter, it would be
inconsistent with the statute for the
USPTO to accord a filing date to an
application on the date it was sent or
transmitted to the USPTO (except as
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
permitted by 35 U.S.C. 21(a) and
provided for in 37 CFR 1.10) rather than
received in the USPTO, or the date an
application was uploaded to a server
without the user having completed the
filing process. The Legal Framework
sets forth what must occur in order for
an electronic filing to be completed and
for the submission to be accorded a
receipt date. The filer must press the
‘‘Submit’’ button to actually file an
application or document and complete
the filing process. Users can upload
documents and save submissions for
later review and filing for up to 7 days
in EFS-Web and for up to 14 days in
Patent Center. Accordingly, until the
filer actually clicks on the ‘‘Submit’’
button on the ‘‘Confirm and Submit’’
screen, the application or document has
not been filed in the USPTO. The
receipt date on the Electronic
Acknowledgement Receipt reflects the
date that the application or document
was actually received in the USPTO.
While there may be a delay in the
sending of an Electronic
Acknowledgement Receipt in some
cases, that does not mean there has been
a delay in recording the actual date of
receipt.
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: The
changes in this rulemaking involve rules
of agency practice and procedure, and/
or interpretive rules. See Bachow
Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC, 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 are procedural
where they do not change the
substantive standard for reviewing
claims); Nat’l Org. of Veterans’
Advocates v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs,
260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(rule that clarifies interpretation of a
statute is interpretive).
Accordingly, prior notice and
opportunity for public comment for the
changes in this rulemaking were not
required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or
(c), 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
rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative rules,
general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or
practice’’ (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))).
However, the USPTO chose to seek
public comment before implementing
the rule to benefit from the public’s
input.
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the
reasons set forth in this final rule, the
Senior Counsel for Regulatory and
Legislative Affairs, Office of General
Law, of the USPTO has certified to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration that the
changes in this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (see
5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
This rulemaking amends the rules of
practice to provide that the receipt date
of correspondence officially submitted
electronically by way of the USPTO
patent electronic filing system is the
date in Eastern Time when the Office
received the correspondence. The
USPTO is also amending the patent
rules of practice to make other clarifying
changes regarding the receipt of
electronic submissions. These changes
are procedural in nature and do not
result in a change in the burden
imposed on any patent applicant,
including a small entity.
For the reasons described above, the
changes will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
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
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 online 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant the
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.), the USPTO
will submit a report containing the final
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 rulemaking are not expected to
result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million 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 rulemaking is not
expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68903
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995: The changes set forth in this
rulemaking 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 (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 (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
of 1969: 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 of 1995: 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
that involve the use of technical
standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
requires that the USPTO consider the
impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed
on the public. This rulemaking does not
involve any new information collection
requirements that 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.).
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 has a currently valid OMB
control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Biologics, 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:
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
68904
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
PATENT CASES
Eastern Daylight Time in the United
States, as appropriate.
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR
part 1 continues to read as follows:
Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
■
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless
otherwise noted.
[FR Doc. 2022–24335 Filed 11–16–22; 8:45 am]
2. In 37 CFR part 1, remove ‘‘Office’s
electronic filing system’’ and ‘‘Office
electronic filing system’’ wherever they
appear and add in their place ‘‘USPTO
patent electronic filing system.’’
■
3. Section 1.1 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) introductory text to read
as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
■
§ 1.1 Addresses for non-trademark
correspondence with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
(a) In general. Except for
correspondence submitted via the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
patent electronic filing system in
accordance with § 1.6(a)(4), all
correspondence intended for the USPTO
must be addressed to either ‘‘Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
Virginia 22313–1450’’ or to specific
areas within the Office as provided in
this section. When appropriate,
correspondence should also be marked
for the attention of a particular office or
individual.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 1.6 is amended by revising
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.6
Receipt of correspondence.
(a) * * *
(4) Correspondence may be submitted
using the USPTO patent electronic filing
system only in accordance with the
USPTO patent electronic filing system
requirements. Correspondence officially
submitted to the Office by way of the
USPTO patent electronic filing system
will be accorded a receipt date, which
is the date in Eastern Time when the
correspondence is received in the
Office, regardless of whether that date is
a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday
within the District of Columbia.
*
*
*
*
*
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
*
*
*
*
(o) Eastern Time as used in this
chapter means Eastern Standard Time or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Nov 16, 2022
Jkt 259001
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Department of Veterans Affairs.
General policy statement.
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) announces that the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs issued
Instruction 01–22 on October 11, 2022,
which addresses the legal impediment
that exists for certain same sexsurviving spouses to qualify for
Survivors Pension or Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits
due to not meeting the duration of
marriage requirements for those benefits
because they were prevented from
marrying at an earlier date by reason of
laws that have been found to be
unconstitutional. Additionally, VA
announces Pension and Fiduciary
Service’s general policy statement on
the administration of Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) benefits for
particular same-sex surviving spouses.
SUMMARY:
The Pension and Fiduciary
Service’s general policy statement is
effective November 17, 2022.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Baresich, Program Analyst,
Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202–632–
8863. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Instruction of the Secretary 01–22
Definitions.
*
Instruction of the Secretary and
General Policy Statement on the
Administration of Benefits for
Particular Same-Sex Surviving
Spouses
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
5. Section 1.9 is amended by:
■ a. Adding paragraph (o); and
■ b. Removing the parenthetical
authority citation at the end of the
section.
The revision reads as follows:
■
§ 1.9
38 CFR Part 3
Notice is given that the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs issued Instruction of
the Secretary 01–22—Instructions for
Determining Whether Same-Sex
Surviving Spouses Satisfy Duration of
Marriage Requirements, on October 11,
2022. The text of Instruction 01–22
appears at the end of this Federal
Register document.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Background
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court
held in Obergefell v. Hodges that the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution requires a state to license a
marriage between two people of the
same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex
when their marriage was lawfully
licensed and performed out-of-state.
Accordingly, on October 16, 2015, VBA
issued VBA Letter 20–15–16 which
recognized that same-sex marriages will
be accepted in benefit determinations
without regard to a Veteran’s state of
residence. This guidance remains in
effect.
VBA administers benefits and
programs for the surviving spouse of a
Veteran which incorporate evaluations
to determine the legality and duration of
a marriage. Determining the duration of
a marriage is required to establish
entitlement to Survivors Pension, DIC,
or the higher rate of DIC benefits under
38 U.S.C. 1311(a)(2) (heretofore referred
to as the 8x8 allowance). The rules in 38
U.S.C. 1541(f)(2), 1304(2), and
1318(c)(1) are the foundational statutory
sources providing 1-year duration of
marriage requirements for a surviving
spouse to qualify for Survivors Pension
and DIC. The requirement for the 8x8
allowance under 38 U.S.C. 1311(a)(2)
further stipulates that a surviving
spouse must have been married to a
Veteran for at least a continuous 8-year
period immediately preceding the
Veteran’s death during which a Veteran
was rated totally disabled for a serviceconnected disability. This increase for
DIC benefits originated from section 102
of Public Law 102–568 passed on
October 29, 1992, and the governing
statute has maintained the same 8-year
duration requirement since that time.
As a result, under statutory
requirements currently in effect, a samesex surviving spouse who was only able
to marry after the Supreme Court’s
decision in Obergefell would be unable
to meet the 1-year marriage duration
requirement until June 26, 2016, for
Survivors Pension and DIC benefits, and
would similarly be unable to satisfy the
8-year marriage duration requirement
for the 8x8 allowance until June 26,
2023, at the earliest. This results in
potential disparate treatment for samesex surviving spouses who may have
otherwise qualified for Survivors
Pension, DIC, or the additional 8x8
allowance if they were not prevented
from marrying at an earlier date by
reason of laws that have been found to
be unconstitutional.
As provided within VBA Letter 20–
15–16, VBA updated procedures on
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68900-68904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24335]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2017-0011]
RIN 0651-AD21
Date of Receipt of Electronic Submissions of Patent
Correspondence
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or
Office) is amending the patent rules of practice to provide that the
receipt date of correspondence officially submitted electronically by
way of the USPTO patent electronic filing system is the date in the
Eastern time zone of the United States (Eastern Time) when the USPTO
received the correspondence rather than the date on which the
correspondence is received at the correspondence address in Alexandria,
Virginia. This change is necessary because the USPTO is expecting to
provide servers for receiving electronic submissions in locations that
are separate from the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. This
change will ensure consistency and predictability with respect to
correspondence receipt dates, as the date of receipt accorded to
correspondence submitted electronically will not depend on the location
of USPTO servers. The USPTO is also amending the patent rules of
practice to make other clarifying changes regarding the receipt of
electronic submissions, including providing a definition for Eastern
Time. These changes harmonize the patent rules with the trademark rules
and provide clarity regarding the date of receipt of electronic
submissions.
DATES: This rule is effective on December 19, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For patent-related inquiries, please
contact Mark O. Polutta, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal
Administration, at 571-272-7709; or Kristie M. Kindred, Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration, at 571-272-9016; or you can send
inquiries to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USPTO's servers that receive electronic
submissions are currently located in Alexandria, Virginia. However, to
enhance resiliency, the USPTO is in the
[[Page 68901]]
process of providing servers in Manassas, Virginia, and in the future,
may provide servers outside of the Eastern time zone. Once the USPTO
begins receiving electronically submitted patent correspondence at
locations other than Alexandria, Virginia, the rule language that
defines the receipt date as the date the correspondence is received at
the correspondence address in Alexandria, Virginia, would be
inapplicable. Thus, the USPTO is revising 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) to specify
that the receipt date of correspondence that is officially submitted
electronically by way of the USPTO patent electronic filing system is
the date in Eastern Time when the USPTO received the correspondence,
regardless of the physical location of the USPTO server that receives
the correspondence. Other clarifying changes regarding the receipt date
of electronic submissions, including providing a definition for Eastern
Time, are also being made.
In addition, the changes align the patent rules with the Legal
Framework for the Patent Electronic System (October 23, 2019) (Legal
Framework), available at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/filing-online/legal-framework-efs-web and incorporated in the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019) (MPEP) section 502.05,
subsection I. The Legal Framework indicates that the time and date of
receipt of an application filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing
system is the local time and date (Eastern Time) at the USPTO
headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, when the USPTO received the
submission. The date of receipt is recorded after the user clicks the
``Submit'' button on the ``Confirm and Submit'' screen. This is the
date shown on the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt. Similarly,
follow-on documents filed in a patent application after the initial
filing of the application are also accorded the date (Eastern Time)
when the document is received at the USPTO as the date of receipt under
existing practice. See MPEP section 502.05, subsection I.C.
With respect to patent correspondence, any reference to the USPTO
patent electronic filing system (EFS) in this final rule (including in
37 CFR part 1) includes EFS-Web and Patent Center. Patent Center is a
new tool for the electronic filing and management of patent
applications. Patent Center is available for all users. Patent Center
has replaced the public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)
system and, once fully developed, will replace EFS-Web and the private
PAIR system as well. Users of Patent Center are required to abide by
the Legal Framework to the extent applicable and the Patent Electronic
System Subscriber Agreement. See the Patent Center information web page
available at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. In the future,
as Patent Center gets closer to full development, the Legal Framework
will be revised to expressly refer to and more specifically cover
electronic submissions via Patent Center. The rules use generic
terminology to refer to the system for electronically filing patent
applications and patent correspondence in order to accommodate any name
changes to the system that may occur in the future.
The rules of practice in trademark cases already provide that
filing dates of electronic submissions are based on Eastern Time. See
37 CFR 2.195(a). Therefore, it is unnecessary to amend the trademark
rules of practice.
Discussion of Specific Rules
The following is a discussion of the amendments to 37 CFR part 1.
Section 1.1: Section 1.1(a) is amended to clarify the appropriate
address information for patent-related correspondence. In particular,
the clause ``[e]xcept as provided in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and
(a)(3)(ii) of this section'' is being changed to ``[e]xcept for
correspondence submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system
in accordance with Sec. 1.6(a)(4).'' Further, the phrase ``to specific
areas within the Office as set out in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3)(iii)
of this section'' is being replaced with ``to specific areas within the
Office as provided in this section.'' Since the USPTO does not strictly
require the provision of an address when patent-related correspondence
is submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, it is
appropriate to exclude such correspondence from the address marking
requirements of Sec. 1.1(a). Applicants may continue to provide an
address on correspondence submitted via the USPTO patent electronic
filing system consistent with Sec. 1.1(a), but it is not mandatory.
The removal of references to specific paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii)
from the introductory text of paragraph (a) is a technical correction
in view of the remaining language in this section.
Section 1.6: Section 1.6(a)(4) is amended to remove the reference
to the physical location where correspondence must be received, and to
provide that the receipt date of patent correspondence submitted using
the USPTO patent electronic filing system is the date in Eastern Time
when the correspondence is received in the USPTO. Specifically, the
phrase ``Correspondence submitted to the Office by way of the Office
electronic filing system will be accorded a receipt date, which is the
date the correspondence is received at the correspondence address for
the Office set forth in Sec. 1.1 when it was officially submitted''
has been changed to ``Correspondence officially submitted to the Office
by way of the USPTO patent electronic filing system will be accorded a
receipt date, which is the date in Eastern Time when the correspondence
is received in the Office.'' In view of the relocation of the servers,
it is appropriate to eliminate the reference to the correspondence
address set forth in Sec. 1.1 in connection with the receipt date of
correspondence being filed electronically. Correspondence submitted via
the USPTO patent electronic filing system will be accorded a receipt
date based on the local time and date at the USPTO headquarters in
Alexandria, Virginia, when the correspondence is received in the USPTO.
Specifically, the USPTO patent electronic filing system will record the
receipt date in Eastern Time after the user officially submits the
correspondence by clicking the ``Submit'' button on the ``Confirm and
Submit'' screen and the correspondence is fully, successfully, and
officially received in the USPTO. Furthermore, the phrase ``regardless
of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within
the District of Columbia'' is being added to provide clarity in the
rule. This is not a change in practice. See MPEP section 502.05,
subsection I.C3.
One should note that the Legal Framework does not permit certain
patent correspondence to be officially submitted via the USPTO patent
electronic filing system. See MPEP section 502.05, subsection I.B2.
Such correspondence will not be accorded a date of receipt or
considered officially filed in the USPTO when submitted via the USPTO
patent electronic filing system. For example, notices of appeal to a
court, district court complaints, or other complaints or lawsuits
involving the USPTO may not be filed via the USPTO patent electronic
filing system. See MPEP section 1216 for instructions on how to
properly serve and/or file documents seeking judicial review of a
decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Section 1.9: Section 1.9 is amended to add a new paragraph (o) to
set forth a definition for Eastern Time. In particular, Eastern Time is
defined as meaning Eastern Standard Time or
[[Page 68902]]
Eastern Daylight Time in the United States, as appropriate.
Changes to standardize references to the USPTO patent electronic
filing system: 37 CFR part 1 is amended to revise all references to
``Office's electronic filing system'' and ``Office electronic filing
system'' to ``USPTO patent electronic filing system.''
Comments and Responses
The USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking on December 7,
2021, at 86 FR 69195, soliciting public comments on the proposed
amendments to 37 CFR part 1 being adopted in this final rule. The USPTO
received written input from three commenters on the proposed rule.
Summaries of the comments and the Office's responses to the written
comments follow.
Comment 1: One commenter expressed support for the rule changes.
Response: The USPTO appreciates the feedback from the commenter.
Comment 2: One commenter questioned whether the new definition of
filing in the Eastern time zone will have any effect on the use of a
certificate of transmission based on the local time zone for patent
filings.
Response: There is no change being made to certificate of mailing
or transmission practice under 37 CFR 1.8. Applicants may still use a
certificate of mailing or transmission in accordance with the
provisions of 37 CFR 1.8 for the filing of patent correspondence in
patent applications where permitted. One should note that the
certificate of mailing or transmission practice under 37 CFR 1.8 is not
applicable to the filing of new patent applications or other patent
correspondence necessary for the purpose of obtaining an application
filing date.
Comment 3: One commenter stated that the definition in the notice
of proposed rulemaking of the ``Office electronic filing system'' as
including EFS-Web and Patent Center was ambiguous since it was unclear
whether it applies to other Office electronic filing systems in
addition to EFS-Web and Patent Center.
Response: This final rule amends 37 CFR part 1 to replace all
references to ``Office electronic filing system'' to ``USPTO patent
electronic filing system.'' The only electronic filing systems for
filing new patent applications or correspondence in existing patent
applications are EFS-Web and Patent Center. While other electronic
systems exist, such as the Electronic Patent Assignment System for
recording assignment documents or the Certified Copy Center for
ordering patent and trademark documents, these are not electronic
filing systems encompassed by the phrase ``Office electronic filing
system'' or ``USPTO patent electronic filing system'' as used in the
notice of proposed rulemaking or in this final rule. These other
electronic systems are not used for filing new patent applications or
correspondence in existing patent applications. While it is possible to
indicate on the cover sheet for the assignment document that the
document also serves as the inventor's oath or declaration under 37 CFR
1.63, and the USPTO will then place a copy of the document in the
application file, this is not a situation in which an applicant is
filing correspondence directly into an existing application. The rules
use generic terminology to refer to the electronic filing system
because the system name(s) may change over time. As mentioned in this
final rule, EFS-Web is being phased out and will be replaced by Patent
Center.
Comment 4: One commenter stated that the notice of proposed
rulemaking is inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(4) regarding filing
dates for patent applications. The commenter noted that the statute
does not state that the filing date is the date after the user clicks
the ``Submit'' button on the ``Confirm and Submit'' screen, and the
statute does not state that the filing date is the date shown on the
Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt. The commenter also noted that the
USPTO server may delay generating ``the date shown on the Electronic
Acknowledgement Receipt.'' The commenter further stated that the filing
date for an application should be the date a specification, with or
without claims, is received by a USPTO server, which occurs prior to
the USPTO server acknowledging receipt, and prior to the filer pressing
the ``Submit'' button.
Response: As noted by the commenter, 35 U.S.C. 111(a)(4) provides
that ``[t]he filing date of an application shall be the date on which a
specification, with or without claims, is received in the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.'' Similarly, 35 U.S.C. 111(b)(4) provides
that ``[t]he filing date of a provisional application shall be the date
on which a specification, with or without claims, is received in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office.'' The regulations at 37 CFR
1.6 define what ``received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office'' in
the statute means, and it is consistent with the statute. Contrary to
the argument made by the commenter, it would be inconsistent with the
statute for the USPTO to accord a filing date to an application on the
date it was sent or transmitted to the USPTO (except as permitted by 35
U.S.C. 21(a) and provided for in 37 CFR 1.10) rather than received in
the USPTO, or the date an application was uploaded to a server without
the user having completed the filing process. The Legal Framework sets
forth what must occur in order for an electronic filing to be completed
and for the submission to be accorded a receipt date. The filer must
press the ``Submit'' button to actually file an application or document
and complete the filing process. Users can upload documents and save
submissions for later review and filing for up to 7 days in EFS-Web and
for up to 14 days in Patent Center. Accordingly, until the filer
actually clicks on the ``Submit'' button on the ``Confirm and Submit''
screen, the application or document has not been filed in the USPTO.
The receipt date on the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt reflects the
date that the application or document was actually received in the
USPTO. While there may be a delay in the sending of an Electronic
Acknowledgement Receipt in some cases, that does not mean there has
been a delay in recording the actual date of receipt.
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: The changes in this rulemaking
involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or interpretive
rules. See Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 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 are
procedural where they do not change the substantive standard for
reviewing claims); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of
Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rule that
clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive).
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for
the changes in this rulemaking were not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b) or (c), 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 rulemaking
for ``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice'' (quoting 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A))). However, the USPTO chose to seek public comment before
implementing the rule to benefit from the public's input.
[[Page 68903]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the reasons set forth in this
final rule, the Senior Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs,
Office of General Law, of the USPTO has certified to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the changes in
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (see 5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
This rulemaking amends the rules of practice to provide that the
receipt date of correspondence officially submitted electronically by
way of the USPTO patent electronic filing system is the date in Eastern
Time when the Office received the correspondence. The USPTO is also
amending the patent rules of practice to make other clarifying changes
regarding the receipt of electronic submissions. These changes are
procedural in nature and do not result in a change in the burden
imposed on any patent applicant, including a small entity.
For the reasons described above, the changes will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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 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 online 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 the
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.), the USPTO will submit a report containing
the final 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
rulemaking are not expected to result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million 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 rulemaking 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 set forth in
this rulemaking 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 (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 (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 of 1969: 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 of 1995: 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 that involve the use of
technical standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 requires that the USPTO consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. This rulemaking
does not involve any new information collection requirements that 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.).
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
has a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, 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:
[[Page 68904]]
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. In 37 CFR part 1, remove ``Office's electronic filing system'' and
``Office electronic filing system'' wherever they appear and add in
their place ``USPTO patent electronic filing system.''
0
3. Section 1.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 Addresses for non-trademark correspondence with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office.
(a) In general. Except for correspondence submitted via the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system in
accordance with Sec. 1.6(a)(4), all correspondence intended for the
USPTO must be addressed to either ``Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-
1450'' or to specific areas within the Office as provided in this
section. When appropriate, correspondence should also be marked for the
attention of a particular office or individual.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 1.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.6 Receipt of correspondence.
(a) * * *
(4) Correspondence may be submitted using the USPTO patent
electronic filing system only in accordance with the USPTO patent
electronic filing system requirements. Correspondence officially
submitted to the Office by way of the USPTO patent electronic filing
system will be accorded a receipt date, which is the date in Eastern
Time when the correspondence is received in the Office, regardless of
whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the
District of Columbia.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 1.9 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (o); and
0
b. Removing the parenthetical authority citation at the end of the
section.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1.9 Definitions.
* * * * *
(o) Eastern Time as used in this chapter means Eastern Standard
Time or Eastern Daylight Time in the United States, as appropriate.
Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-24335 Filed 11-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
