Expanding Admission Criteria for Registration To Practice in Patent Cases Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 31249-31251 [2023-10409]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2023 / Notices
Statistical Committee (SSC) via webinar
to consider actions affecting New
England fisheries in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ).
Recommendations from this group will
be brought to the full Council for formal
consideration and action, if appropriate.
DATES: This webinar will be held on
Thursday, June 1, 2023, beginning at 1
p.m.
ADDRESSES:
Webinar registration information:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/
register/5510384372857768792.
Call in information: 1 (415) 655–0060,
Access Code: 723–991–313.
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
original notice published in the Federal
Register on May 11, 2023 (88 FR 30300).
The original notice stated that the
webinar meeting would begin at 9 a.m.
This notice corrects the start time of the
meeting to 1 p.m.
All other previously-published
information remains unchanged.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 11, 2023.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–10416 Filed 5–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. PTO–P–2022–0027]
Expanding Admission Criteria for
Registration To Practice in Patent
Cases Before the United States Patent
and Trademark Office
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO or Office)
previously published a notice
requesting comments on the scientific
and technical requirements to practice
in patent matters before the USPTO.
Specifically, the Office sought input on
whether it should revise the scientific
and technical criteria for admission to
practice in patent matters to require the
USPTO to periodically review certain
applicant degrees on a predetermined
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 May 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
timeframe, make certain modifications
to the accreditation requirement for
computer science degrees, and add
clarifying instructions to the General
Requirements Bulletin for Admission to
the Examination for Registration to
Practice in Patent Cases before the
United States Patent and Trademark
Office (GRB) for limited recognition
applicants. The USPTO has considered
the comments and, based on the support
for the proposals, is implementing
updates to the GRB. Expanding the
admission criteria of the patent bar
would encourage broader participation
and keep up with the ever-evolving
technology and related teachings that
qualify someone to practice before the
USPTO.
DATES: The new version of the GRB
incorporating the proposed updates will
be published and be applicable as of
May 16, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will
Covey, Director for the Office of
Enrollment and Discipline (OED), at
571–272–4097 or oed@uspto.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary
On October 18, 2022, the Office
published a request for comments on
four proposals on the scientific and
technical requirements to practice in
patent matters before the USPTO. The
first proposal was to add commonly
accepted Category B degrees to Category
A on a predetermined timeframe,
namely every three years. The Office
received 10 comments responsive to this
proposal. The second proposal was to
remove the requirement that computer
science degrees be accredited by the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) in order to be
considered under Category A, and
instead, to propose that the USPTO
would accept all Bachelor of Science in
computer science degrees from
accredited colleges or universities under
Category A. The Office received 14
comments responsive to this proposal.
The third proposal was to clarify the
instructions for applicants who are
applying for limited recognition. The
Office received five comments
responsive to this proposal. A majority
of the comments were supportive of the
suggested changes regarding these three
proposals. The fourth proposal, whether
to implement a design patent
practitioner bar, and, if so, how to do so,
will be addressed in a separate notice.
This notice provides information
related to the implementation of the first
three proposals. Based on the USPTO’s
evaluation and comments received, the
USPTO is changing the criteria to: add
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31249
common Category B degrees to Category
A on a predetermined timeframe,
namely every three years, and remove
the requirement that in order to qualify
under Category A, Bachelor of Science
in computer science degrees must be
accredited by the Computer Science
Accreditation Commission of the
Computing Sciences Accreditation
Board, or by the Computing
Accreditation Commission of the ABET,
on or before the date the degree was
awarded. Instead, all Bachelor of
Science degrees in computer science
from an accredited university or college
will be accepted under Category A.
Additionally, the instructions to limited
recognition applicants to apply for
recognition will be clarified to aid
applicants in the application process.
Background
The Director of the USPTO is given
statutory authority to require a showing
by patent practitioners that they possess
‘‘the necessary qualifications to render
applicants or other persons valuable
service, advice, and assistance in the
presentation or prosecution of their
applications or other business before the
Office.’’ 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(D). The courts
have determined that the USPTO
Director bears primary responsibility for
protecting the public from unqualified
practitioners.
Pursuant to that responsibility,
USPTO regulations provide that
registration to practice in patent matters
before the USPTO requires a
practitioner to, inter alia, demonstrate
possession of scientific and technical
qualifications.1 The role of patent
practitioners with scientific and
technical backgrounds in providing full
and clear patent specifications and
claims has long been acknowledged.
The USPTO publishes the GRB, which
sets forth guidance for establishing
possession of scientific and technical
qualifications. The GRB also provides
applicants instructions on how to apply
to become a patent practitioner. The
GRB is available at www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/OED_GRB.pdf.
The GRB lists three categories of
scientific and technical qualifications
that typically make one eligible for
admission to the registration
examination in order to practice before
the Office in all patent matters: (1)
Category A for specified bachelor’s,
master’s, and doctorate of philosophy
degrees; (2) Category B for other degrees
1 Legal representation before Federal agencies is
generally governed by the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
500. That statute, however, provides a specific
exception for representation in patent matters
before the USPTO. 5 U.S.C. 500(e). See 35 U.S.C.
2(b)(2)(D) (formerly 35 U.S.C. 31).
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
31250
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2023 / Notices
with technical and scientific training;
and (3) Category C for individuals who
rely on practical engineering or
scientific experience by demonstrating
that they have passed the Fundamentals
of Engineering test. If a candidate for
registration does not qualify under any
of the categories listed in the GRB, the
USPTO will conduct an independent
review for compliance with the
scientific and technical qualifications
pursuant to 37 CFR 11.7(a)(2)(ii).
The USPTO has evaluated, and
continues to evaluate, the list of
typically qualifying training set forth in
the GRB. These evaluations seek to
clarify guidance on what will satisfy the
scientific and technical qualifications,
to identify possible areas of improved
administrative efficiency, and to clarify
instructions where warranted. To that
end, the USPTO published a notice
requesting comments on three proposed
updates to the GRB, namely, to add
commonly accepted Category B degrees
to Category A every three years; to
remove the requirement that computer
science degrees be accredited by ABET
in order to be considered under
Category A, and instead accept all
Bachelor of Science in computer science
degrees from accredited colleges or
universities; and to clarify the
instructions for applicants who are
applying for limited recognition. See
Request for Comments on Expanding
Admission Criteria for Registration to
Practice in Patent Cases Before the
United States Patent and Trademark
Office, 87 FR 63044 (October 18, 2022).
The USPTO received comments from
intellectual property organizations,
industry, individual patent
practitioners, and the general public.
The USPTO acknowledges and
appreciates the many comments that
were submitted from the intellectual
property community. The comments are
available at www.regulations.gov/
docket/PTO-P-2022-0027/comments.
The USPTO has considered the
comments, including those that raised
concerns or provided suggestions. The
USPTO is implementing the proposals
as stated in the request for comments,
and as explained below. Additional
suggestions beyond the scope of the
request for comments and the questions
posed therein were provided within
many of the comments. The USPTO
appreciates the suggestions and may
address them in the future, once further
evaluation and data is garnered.
This notice merely describes agency
policy and procedures and does not
involve substantive rulemaking. While
the criteria for admission to practice in
patent matters is generally described in
37 CFR 11.7, the rule does not set forth
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 May 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
the specific scientific and technical
criteria for admission.
Update 1: Review Commonly Accepted
Category B Degrees and, Where
Warranted, Add Them to Category A
Every Three Years
In early 2020, the Office undertook a
review of Category B applications to
identify bachelor’s degrees that are
routinely accepted as demonstrating the
requisite scientific and technical
qualifications. In September 2021, the
Office added 14 of these degrees, which
were previously evaluated under the
criteria listed in Category B, to Category
A. The review of degrees is ongoing and
is currently based on data from those
applying for the registration exam.
Category A is not an exhaustive list of
all degrees that would qualify, and the
USPTO’s practice is to accept degrees
when the accompanying transcript
demonstrates equivalence to a Category
A degree (for example, molecular cell
biology may be equivalent to biology).2
A determination of equivalency does
not indicate that the degrees are the
same. Rather, it is an evaluation that the
degrees have the same or similar
scientific and technical rigor required to
provide patent applicants valuable
service. Currently, the average
processing time for applicants with
Category A degrees is seven calendar
days. The average processing time for
applicants with Category B degrees is
10–14 calendar days.
Given the fast pace at which
technology and related teachings evolve,
the USPTO will review commonly
accepted Category B degrees and add
them to Category A on a three-year
timeframe, beginning from the
publication date of this notice. These
reviews will clarify guidance on what
would satisfy the scientific and
technical qualifications, improve
administrative efficiency, and simplify
the application process. Conducting
such reviews on a three-year cycle will
provide adequate time for the USPTO to
gather, review, and analyze the degree
data from a sufficient number of
applicants for the registration exam.
One commenter suggested that such
reviews rely on the technical and
analytic ability required by the
particular degree. Once the potential
degrees that may be moved from
Category B to Category A are ascertained
based on applicant data, the degrees
will be assessed to determine whether
they present sufficient technical and
2 See OED Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs),
available at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/
patent-and-trademark-practitioners/oed-frequentlyasked-questions-faqs.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
scientific qualifications necessary to
render patent applicants valuable
service. See Premysler v. Lehman, 71
F.3d 387, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Other
commenters suggested specific degrees
for current incorporation into Category
A. The degrees suggested either are not
ones that are currently awarded by a
great majority of institutions (e.g.,
artificial intelligence), are not ones that
applicants actually have or that a lot of
applicants have (e.g., artificial
intelligence and cheminformatics), or
are ones that would already be
evaluated as equivalent to a current
Category A degree (e.g., cell biology as
equivalent to biology). As stated in this
notice, the USPTO will continue to
collect and analyze data on the degrees
on a three-year cycle.
Lastly, a number of commenters
suggested making applicants’ degrees
publicly available. The USPTO is not
permitted to blanketly reveal such
information, as stated in the Privacy Act
Statement that accompanies the
application in the GRB, and there is no
current infrastructure to do so.
Update 2: Accept Bachelor of Science
Degrees in Computer Science From
Accredited Colleges and Universities
Under Category A
Prior to this notice, acceptable
computer science degrees under
Category A must have been accredited
by the Computer Science Accreditation
Commission of the Computing Sciences
Accreditation Board or by the
Computing Accreditation Commission
of the ABET on or before the date the
degree was awarded. As of the
publication of this notice, this criterion
will be changed so that all Bachelor of
Science degrees in computer science
from accredited colleges and
universities will be accepted under
Category A, regardless of whether the
degree program is accredited by the
ABET. An overwhelming majority of
those who commented on this proposal
were in favor of this change, as they
thought ABET accreditation did not
convey a perceivable benefit.
Update 3: Provide Clarifying
Instructions in the GRB for Limited
Recognition Applicants
The USPTO requested input on
whether the instructions below should
be added to the GRB to aid limited
recognition applicants in applying for
recognition. Based on the support of
commenters, these instructions will be
placed in the GRB. These instructions
will not change the process by which
applicants for limited recognition apply
for recognition. One commenter
suggested that instructions be given for
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2023 / Notices
each immigration status or visa
category; however, the ever-changing
landscape of immigration prohibits such
an exhaustive list. The instructions
below are to be inserted under Section
F of the GRB.
F. Eligibility of Aliens: No grant of
registration except under 37 CFR
11.6(c). An applicant who is not a
United States citizen and does not
reside in the U.S. is not eligible for
registration except as permitted by 37
CFR 11.6(c). Presently, the Canadian
Intellectual Property Office is the only
patent office recognized as allowing
substantially reciprocal privileges to
those admitted to practice before the
USPTO. The registration examination is
not administered to aliens who do not
reside in the United States.
Limited recognition to practice before
the Office in patent matters. An alien
residing in the United States may apply
for limited recognition to practice before
the Office in patent matters pursuant to
37 CFR 11.9(b). To be admitted to take
the examination, an applicant must
fulfill the requirements as stated above
and 37 CFR 11.9(b), which includes that
establishing that such recognition is
consistent with the capacity of
employment authorized by United
States immigration authorities, for
example the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS),
United States Department of State, U.S.
Customs and Border Patrol, and the U.S.
Department of Labor. The evidence
establishing such consistency must
demonstrate: (1) the applicant’s
authorization to reside in the United
States, and (2) the applicant’s
authorization to work or be trained in
the United States. It must include a
copy of both sides of any work or
training authorization and copies of all
documents submitted to and received
from the immigration authorities
regarding admission to the United
States, and a copy of any documentation
submitted to the U.S. Department of
Labor. This may include a complete
copy of the application for a particular
immigration status, the application for a
work or training permit, and/or any
related approved notices.
Qualifying documentation should
specifically show that the immigration
authorities have authorized the
applicant to be employed or trained in
the capacity of representing patent
applicants before the USPTO by
preparing and prosecuting their patent
applications. Any approval that is
pending at the time the application is
submitted will result in the applicant
being denied admission to the
examination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:33 May 15, 2023
Jkt 259001
A qualifying alien within the scope of
8 CFR 274a.12(b) or (c) is not registered
upon passing the examination.
Therefore, such qualifying aliens will
not be patent attorneys or patent agents.
Rather, such an applicant will be given
limited recognition under 37 CFR
11.9(b) if recognition is consistent with
the capacity of employment or training
authorized by immigration authorities.
Documentation establishing an
applicant’s qualification to receive
limited recognition must be submitted
with the applicant’s application.
Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2023–10409 Filed 5–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
BUREAU
[Docket No. CFPB–2023–0034]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) is
requesting the Office of Management
and Budget’s (OMB’s) approval for a
new information collection titled
‘‘Making Ends Meet Survey.’’
DATES: Written comments are
encouraged and must be received on or
before July 17, 2023 to be assured of
consideration.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments,
identified by the title of the information
collection, OMB Control Number (see
below), and docket number (see above),
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: PRA_Comments@cfpb.gov.
Include Docket No. CFPB–2023–0034 in
the subject line of the email.
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
Comment Intake, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA
Office), 1700 G Street NW, Washington,
DC 20552. Because paper mail in the
Washington, DC, area and at the Bureau
is subject to delay, commenters are
encouraged to submit comments
electronically.
Please note that comments submitted
after the comment period will not be
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31251
accepted. In general, all comments
received will become public records,
including any personal information
provided. Sensitive personal
information, such as account numbers
or Social Security numbers, should not
be included.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to Anthony May,
PRA Officer, at (202) 435–7278 or email:
CFPB_PRA@cfpb.gov. If you require this
document in an alternative electronic
format, please contact CFPB_
Accessibility@cfpb.gov. Please do not
submit comments to these email boxes.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Making Ends Meet
Survey.
OMB Control Number: 3170–00XX.
Type of Review: New collection.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
4,500.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 1,375.
Abstract: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
charges the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau with researching,
analyzing, and reporting on topics
relating to the Bureau’s mission
including consumer behavior, consumer
awareness, and developments in
markets for consumer financial products
and services. To improve its
understanding of how consumers
engage with financial markets, the
Bureau has successfully used surveys
under its ‘‘Making Ends Meet’’ program.
The ‘‘Making Ends Meet’’ program has
also used the Bureau’s Consumer Credit
Information Panel (CCIP) as a frame to
survey people about their experiences in
consumer credit markets. The Bureau
seeks approval for two yearly surveys
under the ‘‘Making Ends Meet’’
program. These surveys solicit
information on the consumer’s
experience related to household
financial shocks, particularly shocks
related to the economic effects of the
COVID–19 pandemic, how households
respond to those shocks, and the role of
savings to help provide a financial
buffer.
The first survey will be a follow-up to
respondents from the Bureau’s 2023
‘‘Making Ends Meet’’ survey to better
understand household financial
experiences dealing with medical debt
as well as consumers’ interactions with
various financial products. The second
survey will go to a new sample of
consumers from the CCIP and will
address several topics of interest to the
Bureau possibly including the impact of
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31249-31251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10409]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. PTO-P-2022-0027]
Expanding Admission Criteria for Registration To Practice in
Patent Cases Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or
Office) previously published a notice requesting comments on the
scientific and technical requirements to practice in patent matters
before the USPTO. Specifically, the Office sought input on whether it
should revise the scientific and technical criteria for admission to
practice in patent matters to require the USPTO to periodically review
certain applicant degrees on a predetermined timeframe, make certain
modifications to the accreditation requirement for computer science
degrees, and add clarifying instructions to the General Requirements
Bulletin for Admission to the Examination for Registration to Practice
in Patent Cases before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(GRB) for limited recognition applicants. The USPTO has considered the
comments and, based on the support for the proposals, is implementing
updates to the GRB. Expanding the admission criteria of the patent bar
would encourage broader participation and keep up with the ever-
evolving technology and related teachings that qualify someone to
practice before the USPTO.
DATES: The new version of the GRB incorporating the proposed updates
will be published and be applicable as of May 16, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Covey, Director for the Office of
Enrollment and Discipline (OED), at 571-272-4097 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary
On October 18, 2022, the Office published a request for comments on
four proposals on the scientific and technical requirements to practice
in patent matters before the USPTO. The first proposal was to add
commonly accepted Category B degrees to Category A on a predetermined
timeframe, namely every three years. The Office received 10 comments
responsive to this proposal. The second proposal was to remove the
requirement that computer science degrees be accredited by the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in order to
be considered under Category A, and instead, to propose that the USPTO
would accept all Bachelor of Science in computer science degrees from
accredited colleges or universities under Category A. The Office
received 14 comments responsive to this proposal. The third proposal
was to clarify the instructions for applicants who are applying for
limited recognition. The Office received five comments responsive to
this proposal. A majority of the comments were supportive of the
suggested changes regarding these three proposals. The fourth proposal,
whether to implement a design patent practitioner bar, and, if so, how
to do so, will be addressed in a separate notice.
This notice provides information related to the implementation of
the first three proposals. Based on the USPTO's evaluation and comments
received, the USPTO is changing the criteria to: add common Category B
degrees to Category A on a predetermined timeframe, namely every three
years, and remove the requirement that in order to qualify under
Category A, Bachelor of Science in computer science degrees must be
accredited by the Computer Science Accreditation Commission of the
Computing Sciences Accreditation Board, or by the Computing
Accreditation Commission of the ABET, on or before the date the degree
was awarded. Instead, all Bachelor of Science degrees in computer
science from an accredited university or college will be accepted under
Category A. Additionally, the instructions to limited recognition
applicants to apply for recognition will be clarified to aid applicants
in the application process.
Background
The Director of the USPTO is given statutory authority to require a
showing by patent practitioners that they possess ``the necessary
qualifications to render applicants or other persons valuable service,
advice, and assistance in the presentation or prosecution of their
applications or other business before the Office.'' 35 U.S.C.
2(b)(2)(D). The courts have determined that the USPTO Director bears
primary responsibility for protecting the public from unqualified
practitioners.
Pursuant to that responsibility, USPTO regulations provide that
registration to practice in patent matters before the USPTO requires a
practitioner to, inter alia, demonstrate possession of scientific and
technical qualifications.\1\ The role of patent practitioners with
scientific and technical backgrounds in providing full and clear patent
specifications and claims has long been acknowledged. The USPTO
publishes the GRB, which sets forth guidance for establishing
possession of scientific and technical qualifications. The GRB also
provides applicants instructions on how to apply to become a patent
practitioner. The GRB is available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OED_GRB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Legal representation before Federal agencies is generally
governed by the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 500. That statute, however,
provides a specific exception for representation in patent matters
before the USPTO. 5 U.S.C. 500(e). See 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(D)
(formerly 35 U.S.C. 31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GRB lists three categories of scientific and technical
qualifications that typically make one eligible for admission to the
registration examination in order to practice before the Office in all
patent matters: (1) Category A for specified bachelor's, master's, and
doctorate of philosophy degrees; (2) Category B for other degrees
[[Page 31250]]
with technical and scientific training; and (3) Category C for
individuals who rely on practical engineering or scientific experience
by demonstrating that they have passed the Fundamentals of Engineering
test. If a candidate for registration does not qualify under any of the
categories listed in the GRB, the USPTO will conduct an independent
review for compliance with the scientific and technical qualifications
pursuant to 37 CFR 11.7(a)(2)(ii).
The USPTO has evaluated, and continues to evaluate, the list of
typically qualifying training set forth in the GRB. These evaluations
seek to clarify guidance on what will satisfy the scientific and
technical qualifications, to identify possible areas of improved
administrative efficiency, and to clarify instructions where warranted.
To that end, the USPTO published a notice requesting comments on three
proposed updates to the GRB, namely, to add commonly accepted Category
B degrees to Category A every three years; to remove the requirement
that computer science degrees be accredited by ABET in order to be
considered under Category A, and instead accept all Bachelor of Science
in computer science degrees from accredited colleges or universities;
and to clarify the instructions for applicants who are applying for
limited recognition. See Request for Comments on Expanding Admission
Criteria for Registration to Practice in Patent Cases Before the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, 87 FR 63044 (October 18, 2022).
The USPTO received comments from intellectual property
organizations, industry, individual patent practitioners, and the
general public. The USPTO acknowledges and appreciates the many
comments that were submitted from the intellectual property community.
The comments are available at www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-P-2022-0027/comments. The USPTO has considered the comments, including those
that raised concerns or provided suggestions. The USPTO is implementing
the proposals as stated in the request for comments, and as explained
below. Additional suggestions beyond the scope of the request for
comments and the questions posed therein were provided within many of
the comments. The USPTO appreciates the suggestions and may address
them in the future, once further evaluation and data is garnered.
This notice merely describes agency policy and procedures and does
not involve substantive rulemaking. While the criteria for admission to
practice in patent matters is generally described in 37 CFR 11.7, the
rule does not set forth the specific scientific and technical criteria
for admission.
Update 1: Review Commonly Accepted Category B Degrees and, Where
Warranted, Add Them to Category A Every Three Years
In early 2020, the Office undertook a review of Category B
applications to identify bachelor's degrees that are routinely accepted
as demonstrating the requisite scientific and technical qualifications.
In September 2021, the Office added 14 of these degrees, which were
previously evaluated under the criteria listed in Category B, to
Category A. The review of degrees is ongoing and is currently based on
data from those applying for the registration exam. Category A is not
an exhaustive list of all degrees that would qualify, and the USPTO's
practice is to accept degrees when the accompanying transcript
demonstrates equivalence to a Category A degree (for example, molecular
cell biology may be equivalent to biology).\2\ A determination of
equivalency does not indicate that the degrees are the same. Rather, it
is an evaluation that the degrees have the same or similar scientific
and technical rigor required to provide patent applicants valuable
service. Currently, the average processing time for applicants with
Category A degrees is seven calendar days. The average processing time
for applicants with Category B degrees is 10-14 calendar days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See OED Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), available at
www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/oed-frequently-asked-questions-faqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the fast pace at which technology and related teachings
evolve, the USPTO will review commonly accepted Category B degrees and
add them to Category A on a three-year timeframe, beginning from the
publication date of this notice. These reviews will clarify guidance on
what would satisfy the scientific and technical qualifications, improve
administrative efficiency, and simplify the application process.
Conducting such reviews on a three-year cycle will provide adequate
time for the USPTO to gather, review, and analyze the degree data from
a sufficient number of applicants for the registration exam. One
commenter suggested that such reviews rely on the technical and
analytic ability required by the particular degree. Once the potential
degrees that may be moved from Category B to Category A are ascertained
based on applicant data, the degrees will be assessed to determine
whether they present sufficient technical and scientific qualifications
necessary to render patent applicants valuable service. See Premysler
v. Lehman, 71 F.3d 387, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Other commenters
suggested specific degrees for current incorporation into Category A.
The degrees suggested either are not ones that are currently awarded by
a great majority of institutions (e.g., artificial intelligence), are
not ones that applicants actually have or that a lot of applicants have
(e.g., artificial intelligence and cheminformatics), or are ones that
would already be evaluated as equivalent to a current Category A degree
(e.g., cell biology as equivalent to biology). As stated in this
notice, the USPTO will continue to collect and analyze data on the
degrees on a three-year cycle.
Lastly, a number of commenters suggested making applicants' degrees
publicly available. The USPTO is not permitted to blanketly reveal such
information, as stated in the Privacy Act Statement that accompanies
the application in the GRB, and there is no current infrastructure to
do so.
Update 2: Accept Bachelor of Science Degrees in Computer Science From
Accredited Colleges and Universities Under Category A
Prior to this notice, acceptable computer science degrees under
Category A must have been accredited by the Computer Science
Accreditation Commission of the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board
or by the Computing Accreditation Commission of the ABET on or before
the date the degree was awarded. As of the publication of this notice,
this criterion will be changed so that all Bachelor of Science degrees
in computer science from accredited colleges and universities will be
accepted under Category A, regardless of whether the degree program is
accredited by the ABET. An overwhelming majority of those who commented
on this proposal were in favor of this change, as they thought ABET
accreditation did not convey a perceivable benefit.
Update 3: Provide Clarifying Instructions in the GRB for Limited
Recognition Applicants
The USPTO requested input on whether the instructions below should
be added to the GRB to aid limited recognition applicants in applying
for recognition. Based on the support of commenters, these instructions
will be placed in the GRB. These instructions will not change the
process by which applicants for limited recognition apply for
recognition. One commenter suggested that instructions be given for
[[Page 31251]]
each immigration status or visa category; however, the ever-changing
landscape of immigration prohibits such an exhaustive list. The
instructions below are to be inserted under Section F of the GRB.
F. Eligibility of Aliens: No grant of registration except under 37
CFR 11.6(c). An applicant who is not a United States citizen and does
not reside in the U.S. is not eligible for registration except as
permitted by 37 CFR 11.6(c). Presently, the Canadian Intellectual
Property Office is the only patent office recognized as allowing
substantially reciprocal privileges to those admitted to practice
before the USPTO. The registration examination is not administered to
aliens who do not reside in the United States.
Limited recognition to practice before the Office in patent
matters. An alien residing in the United States may apply for limited
recognition to practice before the Office in patent matters pursuant to
37 CFR 11.9(b). To be admitted to take the examination, an applicant
must fulfill the requirements as stated above and 37 CFR 11.9(b), which
includes that establishing that such recognition is consistent with the
capacity of employment authorized by United States immigration
authorities, for example the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS), United States Department of State, U.S. Customs and
Border Patrol, and the U.S. Department of Labor. The evidence
establishing such consistency must demonstrate: (1) the applicant's
authorization to reside in the United States, and (2) the applicant's
authorization to work or be trained in the United States. It must
include a copy of both sides of any work or training authorization and
copies of all documents submitted to and received from the immigration
authorities regarding admission to the United States, and a copy of any
documentation submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor. This may
include a complete copy of the application for a particular immigration
status, the application for a work or training permit, and/or any
related approved notices.
Qualifying documentation should specifically show that the
immigration authorities have authorized the applicant to be employed or
trained in the capacity of representing patent applicants before the
USPTO by preparing and prosecuting their patent applications. Any
approval that is pending at the time the application is submitted will
result in the applicant being denied admission to the examination.
A qualifying alien within the scope of 8 CFR 274a.12(b) or (c) is
not registered upon passing the examination. Therefore, such qualifying
aliens will not be patent attorneys or patent agents. Rather, such an
applicant will be given limited recognition under 37 CFR 11.9(b) if
recognition is consistent with the capacity of employment or training
authorized by immigration authorities. Documentation establishing an
applicant's qualification to receive limited recognition must be
submitted with the applicant's application.
Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-10409 Filed 5-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P