Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 34220-34221 [2024-08822]

Download as PDF 34220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 generated disclosure for prior art purposes? For example: a. Should the treatment of an AIgenerated disclosure as prior art depend on the extent of human contribution to the AI-generated disclosure? b. How should the fact that an AIgenerated disclosure could include incorrect information (e.g., hallucinations) affect its consideration as a prior art disclosure? c. How does the fact that a disclosure is AI-generated impact other prior art considerations, such as operability, enablement, and public accessibility? 5. At what point, if ever, could the volume of AI-generated prior art be sufficient to create an undue barrier to the patentability of inventions? At what point, if ever, could the volume of AIgenerated prior art be sufficient to detract from the public accessibility of prior art (i.e., if a PHOSITA exercising reasonable diligence may not be able to locate relevant disclosures)? B. The Impact of AI on a PHOSITA 6. Does the term ‘‘person’’ in the PHOSITA assessment presume or require that the ‘‘person’’ is a natural person, i.e., a human? How, if at all, does the availability of AI as a tool affect the level of skill of a PHOSITA as AI becomes more prevalent? For example, how does the availability of AI affect the analysis of the PHOSITA factors, such as the rapidity with which innovations are made and the sophistication of the technology? 7. How, if at all, should the USPTO determine which AI tools are in common use and whether these tools are presumed to be known and used by a PHOSITA in a particular art? 8. How, if at all, does the availability to a PHOSITA of AI as a tool impact: a. Whether something is well-known or common knowledge in the art? b. How a PHOSITA would understand the meaning of claim terms? 9. In view of the availability to a PHOSITA of AI as a tool, how, if at all, is an obviousness determination affected, including when: a. Determining whether art is analogous to the claimed invention, given AI’s ability to search across art fields? Does the ‘‘analogous’’ art standard still make sense in view of AI’s capabilities? b. Determining whether there is a rationale to modify the prior art, including the example rationales suggested by KSR (MPEP 2143, subsection I) (e.g., ‘‘obvious to try’’) or the scientific principle or legal precedent rationales (MPEP 2144)? c. Determining whether the modification yields predictable results VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 29, 2024 Jkt 262001 with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g., how to evaluate the predictability of results in view of the stochasticity (or lack of predictability) of an AI system)? d. Evaluating objective indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness (e.g., commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, simultaneous invention, unexpected results, copying, etc.)? 10. How, if at all, does the recency of the information used to train an AI model or that ingested by an AI model impact the PHOSITA assessment when that assessment may focus on an earlier point in time (e.g., the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an application examined under the FirstInventor-to-File provisions of the America Invents Act)? 11. How, if at all, does the availability to a PHOSITA of AI as a tool impact the enablement determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)? Specifically, how does it impact the consideration of the In re Wands factors (MPEP 2164.01(a)) in ascertaining whether the experimentation required to enable the full scope of the claimed invention is reasonable or undue? C. The Implications of AI That Could Require Updated Examination Guidance and/or Legislative Change 12. What guidance from the USPTO on the impact of AI on prior art and on the knowledge of a PHOSITA, in connection with patentability determinations made by the Office, would be helpful? 13. In addition to the considerations discussed above, in what other ways, if any, does the proliferation of AI impact patentability determinations made by the Office (e.g., under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112, etc.)? 14. Are there any laws or practices in other countries that effectively address any of the questions above? If so, please identify them and explain how they can be adapted to fit within the framework of U.S. patent law. 15. Should title 35 of the U.S. Code be amended to account for any of the considerations set forth in this notice, and if so, what specific amendments do you propose, and why? Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 2024–08969 Filed 4–29–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–16–P PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA–2024–HQ–0003] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: 30-Day information collection notice. AGENCY: The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 28, 2024. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or by using the search function. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reginald Lucas, (571) 372–7574, whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dodinformation-collections@mail.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Surveys; OMB Control Number 0710–0017. Type of Request: Extension. Number of Respondents: 3,000. Responses per Respondent: 1. Annual Responses: 3,000. Average Burden per Response: 23 minutes. Annual Burden Hours: 1,150. Needs and Uses: Information collection via the survey instruments is necessary to formulate and evaluate alternative water resources development plans in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines for Water Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (PR&G), promulgated by the U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983, which specifically identifies personal interviews as a method of gathering primary flood damage data. The PR&G were most recently updated in 2013 at the direction of Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–114). The information collection is also needed to determine the effectiveness and evaluate the impacts of Army Corps of Engineers projects (Pub. L. 74–738); and, in the SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM 30APN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Notices case of flood damage mitigation, obtain information on flood damages incurred, whether or not a project is being considered or exists (Pub. L. 74–738). The information to be gathered under this collection also supports the mandate from the Flood Control Act of 1936 (Pub. L. 74–734), which established the criterion for Federal action that ‘‘the benefits, to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs.’’ The Engineer Regulation (ER) 1105–2–100, Planning Guidance Notebook (April, 2000) defines benefits for the project under consideration, with flood damages avoided comprising the primary category of benefits used in project justification. Secondary benefits include reductions in emergency costs, unrecoverable and non-transferrable income losses, clean-up and other costs associated with flooding. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provides flood risk management structural and nonstructural mitigation, planning and tech services to communities, residents, and businesses at risk of flooding. Flood damage surveys are administered by USACE and its contractors to determine the impacts and potential impacts of flooding and to determine how communities, residents, and businesses respond to flooding. The data are used for estimating damage for factors such as depth of flooding, construction types, and different occupancies of use, which influences project formulation and budgeting. Damage estimation models are then calculated and used to estimate the cost of flooding and to evaluate the benefits of alternative flood mitigation plans, which are critical to determining the feasibility of flood risk management projects. Results of surveys will help communities to better determine and communicate their flood risks. The models are also used for programmatic evaluation of the Army Corps of Engineers’ National Flood Risk Management Program. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; individuals or households; notfor-profit institutions; State, local, or Tribal government. Frequency: On occasion. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Matthew Oreska. You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Apr 29, 2024 Jkt 262001 ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas. Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dddod-information-collections@mail.mil. Dated: April 19, 2024. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 2024–08822 Filed 4–29–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001–FR–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD–2024–OS–0018] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: 30-Day information collection notice. AGENCY: The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 30, 2024. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or by using the search function. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reginald Lucas, (571) 372–7574, whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dodinformation-collections@mail.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery— the Interactive Customer Evaluation System; OMB Control Number: 0704– 0420. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34221 Type of Request: Revision. Number of Respondents: 500,000. Responses per Respondent: 1. Annual Responses: 500,000. Average Burden per Response: 3 minutes. Annual Burden Hours: 25,000. Needs and Uses: The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration’s commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency’s services will be unavailable. The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions: • The collections are voluntary. • The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government. • The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies. • Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future. • Personally identifiable information is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained. E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM 30APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34220-34221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08822]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

[Docket ID: USA-2024-HQ-0003]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of the Army, 
Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: 30-Day information collection notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 28, 
2024.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Flood and Coastal Storm 
Damage Surveys; OMB Control Number 0710-0017.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 3,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 3,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 23 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 1,150.
    Needs and Uses: Information collection via the survey instruments 
is necessary to formulate and evaluate alternative water resources 
development plans in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines for 
Water Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (PR&G), promulgated 
by the U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983, which specifically 
identifies personal interviews as a method of gathering primary flood 
damage data. The PR&G were most recently updated in 2013 at the 
direction of Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (Pub. L. 110-114). The information collection is also needed to 
determine the effectiveness and evaluate the impacts of Army Corps of 
Engineers projects (Pub. L. 74-738); and, in the

[[Page 34221]]

case of flood damage mitigation, obtain information on flood damages 
incurred, whether or not a project is being considered or exists (Pub. 
L. 74-738). The information to be gathered under this collection also 
supports the mandate from the Flood Control Act of 1936 (Pub. L. 74-
734), which established the criterion for Federal action that ``the 
benefits, to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated 
costs.'' The Engineer Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance 
Notebook (April, 2000) defines benefits for the project under 
consideration, with flood damages avoided comprising the primary 
category of benefits used in project justification. Secondary benefits 
include reductions in emergency costs, unrecoverable and non-
transferrable income losses, clean-up and other costs associated with 
flooding.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provides flood risk 
management structural and nonstructural mitigation, planning and tech 
services to communities, residents, and businesses at risk of flooding. 
Flood damage surveys are administered by USACE and its contractors to 
determine the impacts and potential impacts of flooding and to 
determine how communities, residents, and businesses respond to 
flooding. The data are used for estimating damage for factors such as 
depth of flooding, construction types, and different occupancies of 
use, which influences project formulation and budgeting. Damage 
estimation models are then calculated and used to estimate the cost of 
flooding and to evaluate the benefits of alternative flood mitigation 
plans, which are critical to determining the feasibility of flood risk 
management projects. Results of surveys will help communities to better 
determine and communicate their flood risks. The models are also used 
for programmatic evaluation of the Army Corps of Engineers' National 
Flood Risk Management Program.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; individuals or 
households; not-for-profit institutions; State, local, or Tribal 
government.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Matthew Oreska.
    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by 
Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. 
The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of 
the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on 
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.
    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should 
be sent to Mr. Lucas at [email protected].

    Dated: April 19, 2024.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2024-08822 Filed 4-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.