Patent and Trademark Office 2013 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this revision of a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice inviting written public comment on the renewal of information collection 0651- 0032, Initial Patent Applications. The USPTO plans to conduct a roundtable to obtain additional public input regarding the burden associated with the Initial Patent Applications collection and ways to potentially reduce it. By providing this additional opportunity for public input, the USPTO hopes to increase the level of stakeholder participation in this information collection renewal. The roundtable will be open for any member of the public to provide input.

The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague Agreement) in title I, and the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) in title II. The PLT harmonizes and streamlines formal procedures pertaining to the filing and processing of patent applications. This final rule revises the rules of practice for consistency with the changes in the PLT and title II of the PLTIA. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is implementing the Hague Agreement and title I of the PLTIA in a separate rulemaking. The notable changes in the PLT and title II of the PLTIA pertain to: The filing date requirements for a patent application; the restoration of patent rights via the revival of abandoned applications and acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments; and the restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in a subsequent application filed within two months of the expiration of the twelve- month period (six-month period for design applications) for filing such a subsequent application. This final rule also revises the patent term adjustment provisions to provide for a reduction of any patent term adjustment if an application is not in condition for examination within eight months of its filing date or date of commencement of national stage in an international application, and contains miscellaneous changes pertaining to the supplemental examination, inventor's oath or declaration, and first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).

In conformance with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of its Performance Review Board (PRB).

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is adopting the new USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct (USPTO Rules), which are based on the American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct (ABA Model Rules), which were published in 1983, substantially revised in 2003 and updated through 2012. The Office has also revised the existing procedural rules governing disciplinary investigations and proceedings. These changes will enable the Office to better protect the public while also providing practitioners with substantially uniform disciplinary rules across multiple jurisdictions.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is revising the rules of practice to implement the changes with respect to inter partes review that are set forth in section 1(d) of the Act to correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code (``AIA Technical Corrections Act''). Consistent with the statutory changes, this final rule eliminates the nine-month ``dead zone'' for filing an inter partes review petition challenging a first-to-invent patent or reissue patent. Under the final rule, a petitioner may file an inter partes review petition challenging a first-to-invent patent or reissue patent upon issuance, including during the first nine months after issuance.

In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is amending the system of records currently listed under ``COMMERCE/ PAT-TM-1 Attorneys and Agents Registered to Practice Before the Office.'' This action is being taken to update the Privacy Act notice. We invite the public to comment on the amendments noted in this publication.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is publishing examination guidelines concerning the first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA amends the patent laws pertaining to the conditions of patentability to convert the U.S. patent system from a ``first to invent'' system to a ``first inventor to file'' system, treats patents and patent application publications as prior art as of their earliest effective U.S., foreign, or international filing date, eliminates the requirement that a prior public use or sale activity be ``in this country'' to be a prior art activity, and treats commonly owned or joint research agreement patents and patent application publications as being by the same inventive entity for purposes of novelty, as well as nonobviousness. The changes to the conditions of patentability in the AIA result in greater transparency, objectivity, predictability, and simplicity in patentability determinations. The Office is providing these examination guidelines to Office personnel, and notifying the public of these guidelines, to assist in the implementation of the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. These examination guidelines also clarify, in response to the public comment, that there is no requirement that the mode of disclosure by an inventor or joint inventor be the same as the mode of disclosure of an intervening disclosure (e.g., inventor discloses his invention at a trade show and the intervening disclosure is in a peer-reviewed journal). Additionally, there is no requirement that the disclosure by the inventor or a joint inventor be a verbatim or ipsissimis verbis disclosure of an intervening disclosure in order for the exception based on a previous public disclosure of subject matter by the inventor or a joint inventor to apply. These guidelines also clarify that the exception applies to subject matter of the intervening disclosure that is simply a more general description of the subject matter previously publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor.