Patent and Trademark Office – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

On April 4, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published a final rule that revises the rules of practice in patent cases to implement a procedure under which applicants may request prioritized examination at the time of filing of an application upon payment of appropriate fees and compliance with certain requirements (Track I final rule). The prioritized examination procedure is the first track (Track I) of a 3-Track examination process designed to provide applicants with greater control over when their nonprovisional utility and plant applications are examined and to promote greater efficiency in the patent examination process. The Track I final rule states that the effective date is May 4, 2011, and that a request for prioritized examination may be submitted with any original utility or plant application filed on or after May 4, 2011. The Office is hereby notifying the public that the Track I final rule effective date and applicability date have been delayed until further notice.

On November 29, 1999, the President signed into law the Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act (the ``Act''), Public Law 106-113, which, among other things, established two Public Advisory Committees to review the policies, goals, performance, budget and user fees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with respect to patents, in the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and with respect to trademarks, in the case of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee, and to advise the Director on these matters (now codified at 35 U.S.C. 5). The USPTO is requesting nominations for three (3) members to each Public Advisory Committee for terms of three years that begin at the expiration of the predecessors' terms, or on October 6, 2011.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to revise the patent term adjustment and extension provisions of the rules of practice in patent cases. The patent term adjustment provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the patent term extension provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) each provide for patent term extension or adjustment if the issuance of the patent was delayed due to appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) or by a Federal court and the patent was issued pursuant to or under a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability. The Office is proposing to change the rules of practice to indicate that in most circumstances an examiner reopening prosecution of the application after a notice of appeal has been filed will be considered a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability for purposes of patent term adjustment or extension purposes. Therefore, in such situations, patentees would be entitled to patent term extension or adjustment. In addition, the AIPA provides for a reduction of any patent term adjustment if the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application. The Office is also proposing to change the rules of practice pertaining to the reduction of patent term adjustment for applicant delays to exclude information disclosure statements resulting from the citation of information by a foreign patent office in a counterpart application that are promptly filed with the Office. For example, under the proposed rule, there would not be a reduction of patent term adjustment in the following situations: When applicant promptly submits a reference in an information disclosure statement after the mailing of a notice of allowance if the reference was cited by the Office in another application, or when applicant promptly submits a copy of an Office communication (e.g., an Office action) in an information disclosure statement after the mailing of a notice of allowance if the Office communication was issued by the Office in another application or by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'' or ``Office'') is preparing a preliminary plan to review its existing significant regulations in response to the President's Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. The purpose of this regulatory review is to determine whether any of these regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed in order to make the Office's regulatory program more effective and less burdensome. More effective and less burdensome regulations will help the Office in its mission to foster innovation and competitiveness through providing high quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property information and education worldwide. The Office is asking the public to provide ideas and information about preparing such a review plan and to help the Office identify which regulations should be reviewed.

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 revision of a currently approved collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

These supplementary guidelines are intended to assist United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) personnel in the examination of claims in patent applications for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, which requires that claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that applicant regards as his or her invention. In addition, supplemental information is provided to assist Office personnel in the examination of claims that contain functional language for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, especially computer-implemented invention claims. The guidelines also include information to assist Office personnel in the examination of dependent claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. The guidelines are a supplement to the current provisions in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112, and the current provisions in the MPEP pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112 remain in effect except as where indicated in these guidelines.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a fourth one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,971,802.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) previously published a notice requesting comments on a proposed change to missing parts practice in nonprovisional applications. The USPTO has considered the comments and is implementing a pilot program (Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program) in which an applicant can request a twelve-month time period to pay certain fees and to reply to a Notice to File Missing Parts of Nonprovisional Application. Under the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program, applicant must file a nonprovisional application within twelve months of the filing date of a provisional application and directly claim the benefit of the provisional application, as well as submit a certification and request to participate in the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program with the nonprovisional application. In addition, applicant must not file a nonpublication request. Applicant will be given a twelve-month period to decide whether the nonprovisional application should be completed by paying the search fee, the examination fee, any excess claim fees, and the surcharge ($130.00 for non-small entity or $65.00 for small entity) for the late submission of the search fee and examination fee within that twelve-month period. The nonprovisional application will be published under the existing eighteen-month publication provisions. Therefore, applicant should also submit the basic filing fee, an executed oath or declaration, and application papers that are in condition for publication, on filing of the application with the request to participate in the pilot. If the basic filing fee, an executed oath declaration, and/or application papers that are in condition for publication are not submitted with the application and the request to participate in the pilot, applicant will need to submit these items within a two-month (extendable) time period. In view of the comments, the USPTO is cautiously moving forward by implementing the proposed procedure as a pilot program. Specifically, the pilot program will require applicant to submit a certification and request to participate in the pilot program, rather than automatically applying the procedure to all applicants. The USPTO is providing a certification and request form that includes educational information regarding domestic benefit claims, foreign filings, patent term adjustment (PTA) effects, the need for a complete disclosure of the invention, potential increase in fees, and the benefits of submitting a complete set of claims. In addition, the USPTO is implementing a number of educational initiatives to assist independent inventors and other applicants. The Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program will benefit applicants by permitting additional time to determine if patent protection should be soughtat a relatively low costand by permitting applicants to focus efforts on commercialization during this period. The Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program will benefit the USPTO and the public by adding publications to the body of prior art, and by removing from the USPTO's workload those nonprovisional applications for which applicants later decide not to pursue examination. Applicants are advised that the extended missing parts period does not affect the twelve-month priority period provided by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Thus, any foreign filings must still be made within twelve months of the filing date of the provisional application if applicant wishes to rely on the provisional application in the foreign-filed application or if protection is desired in a country requiring filing within twelve months of the earliest application for which rights are left outstanding in order to be entitled to priority.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'') issued the seventh edition of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (``TMEP''), and made available archived copies of the fourth, fifth, and sixth editions, on October 15, 2010.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) proposes changes to rules governing practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board or BPAI) in ex parte patent appeals. After considering public comments raised in response to an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which proposed potential modifications to the stayed final rule, the Office is proposing to rescind the stayed final rule and is issuing this notice seeking public comment on proposed new revisions to the current rule. The goal of this proposed rulemaking is to simplify the appellate process in a manner that effects an overall lessening of the burden on appellants and examiners to present an appeal to the Board.

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)).

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.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a third one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,919,140.

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 this new 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 (USPTO or Office) is issuing an update (2010 KSR Guidelines Update) to its obviousness guidelines for its personnel to be used when applying the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update highlights case law developments on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 since the 2007 decision by the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. These guidelines are intended to be used by Office personnel in conjunction with the guidance in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure when applying the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. Members of the public are invited to provide comments on the 2010 KSR Guidelines Update. The Office is especially interested in receiving suggestions of recent decisional law in the field of obviousness that would have particular value as teaching tools.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recognizes the need to reduce the pendency of reexamination proceedings and improve the efficiency of the reexamination process. The USPTO is considering a number of short and long-range initiatives that can be implemented in three phases. In phase I, the USPTO will implement streamlined procedures, as well as optional programs in which patent owners and third party requesters may elect to participate in order to gain the benefit of shorter pendency. In phases II and III, the USPTO will consider the data gathered from phase I and the feedback from the patent owners and other stakeholders, and implement process changes that are likely to improve efficiency. Such changes may include internal procedural changes, rule making that includes opportunities for the public to comment, and/or administrative proposals for statutory changes to enhance the efficiency of the USPTO in conducting reexamination proceedings. As part of phase I to reduce pendency and improve efficiency in ex parte reexamination proceedings, the USPTO is implementing, in this notice, a pilot program in which patent owners may waive the right to file a patent owner's statement upon a request made by the USPTO. This will enable USPTO in suitable cases to issue the first Office action on the merits together with or soon after the reexamination order, and thereby reduce the pendency of the proceeding by about three to five months.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) has prepared Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in view of Bilski v. Kappos (Interim Bilski Guidance) for its personnel to use when determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) in Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964 (June 28, 2010). It is intended to be used by Office personnel as a supplement to the previously issued Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101 dated August 24, 2009 (Interim Instructions) and the memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps on the Supreme Court Decision in Bilski v. Kappos dated June 28, 2010. This guidance supersedes previous guidance on subject matter eligibility that conflicts with the Interim Bilski Guidance. Any member of the public may submit written comments on the Interim Bilski Guidance. The Office is especially interested in receiving comments regarding the scope and extent of the holding in Bilski.

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 revision of a currently approved 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 (USPTO) is clarifying the procedure for seeking review of a determination that a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) has been raised in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. This notice clarifies that while issues related to a SNQ determination are procedural, the Chief Judge of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has been delegated the authority to review issues related to the examiner's determination that a reference raises a SNQ in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. The Chief Judge of the BPAI may further delegate that authority to the panel of Administrative Patent Judges who are deciding the appeal in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. This clarification of procedure will facilitate more efficient resolution of SNQ issues.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register providing an additional temporary basis (the Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan) under which a small entity applicant may have an application accorded special status for examination if the applicant expressly abandons another copending unexamined application. The Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan allows small entity applicants having multiple applications currently pending before the USPTO to have greater control over the priority with which their applications are examined while also stimulating a reduction of the backlog of unexamined patent applications pending before the USPTO. The USPTO is expanding the Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan to permit all applicants to participate by eliminating the small entity status requirement and adding a few new requirements in view of the expansion. The program is also being extended until December 31, 2010, or the date that 10,000 applications have been accorded special status for examination under the Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan, whichever occurs earlier. These changes allow more applicants to take advantage of the program.

In situations in which two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in a single patent application, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is authorized by the patent laws and implementing regulations to require the applicant to restrict the application to one invention. The practice for requiring an applicant to restrict an application to one invention in such situations is known as restriction practice. The Office is considering changes to restriction practice to improve the quality and consistency of restriction requirements made by Office personnel.