United States Patent and Trademark Office – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of patent practice to implement the preissuance submissions by third parties provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). This provision provides a mechanism for third parties to contribute to the quality of issued patents by submitting to the Office, for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of the application. A preissuance submission may be made in any non- provisional utility, design, and plant application, as well as in any continuing application. A third-party preissuance submission must include a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted, and must be submitted within a certain statutorily specified time period. The third party must submit a fee as prescribed by the Director, and a statement that the submission complies with the statutory provision. The Office has also revised the rules of patent practice to make related aspects of the existing protest rule more consistent with the new rule implementing the preissuance submissions by third parties provision. Further, the Office is eliminating the provision providing for public use proceedings.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to amend the rules of practice in patent cases to implement the micro entity provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Certain patent fees set or adjusted under the fee setting authority in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will be reduced by seventy-five percent for micro entities. The Office is proposing changes to the rules of practice to set out the procedures pertaining to claiming micro entity status, paying patent fees as a micro entity, notification of loss of micro entity status, and correction of payments of patent fees paid erroneously in the micro entity amount. In a separate rulemaking, the Office is in the process of proposing to set or adjust patent fees under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, including setting fees for micro entities with a seventy-five percent reduction.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is implementing a pilot program intended to reduce pendency and applicant costs when an information disclosure statement (IDS) is filed after payment of the issue fee. This pilot program will permit an examiner to consider an IDS after payment of the issue fee without the need to reopen prosecution, effectively obviating the need to pursue a request for continued examination (RCE). Where the examiner determines that no item of information in the IDS necessitates reopening prosecution, the Office will issue a corrected notice of allowability. In addition to reducing pendency, this pilot program will promote efficiency in the examination process. There will be no fee required to use this program, beyond existing fees, e.g., fees for IDS submission.

Pursuant to a request from Congress, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking comments as to whether the United States should identify and bar from publication and issuance certain patent applications as detrimental to the nation's economic security. The USPTO is also seeking comments on the desirability of changes to the existing procedures for reviewing applications that might be detrimental to national security.

Under Section 10 of the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may set or adjust by rule any patent or trademark fee established, authorized, or charged under Title 35 of the United States Code or the Trademark Act of 1946, respectively. The USPTO currently is planning to set or adjust patent fees pursuant to its Section 10 fee setting authority. As part of the rulemaking process to set or adjust patent fees, the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) is required under Section 10 of the AIA to hold a public hearing about any proposed patent fees, and the USPTO is required to assist PPAC in carrying out that hearing. To that end, the USPTO will make its proposed patent fees available as set forth in the Supplementary Information section of this Notice before any PPAC hearing and will help the PPAC to notify the public about the hearing. Accordingly, this document announces the dates and logistics for two PPAC public hearings regarding USPTO proposed patent fees. Interested members of the public are invited to testify at the hearing and/or submit written comments about the proposed patent fees and the questions posed on PPAC's Web site about the proposed fees.

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 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) requires that disciplinary proceedings be commenced not later than the earlier of the date that is 10 years after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis of the proceeding occurred, or one year from the date on which the misconduct forming the basis of the proceeding was made known to an officer or employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO), as prescribed in the regulations governing disciplinary proceedings. The Office initiates disciplinary proceedings via three types of disciplinary complaints: complaints predicated on the receipt of a probable cause determination from the Committee on Discipline; complaints seeking reciprocal discipline; and complaints seeking interim suspension based on a serious crime conviction. This notice proposes that the one-year statute of limitations commences, with respect to complaints predicated on the receipt of a probable cause determination from the Committee on Discipline, the date on which the Director, Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED Director) receives from the practitioner a complete, written response to a request for information and evidence; with respect to complaints based on reciprocal discipline, the date on which the OED Director receives a certified copy of the record or order regarding the practitioner being publicly censured, publicly reprimanded, subjected to probation, disbarred, suspended, or disciplinarily disqualified; and, with respect to complaints for interim suspension based on a serious crime conviction, the date on which the OED Director receives a certified copy of the record, docket entry, or judgment demonstrating that the practitioner has been convicted of a serious crime.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing changes to the rules of patent practice to implement the preissuance submissions by third parties provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This provision provides a mechanism for third parties to contribute to the quality of issued patents by submitting to the Office, for consideration and inclusion in the record of patent applications, any patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of the applications. A preissuance submission may be made in any non- provisional utility, design, and plant application, as well as in any continuing or reissue application. A third-party preissuance submission must include a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted and be submitted within a certain statutorily specified time period. The third party must submit a fee as prescribed by the Director and a statement that the submission complies with all of the statutory requirements. The third-party preissuance submission provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any application filed before, on, or after September 16, 2012. Comment Deadline: Written comments must be received on or before March 5, 2012.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently begun electronic delivery of search results from U.S. patent applications to the European Patent Office (EPO) to assist U.S. applicants who later file in the EPO to comply with amended Rule 141(1) of the EPO's implementing regulations to the European Patent Convention (EPC). As a result, U.S. applicants subject to amended Rule 141(1) EPC will not need to separately file their U.S. search results with the EPO, thereby providing time and cost savings to these applicants.

The Department of Commerce (United States Patent and Trademark Office) is requesting nominations of individuals to serve on the National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Evaluation Committee. The United States Patent and Trademark Office will consider all timely nominations received in response to this notice as well as from other sources.

To provide interested parties with the opportunity to comment further to the original request for public comment (see https:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-17/pdf/2011-26757.pdf), The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'') is extending the period for public comment regarding any challenges that U.S. inventors and companies are facing with the judicial and/or administrative patent enforcement systems of the People's Republic of China. USPTO invites any member of the public to submit written comments on China's patent enforcement system, including, but not limited to, the following five topics: acquisition and enforcement of utility model and design patents; evidence collection and preservation in Chinese courts; obtaining damages and injunctions; enforceability of court orders and judgments; and administrative patent enforcement. The USPTO would like to resolve rights holders' concerns by working with them to identify problems regarding these and other areas of China's patent enforcement system so that it can then address these issues with the Chinese Government. To help the USPTO address these issues, it encourages interested members of the public to respond to this request.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is considering several changes in practice designed to encourage a more complete record at the USPTO of patent assignments. The USPTO invites the public to provide comments on methods the USPTO can employ to collect more timely and accurate patent assignment information both during prosecution and after issuance.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) amends the rules governing practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board or BPAI) in ex parte patent appeals. The Office amends the rules to: Remove several of the briefing requirements for an appeal brief, provide for the Board to take jurisdiction over the appeal earlier in the appeal process, no longer require examiners to acknowledge receipt of reply briefs, create specified procedures under which an appellant can seek review of an undesignated new ground of rejection in either an examiner's answer or in a Board decision, provide that the Board will presume that the appeal is taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an applicant's amendment, and clarify that, for purposes of the examiner's answer, any rejection that relies upon Evidence not relied upon in the Office action from which the appeal is taken shall be designated as a new ground of rejection. The Office also withdraws a previously published final rule that never went into effect.

The National Medal of Technology and Innovation (NMTI) Nomination Evaluation Committee will meet in closed session on Friday, November 18, 2011. The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss the relative merits of persons, teams and companies nominated for the 2011 NMTI Medal.

As China has become a major trading partner for the United States, U.S. rights holders are increasingly seeking to protect and enforce their intellectual property (IP) in that country. China's patent and trademark offices are now among the largest in the world in terms of filings, and its IP enforcement system is being increasingly utilized by U.S. rights holders. Ensuring that the Chinese IP system works in a fair and timely manner for U.S. innovators is a top priority for the U.S. Government. To that end, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in collaboration with other U.S. Government agencies, is leading an effort to identify and assess the challenges U.S. inventors are facing with China's judicial and administrative patent enforcement systems. The USPTO would like to address the concerns of rights holders by working with them to identify problemssuch as difficulties in gathering evidence, meeting evidentiary requirements, protecting proprietary information, obtaining adequate damages, and enforcing preliminary injunctionsto then find ways to address these issues with the Chinese Government. As part of this effort, the USPTO, in coordination with the White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), has conducted a series of roundtables to obtain the views of diverse members of the patent community who have first-hand experience enforcing their patents in China. Roundtables were held on July 19, 2011, in Washington, DC; on July 26, 2011, in Beijing, China; on July 29, 2011, in Shanghai, China; and on August 1, 2011, in Guangzhou, China. Topics for discussion included: (1) Acquisition and enforcement of utility model and design patents; (2) evidence collection and preservation in Chinese courts; (3) obtaining damages and injunctions; (4) enforceability of court orders; and (5) administrative patent enforcement. To ensure that the USPTO receives a wide array of views, the USPTO would like to invite any member of the public to submit written comments on China's patent enforcement system, including, but not limited to, the five specific issues listed above. Examples of first- hand experience using China's patent enforcement system, and recommendations on ways to improve the system, are encouraged. Based on these comments, the USPTO intends to produce a report that details the patent enforcement landscape in China and identifies any challenges faced by U.S. innovators, together with recommendations for improving the system.

On April 4, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published a final rule that revised 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 utility and plant applications are examined and to promote greater efficiency in the patent examination process. The Office subsequently published a final rule on April 29, 2011, indicating that the effective date of the Track I final rule was delayed until further notice due to funding limitations. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act includes provisions for prioritized examination that emulate the requirements of the Office's Track I final rule, with revised fee amounts for prioritized examination (including a small entity discount) and a provision that addresses the funding limitations that required a delay in the implementation of the Track I final rule. This final rule implements the prioritized examination provisions of section 11(h) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice governing inter partes reexamination to implement a transition provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that changes the standard for granting a request for inter partes reexamination. The Office is also revising the rules governing inter partes reexamination to reflect the termination of inter partes reexamination effective September 16, 2012, which is provided for in the Act. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act replaces inter partes reexamination by a new inter partes review process effective one year after the date of enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (i.e., September 16, 2012), and provides that any request for inter partes reexamination filed on or after September 16, 2011, will not be granted unless the information presented in the request establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the request. This replaces the prior standard for granting a request for inter partes reexamination that required a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) affecting any claim of the patent raised by the request. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act does not revise the SNQ standard for granting an ex parte reexamination request.