USPTO PATENT EXAMINATION ACCELERATION PROGRAMS AND PROPOSALS

Similar documents
Moving Patent Applications Through the USPTO: Options for Applicants

Accelerating the Acquisition of an Enforceable Patent: Bypassing the USPTO s Backlog Lawrence A. Stahl and Seth E. Boeshore

Fast Track. Strategies at the USPTO. Hillsborough County Bar Association. January 5, Anton Hopen. Smith & Hopen, PA

Prioritized Examination and New Prior Art defined for First-Inventor-to-File

USPTO Programs for Expediting Patent Prosecution: Accelerated Exam, Patent Prosecution Highway, Green Technology. Susan Perng Pan November 2010

United States Patent and Trademark Office and Japan Patent Office Collaborative Search. AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES

Accelerated Examination. Presented by Hans Troesch, Principal Fish & Richardson P.C. March 2, 2010

August 31, I. Introduction

Working Guidelines. Question Q193. Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications

K&L Gates Webinar Current Developments in Patents. Peggy Focarino Commissioner for Patents September 13 th, 2012

Get Your Design Patent Fast!

Delain Law Office, PLLC

Practice Tips for Foreign Applicants

Strategies for Expediting U.S. Patent Prosecution. Rachel K. Pilloff

The Serious Burden Requirement Has Teeth - A Prohibition on Restriction Requirements Later in Prosecution

New Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007

Normal Examination Speed (2/2)

USPTO Final Rule Changes for Continuations and Claims. John B. Pegram Ronald C. Lundquist August 30, 2007

Understanding Patent Examiner Docketing & Workflow to Expedite Prosecution

John Doll Commissioner for Patents. February 1, 2006

Changes at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP

Changes to Implement the First Inventor to File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith. AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

After Final Practice and Appeal

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has modified

Chapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted

Chapter 1400 Correction of Patents

PATENT PROSECUTION HIGHWAY

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE REGISTRATION EXAMINATION FOR PATENT ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS OCTOBER 17, Afternoon Session (50 Points)

Changes To Implement the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Final Rules

Il ~ [E ~ OFFICE OF PETITtONS AUG BACKGROUND. Patricia Derrick DBA Brainpaths 4186 Melodia Songo CT Las Vegas NV

A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination

Priority Claims, Incorporation By Reference, and how to fix errors, big and small. March 9, Jack G. Abid. Orlando, Florida

Will the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Rely Upon Dictionary Definitions Newly. Cited in Appeal Briefs? Answer: It Depends

UNDERSTANDING THE BACKLOG PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH REQUESTS FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION PRACTICE

IDS Practice; 2008 Patent Practice. Miku H. Mehta, Patent Attorney Sughrue Mion, PLLC

USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act. Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:

Re: JIPA Comments on the Proposed Enhanced Examination Timing Control Initiative in the United States

PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE 1 (REVISION 15) ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES TO PANELS

United States Patent and Trademark Office Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys and Agents April 18, Morning Session Model Answers

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

Patent Term Patent Term Extension Patent Term Adjustment

WIPO Circular C. PCT 1372, concerning Proposed Modification to the PCT Receiving Office Guidelines, February 20, 2013

Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform

Annex 2 DEFINITIONS FOR TERMS AND FOR STATISTICS ON PROCEDURES

A Guide To Filing A Design Patent Application. Prepared by I.N. Tansel from pac/design/toc.

PATENTS TRADEMARKS COPYRIGHTS TRADE SECRETS ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS. Patent Process FAQs

2001 through 2017 IPLEGALED, Inc. All Rights Reserved

~O~rE~ OFFICE OF PETITIONS JAN Haisam Yakoub 2700 Saratoga Place #815 Ottawa ON K1T 1W4 CA CANADA

Should you elect non publication?

(SUCCESSFUL) PATENT FILING IN THE US

Introduction. 1 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS IN COORDINATING ACCELERATION OF INTERNATIONAL PATENT PROSECUTION

Appendix R Patent Rules. CONSOLIDATED PATENT RULES Title 37 - Code of Federal Regulations Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights

By Howard L. Hoffenberg The IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

Paper 34 Tel: Entered: June 22, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

18-MONTHS POST-AIA: HOW HAS PATENT LITIGATION. Rebecca Hanovice, Akarsh Belagodu, Lauren Bruzzone and Clay Holloway

PRE-GRANT OPPOSITION POST-GRANT OPPOSITION

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE REGISTRATION EXAMINATION FOR PATENT ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS APRIL 18, 2001

1~~~rew OFFICE OF PETITIONS RELEVANT BACKGROUND OCT UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE VARIOUS RULES AND REQUIREMENTS

Three Types of Patents

Rule 130 Declarations for First-Inventor-to-File Applications

USPTO PATENT BAR PRACTICE EXAMINATIONS OCTOBER 2001 APRIL 2002 OCTOBER 2002 APRIL 2003 OCTOBER 2003

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE REGISTRATION EXAMINATION FOR PATENT ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS OCTOBER 17, Morning Session (50 Points)

Strategies... to Prepare for an Interference Washington, D.C. 17 October 2002

Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review

patents grant only the right to stop others from making, using and selling the invention

Prosecuting an Israel Patent Application and Beyond

Terminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

IP CONCLAVE 2010, MUMBAI STRATEGIES WITH US PATENT PRACTICE NAREN THAPPETA US PATENT ATTORNEY & INDIA PATENT AGENT BANGALORE, INDIA

Patent Prosecution Under The AIA

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012

First Inventor to File: Proposed Rules and Proposed Examination Guidelines

The New PTO Patent Rules Published 6/30/2003. Arlington VA August, 2003

PATENT RULES Title 37 - Code of Federal Regulations Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights

Improving the Accuracy of the Trademark Register: Request for Comments on Possible

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. REPORT TO CONGRESS on INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION. Executive Summary

FINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS

Change in Procedure Relating to an Application Filing Date

PATENT ACTIVITY AT THE IP5 OFFICES

Monitoring Practitioner Compliance With Disciplinary Rules and Inequitable Conduct

TITLE 35 - PATENTS PART I - UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE CHAPTER 1 - ESTABLISHMENT, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, FUNCTIONS

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FOR PATENT ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS APRIL 15, 2003

PATENT ACTIVITY AT THE IP5 OFFICES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LEGEND3D, INC., Petitioner,

United States Patent and Trademark Office. Substantive Submissions Made During Prosecution of the

IPDAS Forms Library: A Complete List

Benefits and Dangers of U.S. Provisional Applications

The Supreme Court is Set to Decide the Scope of Business Method Patent Protection

Patent Rule Changes to Support Implementation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 21 st Century Strategic Plan

How the USPTO Rules Implement the AIA: Prosecution Strategies and Tips. by Andrew D. Meikle Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch LLP

AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine

Information Disclosure Statements 2017 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP

Chapter 1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty

Navigating the Patent Prosecution Highway and Other Accelerated Filing Options

POTENTIAL PATENT APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Patent Prosecution Update

CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT THE INVENTOR S OATH OR DECLARATION PROVISIONS OF

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU RE EXPECTING A PATENT By R. Devin Ricci 1

Transcription:

USPTO PATENT EXAMINATION ACCELERATION PROGRAMS AND PROPOSALS Name Description of Effective Accelerated Pursuant to the Accelerated, an applicant may have an application granted examination status provided certain conditions are met. In order to receive treatment, applicants must file a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.107 entitled Advancement of examination. Key requirements include the following: (1) the application must be filed via EFS-Web with a petition to make special along with (a) required petition fee or (b) a statement that the claimed invention is directed to environmental quality, development or conservation of energy resources, or counter terrorism; (2) the application must be complete and in condition for examination; (3) the application must contain three or fewer independent and twenty or fewer total claims, and must not contain any multiple dependent claims; (4) the claims must be directed to a single invention; (5) the petition must include a statement agreeing to have an interview; (6) applicant must provide a statement that a pre-examination search was conducted that meets certain requirements; and (7) applicant must provide an examination support document that satisfies certain requirements. Permanent Aug. 25, 2006 Complete US $130 Petition Fee to Request Accelerated No petition fee required for inventions that will enhance the quality of the environment, relate to the development or conservation of energy resources or, contribute to counterterrorism. Goal is to complete examination of an application within 12 months from the filing date of the application. Applications are throughout the entire prosecution in the USPTO. See MPEP 708.02(a). http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file//index.jsp 1

Name Green Technology Pilot Description of Effective The Green Technology Pilot permits applicants to request examination for applications pertaining to clean technologies, such as environmental quality, energy conservation, development of renewable energy resources, and greenhouse gas emission reductions. In order to receive treatment, applicants must file a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.107 entitled Advancement of examination. Some key requirements include the following: (1) the application must be filed before December 8, 2009; (2) the application must contain three or fewer independent claims and twenty or fewer total claims, and must not contain any multiple dependent claims; (3) the claims must be directed to a single invention that materially enhances the quality of the environment; (4) the petition must include a statement explaining how the materiality standard is met if it is not clear on its face from the application disclosure; (5) the petition must be filed via EFS-Web; and (6) the petition must be accompanied by a request for early publication and the publication fee. Pilot Dec. 8, 2009 Termination Date Dec. 8, 2010, or when the first 3,000 grantable petitions are filed, whichever is earlier Not No Applications will be in the following situations: (1) prior to the first communication on merits, i.e., first Office action; (2) any appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences; and (3) the patent publication process. An initial classification requirement was removed on May 21, 2010, allowing more inventions related to green technologies to qualify. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/green_tech.jsp 2

Name Description of Effective Project Exchange or Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan The Project Exchange was initially designed to allow small-entity applicants having multiple applications pending before the USPTO to have an application accorded examination status if the applicant expressly abandons another copending unexamined application. In order to receive treatment, applicants must file a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.107 entitled Advancement of examination. Some of the key requirements include the following: (1) the non-provisional application for which status is sought must be filed before October 1, 2009; (2) the applicant has another co-pending non-provisional application that has an actual filing date earlier than October 1, 2009, and is complete; (3) the application for which status is sought and the other co-pending application either are owned by the same party as of October 1, 2009, or name at least one inventor in common; and (4) the applicant files a letter of express abandonment in the copending application before it has been taken up for examination. Pilot Nov. 27, 2009 Termination Date Dec. 31, 2010 or when 10,000 applications have been granted status under this program, whichever is earlier Not No Applications will be in the following situations: (1) prior to the first communication on merits, i.e., first Office action; (2) any appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences; and (3) the patent publication process. The small-entity status requirement was removed on June 24, 2010 to increase participation in the. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/patentstimulusplan.jsp 3

Name Description of Effective Applicant s Age or Health Applications may be accorded examination status based on an applicant s age or health. In order to receive treatment, applicants must file a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.107 entitled Advancement of examination. Key requirements include a petition with accompanying evidence showing that (1) the state of health of the applicant is such that he or she might not be available to assist in the prosecution of the application if it were to run its normal course, such as a doctor's certificate or other medical certificate or (2) that the applicant is 65 years of age or older. See 37 CFR 1.102(c). Permanent Circa December, 1959 Not No Applications are throughout the entire prosecution in the USPTO. 4

Name Description of Effective Three-Track Proposal The Three-Track Proposal would permit applicants to choose one of three tracks for patent examination. The proposal would provide applicants with greater control over the timing of examination and increase the efficiency of examination by avoiding or reducing duplication of efforts by the Office of First Filing and the USPTO. Track I ( examination) Applicants who submit a request and pay an additional fee will have their application placed in an queue for examination. Applicants would expect to receive a first Office action on the merits within 4 months. Final disposal (allowance or final rejection) would be expected to occur within 12 months of status being granted. Proposal Not Applications in Track I would require a cost recovery fee. The goal for handling applications in Track 1 would be to provide a first Office action on the merits within 4 months and a final disposition within 12 months of status being granted. Track II (standard or traditional timing for examination) This option will involve standard fees and will proceed under current examination procedures. Track III (applicant controlled up to 30 months queue prior to docketing for examination) Non-continuing applications that originate in the United States may have examination delayed for up to 30 months. For United States applications that are based on a prior foreign application, no action would be taken until the applicant submits a copy the search report from the foreign office (if any), a copy of the first action on the merits from the foreign office, and an appropriate reply to the foreign office action. After these items are received, the applicant could request prioritized examination or obtain standard processing under Track II. See 75 FR 31763 (June 4, 2010). http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2010/10_24.jsp 5