Pay maintenance fees and learn more about filing fees and other payments
Notices of possible system outages
DISCLAIMER: This blog provides updates and information about various AIA related issues. However, for complete information on the requirements for a particular type of AIA filing, please consult the relevant statute and rules for the respective AIA provision.
Message From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Various Aspects Of Inventor's Oath/Declaration Provision Explained Including Updates To Certain USPTO Forms, Tips For Using An Application Data Sheet, And Reminders About Correcting Inventorship, etc
Various Aspects Of Inventor's Oath/Declaration Provision Explained Including Updates To Certain USPTO Forms, Tips For Using An Application Data Sheet, And Reminders About Correcting Inventorship, Juristic Entities, And Real Parties In Interest
In January 2013, we provided guidance regarding the use of a substitute statement, addressed the process for correcting inventorship and correcting/updating inventor names, and provided instructions for completing USPTO inventor’s oath or declaration forms. This current post provides information about new versions of some of the USPTO forms and tips for using an application data sheet. Additionally, we provide an alert about the fee for corrections of inventorship that took effect in March 2013. Finally, we provide a reminder about the need for juristic entities to be represented as well as the need to update the real party in interest at the time of issue fee payment.
New Versions of Forms
The Office has updated the Application Data Sheet, Substitute Statement, and Power of Attorney by Applicant forms for use in patent applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. Each of these three updates will be addressed in turn. The updated forms are available at www.uspto.gov/forms.
First, the Application Data Sheet (ADS) form, PTO/AIA/14, has been updated to permit an assignee-applicant to be identified as an assignee on the patent application publication, in addition to being identified as the applicant. See the “Assignee Information including Non-Applicant Assignee Information” section of the PTO/AIA/14. This change to the ADS form was made in response to public feedback. Some customers want to be identified as both an applicant and an assignee, and this change to the form permits such dual identification.
Second, the Substitute Statement forms, PTO/AIA/02, PTO/AIA/04, and PTO/AIA/07, have been updated to provide for identification of the applicant (e.g., assignee) who is signing the statement on behalf of an inventor. Additionally, the forms have been updated to contain “authorization to act” language for use by an individual who may not have a title that carries apparent authority but who is authorized to act on behalf of a juristic entity applicant. A patent practitioner cannot sign a substitute statement on behalf of the applicant merely on the basis of having power of attorney in the application. In order to sign as the applicant, a patent practitioner must have binding authority (e.g., given by corporate resolution from a Board of Directors). See MPEP Section 324, V. for more information.
Third, the Power of Attorney by Applicant form, PTO/AIA/82, has been updated to provide a box where a juristic entity applicant may be identified and contains “authorization to act” language for use by an individual who may not have a title that carries apparent authority but who is authorized to act on behalf of a juristic entity applicant. For patent applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, only the applicant may grant a power of attorney. Thus, where the inventors are named as the applicant, an assignee would need to become the applicant by filing a request under 37 CFR 1.46(c) and include a corrected ADS per 37 CFR 1.76(c) and a statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c).
Tips for Using an Application Data Sheet
An ADS must identify with markings any changes in information from what was provided in a prior ADS or otherwise of record. New information must be underlined, and deleted information must be shown using strikethrough or brackets. The ADS can, however, be limited to showing only the section(s) of the ADS that contains the changed information. The requirement for identification of the information being changed applies to all application data sheets, regardless of the filing date of the application or proceeding under both versions of 37 CFR 1.76. Applicants do not have to use USPTO form PTO/AIA/14 to submit a corrected ADS and may instead create a corrected ADS in word processing software. Please note that, for an application filed before September 16, 2012, applicants must still file a Supplemental ADS with markings and include all of the sections, rather than a corrected ADS, to change the information. See MPEP 601.05 for more information.
New Additional Fee for Correction or Change of Inventorship
Where a request to correct or change the inventorship is filed under 37 CFR 1.48(a) after an Office action on the merits has been given or mailed, there is a fee that is due as of March 19, 2013, in addition to the processing fee, unless the request is accompanied by a statement that the request is due solely to the cancellation of claims in the application. See 37 CFR 1.48(c). The additional fee is set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(d). As a reminder, the changes to the correction of inventorship rule, 37 CFR 1.48, were effective on September 16, 2012, and apply to any request to correct inventorship filed on or after September 16, 2012, regardless of the application filing date. Where, however, a new inventor declaration is required due to an added inventor, the filing date of the application governs which version of 37 CFR 1.63 the declaration must comply with (e.g., for an application filed before September 16, 2012, the declaration would need to comply with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63, and USPTO Form PTO/SB/01 could be used).
Reminder for Juristic Entities
Juristic entities (this includes corporations and other non-human entities created by law and given certain legal rights) who seek to prosecute an application must do so via a registered patent practitioner, even if the juristic entity is the applicant. See 37 CFR 1.31. All papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity must be signed by a patent practitioner unless otherwise specified, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3). Only a limited number of documents may be signed by a juristic entity such as a terminal disclaimer, statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c), power of attorney, or substitute statement. This change in practice was effective September 16, 2012, and applies to any paper filed on behalf of a juristic entity on or after September 16, 2012, regardless of the filing date of the application or proceeding.
Reminder to Update the Real Party in Interest at Time of Payment of the Issue Fee
For applicants other than the inventor(s), e.g., assignee-applicants, the Office is statutorily required to issue any patent to the real party in interest. Accordingly, 37 CFR 1.46(e) requires that the Office be notified if there has been any change in real party in interest, e.g., the assignee-applicant is no longer the real party in interest. The notification requirement applies no matter whether the non-inventor applicant was the applicant on initial filing or later became the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c).
Posted at 10:50AM Nov 05, 2013 in Miscellaneous |
Message From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Options for Expedited Patent Application Examination, Including Prioritized Examination Under The AIA
The USPTO currently offers three alternative programs that provide applicants with the opportunity to expedite examination of their patent applications. These three programs are: (i) Prioritized Examination (also known as “Track One”), which was introduced by the AIA; (ii) Accelerated Examination (AE); and (iii) the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH). By taking advantage of these expedited examination processes, applicants may capitalize on their exclusive patent rights sooner than through conventional examination, especially in areas where the technology is rapidly evolving.
More specifically, in the Prioritized Examination and the AE programs, applicants receive a first action on the merits in less than 5 months and a final decision from the examiner within 12 months from the grant of the request. In the PPH program, applicants receive a first action on the merits within 2 to 3 months from the grant of the request. The chart below illustrates the first action pendency data of the three programs as compared with conventional examination for fiscal year 2013.
To enter into one of the agency’s expedited examination programs, patent applicants must satisfy certain requirements largely focused on the size of the application as well as payment of an additional fee.
In the case of Prioritized Examination, applicants can submit no more than 4 independent claims and no more than 30 total claims. Applicants also must pay a $4000 fee, which is reduced to $2000 for small entities and to $1000 for micro entities. Applicants further must electronically file their applications, and the applications must be complete on filing.
In the case of AE, applicants can submit no more than 3 independent claims and no more than 20 total claims. Applicants also must pay a $140 fee, which is reduced to $70 for small entities and to $35 for micro entities. Applicants further must submit pre-examination search documents and an “examination support document.” The requirement for pre-examination search documents and an “examination support document” is a key distinction between AE and Prioritized Examination.
In the case of PPH, there are no petition fees or limits on the number of claims, unlike for Prioritized Examination and AE. However, a foreign patent office that participates in the PPH must have found at least one claim to be allowable for the application to receive expedited examination in the USPTO. Currently, there are more than two dozen participating foreign patent offices.
Here is a quick reference table summarizing the features and requirements of the three expedited examination programs available at the USPTO. For more information about any individual programs, the Office has created specialized micro-site.
Fast Examination Table: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/fast_exam_table20130912v1017.pdf
Prioritized Examination: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp.
ccelerated Examination: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/accelerated/index.jsp
Patent Prosecution Highway: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp.
Posted at 10:58AM Oct 17, 2013 in Miscellaneous |
Message from Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: USPTO to Host Second Anniversary AIA Forum on September 16, 2013
The USPTO is pleased to announce that there will be an AIA forum on September 16, 2013 to commemorate the second anniversary of the new patent law. The forum will be held on the USPTO's Alexandria campus in the Madison North Auditorium from 1 to 5 pm The forum also will be webcast (access information below).
USPTO subject matter experts from the Patent Business Unit and administrative patent judges from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will discuss various provisions of the new patent law, focusing on filings made over the past several months with tips for compliance and how to avoid pitfalls. In particular, the agency will address prioritized examination (aka Track One), preissuance submissions, inventor's oath/declaration, supplemental examination, micro-entity discount, first-inventor-to-file, and the administrative trials. The agency likewise will field questions from the audience about each of these topics.
Please mark the date on your calendar, and join us for the most current recent updates on the new patent law. The forum is free with seating on a first-come, first-served basis.
Webcast Access Information:
Event number: 991 788 621
Event password: 123456
Event address for attendees: https://uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?d=991788621&t=a
Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208
Access code: 991 788 621
Posted at 03:48PM Sep 03, 2013 in Miscellaneous |
From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: USPTO Releases Statistics on Filings for New Proceedings That Became Available in September 2012
Over the past five months, the USPTO has received various filings for the provisions that became effective on September 16, 2012. These filings include preissuance submissions, requests for supplemental examination, and petitions for both inter partes review and covered business method review. To enable you to track these filings, we have added a new page on the AIA micro-site called “Statistics.” This page features information about the number of raw filings for each new procedure. As you will see from the data shown on the Statistics page, stakeholders are incorporating all of the new procedures into their practices as the number of filings generally are on the rise. Here is a link to the Statistics page for you to check out: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/statistics.jsp
Posted at 04:02PM Mar 04, 2013 in Miscellaneous |
Message from Michael Tierney, Lead Judge: Tips for Filing Petitions and Making Successful Arguments Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
As of September 16, 2012, three new proceedings became available before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for challenging the patentability of an issued patent. These proceedings are called an Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method Patent Review (CBM). Patents issuing from applications subject to the first-inventor-to-file AIA provisions (on or after March 16, 2013) may be challenged in an IPR, PGR, or CBM. However, generally patents issuing from applications subject to the first-to-invent provisions may be challenged only in IPR or CBM. This post seeks to clarify the formalities for filing a successful petition and explain how to make persuasive arguments in a petition.
Comparison of IPR, PGR, and CBM Petitions
It is important to understand the parameters when filing a petition for an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.
|When is a Petition Ripe?||
Cannot be filed until after the later of:
|On or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent or issuance of a reissue patent.||
Patents under First-to-Invent Provisions:
Patents under First-Inventor-to-File Provisions:
|Who Files a Petition?||A person who is not the patent owner and has not previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent may petition.||Only a person who is sued or charged with infringement of a covered business method patent may petition for a covered business method review of the patent.|
|Grounds for Filing Challenge to Patent?||May request to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims of a patent on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications||May request to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) or (3) of 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) relating to invalidity (i.e., §101, novelty, obviousness, written description, enablement, indefiniteness, but not best mode).||
Patents under First-to-Invent Provisions:
Patents under First-Inventor-to-File Provisions:
|Statutory & Regulatory Requirements?||
|Can a Patent Owner File a Preliminary Response to a Petition?||
Yes – within three months
|Petition Page Limit?||
60 double-spaced pages
80 double-spaced pages
Page Limits for Petitions, Motions, Patent Owner Responses, and Oppositions
Page limits assist the Board in effectively and timely managing proceedings. The page limit for a petition is either sixty or eighty pages, depending on the type; the page limit for a motion is fifteen pages. For both petitions and motions, the page limit does not include a table of contents, a table of authorities, a certificate of service, or appendix of exhibits. However, it does include any statement of material facts to be admitted or denied in support of the petition or motion. Patent owner responses have page limits that match the petition or motion they address, but the page limits do not include admissions of denials of a petitioner’s statement of material facts. If a party would like more pages, they must file a motion requesting waiver of the page limits.
Requests for Waiving Page Limits
Irrespective of the type of proceeding, parties involved in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding must comply with the stated page limits; however, a filing party may accompany their submission with a motion to waive the page limits. The party requesting a waiver must clearly demonstrate that waiving the page limits is in the “interests of justice,” which is a higher standard than merely showing “good cause.” Each motion should identify how the particular case facts demonstrate a need to waive the page limit, and specifically how that need is in the interest of justice.
This higher standard means that exceptions to the page limits will not be commonly granted for broad or generic reasons (e.g., additional pages being used on the primary target claims because the patent is being challenged on multiple grounds and thus it is in the interest of justice to respond or explain all grounds). Similar to all other legal writing, a quality submission (i.e., a petition, patent owner’s response, or patent owner’s preliminary response) should be concise, articulate, and supported by facts. If the motion seeking to waive the page limits is denied, the proposed petition exceeding the page limit may be expunged or returned.
Making Written Arguments Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
A petitioner may challenge a patent on multiple grounds. However, the petitioner must expressly identify the differences between a challenged claim and the prior art, especially when making assertions of obviousness. Additionally, for obviousness, a petitioner should address the scope and content of the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
A petitioner may rely upon multiple prior art references in challenging a claim, provided each reference is specifically explained and applied to claim limitations for which a claim construction is to be provided by the petitioner. Where a plurality of prior art references exist, it is essential for a petitioner to avoid redundancy when applying the prior art to the claims at issue. A petitioner avoids redundancy by explaining why one reference more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in some respects than another reference, and vice versa. Furthermore, a petition should specify whether the grounds of unpatentability differ due to alternative claim constructions or alternative findings of fact. Thus, a successful argument carefully applies prior art references by avoiding redundancy through complete explanations. Additionally, where references are to be combined, a successful argument explicitly explains the reasons supporting the proposed combination.
For the Representative Order discussing redundancy grounds, please see CBM2012-00003, Order (Redundant Grounds), Paper 7, Oct. 25, 2012, available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_order_cbm2012-00003_order_(redundant_grounds)_paper_7_(10-25-12).pdf.
For an explanation of the grounds available for post-grant review challenges, please see Director David Kappos’ Public Blog, PTAB and Patentability Challenges (Sep. 24, 2012 04:44 PM), available at http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_and_patentability_challenges.
Posted at 02:50PM Feb 25, 2013 in Miscellaneous |
From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Tips for Using a Substitute Statement, Correcting Inventorship, Changing/Updating Inventor Names or Their Order, and Filing USPTO Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Forms
The inventor’s oath or declaration provision, which became effective on September 16, 2012, streamlined many aspects of filing an inventor’s oath or declaration. In an earlier post from November 2012, we discussed the simplified content required to be included in an inventor's oath or declaration and delayed submission of an inventor’s oath or declaration, among other topics. Here, we offer additional guidance regarding the use of a substitute statement, which can be filed in lieu of an oath or declaration. Additionally, we address the process for correcting inventorship and changing/updating inventor names or the order of the names of joint inventors. Lastly, we provide instructions for completing select USPTO inventor oath or declaration forms as well as five example fact patterns with an explanation of how to determine what inventor’s oath or declaration related documents must be filed with the USPTO for each.
Use of a Substitute Statement
Section 4(a) of the AIA amends 35 U.S.C. § 115 to allow a non-inventor applicant to file a substitute statement in place of an inventor’s oath or declaration under permitted circumstances in applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. The permitted circumstances include where an inventor is deceased, legally incapacitated, cannot be located after diligent effort, or refuses to sign an oath or declaration. A non-inventor applicant who may file a substitute statement includes: (i) the legal representative (e.g., executor, administrator, heirs) of a deceased or legally incapacitated inventor pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.43; (ii) a joint inventor(s) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.45 on behalf of an inventor who refuses to join in a patent application or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort under 37 C.F.R. § 1.45; (iii) an assignee or obligated assignee under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46; or (iv) a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter after the USPTO grants an applicant’s petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
The table below summarizes the requirements that a non-inventor applicant must satisfy for a substitute statement:
Requirements for a Substitute Statement
Demonstrate compliance with oath or declaration requirements in
Identify who is executing the substitute statement per
Identify why the executing person may submit a substitute statement per 37 CFR 1.64(b)(3)
Identify the permitted circumstances under which the executing person is filing the substitute statement (i.e., whether the inventor is deceased, is under a legal incapacity, cannot be found or reached after a diligent effort was made, or has refused to execute the oath or declaration)
Identify information about each inventor per 37 CFR 1.64(b)(4)
Acknowledge penalties and punishment per 37 CFR 1.64(e)
Contain an acknowledgement that any willful false statement made in a substitute statement is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.
Notably, there is certain information that a non-inventor applicant need not include with a substitute statement. First, a non-inventor applicant need not submit proof of the permitted circumstance to file a substitute statement (e.g., inventor’s death certificate to establish that a named inventor is deceased). Additionally, a non-inventor applicant is not required to state in the substitute statement that he/she has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims. Nevertheless, the non-inventor applicant should indicate review and understanding given that he/she is under a duty to disclose to the USPTO all known information that is material to the patentability of the claimed invention as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.56.
Finally, a non-inventor applicant may postpone filing a substitute statement until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance (except for reissue applications).
Process for Correcting Inventorship and Changing/Updating an Inventor’s Name or the Order of Joint Inventors’ Names
The USPTO rules enable an applicant to correct inventorship where an application or patent sets forth improper inventorship and where the prosecution of an application results in the need to add or delete one or more inventors, for instance, due to the addition or deletion of claims or an amendment to the claims. The USPTO rules likewise permit an applicant to change or update a particular inventor’s name if his/her legal name has changed (e.g., due to marriage), or an inventor’s name contains an error (e.g., typographical or transliteration mistake or the reversal of family or given names). Finally, the USPTO rules allow an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). An applicant may effect a correction of inventorship or change/update to an inventor’s name or the order of joint inventors’ names regardless of the filing date of the application.
The table below details the requirements to make a correction of inventorship or change/update an inventor’s name or the order of joint inventors’ names:
Type of Correction or Change
Required Documents for Submission to USPTO
Non-provisional patent application
Adding or deleting inventor(s)
Note: For applications filed prior to 9/16/12, where a 37 CFR 1.48(a) request is filed after 9/16/12, the inventor’s oath/declaration must be compliant with the prior version of 37 CFR 1.63, including the requirement to identify the entire inventive entity. However, only the added inventor needs to execute the oath/declaration identifying the entire inventive entity.
Correcting or updating the name of any inventor
Changing the order of the names of joint inventor
Provisional patent application
Adding or deleting inventor(s)
Correcting or updating the name of any inventor
Note: The change in order of the names of inventors in a provisional application is not provided for since provisional applications do not become application publications or patents.
A request under 37 CFR 1.48(d) to correct the inventorship, or to correct or update the name of an inventor, that identifies each inventor by their legal name.
Note: The request must be signed by either:
(i) a patent practitioner who is of record or acting in a representative capacity; or
(ii) the applicant (where the applicant is a juristic entity, the request must be signed by a patent practitioner).
Also note: An ADS is not required.
Note: 35 U.S.C. 256 does not permit waiver of any of these requirements. Where compliance is not possible, any correction of inventorship would need to be done via a reissue application or through court order.
Also note: For applications filed before 9/16/12, the prior version of 37 CFR 3.73(b) applies.
Instructions Available for USPTO Inventor Oath or Declaration Forms
The USPTO developed a series of inventor oath or declaration forms that may be used by inventors to fulfill the inventor’s oath or declaration requirement of the AIA; the agency previously released these forms in September 2012. The forms are located at www.uspto.gov/forms. We recently added instructions for how to complete the most commonly used inventor’s oath or declaration forms. For example, instructions are available for Form AIA/01, which is a declaration for a utility or design application when an application data sheet is filed in the application, and Form AIA/02, which is a substitute statement filed in lieu of an inventor’s oath or declaration for a utility or design application. We encourage you to consult these instructions for questions about the content of the forms.
Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Examples
The Office is providing four examples to aid applicants in determining which inventor’s oath or declaration forms must be submitted to the agency for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012. Each example sets forth a hypothetical fact pattern followed by the Office’s recommendation of the inventor’s oath or declaration and other related forms to be filed and those forms properly completed. The examples are intended to be illustrative of commonly encountered fact patterns.
>> Download Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Examples [PDF – 8.8 MB]
Posted at 05:04PM Jan 07, 2013 in Miscellaneous |
From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator: Tips for Filing a Compliant Supplemental Examination Request
Since September 16, 2012, the agency has received six requests for supplemental examination. (Please note that the first several control numbers (96/000,001 to 96/000,003) were used by the Office to test the filing system.) We thought you may be interested in more details about these filings, especially in case you are thinking about filing one in the future.
Upon receipt of a request for supplemental examination, the request is reviewed in the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) for compliance with filing date requirements (e.g., 37 CFR 1.610). If a request is not compliant with filing date requirements, it is not made public; rather, the patent owner is alerted about the non-compliance and has an opportunity to correct the defect. If a request is compliant, then it is assigned a filing date and is available to the public. At the same time, the request is sent to an examiner who performs the supplemental examination and decides if reexamination should be ordered.
In reviewing the supplemental examination requests received so far, the Office has found that some were non-compliant with the filing date requirements. The most common reason for non-compliance was the failure to provide a separate, detailed explanation of the relevance and manner of applying each item of information to each claim identified in the request (37 CFR 1.610(b)(5)). For this reason, we wanted to provide additional guidance to assist patent owners in meeting the requirement for a separate, detailed explanation requirement.
A separate, detailed explanation required by 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5) must state how each item of information is applicable to each claim limitation. A general statement of relevance that is not tied to any particular claim limitation is not sufficient to meet the requirement. The explanation, however, does not need to positively state that an item of information “teaches” a limitation, but instead that it has teachings that a reasonable examiner might view as important to that limitation. The explanation should include citations to particular portions or figures in the item of information in which the relevant teachings are located. Patent owners are encouraged to be as comprehensive as possible in the explanation. This allows for the patent owner to frame the issues and assists the examiner in focusing on the pertinent issues to better determine whether a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is raised. Generally, the guidance provided in MPEP 2214 for the content of a request for ex parte reexamination is a good resource.
The Office will assume that each item of information is applied to each claim requested, unless otherwise specified. For instance, a request, which asks for supplemental examination of claims 1-10 and cites to 5 items of information, must provide separate, detailed explanations of how each of the five items of information applies to claims 1-10. If, on the other hand, the patent owner wishes supplemental examination for claims 1-5 based on the first two items of information and supplemental examination for claims 1-10 based on the next three items of information, the patent owner must clearly indicate which items of information are to be applied to which claims. The patent owner can provide such an indication through use of (i) headings, as discussed below; (ii) the listing provided in fulfillment of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.610(b)(4); or (iii) a table of contents.
Additionally, a separate, detailed explanation is required for each dependent claim for which supplemental examination is requested, unless the request explicitly states that the application of the item of information to the independent claim is being relied upon as the explanation for the dependent claim(s). For example, the request may state: “Patent owner relies upon the explanation for claim 1 as the explanation for dependent claims 2-5.” If the patent owner relies on a proper, detailed explanation of an independent claim as the detailed explanation for the dependent claims, then the Office may limit its review of the dependent claims to the detailed explanation of the independent claim provided by the patent owner. If the request does not make an explicit statement incorporating the explanation for the independent claim or fails to provide separate explanations for the dependent claims, the Office will mail a filing date notice to inform patent owner of the deficiency.
Further, the Office recommends that a patent owner consider using headings and subheadings in the explanation section of the supplemental examination request. Headings that identify each item of information and what claims are being discussed are excellent tools to ensure clarity in the explanations. In addition, under each heading, the Office recommends using separate subheadings for each independent claim and its associated dependent claims, if applicable.
The detailed explanation should NOT state what the item of information does NOT teach. Although the rules provide for the patent owner to make such statements, the Office recommends that this optional discussion be made under a separate subheading (e.g., “Explanation under 37 CFR 1.610(c)(3)”). The review process has revealed that combining a detailed explanation with an optional discussion typically results in a lengthy discussion on why the claims are patentable over the items of information with little to no explanation as to how the item of information is applicable to the claim limitations as required by 37 CFR 1.610(b)(5). In other words, by combining the optional discussion with the required detailed explanation, the patent owner runs the risk that the Office will find that the required explanation was not provided, which will result in receiving a filing date notice of non-compliance.
Finally, the explanation requirement is NOT met by incorporating by reference a paper in another proceeding or relying on a third party’s paper submitted with the request. The explanation must be presented as the patent owner’s position. The detailed explanation in the request must stand on its own, and must reflect the opinion of the patent owner, and not that of a third party.
To assist patent owners in filing requests for supplemental examination in compliant form, the Office has compiled a “best practices” guide:
Best Practices to Meet Certain Supplemental Examination Filing Requirements (December 19, 2012)
The guide walks through the various requirements to be included in a supplemental examination request and offers tips for how to meet them. Besides this guide, information on supplemental examination requests can be found in the listing of Frequently Asked Questions.
Posted at 05:18PM Dec 19, 2012 in Miscellaneous |
Tips for Navigating the Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Provision
From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:
Beginning on September 16, 2012, the inventor's oath or declaration provision became effective. This provision simplifies several of the requirements for filing an inventor’s oath or declaration. We have summarized the changes relating to the content required to be included in an inventor's oath or declaration, the situations when an AIA-compliant inventor's oath or declaration is required, the use of an Application Data Sheet (ADS), delayed submission of an inventor’s oath or declaration, and the process for taking advantage of a combination assignment-statement document. Stayed tune for more guidance regarding other aspects of the inventor's oath or declaration provision in the coming weeks concerning the use of various USPTO forms for the inventor’s oath or declaration provision, correction of inventorship, and substitute statements.
Content for an AIA Compliant Inventor's Oath or Declaration
Section 115 of Title 35, as amended by the AIA, coupled with new USPTO rules, requires an applicant to provide less information in an inventor's oath or declaration than required by pre-AIA law. Specifically, the AIA eliminated the need for identification of the inventor’s country citizenship and a statement that the inventor is the first inventor. The list below identifies the current requirements for an inventor's oath or declaration based on the AIA:
When to File an AIA-Compliant Inventor’s Oath or Declaration
An AIA-compliant inventor's oath or declaration is required for any application filed on or after September 16, 2012. This covers non-provisional applications, including continuing applications (i.e., continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional, and “bypass” applications) and reissue applications. A “bypass” application refers to an international (PCT) application filed as a continuing application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and 37 C.F.R. 1.53(b) and thus “bypassing” national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371. For an international (PCT) application filed before September 16, 2012, and entering the national stage on or after September 16, 2012, an AIA-compliant inventor's oath or declaration is not required. But for an international (PCT) application filed after September 16, 2012, and entering the national stage after September 16, 2012, an AIA-compliant inventor’s oath or declaration is required. The table below summarizes the situations when an AIA-compliant inventor's oath or declaration is needed.
|Type of Application||Filing Date||AIA-Compliant Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Required?|
(non-provisional applications, including continuing and reissue applications)
|U.S. filing on or after 9/16/2012||Yes|
|International “Bypass” Applications
(filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a))
|U.S. filing on or after 9/16/2012|
|International PCT Applications
(entering National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371)
|PCT filing on or after 9/16/2012|
Use of an Application Data Sheet (ADS)
An ADS is a document containing bibliographic information regarding an application, such as the identity of the named inventors, the identity of the applicant if different from the inventors, and any foreign priority or domestic benefit information.
An ADS must be filed with an application where: (i) submission of the inventor’s oath or declaration is to be postponed; (ii) each inventor’s oath or declaration identifies only the inventor (or person) executing that particular oath or declaration and not all of the inventors; (iii) there is a claim for domestic benefit (37 C.F.R. 1.78), or foreign priority claim (37 C.F.R. 1.55)(except foreign priority for national stage applications); or (iv) there is an identification of applicants other than the inventors under 37 C.F.R. 1.46 (except for national stage applications, where the applicant is the person identified in the international stage).
As to situations (i) and (ii), the Office must know the names of all of the inventors before examination begins in order to apply the correct prior art and to make a proper double patenting determination.
As to situation (iii), the Office has centralized the location of foreign priority and domestic benefit claims to the ADS. This benefits applicants, the public, and the Office by making it easier to find this information. Further, the Office will recognize such claims only if they appear in the ADS.
As to situation (iv), the Office needs to know who the applicant is, particularly where a power of attorney is being submitted by other than the inventors.
Finally, even when an ADS is not required, it is a best practice to use an ADS to aid in the correct identification of bibliographic information on the filing receipt. An ADS must be signed by the applicant or the applicant’s representative.
Postponed Submission of an Inventor’s Oath or Declaration
Where an inventor’s oath or declaration or a signed ADS is not submitted on filing of the application, the Office will mail a notice to file missing parts requiring either an oath or declaration, or an ADS. Surcharge practice has not changed. Submission of an inventor’s oath or declaration later than the filing date of the application will cause the Office to mail a notice to file missing parts requiring a surcharge if not already paid, even where an ADS is submitted with the application on filing. Where an ADS has been submitted, the Office will not mail a missing parts notice requiring submission of the inventor’s oath or declaration. The Office may, however, mail an informational notice to notify the applicant that an inventor’s oath or declaration has not been submitted for each named inventor or that the submitted oath or declaration is non-compliant. Where the application is otherwise in condition for allowance, the Office will mail a Notice of Allowability with a 3 month non-extendable period to submit the required inventor’s oath or declaration.
Combination Assignment and Inventor’s Oath or Declaration
An assignment document may contain the statements required to be included in an inventor’s oath or declaration and thereby serve as the inventor’s oath or declaration. The Office reference to such a dual purpose document as an “assignment-statement.” If an applicant chooses to file an assignment-statement and reduce the number of documents to be submitted to the USPTO for a particular application, the applicant must record the assignment-statement in the USPTO Assignment Database.
To record an assignment-statement in the Office’s Assignment Database, the assignment recordation cover sheet must set forth the application number. Additionally, the assignment-statement must identify the application to which it relates, such as by name of the inventors, title of the invention, and the attorney docket number on the specification as filed. See MPEP 602 VI.The best practice is to file an assignment-statement electronically per the following steps. First, the applicant should file the application via EFS-Web and immediately obtain the application number. Second, on the same day that the applicant files the application, the applicant should submit the assignment-statement for recording via the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS). In EPAS, the applicant should check the box on the assignment recordation cover sheet to indicate that the document is intended to have a dual purpose (i.e., as both an assignment and the inventor’s oath or declaration). Checking the box on the assignment recordation cover sheet will trigger the Office to place a copy of the assignment-statement into the application file as well as record it in the assignment database. If the assignment-statement is recorded on the same day that the application is filed, the applicant can avoid paying the surcharge for the delayed filing of the inventor’s oath or declaration.
Posted at 12:00AM Nov 13, 2012 in Miscellaneous |
Tips for Filing a Compliant Preissuance Submission
From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:
Since September 16, 2012, the agency has received a steady stream of preissuance submissions. Specifically, over ninety preissuance submissions have been filed under new rule 37 CFR 1.290 in the first month. We thought you may be interested in more details about these submissions, especially in case you are thinking about filing one in the future.
Nearly all preissuance submissions received to date were filed electronically via the USPTO’s new dedicated interface in EFS-Web system. The Office encourages the use of EFS-Web for filing a preissuance submission because the system walks a user through the various items of information required for a preissuance submission. Additionally, the system makes a timeliness calculation to determine whether the submission is made within the statutorily permitted filing window. Thus, a third party is less likely to file a non-compliant preissuance submission when using EFS-Web over postal mail.
Upon receipt of a preissuance submission, the agency screened the submissions received to date for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 122(c) and 37 CFR 1.290 before making them of record in the designated application files. While the majority of submissions were found to be compliant, a few were rejected as non-compliant. The most common reason for non-compliance was an improper concise description of relevance. For this reason, we wanted to review the requirements for a concise description of relevance.
A concise description of relevance should set forth facts explaining how a particular printed publication is of potential relevance to the examination of the application in which the submission has been filed. This is done, most effectively, by (i) pointing out relevant pages or lines of the respective printed publication where the relevant issues raised by the text are located; and (ii) providing a focused description of the import of the cited text to draw the examiner’s attention to the issues. Also, a concise description may be presented in narrative or claim chart form. A compliant concise description in narrative form may state the following:
Publication X and Publication Y both disclose machines that perform the same function as the machine recited in claim 1. The machine set forth in Publication X includes many of the same parts discussed in the specification of this application. In the first embodiment depicted in Figure 2 and discussed on page 5, Publication X expressly teaches a machine that includes element A of claim 1. See lines 7-14 on page 5 of Publication X. Publication Y teaches a machine having element B of claim 1. See lines 1-3 on page 6 of Publication Y. Publication Y further teaches the benefits of using element B in this type of a machine.
Alternatively, a concise description in claim chart form may map various portions of a submitted document to different claim elements.
As discussed on page 1, publication X discloses a machine that performs the same function as the machine recited in claim 1. The machine set forth in publication X includes many of the same parts discussed in the specification of this application. For example, in the first embodiment depicted in Figure 2 and discussed on page 5, the machine of publication X expressly includes element A of claim 1. See lines 7-14 on page 5 of publication X.
The first embodiment also includes element B of claim 1. See lines 1-3 on page 6 of publication X.
A concise description of relevance does not permit third parties to submit arguments against patentability or set forth conclusions regarding whether one or more claims are patentable. A concise description of relevance likewise is not an invitation for a third party to propose rejections of the claims or set forth arguments relating to an Office action in the application or to an applicant’s reply to an Office action in the application. Further, merely annotating or highlighting the copy of a particular printed publication will not be deemed a proper concise description of relevance. Additional information on the concise description of relevance requirement can be found in the listing of Frequently Asked Questions available at: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faq.jsp#heading-12.
Lastly, for a preissuance submission filed electronically via the EFS-Web system, a concise description of relevance may be entered as text in the provided text box on the “Application Data” screen. Alternatively, the concise description of relevance may be uploaded as a separate document on the “Attach Documents” screen. When entering a concise description of relevance in the provided text box, up to 250 characters may be entered. A concise description of relevance that exceeds 250 characters must be uploaded as a separate document on the “Attach Documents” screen. When filed as a separate paper, the concise description of relevance should clearly identify the printed publication to which it pertains. While a concise description of relevance is not required to be provided as a separate paper, the Office highly recommends this practice to ensure that the screener and the examiner may readily identify and consider it.
Posted at 04:24PM Oct 22, 2012 in Miscellaneous |
USPTO Releases Guide for Electronic Filing of Preissuance Submissions
From Janet Gongola, Patent Reform Coordinator:
As of September 16, 2012, the USPTO is accepting submissions of printed publications by a third party of potential relevance to the patentability of another's claimed invention under the preissuance submission provision. Targeted preissuance submissions by third parties can place the most relevant art into the record of a patent application. In turn, an examiner will be positioned to make the most informed and efficient patentability determination possible, thereby either advancing an application to grant or issuing a rejection to prevent a low quality patent from issuing.
A third party may file a preissuance submission by paper or electronically; submission by fasimile is not permitted. The USPTO encourages the use of electronic submissions via EFS Web for several reasons. First, EFS Web guides a third party through the content requirements for a preissuance submission to ensure that the third party makes a compliant submission. Second, the EFS Web system calculates the timeliness of the submission to determine whether the submission is being made during permitted statutory time window. Lastly, the Office will consider an electronic preissuance submission filed through EFS Web faster because a paper submission must be processed into electronic form before it is provided to the examiner.
To facilitate electronically filing a preissuance submission using EFS Web, the Office has created an EFS Web Quick Start Guide. This guide outlines the steps that a third party must follow to make an electronic submission. Check out the guide to simplify your preissuance submissions:
Posted at 12:00AM Oct 19, 2012 in Miscellaneous |
Volunteers Needed to Test Electronic Filing System for Use in New Administrative Trials
Message From Judge Michael Tierney, Board Of Patent Appeals And Interferences:
The USPTO has developed an electronic filing system called Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) to receive filings for the new administrative trials of inter partes review, post grant review, and the transitional program for covered business methods. The PRPS electronic filing system will become functional on September 16, 2012, which is the effective date for the new administrative trial provisions.
The USPTO is seeking volunteers to “beta test” the new PRPS electronic filing system. Specifically, the Office is hosting four separate 2-hour testing sessions on Tuesday, August 21 and Wednesday, August 22, 2012 in the Madison Auditorium at the Alexandria campus for volunteers to participate in prototype trials and a focus group discussion. Volunteers are asked to attend one of these sessions:
August 21, 2012
August 22, 2012
If you are interested in volunteering, please complete the volunteer form below and return it via email to email@example.com. Your help is much appreciated as the USPTO is striving to make the PRPS electronic filing system as user friendly and simple as possible.
Posted at 07:00PM Aug 18, 2012 in Miscellaneous |
New Search Feature Added to Micro-Site to Locate Information Faster and Easier
From Camilo Reyes, Aia Micro-Site Designer:
I am excited to share a new feature that I think you will find helpful in navigating the AIA micro-site. As of June 28, 2012, the micro-site now includes a search box on every page in the left hand navigation tool bar that can be used to search for a particular topic within the micro-site. The search feature looks like this:
For example, if you would like to identify all places and documents within the micro-site where inter partes review is mentioned, you can type the words "inter partes review" into the search box. You will receive a search report with links to every occurrence of these words within the micro-site. You can then click on each link for information about inter partes review.
With an average of 1,000 users accessing the micro-site per day, I hope this new feature streamlines and simplifies how you locate information on the micro-site. If there are additional features you think would be useful, please let me know by emailing: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Posted at 12:00AM Jun 29, 2012 in Miscellaneous |
USPTO Unveils Senator Patrick Leahy Photo Exhibit from America Invents Act Signing Ceremony
From: Director David Kappos
As the USPTO is in the midst of implementing the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, I am pleased to announce an exhibit featuring photographs from the Signing Ceremony taken by none other than—Senator Patrick Leahy.
As shown in the picture above, Senator Leahy photographed the Signing Ceremony from a unique vantage not captured by any other photographer that day—directly behind President Obama as he inked his name onto the bill. The unique images Senator Leahy took from that vantage crystallize the significance of the Act for the global intellectual property system. In addition to Senator Leahy’s photos, the exhibit also features a red line of the Act along with one of the pens that President Obama used at the Signing Ceremony. The exhibit is located in the lobby of the USPTO’s Madison Building.
Senator Leahy is a life-long photographer whose work has been published in a variety of newspapers and magazines. After displaying at the USPTO, Senator Leahy’s photographs will join a larger exhibit of his work entitled, “World Leaders.” We have a special opportunity to view images of the commencement of the first major patent reform in decades, taken by one of the Act’s lead authors, and I encourage you to visit the exhibit and be part of history.
Posted at 12:00AM Nov 04, 2011 in Miscellaneous |