Comments from Ronald Riley

----------------------------------------
FROM RESPONDENT 012:
     NAME: Ronald Riley
     COMPANY: Riley & Associates, Inc.
     ADDR-1: 1323 West Cook Road 
     CITY, STATE ZIP: Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439
     TELEPHONE: (810) 655-8830 
     FAX: (810) 655-8832
     REPRESENT: unclear
     

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 01:
     Should the PTO require that all Official application related
     materials be delivered to a central location? Specifically, what
     problems would a requirement that all official application-related
     materials be delivered to a central location cause?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 01:
     I do not believe it is reasonable to require materials be sent to one location. The practice would add delays in processing the materials and would make it likely that material will not be processed      in a timely manner. 

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 02:
     Should the PTO adopt a standard application format? If so, what
     portions of the application papers should the PTO require be
     submitted in a standard size and/or format, and what sanction
     (e.g., surcharge) should be established for the failure to comply
     with these requirements?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 02:
     I do not believe that a standard application format is practical. All inventions can not be disclosed in the same format. It is not in our country's interest to continue discouraging innovation with      steadily increasing fees and hidden costs such as a standard format will cause. 

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 03:
     If the entire application is not published, what information
     concerning the application should be published in the Gazette of
     Patent Application Notices?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 03:
     To minimize burdensome costs associated with publishing the gazette should only publish the patent description and inventor. Any additional information should be purchased by the party that wants th     at information with that party bearing all costs associated with publishing including all administrative costs associated with preparing the information for publication. 

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 04:
     Should the patent applicant receive a copy of the published
     application -- either published notice and/or application content
     at time of publication?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 04:
     Yes. The costs of sending the notice should be borne by those companies who would benefit from the publication. 

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 05:
     Should the PTO permit an accelerated examination? If so, under
     what conditions?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 05:
     The PTO claims that the average pendency is 19.5 months. The PTO should face sanctions for failure to process a patent within that time. The PTO should not have any problem improving the time such t     hat all patents are processed by 18 months. This would save the cost of publishing the information twice. It would make the new computer system unnecessary. 

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 06:
     Since the cost for publishing applications must be recovered from
     fees, how should the cost of publication be allocated among the
     various fees, including the possibility of charging a separate
     publication fee?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 06:
     All costs associated with 18 month publication should be borne by those who wish access to the patent information. Any indirect costs incurred by inventors should also be passed on in the publicatio     n fee, the application fees should be lowered to reflect a refund of those increased costs. 

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 07:
     Should the PTO require an affirmative communication from a patent
     applicant indicating that the applicant does not wish the
     application to be published, or should failure to timely submit a
     publication fee be taken as instruction not to publish the 
     application? That is, should an application be published unless
     the applicant affirmatively indicates that the application is not
     to be published, regardless of whether a publication fee has been
     submitted? What latitude should the PTO permit for late submission
     of a publication fee?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 07:
     The PTO should not publish unless they receive notice to do so. The patent applicant should not pay any fee to publish. All costs of publishing should be incorporated into fees that are paid by thos     e who want access to the patents contents. 

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 08:
     The delayed filing of either a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C.
     119 or 120 may result in the delayed publication of the
     application. Should priority or benefit be lost if not made
     within a reasonable time after filing? What latitude should the
     PTO permit for later claiming of priority or benefit?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 08:
     No.

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 09:
     Once the patent has issued, should the paper document containing
     information similar to that published in the Gazette of Patent
     Application Notice, i.e., the Patent Application Notice, be
     removed from the search files, and should publication information
     be included on the issued patent?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 09:
     This will be a moot point if the PTO processes all patents in a timely manner, i.e., before 18 months.

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 10:
     After publication, should access to the content of the
     application file be limited to the originally filed application
     papers? If not, what degree of access should be permilted? Should
     access be limited to the content before publication, or should it
     extend to materials added after publication?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 10:
     YES

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 11:
     11.  After publication, should assignment records of a published
          application also be made accessible to the public?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 11:
     YES

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 12:
     After publication, should access include the deposit of
     biological materials as set forth in 37 CFR 1.802 et seq.?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 12:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 13:
     What types of problems will be encountered if all amendments must
     be made by (a) substitute paragraphs and claims, (b) substitute
     pages, or (c) replacement of the entire application?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 13:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 14:
     Should protest procedures be modified to permit the third party
     submission of prior art only prior to a specific period after
     publication of the application?  What action should be taken with
     respect to untimely submissions by a third party?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 14:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
GENERAL COMMENT:
    No comments supplied

Last Modified: March 1995