----------------------------------------
FROM RESPONDENT 033:
NAME: TOM EASTEP
COMPANY: THE ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION
ADDR-1: 1100 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1200
CITY, STATE ZIP: Washington, D.C 20036-4101
TELEPHONE: 202-293-1414
FAX: 202-467-5591
REPRESENT: ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q01.TXT
ALL OFFICIAL APPLICATION RELATED MATERIALS SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO ONE
PLACE.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q02.TXT
A STANDARD APPLICATION FORMAT IS NOT NECESSARY.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q03.TXT
INFORMATION TO BE PUBLISHED MAY INCLUDE THE FILING DATE, BUT NOT MORE
THAN THE ABSTRACT.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q04.TXT
THE PATENT APPLICANT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY RECEIVE A COPY OF THE
PUBLISHED INFORMATION UPON PUBLICATION.
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 05:
Should the PTO permit an accelerated examination? If so, under
what conditions?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 05:
-------
033-Q05.TXT
ACCELERATED EXAMINATION UNDER THE PRESENT CONDITIONS SHOULD BE
PERMITTED.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q06.TXT
THERE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE NO CHARGE TO THE APPLICANT FOR FILING, AND
ALL COSTS SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE PTO.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q07.TXT
THE ANSWERS TO QUESTION 7 ARE YES, NO, AND SHOULD BE DEFINITE, IN
THAT ORDER.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q08.TXT
SHOULD PRIORITY OR BENEFIT BE LOST IF NOT MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE
TIME AFTER FILING? THE ANSWER IS 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:
-------
033-Q09.TXT
THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 9 IS THAT WE DO NOT CARE WHAT IS REMOVED NOR
WHAT IS ENCLOSED ON THE ISSUED PATENT.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q10.TXT
YES.
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 11:
11. After publication, should assignment records of a published
application also be made accessible to the public?
----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 11:
-------
033-Q11.TXT
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:
-------
033-Q12.TXT
YES.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q13.TXT
OUR AFFILIATES SUGGEST YOU TELL US OF THE PROBLEMS YOU ANTICIPATE IN
QUESTION 13.
----------------------------------------
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:
-------
033-Q14.TXT
LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PROTEST PROCEDURES SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PERMIT
THIRD PARTY SUBMISSION AS SUGGESTED, BUT OUR QUESTION IS HOW?
UNTIMELY SUBMISSIONS BY A THIRD PARTY SHOULD BE HANDLED AS THEY ARE
NOW.
----------------------------------------
GENERAL COMMENT:
IN WASHINGTON, THE ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION REPRESENTS OVER
3,000 INDIVIDUALS FROM COAST TO COAST, BORDER T0 BORDER THROUGH THEIR
AFFILIATES; SERVING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF INDEPENDENT INVENTORS, A
NUMBER OF VENTURE CAPITALISTS, AND SMALL BUSINESSES INCLUDING
NUMEROUS BIOTECH FIRMS. WE ARE THE FASTEST GROWING, AND ONLY GROUP
WITHIN WASHINGTON REPRESENTING THE INDEPENDENT AND SMALL BUSINESS
INVENTOR.
WE BELIEVE THAT DISCUSSION OF THE EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION ISSUE IN
ISOLATION OF DISCUSSING THE INTERACTION WITH OTHER PTO SPONSORED OR
ENDORSED LEGISLATION REGARDING THE PHONY TWENTY YEAR TERM AND PRIOR
USER RIGHTS. IS IMPROPER. ADDITIONALLY, THE REFERENCE TO THE
PUBLICATION EFFORT IN TERMS OF EIGHTEEN MONTHS IS FURTHER MISLEADING,
AS THE PTO IS SUGGESTING THAT INDEPENDENT INVENTORS USE THE NEW
PROVISIONAL APPLICATION OPTION AS THEY LOBBY IN PRESENTATIONS AROUND
THE COUNTRY. THE REALITY IS THAT PUBLICATION WILL LIKELY OCCUR UNDER
THOSE CONDITIONS AT SIX YEARS OR EARLIER. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT
THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA'S INVENTORS REALLY WANT TO SEE THEIR PATENT
APPLICATIONS PUBLISHED SHORTLY AFTER FORMAL SUBMITTAL? I GUARANTEE TO
YOU THAT THIS NATIONS INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY DOES NOT. IF YOUR PENDENCY
TIME IS REALLY 19.5 MONTHS, AS YOU SAY, THEN WHY GO TO THE EXPENSE OF
PUBLISHING AT 18 MONTHS?
Last Modified: March 1995