Comments from Peter Kulkosky

----------------------------------------
FROM RESPONDENT 070:
     NAME: Peter Kulkosky 
     COMPANY: Examiner 
     ADDR-1: 801 Orange Drive
     CITY, STATE ZIP: Silver Spring, Md. 20901
     TELEPHONE: 
     FAX: 
     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:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 05:
     Should the PTO permit an accelerated examination? If so, under
     what conditions?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 05:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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 comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 11:
     11.  After publication, should assignment records of a published
          application also be made accessible to the public?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 11:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
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:
     The present system is already overly complicated and needs Simplification rather than added features that only lawyers understand. The existing system needs fewer publications. A large member of cop     y publications can have no affect hart to retard innovations
     
     The Patent systems of Japan, Germany and Europe would much over to the publication of granted granted only.
     
     The patent system will fuel commerce if it remains a Patent system. The word "Patent" cannot reasonably appear upon non-granted Patent publications. 
     
     May 11, 1994
     801 Orange Drive
     Silver Spring, Md. 20901
     
     Honorable Dennis De Concini
     United States Senate
     Washington, D.C. 20510
     
     Dear Senator De Concini,
     
     In regard to S.8514, Patent Reform Bill, I would like to comment. The provision which allows for preliminary publication without examination of patent applications may present technical information      difficulties. Publications such as these may flood already crowded technical libraries and Computer services and cause confusion in search operations charged with the job of identifying novel or und     uplicated work. 
     
     The U.S. Patent System is now limited to patents, whereas provisional patent publications would dilute this term in the mind of the world. Maintenance fees have already done so to some extent. 
     
     In my job as a patent examiner there is not enough time to search patents, without worrying about the search of peripheral material such as the proposed unedited publications. Over the years, millio     ns of such unedited documents would have to be filed in search libraries causing space problems and possibly changing the image of U.S. patents in the public's mind. Also, patent application filings      may decrease with the proposed publications taking their place. Unexamined published patent applications will weaken the U.S. Patent System. 
     
     Thank you,
     
     Sincerely yours,
     
     Peter Kulkosky
     
     To: Mr. Ron Stern President POPA
     
     From: Mr. Peter Kulkosky Art Unit 1502 Crew F17
     
     Nov. 04, 1994
     
     S. 1854 is now in the Senate Patent subcommittee and it is necessary now to check what effect it would have on the examining System if applications were published after 18 months. For instance, how      would production be affected and in what situations would the published applications be useful as references under 35 U.S.C. 103 and/or 102.
     
     The search time necessary to cover published U.S. patent applications would have to be estimated. APS and shoe storage for these publications would have to be provided at significant expense.

Last Modified: March 1995