Skip over navigation



ELKHART, IN 46514 November 12,


Box Comments - Patents

Assistant Commissioner for Patents

Washington DC 20231

RE: Patent Proposed rule changes

Dear PTO Proposed Rule Changes Administrator:

I have taken the liberty to comment on the proposed rule changes. Some of the proposals are greatly needed, some are to be feared as a draconian responses to current PTO concerns. The attached pages are my comments and concerns on the troublesome proposals. No comments are provided to the other proposals that are well received and presented.

Very truly yours,



Michael W.


Corporate Patent


Reg. no. 34,441


The following are comments related to the PTO's most recent proposed rule changes:


Regarding your proposal number 4:

1) Why do you need to eliminate the claims over 6/40, why not charge extra fees and give the examiner more time to work on the claims according to the fees collected?

2) If the PTO wants to be a gov't corporation, why don't they start to act like one...

Business executives look for ways to provide more services to customers, but they also get to charge more for the extra service... Claims over 6/40 are to be considered extra services not covered by the standard rate fees ... Start acting like a business and stop acting like a monopoly and maybe the congress will allow you to be a business... Its moves like this that keeps the Patent Bar against the PTO becoming a business...


Regarding your proposal number 9, let me list just a few minor problems with it:

1) All cost for every patent application filed in the United States will increase by about 40 to 60%.

2) Most litigation costs will now increase by about 40 to 60% and take that much time longer to litigate.

3) Most examiners will not even read the explanations, I know from first hand experience.

4) Small inventors will not be able to afford the extra costs.

5) This is a step backwards in the profession.

Again the PTO acts like a monopoly that is unresponsive to the needs of its customers and makes knee jerk reaction rules... Start to think like a business, charge for the EXTRA services...

Regarding alternatives for proposal 9:

1) Charge a PROGRESSIVE fee for more than 10 cited art and less than 21; charge an additional fee for under 50, and charge an additional fee for each cited art over 50.

2) Based on the cited art fees, give each examiner extra time to evaluate the extra cited art. There is nothing wrong with giving the Examiner more time to do harder or more complex cases, you are running a business, charge more to do more and pay more (in time to do the work)...

3) Charge a FLAT fee for each additional cited art over 10.


Regarding proposal 12, to charge for a preliminary amendment:

1) What are you suppose to do for a continuation, pay two fees? Or just automatically wait to get a final rejection with the first Office Action on the continuation before you get a chance to amend the claims to further the prosecution?

United States Patent and Trademark Office
This page is owned by Office of Patent Legal Administration.
Last Modified: 7/4/2009 4:46:08 PM