Please use your
key to return to the previous page.
| Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information |
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information
For information concerning PCT member countries, see the notice
appearing in the Official Gazette at 1382 O.G. 61, on September 11, 2012.
For information on subject matter under Rule 39 that a particular
International Searching Authority will not search, see Annex D of the PCT
Applicants' Guide.
European Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority
The European Patent Office (EPO) may act as the International Searching
Authority (ISA) or the International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA)
for an international application filed with the United States Receiving
Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least
one of the applicants is either a national or resident of the United States
of America. However, the use of the EPO is restricted. The EPO will not act
as an ISA for applications with one or more claims directed to a business
method. For the definition of what the EPO considers to be precluded
subject matter in the field of business methods, see PCT Applicants's
Guide, Annexes D(EP), E(EP) and the Official Notices (PCT Gazette) dated
May 6, 2010, page 94
(http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/official_notices/index.html). The EPO will act
as an IPEA only if it also acted as the ISA.
The search fee of the European Patent Office was increased, effective
April 1, 2012, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1377 O.G. 5, on
April 3, 2012.
Korean Intellectual Property Office as Searching and Examining Authority
The Korean Intellectual Property Office may act as the ISA or the IPEA for
an international application filed with the United States Receiving Office
or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least one of
the applicants is either a national or resident of the United States of
America. The announcement appears in the Official Gazette at 1302 O.G.
1261 on January 17, 2006.
The search fee of the Korean Intellectual Property Office was decreased,
effective January 1, 2012, and was announced in the Official Gazette at
1373 O.G. 177, on December 27, 2011.
Australian Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority
The Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) may act as the ISA or the
IPEA for an international application filed with the United States
Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where
at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of the
United States of America. The announcement appears in the Offical Gazette
at 1337 O.G. 265, on December 23, 2008. However, the use of IP Australia is
restricted. IP Australia will not act as an ISA for applications with one
or more claims directed to the fields of business methods or mechanical
engineering or analogous fields of technology as defined by specified areas
of the International Patent Classification System, as indicated in the
Official Gazette at 1337 O.G. 261 on December 23, 2008, in Annex A to the
agreement between the USPTO and IP Australia, IP Australia will act as an
IPEA only if it also acted as the ISA.
The search fee of IP Australia was increased, effective July 1, 2012,
and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1380 O.G. 5, on July 3, 2012.
The Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents & Trademarks of
Russia as Searching and Examining Authority
The Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents & Trademarks of
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 159 |
Russia (Rospatent) may act as the ISA or the IPEA for an international
application filed with the United States Receiving Office or the
International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least one of the
applicants is either a national or resident of the United States of
America. The announcement appears in the Official Gazette at 1378 O.G. 162,
on May 8, 2012.
The search fee of Rospatent was increased, effective June 1, 2012, and
was announced in the Official Gazette at 1378 O.G. 162, on May 8, 2012.
Fees
The transmittal fee for the USPTO was changed to include a basic portion
and a non-electronic filing fee portion, effective November 15, 2011, and
was announced in the Federal Register on November 15, 2011. Search fees for
the USPTO were changed, effective January 12, 2009, and were announced in
the Federal Register on November 12, 2008. The fee for filing a request for
the restoration of the right of priority was established, effective
November 9, 2007, and was announced in the Federal Register on September
10, 2007.
International filing fees were decreased, effective January 1, 2012,
and were announced in the Official Gazette at 1373 O.G. 177, on December
27, 2011.
The schedule of PCT fees (in U.S. dollars), as of July 1, 2012, is as
follows:
International Application (PCT Chapter I) fees:
Transmittal fee
Basic Portion $240.00
Non-electronic filing fee portion for international
applications (other than plant applications) filed
on or after 15 November 2011 other than by the
Office electronic filing system (other than a
small entity) $400.00
Non-electronic filing fee portion for international
applications (other than plant applications) filed
on or after 15 November 2011 other than by the
Office electronic filing system (small entity) $200.00
Search fee
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as
International Searching Authority (ISA)
- Search fee $2,080.00
- Supplemental search fee, per additional
invention (payable only upon invitation) $2,080.00
European Patent Office as ISA $2,426.00
Korean Intellectual Property Office as ISA $1,101.00
IP Australia as ISA $2,254.00
Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents &
Trademarks of Russia (Rospatent) as ISA $453.00
International fees
International filing fee $1,453.00
International filing fee-filed in paper
with PCT EASY zip file or
electronically without PCT EASY zip file $1,344.00
International filing fee-filed
electronically with PCT EASY zip files $1,234.00
Supplemental fee for each page over 30 $16.00
Restoration of Priority
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 160 |
Filing a request for the restoration of the
right of priority under § 1.452 $1,410.00
International Application (PCT Chapter II) fees associated
with filing a Demand for Preliminary Examination:
Handling fee $219.00
Handling fee-90% reduction, if applicants meet criteria
specified at:
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee_reduction.pdf $21.90
Preliminary examination fee
USPTO as International Preliminary
Examining Authority (IPEA)
- USPTO was ISA in PCT Chapter I $600.00
- USPTO was not ISA in PCT Chapter I $750.00
- Additional preliminary examination fee,
per additional invention
(payable only upon invitation) $600.00
U.S. National Stage fees (for international applications entering
the U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371) can be found on the USPTO's
Web site (www.uspto.gov).
July 26, 2012 ANDREW H. HIRSHFELD
Deputy Commissioner for
Patent Examination Policy
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable |
Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable
Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1.362(d) provides
that maintenance fees may be paid without surcharge for the six-month
period beginning 3, 7, and 11 years after the date of issue of patents
based on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980. An additional
six-month grace period is provided by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) and 37 CFR 1.362(e)
for payment of the maintenance fee with the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR
1.20(h), as amended effective Dec. 16, 1991. If the maintenance fee is
not paid in the patent requiring such payment the patent will expire on
the 4th, 8th, or 12th anniversary of the grant.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on November 17, 2009
for which maintenance fees due at 3 years and six months may now be paid
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 7,617,543 through 7,620,997
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on November 15, 2005
for which maintenance fees due at 7 years and six months may now be paid
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 6,964,062 through 6,966,066
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on November 13, 2001
for which maintenance fees due at 11 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 6,314,579 through 6,317,885
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
No maintenance fees are required for design or plant patents.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents may be submitted electronically
over the Internet at www.uspto.gov. Click on the "Site Index" link at the
top of the homepage (www.uspto.gov), and then scroll down and click on the
"Maintenance Fees" link for more information.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents not submitted electronically
over the Internet should be mailed to "United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000".
Correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of
maintenance fees in patents is not to be mailed to P.O. Box 979070,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, but must be mailed to "Mail Stop M
Correspondence, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450".
Patent owners must establish small entity status according to 37 CFR
1.27 if they have not done so and if they wish to pay the small entity
amount.
The current amounts of the maintenance fees due at 3 years and six
months, 7 years and six months, and 11 years and six months are set forth
in the most recently amended provisions in 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(g). To obtain
the current maintenance fee amounts, please call the USPTO Contact Center
at (800)-786-9199 or see the current USPTO fee schedule posted on the USPTO
Internet web site. At the top of the USPTO homepage at www.uspto.gov, click
on the "Site Index" link and then scroll down and click on the "Fees,
USPTO" link to find the current USPTO fee schedule.
| Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee |
Notice of Expiration of Patents
Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.362(g) provide that if the required
maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid in a patent
requiring such payment, the patent will expire at the end of the 4th, 8th
or 12th anniversary of the grant of the patent depending on the first
maintenance fee which was not paid.
According to the records of the Office, the patents listed below have
expired due to failure to pay the required maintenance fee and any
applicable surcharge.
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 10, 2012
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,128,782 09/295,449 10/10/00
6,128,792 09/323,664 10/10/00
6,128,795 09/414,415 10/10/00
6,128,800 09/113,160 10/10/00
6,128,815 08/903,887 10/10/00
6,128,818 09/312,198 10/10/00
6,128,833 08/945,224 10/10/00
6,128,834 09/315,261 10/10/00
6,128,837 08/874,452 10/10/00
6,128,839 09/341,873 10/10/00
6,128,840 09/236,633 10/10/00
6,128,851 09/072,825 10/10/00
6,128,854 09/281,146 10/10/00
6,128,857 09/373,695 10/10/00
6,128,861 08/560,395 10/10/00
6,128,862 09/223,985 10/10/00
6,128,863 09/344,331 10/10/00
6,128,868 08/922,533 10/10/00
6,128,869 09/307,304 10/10/00
6,128,875 09/158,929 10/10/00
6,128,876 09/077,422 10/10/00
6,128,882 09/237,602 10/10/00
6,128,885 09/482,315 10/10/00
6,128,898 09/188,359 10/10/00
6,128,899 09/288,510 10/10/00
6,128,905 09/191,735 10/10/00
6,128,915 09/307,341 10/10/00
6,128,919 09/158,271 10/10/00
6,128,923 09/176,139 10/10/00
6,128,932 09/187,564 10/10/00
6,128,933 09/496,153 10/10/00
6,128,934 09/334,348 10/10/00
6,128,936 09/368,234 10/10/00
6,128,939 09/044,912 10/10/00
6,128,956 09/492,893 10/10/00
6,128,957 09/492,502 10/10/00
6,128,958 08/927,599 10/10/00
6,128,966 09/216,991 10/10/00
6,128,986 08/917,384 10/10/00
6,128,987 09/026,329 10/10/00
6,128,994 09/106,832 10/10/00
6,128,995 09/030,468 10/10/00
6,128,997 09/298,581 10/10/00
6,129,002 08/860,405 10/10/00
6,129,004 09/088,942 10/10/00
6,129,009 09/214,079 10/10/00
6,129,013 09/150,167 10/10/00
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 163 |
6,129,014 09/235,012 10/10/00
6,129,022 09/441,378 10/10/00
6,129,026 09/038,694 10/10/00
6,129,027 09/244,873 10/10/00
6,129,030 09/010,553 10/10/00
6,129,038 09/063,600 10/10/00
6,129,040 09/136,790 10/10/00
6,129,055 09/277,604 10/10/00
6,129,061 09/196,930 10/10/00
6,129,064 09/143,626 10/10/00
6,129,073 09/436,765 10/10/00
6,129,074 09/424,398 10/10/00
6,129,081 09/193,417 10/10/00
6,129,097 09/412,049 10/10/00
6,129,100 09/177,939 10/10/00
6,129,101 09/153,908 10/10/00
6,129,104 09/219,946 10/10/00
6,129,105 08/998,539 10/10/00
6,129,106 09/029,793 10/10/00
6,129,113 09/174,510 10/10/00
6,129,114 09/292,678 10/10/00
6,129,119 09/151,511 10/10/00
6,129,122 09/334,406 10/10/00
6,129,145 09/100,603 10/10/00
6,129,155 09/203,460 10/10/00
6,129,166 08/957,659 10/10/00
6,129,169 09/092,448 10/10/00
6,129,172 09/116,086 10/10/00
6,129,175 09/307,524 10/10/00
6,129,179 09/393,500 10/10/00
6,129,180 09/416,630 10/10/00
6,129,182 09/031,552 10/10/00
6,129,184 08/957,651 10/10/00
6,129,192 09/128,461 10/10/00
6,129,193 09/140,511 10/10/00
6,129,203 09/029,391 10/10/00
6,129,204 09/102,782 10/10/00
6,129,209 09/258,910 10/10/00
6,129,210 09/498,331 10/10/00
6,129,214 09/216,286 10/10/00
6,129,224 09/254,989 10/10/00
6,129,228 09/361,333 10/10/00
6,129,248 09/156,216 10/10/00
6,129,265 09/173,335 10/10/00
6,129,269 09/242,569 10/10/00
6,129,272 09/135,675 10/10/00
6,129,273 09/161,582 10/10/00
6,129,275 09/102,489 10/10/00
6,129,277 09/127,812 10/10/00
6,129,280 09/116,924 10/10/00
6,129,283 08/807,176 10/10/00
6,129,295 09/284,345 10/10/00
6,129,299 08/878,248 10/10/00
6,129,300 09/271,761 10/10/00
6,129,303 09/179,416 10/10/00
6,129,304 09/297,222 10/10/00
6,129,320 08/565,888 10/10/00
6,129,323 09/252,089 10/10/00
6,129,345 09/145,346 10/10/00
6,129,348 09/182,204 10/10/00
6,129,350 09/265,477 10/10/00
6,129,356 09/075,786 10/10/00
6,129,365 09/003,842 10/10/00
6,129,366 09/209,133 10/10/00
6,129,376 09/230,759 10/10/00
6,129,378 09/131,184 10/10/00
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 164 |
6,129,379 09/335,133 10/10/00
6,129,380 09/139,483 10/10/00
6,129,407 09/282,787 10/10/00
6,129,413 08/969,905 10/10/00
6,129,414 09/122,696 10/10/00
6,129,417 09/336,944 10/10/00
6,129,421 09/368,872 10/10/00
6,129,427 09/163,225 10/10/00
6,129,428 09/043,878 10/10/00
6,129,438 09/267,955 10/10/00
6,129,453 09/171,165 10/10/00
6,129,454 09/472,850 10/10/00
6,129,479 08/987,717 10/10/00
6,129,489 09/125,311 10/10/00
6,129,492 08/983,286 10/10/00
6,129,500 09/072,662 10/10/00
6,129,501 09/323,428 10/10/00
6,129,502 09/171,072 10/10/00
6,129,518 08/995,069 10/10/00
6,129,519 09/126,321 10/10/00
6,129,524 09/206,918 10/10/00
6,129,529 09/161,655 10/10/00
6,129,533 09/272,167 10/10/00
6,129,535 09/077,965 10/10/00
6,129,536 09/305,616 10/10/00
6,129,539 09/120,474 10/10/00
6,129,544 09/339,052 10/10/00
6,129,545 08/979,532 10/10/00
6,129,553 09/342,063 10/10/00
6,129,554 09/331,033 10/10/00
6,129,557 09/206,575 10/10/00
6,129,559 08/788,889 10/10/00
6,129,560 09/194,182 10/10/00
6,129,561 09/222,439 10/10/00
6,129,565 09/448,093 10/10/00
6,129,567 09/024,255 10/10/00
6,129,569 09/334,479 10/10/00
6,129,575 09/217,095 10/10/00
6,129,579 09/303,202 10/10/00
6,129,581 09/216,842 10/10/00
6,129,582 08/943,843 10/10/00
6,129,588 09/328,167 10/10/00
6,129,589 09/198,415 10/10/00
6,129,600 09/470,307 10/10/00
6,129,605 08/936,861 10/10/00
6,129,606 09/340,390 10/10/00
6,129,609 09/185,328 10/10/00
6,129,612 09/156,332 10/10/00
6,129,614 08/816,775 10/10/00
6,129,617 08/804,275 10/10/00
6,129,638 09/358,743 10/10/00
6,129,654 09/266,274 10/10/00
6,129,658 08/987,794 10/10/00
6,129,665 09/147,326 10/10/00
6,129,667 09/017,565 10/10/00
6,129,672 09/003,248 10/10/00
6,129,673 09/093,464 10/10/00
6,129,674 09/276,877 10/10/00
6,129,696 08/445,577 10/10/00
6,129,697 08/351,610 10/10/00
6,129,703 09/204,844 10/10/00
6,129,706 09/209,146 10/10/00
6,129,708 09/255,732 10/10/00
6,129,729 09/190,033 10/10/00
6,129,730 09/247,642 10/10/00
6,129,731 09/159,922 10/10/00
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 165 |
6,129,747 09/214,083 10/10/00
6,129,759 08/988,185 10/10/00
6,129,770 08/981,735 10/10/00
6,129,773 08/840,618 10/10/00
6,129,774 09/224,362 10/10/00
6,129,805 09/234,211 10/10/00
6,129,827 08/962,657 10/10/00
6,129,829 09/311,943 10/10/00
6,129,833 09/124,227 10/10/00
6,129,834 08/833,750 10/10/00
6,129,835 09/221,429 10/10/00
6,129,843 09/195,039 10/10/00
6,129,849 09/195,984 10/10/00
6,129,853 09/196,760 10/10/00
6,129,854 09/098,744 10/10/00
6,129,855 08/984,631 10/10/00
6,129,856 09/103,288 10/10/00
6,129,860 09/238,422 10/10/00
6,129,863 09/216,463 10/10/00
6,129,867 09/147,228 10/10/00
6,129,869 08/881,707 10/10/00
6,129,871 08/854,154 10/10/00
6,129,883 09/215,823 10/10/00
6,129,889 09/117,697 10/10/00
6,129,890 09/391,121 10/10/00
6,129,891 09/378,761 10/10/00
6,129,893 09/078,116 10/10/00
6,129,895 08/105,643 10/10/00
6,129,901 09/186,092 10/10/00
6,129,912 09/160,013 10/10/00
6,129,916 07/981,276 10/10/00
6,129,917 08/822,324 10/10/00
6,129,919 09/325,718 10/10/00
6,129,920 08/713,973 10/10/00
6,129,922 08/596,318 10/10/00
6,129,923 09/182,062 10/10/00
6,129,926 08/074,863 10/10/00
6,129,928 09/148,724 10/10/00
6,129,933 08/899,924 10/10/00
6,129,942 09/148,134 10/10/00
6,129,945 09/208,960 10/10/00
6,129,951 09/142,086 10/10/00
6,129,959 09/006,671 10/10/00
6,129,960 09/268,873 10/10/00
6,129,961 09/385,672 10/10/00
6,129,963 08/709,579 10/10/00
6,129,964 08/965,250 10/10/00
6,129,966 09/177,797 10/10/00
6,129,968 09/201,244 10/10/00
6,129,977 08/343,360 10/10/00
6,129,979 09/140,159 10/10/00
6,129,981 09/187,082 10/10/00
6,129,985 09/162,857 10/10/00
6,129,989 09/091,633 10/10/00
6,129,992 09/348,227 10/10/00
6,129,995 09/039,981 10/10/00
6,129,998 09/058,262 10/10/00
6,130,009 08/177,108 10/10/00
6,130,018 09/361,412 10/10/00
6,130,022 09/390,366 10/10/00
6,130,023 08/290,116 10/10/00
6,130,035 09/240,866 10/10/00
6,130,036 09/060,039 10/10/00
6,130,037 08/845,505 10/10/00
6,130,051 09/314,199 10/10/00
6,130,053 09/366,003 10/10/00
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 166 |
6,130,054 09/210,715 10/10/00
6,130,058 08/436,332 10/10/00
6,130,061 08/746,397 10/10/00
6,130,067 09/082,088 10/10/00
6,130,069 09/275,742 10/10/00
6,130,079 08/995,159 10/10/00
6,130,087 08/726,967 10/10/00
6,130,097 09/129,481 10/10/00
6,130,104 09/055,291 10/10/00
6,130,106 08/748,816 10/10/00
6,130,108 09/434,934 10/10/00
6,130,114 09/290,582 10/10/00
6,130,118 08/804,294 10/10/00
6,130,130 09/208,534 10/10/00
6,130,142 09/376,256 10/10/00
6,130,143 09/376,908 10/10/00
6,130,147 08/820,727 10/10/00
6,130,158 08/599,646 10/10/00
6,130,163 09/326,400 10/10/00
6,130,180 08/996,854 10/10/00
6,130,186 08/957,631 10/10/00
6,130,190 08/965,612 10/10/00
6,130,192 09/366,867 10/10/00
6,130,201 08/929,436 10/10/00
6,130,202 08/227,496 10/10/00
6,130,214 09/179,141 10/10/00
6,130,220 09/369,677 10/10/00
6,130,222 08/836,830 10/10/00
6,130,223 09/297,186 10/10/00
6,130,226 09/271,683 10/10/00
6,130,227 09/125,512 10/10/00
6,130,228 09/077,453 10/10/00
6,130,229 08/946,527 10/10/00
6,130,234 09/091,594 10/10/00
6,130,237 09/266,966 10/10/00
6,130,239 09/464,502 10/10/00
6,130,240 09/211,246 10/10/00
6,130,243 08/945,879 10/10/00
6,130,246 08/999,934 10/10/00
6,130,249 09/381,831 10/10/00
6,130,252 08/949,879 10/10/00
6,130,259 09/135,821 10/10/00
6,130,261 08/859,202 10/10/00
6,130,288 08/809,786 10/10/00
6,130,297 09/222,098 10/10/00
6,130,301 08/923,407 10/10/00
6,130,303 08/180,933 10/10/00
6,130,305 08/955,450 10/10/00
6,130,313 09/062,102 10/10/00
6,130,315 09/139,009 10/10/00
6,130,317 09/115,934 10/10/00
6,130,323 09/171,925 10/10/00
6,130,331 09/391,939 10/10/00
6,130,336 09/242,736 10/10/00
6,130,338 09/390,160 10/10/00
6,130,340 09/006,104 10/10/00
6,130,341 09/118,318 10/10/00
6,130,353 09/380,849 10/10/00
6,130,357 09/049,420 10/10/00
6,130,360 09/207,622 10/10/00
6,130,365 09/422,190 10/10/00
6,130,387 09/207,389 10/10/00
6,130,388 09/158,729 10/10/00
6,130,398 09/112,579 10/10/00
6,130,401 09/358,768 10/10/00
6,130,404 08/811,121 10/10/00
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 167 |
6,130,458 08/828,028 10/10/00
6,130,461 09/291,042 10/10/00
6,130,468 09/021,968 10/10/00
6,130,471 08/920,640 10/10/00
6,130,490 09/287,545 10/10/00
6,130,496 09/355,245 10/10/00
6,130,497 09/116,381 10/10/00
6,130,501 09/102,695 10/10/00
6,130,503 09/032,111 10/10/00
6,130,508 09/160,274 10/10/00
6,130,512 09/382,936 10/10/00
6,130,517 09/022,713 10/10/00
6,130,519 09/400,423 10/10/00
6,130,541 09/097,605 10/10/00
6,130,544 09/359,989 10/10/00
6,130,547 09/201,681 10/10/00
6,130,570 08/932,677 10/10/00
6,130,573 09/313,518 10/10/00
6,130,576 09/176,714 10/10/00
6,130,580 09/333,030 10/10/00
6,130,582 09/205,314 10/10/00
6,130,587 09/131,415 10/10/00
6,130,597 08/798,887 10/10/00
6,130,606 09/374,947 10/10/00
6,130,611 09/172,014 10/10/00
6,130,616 09/314,365 10/10/00
6,130,619 07/978,518 10/10/00
6,130,639 09/155,411 10/10/00
6,130,640 08/823,749 10/10/00
6,130,649 09/145,753 10/10/00
6,130,658 08/940,976 10/10/00
6,130,666 08/944,734 10/10/00
6,130,667 08/907,051 10/10/00
6,130,676 09/053,981 10/10/00
6,130,681 09/035,967 10/10/00
6,130,683 08/781,977 10/10/00
6,130,685 08/732,112 10/10/00
6,130,689 08/974,688 10/10/00
6,130,690 09/291,065 10/10/00
6,130,701 08/911,072 10/10/00
6,130,709 08/376,305 10/10/00
6,130,714 08/869,640 10/10/00
6,130,717 08/858,324 10/10/00
6,130,718 08/850,678 10/10/00
6,130,722 08/851,720 10/10/00
6,130,724 09/197,706 10/10/00
6,130,733 09/154,019 10/10/00
6,130,736 09/094,064 10/10/00
6,130,741 09/405,591 10/10/00
6,130,753 09/241,192 10/10/00
6,130,758 08/944,978 10/10/00
6,130,769 09/165,801 10/10/00
6,130,772 09/089,297 10/10/00
6,130,775 09/162,353 10/10/00
6,130,776 09/300,478 10/10/00
6,130,781 09/149,153 10/10/00
6,130,785 09/081,819 10/10/00
6,130,788 09/469,359 10/10/00
6,130,791 08/999,481 10/10/00
6,130,792 08/891,094 10/10/00
6,130,793 08/822,426 10/10/00
6,130,807 09/084,490 10/10/00
6,130,809 09/058,521 10/10/00
6,130,822 09/083,791 10/10/00
6,130,827 09/293,260 10/10/00
6,130,864 09/262,970 10/10/00
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 168 |
6,130,874 08/634,133 10/10/00
6,130,897 08/925,574 10/10/00
6,130,903 09/019,976 10/10/00
6,130,913 09/196,198 10/10/00
6,130,927 09/207,184 10/10/00
6,130,952 08/950,881 10/10/00
6,130,957 08/985,817 10/10/00
6,130,966 08/751,623 10/10/00
6,130,969 08/968,314 10/10/00
6,130,974 09/120,836 10/10/00
6,130,983 09/221,652 10/10/00
6,130,984 09/034,631 10/10/00
6,130,988 08/883,435 10/10/00
6,130,990 09/139,639 10/10/00
6,130,993 09/294,911 10/10/00
6,130,995 09/317,615 10/10/00
6,130,997 08/900,833 10/10/00
6,130,998 09/102,671 10/10/00
6,131,004 09/390,997 10/10/00
6,131,009 09/412,603 10/10/00
6,131,011 09/386,332 10/10/00
6,131,021 09/311,231 10/10/00
6,131,022 08/267,972 10/10/00
6,131,023 09/176,201 10/10/00
6,131,036 09/062,166 10/10/00
6,131,041 09/317,130 10/10/00
6,131,042 09/072,754 10/10/00
6,131,056 09/039,869 10/10/00
6,131,065 09/030,126 10/10/00
6,131,068 09/385,764 10/10/00
6,131,070 09/284,048 10/10/00
6,131,072 09/017,977 10/10/00
6,131,077 09/070,612 10/10/00
6,131,083 09/219,773 10/10/00
6,131,088 09/080,603 10/10/00
6,131,093 09/030,016 10/10/00
6,131,105 08/505,257 10/10/00
6,131,109 09/028,639 10/10/00
6,131,119 08/831,063 10/10/00
6,131,126 09/013,968 10/10/00
6,131,139 08/789,544 10/10/00
6,131,141 08/749,416 10/10/00
6,131,142 09/357,372 10/10/00
6,131,143 09/089,091 10/10/00
6,131,145 08/738,912 10/10/00
6,131,147 09/098,728 10/10/00
6,131,153 08/817,934 10/10/00
6,131,158 08/759,499 10/10/00
6,131,159 07/880,257 10/10/00
6,131,162 09/090,419 10/10/00
6,131,170 09/040,460 10/10/00
6,131,171 09/265,028 10/10/00
6,131,181 08/955,413 10/10/00
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 5, 2012
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,799,334 10/381,130 10/05/04
6,799,340 10/337,033 10/05/04
6,799,345 10/336,971 10/05/04
6,799,347 10/665,070 10/05/04
6,799,349 10/463,412 10/05/04
6,799,351 10/112,828 10/05/04
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 169 |
6,799,359 10/318,611 10/05/04
6,799,365 10/179,086 10/05/04
6,799,370 09/892,866 10/05/04
6,799,377 10/796,770 10/05/04
6,799,380 10/446,674 10/05/04
6,799,381 09/756,064 10/05/04
6,799,385 10/374,608 10/05/04
6,799,389 10/187,077 10/05/04
6,799,397 10/079,256 10/05/04
6,799,399 10/304,156 10/05/04
6,799,402 10/663,550 10/05/04
6,799,409 10/360,980 10/05/04
6,799,413 10/717,994 10/05/04
6,799,414 10/722,707 10/05/04
6,799,415 10/274,889 10/05/04
6,799,420 10/268,975 10/05/04
6,799,433 10/407,717 10/05/04
6,799,441 10/339,927 10/05/04
6,799,442 09/914,917 10/05/04
6,799,443 10/433,503 10/05/04
6,799,444 10/759,579 10/05/04
6,799,449 10/392,595 10/05/04
6,799,455 10/309,888 10/05/04
6,799,458 09/849,201 10/05/04
6,799,465 10/159,337 10/05/04
6,799,466 10/102,063 10/05/04
6,799,472 10/044,956 10/05/04
6,799,477 10/407,406 10/05/04
6,799,478 09/692,895 10/05/04
6,799,481 10/657,598 10/05/04
6,799,491 10/408,342 10/05/04
6,799,495 10/078,325 10/05/04
6,799,496 10/096,522 10/05/04
6,799,512 10/606,544 10/05/04
6,799,513 10/239,191 10/05/04
6,799,515 10/094,724 10/05/04
6,799,517 09/805,569 10/05/04
6,799,529 10/327,843 10/05/04
6,799,530 10/434,606 10/05/04
6,799,535 10/408,177 10/05/04
6,799,537 10/751,408 10/05/04
6,799,538 10/446,426 10/05/04
6,799,542 10/287,154 10/05/04
6,799,554 10/287,473 10/05/04
6,799,557 10/386,167 10/05/04
6,799,563 10/700,421 10/05/04
6,799,567 10/418,770 10/05/04
6,799,569 10/161,179 10/05/04
6,799,573 10/325,071 10/05/04
6,799,579 10/353,348 10/05/04
6,799,582 10/169,107 10/05/04
6,799,586 10/349,098 10/05/04
6,799,590 09/995,295 10/05/04
6,799,595 10/379,654 10/05/04
6,799,604 10/070,229 10/05/04
6,799,612 10/179,675 10/05/04
6,799,615 10/374,369 10/05/04
6,799,620 10/082,179 10/05/04
6,799,624 10/429,269 10/05/04
6,799,625 10/303,828 10/05/04
6,799,630 09/486,230 10/05/04
6,799,639 10/317,102 10/05/04
6,799,658 09/747,648 10/05/04
6,799,660 10/328,905 10/05/04
6,799,664 10/113,436 10/05/04
6,799,667 09/950,104 10/05/04
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 170 |
6,799,668 09/832,674 10/05/04
6,799,671 09/720,931 10/05/04
6,799,675 10/300,982 10/05/04
6,799,676 10/385,285 10/05/04
6,799,677 10/081,332 10/05/04
6,799,688 10/064,488 10/05/04
6,799,690 09/775,949 10/05/04
6,799,691 10/221,120 10/05/04
6,799,701 10/415,901 10/05/04
6,799,705 09/703,578 10/05/04
6,799,706 10/280,380 10/05/04
6,799,707 10/172,037 10/05/04
6,799,710 10/217,267 10/05/04
6,799,715 10/201,036 10/05/04
6,799,716 10/443,290 10/05/04
6,799,731 10/256,414 10/05/04
6,799,736 10/037,565 10/05/04
6,799,744 10/016,990 10/05/04
6,799,749 10/737,390 10/05/04
6,799,751 10/619,846 10/05/04
6,799,752 09/848,975 10/05/04
6,799,763 09/985,511 10/05/04
6,799,770 10/106,569 10/05/04
6,799,774 10/122,609 10/05/04
6,799,787 10/671,991 10/05/04
6,799,792 10/220,932 10/05/04
6,799,795 10/605,976 10/05/04
6,799,811 10/136,597 10/05/04
6,799,813 10/296,446 10/05/04
6,799,819 10/165,226 10/05/04
6,799,820 09/573,335 10/05/04
6,799,824 10/406,567 10/05/04
6,799,837 10/604,262 10/05/04
6,799,842 10/238,240 10/05/04
6,799,846 10/449,111 10/05/04
6,799,849 10/267,587 10/05/04
6,799,854 10/465,629 10/05/04
6,799,859 10/333,693 10/05/04
6,799,863 10/286,114 10/05/04
6,799,866 10/127,457 10/05/04
6,799,867 10/600,425 10/05/04
6,799,880 10/039,970 10/05/04
6,799,881 10/260,002 10/05/04
6,799,885 09/900,599 10/05/04
6,799,905 10/667,573 10/05/04
6,799,914 10/362,844 10/05/04
6,799,915 09/805,185 10/05/04
6,799,919 10/309,714 10/05/04
6,799,929 10/442,475 10/05/04
6,799,931 09/946,932 10/05/04
6,799,939 10/378,864 10/05/04
6,799,949 10/325,974 10/05/04
6,799,952 10/235,335 10/05/04
6,799,957 10/072,550 10/05/04
6,799,973 10/234,230 10/05/04
6,799,976 09/980,040 10/05/04
6,799,977 10/194,109 10/05/04
6,799,978 10/453,224 10/05/04
6,799,979 10/407,722 10/05/04
6,799,985 10/383,507 10/05/04
6,799,997 10/346,754 10/05/04
6,800,001 10/390,059 10/05/04
6,800,002 10/188,691 10/05/04
6,800,003 10/463,214 10/05/04
6,800,004 10/612,503 10/05/04
6,800,005 10/602,656 10/05/04
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 171 |
6,800,006 10/283,018 10/05/04
6,800,007 10/613,578 10/05/04
6,800,008 10/268,396 10/05/04
6,800,011 10/188,361 10/05/04
6,800,012 10/011,189 10/05/04
6,800,018 10/074,331 10/05/04
6,800,019 10/182,647 10/05/04
6,800,021 09/783,878 10/05/04
6,800,022 10/369,249 10/05/04
6,800,023 10/023,596 10/05/04
6,800,036 10/408,041 10/05/04
6,800,039 10/384,723 10/05/04
6,800,048 10/297,086 10/05/04
6,800,050 10/392,145 10/05/04
6,800,062 10/188,564 10/05/04
6,800,064 10/050,126 10/05/04
6,800,065 10/116,234 10/05/04
6,800,067 10/327,012 10/05/04
6,800,087 10/182,170 10/05/04
6,800,092 09/644,026 10/05/04
6,800,096 10/149,009 10/05/04
6,800,098 10/149,073 10/05/04
6,800,099 10/022,069 10/05/04
6,800,100 10/013,220 10/05/04
6,800,107 10/123,207 10/05/04
6,800,112 10/109,126 10/05/04
6,800,126 10/345,536 10/05/04
6,800,135 10/171,631 10/05/04
6,800,137 10/086,624 10/05/04
6,800,144 10/171,415 10/05/04
6,800,146 10/100,003 10/05/04
6,800,155 09/793,797 10/05/04
6,800,156 10/211,361 10/05/04
6,800,159 09/912,457 10/05/04
6,800,166 10/231,923 10/05/04
6,800,170 10/389,848 10/05/04
6,800,171 10/197,296 10/05/04
6,800,174 10/079,729 10/05/04
6,800,181 10/387,055 10/05/04
6,800,184 09/837,677 10/05/04
6,800,185 10/097,752 10/05/04
6,800,186 09/111,315 10/05/04
6,800,190 09/859,003 10/05/04
6,800,199 10/168,131 10/05/04
6,800,204 10/266,240 10/05/04
6,800,212 10/146,278 10/05/04
6,800,213 10/165,249 10/05/04
6,800,214 10/300,777 10/05/04
6,800,216 10/205,264 10/05/04
6,800,221 09/964,534 10/05/04
6,800,222 09/635,235 10/05/04
6,800,223 10/223,907 10/05/04
6,800,227 09/647,247 10/05/04
6,800,228 09/528,675 10/05/04
6,800,229 09/991,905 10/05/04
6,800,230 10/087,753 10/05/04
6,800,232 10/201,416 10/05/04
6,800,250 09/527,106 10/05/04
6,800,252 10/071,407 10/05/04
6,800,258 10/287,720 10/05/04
6,800,260 10/073,655 10/05/04
6,800,262 09/874,966 10/05/04
6,800,265 10/237,699 10/05/04
6,800,268 10/182,302 10/05/04
6,800,276 10/107,382 10/05/04
6,800,281 10/008,610 10/05/04
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 172 |
6,800,284 09/781,796 10/05/04
6,800,302 09/820,856 10/05/04
6,800,306 10/019,777 10/05/04
6,800,316 10/009,718 10/05/04
6,800,338 09/834,762 10/05/04
6,800,343 10/075,156 10/05/04
6,800,348 09/485,206 10/05/04
6,800,349 10/441,181 10/05/04
6,800,360 10/258,902 10/05/04
6,800,370 09/978,835 10/05/04
6,800,374 10/171,730 10/05/04
6,800,375 10/301,154 10/05/04
6,800,381 10/271,318 10/05/04
6,800,382 10/281,583 10/05/04
6,800,386 10/082,612 10/05/04
6,800,392 09/992,952 10/05/04
6,800,393 10/145,278 10/05/04
6,800,395 09/986,791 10/05/04
6,800,396 09/914,984 10/05/04
6,800,410 10/260,275 10/05/04
6,800,416 10/042,531 10/05/04
6,800,418 10/264,429 10/05/04
6,800,421 09/996,762 10/05/04
6,800,431 10/413,907 10/05/04
6,800,433 09/959,274 10/05/04
6,800,440 09/904,380 10/05/04
6,800,443 10/136,227 10/05/04
6,800,454 09/801,115 10/05/04
6,800,460 09/521,335 10/05/04
6,800,462 10/077,210 10/05/04
6,800,466 09/796,820 10/05/04
6,800,467 09/080,127 10/05/04
6,800,468 09/831,630 10/05/04
6,800,482 09/908,632 10/05/04
6,800,484 10/115,230 10/05/04
6,800,486 09/857,580 10/05/04
6,800,487 10/259,345 10/05/04
6,800,489 10/163,625 10/05/04
6,800,506 10/156,469 10/05/04
6,800,512 09/662,004 10/05/04
6,800,528 10/368,423 10/05/04
6,800,529 10/325,120 10/05/04
6,800,532 10/620,613 10/05/04
6,800,544 10/222,777 10/05/04
6,800,561 10/261,549 10/05/04
6,800,565 10/341,282 10/05/04
6,800,578 10/271,920 10/05/04
6,800,581 10/232,461 10/05/04
6,800,583 09/324,271 10/05/04
6,800,584 10/266,973 10/05/04
6,800,589 10/060,140 10/05/04
6,800,596 10/434,594 10/05/04
6,800,597 10/170,547 10/05/04
6,800,606 10/070,568 10/05/04
6,800,610 10/157,457 10/05/04
6,800,612 09/912,164 10/05/04
6,800,615 10/317,906 10/05/04
6,800,616 09/032,881 10/05/04
6,800,618 09/849,400 10/05/04
6,800,621 10/318,141 10/05/04
6,800,627 09/890,186 10/05/04
6,800,632 09/738,066 10/05/04
6,800,633 09/728,229 10/05/04
6,800,634 10/300,654 10/05/04
6,800,635 10/698,664 10/05/04
6,800,636 10/028,251 10/05/04
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 173 |
6,800,637 10/659,238 10/05/04
6,800,638 10/451,757 10/05/04
6,800,640 10/323,263 10/05/04
6,800,641 10/128,748 10/05/04
6,800,642 10/131,343 10/05/04
6,800,645 09/612,530 10/05/04
6,800,648 10/133,994 10/05/04
6,800,650 10/364,490 10/05/04
6,800,654 10/171,041 10/05/04
6,800,658 10/043,640 10/05/04
6,800,663 10/273,365 10/05/04
6,800,665 10/341,478 10/05/04
6,800,674 09/958,475 10/05/04
6,800,681 10/231,336 10/05/04
6,800,685 09/590,814 10/05/04
6,800,700 10/325,232 10/05/04
6,800,703 10/686,066 10/05/04
6,800,709 10/091,975 10/05/04
6,800,711 10/417,155 10/05/04
6,800,716 09/933,108 10/05/04
6,800,725 10/203,142 10/05/04
6,800,729 09/195,662 10/05/04
6,800,731 09/899,917 10/05/04
6,800,734 10/255,018 10/05/04
6,800,735 09/832,659 10/05/04
6,800,738 09/705,398 10/05/04
6,800,741 10/616,678 10/05/04
6,800,742 10/100,909 10/05/04
6,800,746 09/759,143 10/05/04
6,800,747 09/723,775 10/05/04
6,800,748 09/771,009 10/05/04
6,800,749 09/341,016 10/05/04
6,800,756 10/207,103 10/05/04
6,800,759 10/392,601 10/05/04
6,800,764 10/304,322 10/05/04
6,800,770 10/346,164 10/05/04
6,800,778 10/111,211 10/05/04
6,800,798 10/351,395 10/05/04
6,800,802 10/290,608 10/05/04
6,800,803 09/551,910 10/05/04
6,800,813 09/301,264 10/05/04
6,800,822 10/440,109 10/05/04
6,800,827 10/212,865 10/05/04
6,800,834 10/354,699 10/05/04
6,800,835 10/463,935 10/05/04
6,800,843 10/672,296 10/05/04
6,800,849 10/174,343 10/05/04
6,800,853 09/991,546 10/05/04
6,800,855 09/472,585 10/05/04
6,800,860 10/635,917 10/05/04
6,800,863 10/634,756 10/05/04
6,800,878 10/298,950 10/05/04
6,800,890 10/248,234 10/05/04
6,800,891 10/211,257 10/05/04
6,800,913 10/287,876 10/05/04
6,800,915 10/071,789 10/05/04
6,800,922 10/055,896 10/05/04
6,800,931 10/050,164 10/05/04
6,800,934 10/189,561 10/05/04
6,800,935 10/256,692 10/05/04
6,800,939 10/156,772 10/05/04
6,800,943 10/113,697 10/05/04
6,800,950 10/232,328 10/05/04
6,800,954 10/150,604 10/05/04
6,800,955 10/260,206 10/05/04
6,800,958 10/089,775 10/05/04
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 174 |
6,800,959 10/111,471 10/05/04
6,800,960 10/139,719 10/05/04
6,800,965 10/169,622 10/05/04
6,800,976 10/207,749 10/05/04
6,800,979 10/381,780 10/05/04
6,800,985 10/132,329 10/05/04
6,800,991 10/359,627 10/05/04
6,800,992 10/429,021 10/05/04
6,800,994 10/255,898 10/05/04
6,800,995 10/301,583 10/05/04
6,800,998 10/135,343 10/05/04
6,801,005 10/280,901 10/05/04
6,801,009 10/305,607 10/05/04
6,801,030 10/442,084 10/05/04
6,801,031 09/388,813 10/05/04
6,801,044 10/654,759 10/05/04
6,801,047 10/441,646 10/05/04
6,801,050 10/032,761 10/05/04
6,801,055 10/421,756 10/05/04
6,801,056 10/283,775 10/05/04
6,801,074 10/618,726 10/05/04
6,801,091 10/315,738 10/05/04
6,801,106 10/397,250 10/05/04
6,801,110 10/161,511 10/05/04
6,801,116 10/464,247 10/05/04
6,801,119 09/034,963 10/05/04
6,801,120 09/788,518 10/05/04
6,801,122 09/935,258 10/05/04
6,801,123 10/197,909 10/05/04
6,801,131 10/309,489 10/05/04
6,801,149 10/425,024 10/05/04
6,801,152 10/419,163 10/05/04
6,801,153 10/278,960 10/05/04
6,801,154 10/662,587 10/05/04
6,801,156 10/627,481 10/05/04
6,801,158 10/251,454 10/05/04
6,801,169 10/423,631 10/05/04
6,801,184 09/793,460 10/05/04
6,801,185 09/834,475 10/05/04
6,801,189 10/191,422 10/05/04
6,801,198 10/135,440 10/05/04
6,801,214 09/603,916 10/05/04
6,801,225 09/363,261 10/05/04
6,801,237 10/616,158 10/05/04
6,801,244 09/779,619 10/05/04
6,801,256 09/322,994 10/05/04
6,801,270 09/893,163 10/05/04
6,801,278 09/975,344 10/05/04
6,801,283 10/427,954 10/05/04
6,801,292 09/826,878 10/05/04
6,801,300 09/930,530 10/05/04
6,801,301 10/265,108 10/05/04
6,801,302 10/336,898 10/05/04
6,801,305 10/333,496 10/05/04
6,801,307 10/061,780 10/05/04
6,801,317 10/275,164 10/05/04
6,801,320 10/271,048 10/05/04
6,801,328 08/916,014 10/05/04
6,801,338 09/698,675 10/05/04
6,801,339 09/276,470 10/05/04
6,801,349 10/192,208 10/05/04
6,801,352 10/408,103 10/05/04
6,801,355 09/991,272 10/05/04
6,801,371 10/394,519 10/05/04
6,801,374 10/307,990 10/05/04
6,801,379 10/041,333 10/05/04
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 175 |
6,801,381 09/817,156 10/05/04
6,801,388 10/059,215 10/05/04
6,801,390 10/171,118 10/05/04
6,801,391 10/119,472 10/05/04
6,801,393 10/071,959 10/05/04
6,801,394 10/169,574 10/05/04
6,801,397 10/408,444 10/05/04
6,801,398 08/901,940 10/05/04
6,801,399 09/956,158 10/05/04
6,801,403 10/104,239 10/05/04
6,801,410 10/247,124 10/05/04
6,801,417 10/195,366 10/05/04
6,801,425 09/873,468 10/05/04
6,801,426 09/944,595 10/05/04
6,801,427 10/308,634 10/05/04
6,801,439 10/366,255 10/05/04
6,801,442 10/443,959 10/05/04
6,801,444 10/434,221 10/05/04
6,801,447 10/232,313 10/05/04
6,801,458 10/638,406 10/05/04
6,801,476 10/410,325 10/05/04
6,801,478 09/676,446 10/05/04
6,801,479 10/460,803 10/05/04
6,801,487 10/059,610 10/05/04
6,801,491 09/511,547 10/05/04
6,801,493 10/051,301 10/05/04
6,801,494 09/999,005 10/05/04
6,801,501 09/396,807 10/05/04
6,801,514 09/777,017 10/05/04
6,801,522 09/284,383 10/05/04
6,801,544 09/569,615 10/05/04
6,801,546 09/218,398 10/05/04
6,801,549 09/648,918 10/05/04
6,801,553 09/988,662 10/05/04
6,801,560 10/056,619 10/05/04
6,801,601 10/106,291 10/05/04
6,801,628 09/855,138 10/05/04
6,801,630 09/138,463 10/05/04
6,801,640 09/586,978 10/05/04
6,801,644 09/537,749 10/05/04
6,801,649 09/772,751 10/05/04
6,801,650 09/661,743 10/05/04
6,801,651 09/726,122 10/05/04
6,801,655 09/853,932 10/05/04
6,801,662 09/685,235 10/05/04
6,801,669 09/944,082 10/05/04
6,801,677 10/052,862 10/05/04
6,801,681 09/765,520 10/05/04
6,801,688 10/330,783 10/05/04
6,801,690 10/780,964 10/05/04
6,801,699 10/280,534 10/05/04
6,801,701 10/604,564 10/05/04
6,801,706 09/532,178 10/05/04
6,801,708 09/550,088 10/05/04
6,801,728 10/372,658 10/05/04
6,801,738 10/212,099 10/05/04
6,801,756 10/071,907 10/05/04
6,801,762 09/672,756 10/05/04
6,801,795 09/820,295 10/05/04
6,801,822 09/654,052 10/05/04
6,801,825 10/190,714 10/05/04
6,801,826 10/202,045 10/05/04
6,801,831 09/947,560 10/05/04
6,801,841 10/096,575 10/05/04
6,801,851 10/228,282 10/05/04
6,801,860 09/250,083 10/05/04
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 176 |
6,801,863 10/385,313 10/05/04
6,801,865 10/103,659 10/05/04
6,801,868 10/283,353 10/05/04
6,801,869 09/980,509 10/05/04
6,801,884 09/779,965 10/05/04
6,801,886 09/716,065 10/05/04
6,801,887 09/666,971 10/05/04
6,801,900 09/470,415 10/05/04
6,801,908 10/058,726 10/05/04
6,801,915 09/362,530 10/05/04
6,801,918 09/296,619 10/05/04
6,801,941 09/633,669 10/05/04
6,801,943 09/302,592 10/05/04
6,802,005 08/540,689 10/05/04
6,802,012 09/678,691 10/05/04
6,802,013 09/404,794 10/05/04
6,802,032 09/584,926 10/05/04
6,802,034 10/059,118 10/05/04
6,802,041 09/488,424 10/05/04
6,802,043 10/107,159 10/05/04
6,802,051 10/356,848 10/05/04
6,802,057 09/563,503 10/05/04
6,802,064 09/534,055 10/05/04
6,802,066 09/358,796 10/05/04
6,802,074 09/584,145 10/05/04
6,802,075 09/941,999 10/05/04
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 7, 2012
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
7,430,764 11/335,733 10/07/08
7,430,769 11/026,716 10/07/08
7,430,772 10/558,123 10/07/08
7,430,781 11/139,380 10/07/08
7,430,784 11/282,018 10/07/08
7,430,788 11/393,318 10/07/08
7,430,804 11/308,730 10/07/08
7,430,805 11/424,759 10/07/08
7,430,806 11/900,275 10/07/08
7,430,810 11/169,612 10/07/08
7,430,818 10/518,519 10/07/08
7,430,823 11/987,443 10/07/08
7,430,826 10/779,022 10/07/08
7,430,828 11/401,589 10/07/08
7,430,829 11/341,173 10/07/08
7,430,830 11/496,862 10/07/08
7,430,832 10/947,474 10/07/08
7,430,841 11/897,356 10/07/08
7,430,856 10/938,952 10/07/08
7,430,885 11/107,879 10/07/08
7,430,886 10/592,644 10/07/08
7,430,905 11/307,946 10/07/08
7,430,912 11/275,358 10/07/08
7,430,915 10/562,385 10/07/08
7,430,932 10/533,285 10/07/08
7,430,941 11/289,534 10/07/08
7,430,944 11/606,483 10/07/08
7,430,959 11/942,938 10/07/08
7,430,960 11/286,159 10/07/08
7,430,981 11/625,628 10/07/08
7,430,984 10/285,092 10/07/08
7,430,991 11/800,388 10/07/08
7,430,997 10/588,483 10/07/08
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 177 |
7,430,999 11/352,818 10/07/08
7,431,000 10/516,947 10/07/08
7,431,026 10/858,559 10/07/08
7,431,030 10/793,274 10/07/08
7,431,045 11/063,745 10/07/08
7,431,046 11/246,108 10/07/08
7,431,058 10/509,610 10/07/08
7,431,063 10/496,971 10/07/08
7,431,067 11/193,497 10/07/08
7,431,068 11/402,550 10/07/08
7,431,074 11/384,997 10/07/08
7,431,109 10/960,800 10/07/08
7,431,110 11/346,025 10/07/08
7,431,123 11/189,993 10/07/08
7,431,133 10/524,552 10/07/08
7,431,144 10/983,592 10/07/08
7,431,154 11/415,519 10/07/08
7,431,156 10/531,749 10/07/08
7,431,161 10/188,017 10/07/08
7,431,172 11/452,146 10/07/08
7,431,178 11/162,993 10/07/08
7,431,179 11/325,238 10/07/08
7,431,180 10/711,362 10/07/08
7,431,181 11/086,058 10/07/08
7,431,192 11/164,980 10/07/08
7,431,199 11/351,662 10/07/08
7,431,212 10/907,983 10/07/08
7,431,217 11/182,357 10/07/08
7,431,218 11/188,346 10/07/08
7,431,237 11/502,018 10/07/08
7,431,239 10/712,042 10/07/08
7,431,240 09/640,063 10/07/08
7,431,244 10/523,512 10/07/08
7,431,246 11/503,657 10/07/08
7,431,248 11/356,068 10/07/08
7,431,250 11/287,429 10/07/08
7,431,252 10/823,961 10/07/08
7,431,253 11/143,654 10/07/08
7,431,257 11/055,207 10/07/08
7,431,258 11/360,108 10/07/08
7,431,283 11/163,430 10/07/08
7,431,285 11/488,807 10/07/08
7,431,308 11/476,685 10/07/08
7,431,310 11/271,948 10/07/08
7,431,314 10/950,265 10/07/08
7,431,316 11/163,326 10/07/08
7,431,318 11/238,210 10/07/08
7,431,319 11/076,270 10/07/08
7,431,320 11/306,274 10/07/08
7,431,322 11/543,766 10/07/08
7,431,323 11/325,387 10/07/08
7,431,331 11/327,429 10/07/08
7,431,335 10/943,458 10/07/08
7,431,338 11/780,706 10/07/08
7,431,345 11/099,359 10/07/08
7,431,346 11/348,430 10/07/08
7,431,349 11/942,276 10/07/08
7,431,353 11/779,190 10/07/08
7,431,360 11/656,252 10/07/08
7,431,362 11/279,380 10/07/08
7,431,364 10/930,829 10/07/08
7,431,365 11/162,921 10/07/08
7,431,372 11/939,898 10/07/08
7,431,379 11/832,670 10/07/08
7,431,388 11/633,104 10/07/08
7,431,392 11/527,942 10/07/08
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 178 |
7,431,395 11/079,966 10/07/08
7,431,396 11/634,396 10/07/08
7,431,399 10/556,295 10/07/08
7,431,408 11/377,704 10/07/08
7,431,414 11/060,592 10/07/08
7,431,415 10/842,694 10/07/08
7,431,418 11/186,655 10/07/08
7,431,430 10/530,633 10/07/08
7,431,445 11/389,654 10/07/08
7,431,450 11/531,992 10/07/08
7,431,456 11/648,133 10/07/08
7,431,458 10/524,769 10/07/08
7,431,468 11/481,585 10/07/08
7,431,470 11/347,571 10/07/08
7,431,474 11/761,132 10/07/08
7,431,476 10/931,760 10/07/08
7,431,478 10/973,801 10/07/08
7,431,480 11/015,626 10/07/08
7,431,483 11/935,609 10/07/08
7,431,485 11/101,982 10/07/08
7,431,486 11/466,420 10/07/08
7,431,488 11/082,439 10/07/08
7,431,501 10/989,863 10/07/08
7,431,508 11/211,805 10/07/08
7,431,509 11/282,825 10/07/08
7,431,519 11/474,280 10/07/08
7,431,521 11/092,971 10/07/08
7,431,524 11/359,717 10/07/08
7,431,527 11/220,121 10/07/08
7,431,528 11/159,298 10/07/08
7,431,532 11/158,727 10/07/08
7,431,533 11/806,866 10/07/08
7,431,542 11/261,910 10/07/08
7,431,549 11/351,297 10/07/08
7,431,579 10/924,535 10/07/08
7,431,591 10/372,170 10/07/08
7,431,595 11/808,442 10/07/08
7,431,606 10/894,516 10/07/08
7,431,607 11/294,587 10/07/08
7,431,609 11/306,919 10/07/08
7,431,612 11/309,194 10/07/08
7,431,613 12/045,564 10/07/08
7,431,615 11/890,117 10/07/08
7,431,618 10/557,877 10/07/08
7,431,622 11/148,496 10/07/08
7,431,623 11/079,200 10/07/08
7,431,624 11/263,951 10/07/08
7,431,625 11/304,663 10/07/08
7,431,631 11/025,679 10/07/08
7,431,634 11/702,854 10/07/08
7,431,651 10/694,741 10/07/08
7,431,656 10/710,631 10/07/08
7,431,659 10/792,968 10/07/08
7,431,661 11/424,464 10/07/08
7,431,671 11/373,004 10/07/08
7,431,672 11/433,995 10/07/08
7,431,691 10/886,177 10/07/08
7,431,702 10/484,739 10/07/08
7,431,703 10/799,334 10/07/08
7,431,715 10/671,541 10/07/08
7,431,719 11/093,693 10/07/08
7,431,727 10/774,345 10/07/08
7,431,752 11/527,179 10/07/08
7,431,753 11/033,312 10/07/08
7,431,755 11/907,802 10/07/08
7,431,768 11/016,072 10/07/08
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 179 |
7,431,769 11/015,385 10/07/08
7,431,778 10/521,612 10/07/08
7,431,783 10/510,444 10/07/08
7,431,789 10/891,584 10/07/08
7,431,809 11/389,000 10/07/08
7,431,810 11/022,171 10/07/08
7,431,811 11/563,132 10/07/08
7,431,813 11/369,742 10/07/08
7,431,827 10/974,666 10/07/08
7,431,830 10/932,019 10/07/08
7,431,847 10/535,657 10/07/08
7,431,850 10/561,269 10/07/08
7,431,851 11/704,220 10/07/08
7,431,891 10/432,843 10/07/08
7,431,901 09/775,999 10/07/08
7,431,905 11/242,655 10/07/08
7,431,916 10/603,819 10/07/08
7,431,918 11/372,906 10/07/08
7,431,920 11/112,369 10/07/08
7,431,921 10/609,296 10/07/08
7,431,923 11/321,624 10/07/08
7,431,925 10/761,634 10/07/08
7,431,928 11/339,605 10/07/08
7,431,964 11/016,406 10/07/08
7,431,974 11/036,900 10/07/08
7,431,977 11/261,908 10/07/08
7,431,985 11/512,700 10/07/08
7,431,999 11/081,937 10/07/08
7,432,002 10/527,759 10/07/08
7,432,029 11/320,338 10/07/08
7,432,042 10/728,135 10/07/08
7,432,052 10/495,728 10/07/08
7,432,056 10/926,684 10/07/08
7,432,057 11/044,111 10/07/08
7,432,061 10/449,659 10/07/08
7,432,071 10/561,967 10/07/08
7,432,074 10/366,266 10/07/08
7,432,075 11/695,809 10/07/08
7,432,080 11/013,736 10/07/08
7,432,102 10/472,587 10/07/08
7,432,103 12/012,387 10/07/08
7,432,109 10/782,209 10/07/08
7,432,129 10/991,851 10/07/08
7,432,131 11/517,366 10/07/08
7,432,152 11/425,607 10/07/08
7,432,159 11/242,209 10/07/08
7,432,165 11/464,711 10/07/08
7,432,169 11/766,162 10/07/08
7,432,209 11/386,428 10/07/08
7,432,210 11/244,422 10/07/08
7,432,222 10/978,791 10/07/08
7,432,225 10/485,909 10/07/08
7,432,241 11/451,552 10/07/08
7,432,247 10/778,791 10/07/08
7,432,248 11/492,558 10/07/08
7,432,251 11/078,479 10/07/08
7,432,253 11/512,855 10/07/08
7,432,254 10/038,112 10/07/08
7,432,255 11/796,026 10/07/08
7,432,257 11/326,084 10/07/08
7,432,261 10/833,294 10/07/08
7,432,263 10/486,463 10/07/08
7,432,266 11/249,769 10/07/08
7,432,269 11/252,870 10/07/08
7,432,270 10/477,008 10/07/08
7,432,273 10/833,897 10/07/08
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 180 |
7,432,275 10/539,031 10/07/08
7,432,279 11/436,328 10/07/08
7,432,280 10/558,588 10/07/08
7,432,283 11/061,000 10/07/08
7,432,285 11/599,519 10/07/08
7,432,288 10/564,235 10/07/08
7,432,289 10/492,605 10/07/08
7,432,291 11/083,176 10/07/08
7,432,293 10/545,245 10/07/08
7,432,299 10/726,878 10/07/08
7,432,308 10/474,897 10/07/08
7,432,314 10/319,849 10/07/08
7,432,341 10/693,657 10/07/08
7,432,348 10/483,679 10/07/08
7,432,352 11/393,327 10/07/08
7,432,360 11/167,818 10/07/08
7,432,366 10/385,136 10/07/08
7,432,374 11/687,611 10/07/08
7,432,377 11/036,408 10/07/08
7,432,379 10/837,231 10/07/08
7,432,381 11/354,390 10/07/08
7,432,383 11/714,817 10/07/08
7,432,384 11/257,955 10/07/08
7,432,385 10/471,414 10/07/08
7,432,386 11/798,027 10/07/08
7,432,388 11/810,047 10/07/08
7,432,410 10/929,987 10/07/08
7,432,414 10/558,656 10/07/08
7,432,452 11/557,994 10/07/08
7,432,470 11/384,126 10/07/08
7,432,478 11/336,184 10/07/08
7,432,479 11/336,291 10/07/08
7,432,483 11/189,994 10/07/08
7,432,485 10/582,383 10/07/08
7,432,488 11/731,507 10/07/08
7,432,490 10/550,057 10/07/08
7,432,506 11/559,334 10/07/08
7,432,511 11/216,044 10/07/08
7,432,521 10/526,471 10/07/08
7,432,530 11/751,807 10/07/08
7,432,534 10/544,271 10/07/08
7,432,538 11/523,095 10/07/08
7,432,562 11/398,216 10/07/08
7,432,577 10/110,805 10/07/08
7,432,590 11/198,135 10/07/08
7,432,596 11/249,129 10/07/08
7,432,601 11/544,934 10/07/08
7,432,618 11/400,716 10/07/08
7,432,622 10/525,825 10/07/08
7,432,623 11/205,264 10/07/08
7,432,625 11/198,835 10/07/08
7,432,640 11/246,263 10/07/08
7,432,645 11/090,701 10/07/08
7,432,658 10/546,359 10/07/08
7,432,665 10/514,281 10/07/08
7,432,686 11/729,196 10/07/08
7,432,699 11/318,838 10/07/08
7,432,700 10/999,021 10/07/08
7,432,710 11/538,878 10/07/08
7,432,714 10/587,447 10/07/08
7,432,718 11/595,799 10/07/08
7,432,722 11/763,429 10/07/08
7,432,735 11/874,981 10/07/08
7,432,769 10/525,983 10/07/08
7,432,782 11/518,032 10/07/08
7,432,783 11/579,137 10/07/08
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 181 |
7,432,798 11/350,801 10/07/08
7,432,804 11/510,353 10/07/08
7,432,820 11/809,334 10/07/08
7,432,846 11/300,827 10/07/08
7,432,857 10/981,624 10/07/08
7,432,858 11/082,363 10/07/08
7,432,872 11/796,461 10/07/08
7,432,880 10/573,935 10/07/08
7,432,889 10/154,262 10/07/08
7,432,900 11/074,426 10/07/08
7,432,904 11/038,358 10/07/08
7,432,942 11/211,533 10/07/08
7,432,947 11/136,451 10/07/08
7,432,955 10/883,728 10/07/08
7,432,964 10/914,352 10/07/08
7,432,966 10/240,778 10/07/08
7,432,969 09/662,323 10/07/08
7,432,970 11/346,250 10/07/08
7,432,973 11/061,534 10/07/08
7,432,988 11/710,772 10/07/08
7,432,989 11/167,613 10/07/08
7,433,000 10/613,417 10/07/08
7,433,013 11/006,690 10/07/08
7,433,022 11/020,379 10/07/08
7,433,035 10/234,580 10/07/08
7,433,054 11/499,725 10/07/08
7,433,064 11/554,195 10/07/08
7,433,088 10/200,340 10/07/08
7,433,094 10/629,553 10/07/08
7,433,107 11/205,860 10/07/08
7,433,113 11/419,452 10/07/08
7,433,114 11/624,098 10/07/08
7,433,128 11/694,795 10/07/08
7,433,138 11/501,852 10/07/08
7,433,140 11/146,903 10/07/08
7,433,145 10/732,522 10/07/08
7,433,150 10/973,535 10/07/08
7,433,159 11/050,823 10/07/08
7,433,160 11/188,857 10/07/08
7,433,171 10/418,960 10/07/08
7,433,188 11/472,048 10/07/08
7,433,194 11/683,355 10/07/08
7,433,197 11/467,708 10/07/08
7,433,198 11/693,722 10/07/08
7,433,207 11/566,822 10/07/08
7,433,215 11/580,513 10/07/08
7,433,251 11/765,551 10/07/08
7,433,252 11/267,203 10/07/08
7,433,255 11/568,241 10/07/08
7,433,256 11/568,243 10/07/08
7,433,270 11/375,311 10/07/08
7,433,276 10/864,395 10/07/08
7,433,278 10/532,141 10/07/08
7,433,284 10/986,224 10/07/08
7,433,286 11/372,051 10/07/08
7,433,292 10/523,385 10/07/08
7,433,368 10/852,485 10/07/08
7,433,385 10/088,637 10/07/08
7,433,426 10/831,095 10/07/08
7,433,440 10/373,928 10/07/08
7,433,466 10/931,133 10/07/08
7,433,476 10/253,323 10/07/08
7,433,479 10/740,423 10/07/08
7,433,485 12/030,861 10/07/08
7,433,486 10/853,273 10/07/08
7,433,488 10/875,357 10/07/08
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 182 |
7,433,505 11/263,817 10/07/08
7,433,527 10/582,846 10/07/08
7,433,545 11/067,054 10/07/08
7,433,550 11/400,236 10/07/08
7,433,553 11/896,102 10/07/08
7,433,561 11/537,638 10/07/08
7,433,562 10/568,363 10/07/08
7,433,567 11/105,912 10/07/08
7,433,575 10/161,661 10/07/08
7,433,577 10/247,680 10/07/08
7,433,594 11/580,568 10/07/08
7,433,641 11/199,087 10/07/08
7,433,678 10/564,374 10/07/08
7,433,681 10/867,480 10/07/08
7,433,724 11/320,059 10/07/08
7,433,726 11/238,000 10/07/08
7,433,744 10/519,020 10/07/08
7,433,766 10/936,366 10/07/08
7,433,768 10/523,140 10/07/08
7,433,781 11/719,032 10/07/08
7,433,788 11/471,897 10/07/08
7,433,792 11/309,450 10/07/08
7,433,841 10/094,193 10/07/08
7,433,865 10/895,126 10/07/08
7,433,882 10/346,368 10/07/08
7,433,884 10/953,044 10/07/08
7,433,905 10/467,514 10/07/08
7,433,944 10/310,019 10/07/08
7,434,055 10/049,217 10/07/08
7,434,061 10/910,165 10/07/08
7,434,063 10/263,198 10/07/08
7,434,077 11/107,803 10/07/08
7,434,086 11/023,011 10/07/08
7,434,094 11/182,846 10/07/08
7,434,095 11/218,610 10/07/08
7,434,122 11/056,844 10/07/08
7,434,133 11/007,156 10/07/08
7,434,136 10/766,969 10/07/08
7,434,146 11/123,561 10/07/08
7,434,151 10/954,700 10/07/08
7,434,160 10/726,917 10/07/08
7,434,165 10/317,619 10/07/08
7,434,194 11/187,499 10/07/08
7,434,237 11/163,315 10/07/08
7,434,240 10/843,423 10/07/08
7,434,241 11/269,842 10/07/08
7,434,247 11/092,371 10/07/08
7,434,255 10/957,699 10/07/08
7,434,265 09/879,302 10/07/08
7,434,267 09/977,896 10/07/08
| Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 10/29/2012 |
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a
Late Maintenance Fee from 10/29/2012
Patent Application Filing Issue Granted
Number Number Date Date Date
5,953,882 09/006,023 01/12/98 09/21/99 10/29/12
5,974,451 08/866,265 05/30/97 10/26/99 11/02/12
6,044,603 09/032,128 02/27/98 04/04/00 10/31/12
6,082,150 09/364,402 07/30/99 07/04/00 11/01/12
6,121,008 08/821,086 03/20/97 09/19/00 11/02/12
6,664,843 09/999,001 10/24/01 12/16/03 11/02/12
6,782,239 10/177,127 06/21/02 08/24/04 11/02/12
6,802,274 10/223,664 08/19/02 10/12/04 11/02/12
6,802,755 10/216,599 08/09/02 10/12/04 11/02/12
7,203,179 10/158,187 05/31/02 04/10/07 11/02/12
7,272,612 10/767,730 01/30/04 09/18/07 10/31/12
7,335,309 09/652,272 08/31/00 02/26/08 11/01/12
7,339,181 10/703,923 11/07/03 03/04/08 10/31/12
7,353,747 11/161,269 07/28/05 04/08/08 11/01/12
7,388,505 11/325,040 01/04/06 06/17/08 10/30/12
7,393,028 11/785,076 04/13/07 07/01/08 11/01/12
7,399,286 10/922,855 08/23/04 07/15/08 10/29/12
7,422,033 11/013,667 12/16/04 09/09/08 10/29/12
7,429,999 11/133,243 05/20/05 09/30/08 11/01/12
| Reissue Applications Filed |
Reissue Applications Filed
Notice under 37 CFR 1.11(b). The reissue applications listed below are
open to public inspection by the general public through the Image File
Wrapper (IFW) system (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair) on the
USPTO internet web site (www.uspto.gov), and copies may be obtained by
paying the fee therefor (37 CFR 1.19).
7,225,101, Re. S.N. 13/567,647, Aug. 06, 2012, Cl. 073, ELECTRONIC
DEVICE SIGNAL COMPENSATION DEVICE AND SIGNAL COMPENSATION METHOD, Hiroshi
Usuda, et al, Owner of Record: SONY CORPORATION, Tokyo, Japan, Attorney or
Agent: Andrew T. Lane, Ex. Gp.: 2856
Erratum
In the Reissue Notice, for patent number 7,737,745, appearing in the
Official Gazette on October 30, 2012, the application number was
erroneously stated as 13/323,768. The correct application number is
13/523,768.
| Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
5,665,458, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,502, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
428/202, Title: HEAT ACTIVATED APPLIQUE ON PRESSURE SENSITIVE RELEASE PAPER
AND METHOD OF MAKING, Inventor: John Mahn, Jr., Owners of Record: Specialty
Adhesive Film, Co., Cleves, OH, Attorney or Agent: Wood Herron & Evans,
Cincinnati, OH, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: David J. Hrina, Buckingham
Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP., Akron, OH
6,216,567, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,511, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
081/177, Title: RATCHETING TOOLS HAVING AN ANGLE-ADJUSTABLE HEAD, Inventor:
Bobby Hu, Owners of Record: Bobby Hu, Taiwan, Attorney or Agent: Kamrath IP
Lawfirm, PA., Golden Valley, MN, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Ben Chiang,
Patent Office of Bang Shia, Sugarland, TX
6,241,862, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,522, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
204/403, Title: DISPOSABLE TEST STRIPS WITH INTEGRATED REAGENT/BLOOD
SEPARATION LAYER, Inventor: Jerome F. McAleer et al., Owners of Record:
Lifescan Scotland Limited, United Kingdom, Attorney or Agent: Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP., Atlanta, GA, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester:
Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc., A. Justin Poplin, Lathrop & Gage, LLP., Kansas
City, MI
6,247,090, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,494, Requested Date: Sep. 11, 2012, Cl.
710/129, Title: DISPLAY APPARATUS ENABLED TO CONTROL COMMUNICATABILITY WITH
AN EXTERNAL COMPUTER USING IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION, Inventor: Ikuya Arai
et al., Owners of Record: Mondis Technology, LTD., England, Attorney or
Agent: Dechert, LLP., Mountain View, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: John R.
Mills, Cooley, LLP., Washington, DC
6,466,236, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,515, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
715/835, Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING AND MANIPULATING MULTIPLE
CALENDARS ON A PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANT, Inventor: Alvin Pivowar et al.,
Owners of Record: Access Co., LTD., Japan, Attorney or Agent: Berry &
Associates, PC., Los Angeles, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Robert Hansen,
The Marbury Law Group, PLLC., Reston, VA
6,504,253, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,499, Requested Date: Sep. 11, 2012, Cl.
257/723, Title: STRUCTURE FOR ELECTRICALLY CONNECTING A FIRST BODY OF
SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIAL OVERLAID BY A SECOND BODY OF SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIAL
COMPOSITE STRUCTURE USING ELECTRIC CONNECTION STRUCTURE, Inventor: Ubaldo
Mastromatteo et al., Owners of Record: STMicroelectronics SRL., Italy,
Attorney or Agent: Seed Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC., Seattle,
WA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: IvenSense, Inc., Mehran Arjomand, Morrison &
Foerster, LLP., Los Angeles, CA
6,537,227, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,514, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
600/500, Title: METHOD AND EQUIPMENT FOR HUMAN-RELATED MEASURING, Inventor:
Hannu Kinnunen et al., Owners of Record: Polar Electro Oy, Finland,
Attorney or Agent: Hoffmann & Baron, LLP., Syosset, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: Timothy J. Maier, Maier & Maier, PLLC., Alexandria, VA
6,546,799, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,520, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
073/514, Title: METHOD FOR COMPENSATING THE POSITION OFFSET OF A CAPACITIVE
INERTIAL SENSOR, AND CAPACITIVE INERTIAL SENSOR, Inventor: Benedetto Vigna
et al., Owners of Record: STMicroelectronics, Inc., Italy, Attorney or
Agent: Seed Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC., Seattle, WA, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: InvenSense, Inc., Vinay Joshi, Torocy & Watson, LLP.,
Cleveland, OH
6,846,690, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,521, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
438/048, Title: INTEGRATED CIRCUIT COMPRISING AN AUXILLARY COMPONENT, FOR
EXAMPLE A PASSIVE COMPONENT OR A MICROELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEM, PLACED
ABOVE AN ELECTRONIC CHIP, AND THE CORRESPONDING FABRICATION PROCESS,
Inventor: Alexis Farcy et al., Owners of Record: STMicroelectronics, Inc.,
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 187 |
Italy, Attorney or Agent: Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco PL., Boca
Raton, FL, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: InvenSense, Inc., Vinay Joshi, Torocy
& Watson, LLP., Cleveland, OH
6,928,872, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,518, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
073/504, Title: INTEGRATED GYROSCOPE OF SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIAL WITH AT
LEAST ONE SENSITIVE AXIS IN THE SENSOR PLANE, Inventor: Guido Spinola
Durante et al., Owners of Record: STMicroelectronics, SRL., Italy, Attorney
or Agent: Seed Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC., Seattle, WA, Ex.
Gp.: 3992, Requester: InvenSense, Inc., Vinay Joshi, Turocy & Watson, LLP.,
Cleveland, OH
7,187,539, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,510, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
361/679, Title: HINGE ASSEMBLY IN PORTABLE COMPUTER, Inventor: Jun-Hong
Kim, Owners of Record: LG Electronics, Inc., Korea, Attorney or Agent: Ked
& Associates, LLP., Reston, VA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: John R. Guice,
Jr., Guice Patents, PLLC., Manassas, VA
7,450,332, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,519, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
360/075, Title: FREE-FALL DETECTION DEVICE AND FREE-FALL PROTECTION SYSTEM
FOR A PORTABLE ELECTRONIC APPARATUS, Inventor: Fabio Pasolini et al.,
Owners of Record: STMicroelectronics, Inc., Italy, Attorney or Agent: Hogan
Lovells US, LLP., Colorado Springs, CO, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester:
InvenSense, Inc., Vinay Joshi, Turocy & Watson, LLP., Cleveland, OH
8,008,241, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,512, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
510/226, Title: AUTOMATIC DISHWASHING DETERGENT COMPOSITION, Inventor:
Philip Frank Souter, Owners of Record: The Procter & Gamble Co.,
Cincinnati, OH, Attorney or Agent: The Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati,
OH, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Michael W. Krenicky, Novozymes North America,
Inc., New York, NY
8,036,988, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,517, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
705/044, Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING SECURE CREDIT CARD
TRANSACTIONS, Inventor: John D'Agostino, Owners of Record: John D'Agostino,
Sarasota, FL, Attorney or Agent: Maxey Law Offices, PLLC., Clearwater, FL,
Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Charles F. Wieland III, Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney PC., Alexandria, VA
8,045,965, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,489, Requested Date: Sep. 11, 2012, Cl.
455/412, Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VENUE-TO-VENUE MESSAGING, Inventor:
Justin Shaffer et al., Owners of Record: MLB Advanced Media, LP., New York,
NY, Attorney or Agent: Foley & Lardner, LLP., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Kermit Lopez, Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC., Albuquerque, NM
8,191,920, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,513, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
280/651, Title: SINGLE ACTION COLLAPSING/EXPANDING THREE-WHEELED GOLF CART,
Inventor: Sheng Zhang, Owners of Record: Ningbo Wentai Sports Equipment
Co., LTD., China, Attorney or Agent: Law Offices of J.F. Lee, City of
Industry, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Timothy J. Maier, Maier & Maier,
PLLC., Alexandria, VA
8,204,796, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,516, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.
705/026, Title: MANAGING TRANSACTIONS OF BROKER AFFILIATES, Inventor: Jacob
M. Dubin et al., Owners of Record: StubHub, Inc., San Francisco, CA,
Attorney or Agent: Haynes & Boone, LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Justin R. Sauer, Allen Dyer Doppelt Milbrath & Gilchrist, PA.,
Orlando, FL
| Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed
6,460,050, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,202, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
100/001, Title: DISTRIBUTED CONTENT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM, Inventor: Mark
Raymond Pace et al., Owners of Record: Intellectual Ventures I, LLC.,
Seattle, WA, Attorney or Agent: Foley & Lardner, LLP., Washington, DC, Ex.
Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Symantec Corp.; (Att'y Is:
Thomas E. Anderson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP., Washington,
DC), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
6,711,954, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,194, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
073/655, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVING THE DYNAMIC RANGE OF
LASER DETECTED ULTRASOUND IN ATTENUATIVE MATERIALS, Inventor: Thomas E.
Drake, Jr., Owners of Record: Lockheed Martin Corp., Bethesda, MD, Attorney
or Agent: The Law Office of Robert A. McLauchlan, Austin, TX, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: IPhoton Solutions, LLC.; (Att'y
Is: David M. O'Dell, Haynes & Boone, LLP., Dallas, TX), Real Party in
Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
6,828,008, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,198, Requested Date: Sep. 13, 2012, Cl.:
428/152, Title: ADHESIVE TAPE FOR MASKING, Inventor: George Gruber, Owners
of Record: Shurtape Technologies, LLC., Hickory, NC, Attorney or Agent:
Leffert Jay & Polglaze, PA., Minneapolis, MN, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester:
Third Party Requester: 3M Company, Inc.; (Att'y Is: Mark D. Sweet,
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, DC), Real Party in
Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
6,879,691, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,203, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
380/255, Title: INFORMATION AUTOCOMPLETION SYSTEM, Inventor: David A.
Koretz, Owners of Record: Auto-Completion Solutions, LLC., Frisco, TX,
Attorney or Agent: Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP.,
San Diego, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Facebook,
Inc.; (Att'y Is: Heidi L. Keefe, Cooley, LLP., Washington, DC), Real Party
in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,007,438, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,191, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
052/736, Title: CROSSARM SYSTEMS AND METHODS, Inventor: Scott D. Shields et
al., Owners of Record: Brooks Manufacturing, Co., Bellingham, WA, Attorney
or Agent: Schacht Law Office, Inc., Bellingham, WA, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: Third Party Requester: Dis-Tran Wood Products, LLC.; (Att'y Is:
Robert G. McMorrow, Jr., Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP., Wilmington, DE),
Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,252,636, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,192, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
600/300, Title: NETWORKED SYSTEM FOR INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION AND REMOTE
MONITORING OF INDIVIDUALS, Inventor: Stephen J. Brown, Owners of Record:
Health Hero Networks, Inc., Redwood City, UT, Attorney or Agent: Health
Hero Network, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party
Requester: Cardiocom, LLC.; (Att'y Is: George C. Lewis, Merchant & Gould,
PC., Minneapolis, MN), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
7,478,467, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,197, Requested Date: Sep. 14, 2012, Cl.:
029/450, Title: SELF LOCKING SHEET METAL DUCT WITH A SEALANT AND METHOD FOR
MANUFACTURING THE DUCT WITH A SEALANT AND INSTALLING THE DUCT WITH A
SEALANT, Inventor: Douglas G. Gudenburr et al., Owners of Record: Ductmate
Industries, Inc., East Monongahela, PA, Attorney or Agent: Beck & Thomas,
PC., Pittsburgh, PA, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Third Party Requester: Gray
Metal Products, Inc.; (Att'y Is: Brian B. Shaw, Harter Secrest & Emery,
LLP., Rochester, NY), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,506,155, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,201, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
713/152, Title: E-MAIL VIRUS PROTECTION SYSTEM AND METHOD, Inventor: Walter
Mason Stewart et al., Owners of Record: Intellectual Ventures I, LLC.,
Wilmington, DE, Attorney or Agent: Foley & Lardner, LLP., Washington, DC,
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 189 |
Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Symantec, Corp.; (Att'y
Is: Thomas E. Anderson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP.,
Washington, DC), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,534,366, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,189, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
252/068, Title: COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING FLUORINE SUBSTITUTED OLEFINS,
Inventor: Rajiv R. Singh et al., Owners of Record: Honeywell International,
Inc., Morristown, NJ, Attorney or Agent: Honeywell International, Inc.,
Morristown, NJ, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Third Party Requester: Mexichem
Amanaco Holding SA. De CV; (Att'y Is: Patrick J. Fleis, Ryan Kromholz &
Manion SC., Milwaukee, MI), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
7,691,143, Reexam. C.N.: 95/000,694, Requested Date: Sep. 13, 2012, Cl.:
623/002, Title: ANNULOPLASTY RING HOLDER, Inventor: John T.M. Wright et
al., Owners of Record: Medtronic GBI, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, Attorney or
Agent: Swanson & Bratschun, LLC., Littleton, CO, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester:
Third Party Requester: Edwards Lifesciences Corp.; (Att'y Is: AnneMarie
Kaiser, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP., San Francisco, CA), Real
Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,780,033, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,193, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
220/505, Title: PLURAL CHAMBER DRINKING CUP, Inventor: Bryan D. Mansfield
et al., Owners of Record: Hurricane Shooters, LLC., Sarasota, FL, Attorney
or Agent: Hurricane Shooters, LLC., Sarasota, FL, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester:
Third Party Requester: Fine Line Setting, Inc.; (Att'y Is: Max Moskowitz,
Ostrolenk Faber, LLP., New York, NY), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third
Party Requester
7,889,722, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,190, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
370/356, Title: SYSTEM FOR INTERCONNECTING STANDARD TELEPHONY
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT TO INTERNET PROTOCOL NETWORKS, Inventor: Joseph B.
Thompson, Owners of Record: Bear Creek Technologies, Inc., Orange Beach,
AL, Attorney or Agent: Cooley Manion Jones, LLP., Boston, MA, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Cisco Systems, Inc.; (Att'y Is:
David L. McCombs, Haynes & Boone, LLP., Dallas, TX), Real Party in
Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,922,614, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,200, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
474/206, Title: CHAIN FOR A MACHINE DRIVE, TRANSPORT OF MATERIAL IN A
MACHINE OR THE LIKE, AND PACKAGING MACHINE COMPRISING ONE SUCH CHAIN,
Inventor: Ivo Ruzic et al., Owners of Record: Multivac, Inc., Kansas City,
MO, Attorney or Agent: Husch Blackwell, LLP., Kansas City, MO, Ex. Gp.:
3993, Requester: Third Party Requester: CP Packaging, LLC.; (Att'y Is:
Daniel M. Becker, Dechert, LLP., Mountain View, CA), Real Party in
Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,941,327, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,199, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
705/003, Title: USER MONITORING, Inventor: Stephen J. Brown, Owners of
Record: Health Hero Network, Inc., Mountain View, CA, Attorney or Agent:
Health Hero Network, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third
Party Requester: Cardiocom, LLC.; (Att'y Is: George C. Lewis, Merchant &
Gould, PC., Minneapolis, MN), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
8,009,042, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,195, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
340/541, Title: RADIO-FREQUENCY LIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEM WITH OCCUPANCY
SENSING, Inventor: James P. Steiner et al., Owners of Record: Lutron
Electronics, Co., Inc., Coopersburg, PA, Attorney or Agent: Ostrolenk
Faber, LLP., New York, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester:
(Att'y Is: David E. Shifren, Crestron Electronics, Inc., Rockleigh, NJ),
Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
8,043,119, Reexam. C.N.: 95/000,695, Requested Date: Sep. 14, 2012, Cl.:
439/604, Title: METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ELECTRICAL CABLE, AND RESULTING
PRODUCT, WITH REDUCED REQUIRED INSTALLATION PULLING FORCE, Inventor: Randy
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 190 |
D. Kummer et al., Owners of Record: Southwire Company, Carrollton, GA,
Attorney or Agent: Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Third Party Requester: Cerro Wire, LLC.; (Att'y Is: R. Blake
Johnston, DLA Piper, LLP., Chicago, IL), Real Party in Interest: Same As
Third Party Requester
8,148,317, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,188, Requested Date: Sep. 12, 2012, Cl.:
510/408, Title: AZEOTROPE-LIKE COMPOSITIONS OF TETRAFLUOROPROPENE AND
HYDROFLUOROCARBONS, Inventor: Rajiv R. Singh et al., Owners of Record:
Honeywell International, Inc., Morristown, NJ, Attorney or Agent:
Honeywell/Fox Rothschild, Morristown, NJ, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Third
Party Requester: Mexichem Amanaco Holding SA. De CV; (Att'y Is: Patrick J.
Fleis, Ryan Kromholz & Manion SC., Milwaukee, MI), Real Party in Interest:
Same As Third Party Requester
8,149,701, Reexam. C.N.: 95/000,689, Requested Date: Sep. 6, 2012, Cl.:
370/230, Title: SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR CREATING A
VIDEO CLIP, Inventor: Jason Sumler et al., Owners of Record: Silverscreen
Tele-Reality, Inc., Dallas, TX, Attorney or Agent: RG & Associates, Allen,
TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Liquidus Marketing,
Inc.; (Att'y Is: Natalie D. Kadievitch, Fredrikson & Byron, PA.,
Minneapolis, MN), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
8,163,009, Reexam. C.N.: 95/000,693, Requested Date: Sep. 13, 2012, Cl.:
623/002, Title: ANNULOPLASTY RING HOLDER, Inventor: John T.M. Wright et
al., Owners of Record: Medtronic GBI, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, Attorney or
Agent: Medtronic Vascular, Inc., Santa Rose, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester:
Third Party Requester: Edwards Lifesciences Corp.; (Att'y Is: AnneMarie
Kaiser, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP., San Francisco, CA), Real
Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
8,181,676, Reexam. C.N.: 95/000,692, Requested Date: Sep. 14, 2012, Cl.:
141/038, Title: TEMPORARY MOBILITY KIT WITH INADVERTANT FLOW PREVENTION
TECHNIQUES, Inventor: Kimberly Ann Steele et al., Owners of Record: Ford
Global Technologies, Dearborn, MI, Attorney or Agent: Ford Global
Technologies, LLC., Dearborn, MI, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Third Party
Requester: Tek Global SRL.; (Att'y Is: John Richards, Ladas & Parry, LLP.,
New York, NY), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
| Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew |
Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations
Due to Failure to Renew
15 U.S.C. 1059 provides that each trademark registration may be
renewed for periods of ten years from the end of the expiring period
upon payment of the prescribed fee and the filing of an acceptable
application for renewal. This may be done at any time within one year
before the expiration of the period for which the registration was
issued or renewed, or it may be done within six months after such
expiration on payment of an additional fee.
According to the records of the Office, the trademark registrations
listed below are expired due to failure to renew in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 1059.
TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS WHICH EXPIRED
November 2, 2012
DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date
2,554,286 76/087,059 03/26/2002
3,073,668 79/000,237 03/28/2006
3,073,669 79/000,585 03/28/2006
3,073,670 79/000,683 03/28/2006
3,073,672 79/001,232 03/28/2006
3,073,673 79/001,356 03/28/2006
3,073,675 79/001,536 03/28/2006
3,073,676 79/001,537 03/28/2006
3,004,555 79/001,624 10/04/2005
2,965,373 79/001,626 07/05/2005
3,015,747 79/001,627 11/15/2005
3,068,350 79/001,630 03/14/2006
1,681,157 74/113,110 03/31/1992
1,681,198 74/140,131 03/31/1992
2,551,379 74/394,782 03/26/2002
2,551,383 74/634,209 03/26/2002
2,552,856 75/179,153 03/26/2002
2,552,861 75/214,902 03/26/2002
2,552,864 75/222,444 03/26/2002
2,552,879 75/273,676 03/26/2002
2,552,880 75/276,084 03/26/2002
2,552,893 75/303,952 03/26/2002
2,552,894 75/304,269 03/26/2002
2,551,407 75/307,981 03/26/2002
2,551,408 75/307,982 03/26/2002
2,552,895 75/309,523 03/26/2002
2,554,170 75/314,780 03/26/2002
2,552,899 75/318,671 03/26/2002
2,552,902 75/321,954 03/26/2002
2,551,416 75/347,820 03/26/2002
2,552,914 75/355,985 03/26/2002
2,552,916 75/356,297 03/26/2002
2,554,171 75/361,216 03/26/2002
2,552,933 75/391,204 03/26/2002
2,552,943 75/403,456 03/26/2002
2,551,419 75/403,807 03/26/2002
2,552,945 75/407,517 03/26/2002
2,552,947 75/407,572 03/26/2002
2,551,422 75/412,037 03/26/2002
2,552,970 75/443,510 03/26/2002
2,552,972 75/446,760 03/26/2002
2,551,434 75/460,474 03/26/2002
2,552,992 75/475,597 03/26/2002
2,553,029 75/524,815 03/26/2002
2,553,030 75/528,083 03/26/2002
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 192 |
2,553,034 75/533,510 03/26/2002
2,553,037 75/535,886 03/26/2002
2,553,042 75/539,562 03/26/2002
2,553,043 75/541,491 03/26/2002
2,553,044 75/544,796 03/26/2002
2,553,046 75/545,121 03/26/2002
2,553,048 75/547,772 03/26/2002
2,553,056 75/554,663 03/26/2002
2,551,455 75/556,116 03/26/2002
2,553,062 75/556,816 03/26/2002
2,554,177 75/557,158 03/26/2002
2,553,068 75/565,914 03/26/2002
2,553,070 75/566,533 03/26/2002
2,553,071 75/567,178 03/26/2002
2,553,079 75/574,205 03/26/2002
2,551,463 75/581,866 03/26/2002
2,553,104 75/596,110 03/26/2002
2,553,109 75/603,579 03/26/2002
2,551,480 75/606,130 03/26/2002
2,551,482 75/610,435 03/26/2002
2,553,113 75/611,038 03/26/2002
2,551,486 75/615,249 03/26/2002
2,553,122 75/618,401 03/26/2002
2,553,127 75/624,804 03/26/2002
2,553,130 75/625,727 03/26/2002
2,553,132 75/627,336 03/26/2002
2,553,134 75/628,346 03/26/2002
2,553,147 75/641,445 03/26/2002
2,553,155 75/647,081 03/26/2002
2,553,164 75/651,681 03/26/2002
2,553,166 75/652,514 03/26/2002
2,553,170 75/653,792 03/26/2002
2,553,171 75/653,795 03/26/2002
2,553,175 75/657,012 03/26/2002
2,553,176 75/659,074 03/26/2002
2,554,183 75/665,713 03/26/2002
2,553,188 75/666,877 03/26/2002
2,553,190 75/668,844 03/26/2002
2,553,192 75/670,564 03/26/2002
2,553,195 75/671,987 03/26/2002
2,551,503 75/672,890 03/26/2002
2,553,197 75/674,091 03/26/2002
2,553,205 75/677,534 03/26/2002
2,551,505 75/677,735 03/26/2002
2,553,207 75/677,996 03/26/2002
2,553,208 75/679,151 03/26/2002
2,553,210 75/679,364 03/26/2002
2,551,510 75/684,942 03/26/2002
2,553,215 75/686,369 03/26/2002
2,553,217 75/690,812 03/26/2002
2,554,188 75/697,128 03/26/2002
2,554,189 75/697,130 03/26/2002
2,553,233 75/698,245 03/26/2002
2,551,519 75/699,361 03/26/2002
2,553,240 75/701,815 03/26/2002
2,553,241 75/702,197 03/26/2002
2,551,526 75/710,999 03/26/2002
2,553,276 75/727,052 03/26/2002
2,553,279 75/727,800 03/26/2002
2,553,282 75/729,007 03/26/2002
2,554,196 75/730,660 03/26/2002
2,553,286 75/730,760 03/26/2002
2,553,290 75/732,700 03/26/2002
2,553,294 75/733,577 03/26/2002
2,553,298 75/734,063 03/26/2002
2,553,299 75/738,262 03/26/2002
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 193 |
2,553,300 75/738,659 03/26/2002
2,553,303 75/739,674 03/26/2002
2,551,549 75/740,793 03/26/2002
2,553,313 75/743,531 03/26/2002
2,551,552 75/746,368 03/26/2002
2,553,318 75/750,695 03/26/2002
2,553,323 75/752,363 03/26/2002
2,551,557 75/754,579 03/26/2002
2,553,327 75/755,816 03/26/2002
2,553,340 75/759,146 03/26/2002
2,553,358 75/769,475 03/26/2002
2,553,361 75/771,231 03/26/2002
2,551,574 75/777,548 03/26/2002
2,551,575 75/779,335 03/26/2002
2,553,384 75/783,497 03/26/2002
2,553,394 75/791,577 03/26/2002
2,551,586 75/794,283 03/26/2002
2,553,407 75/798,485 03/26/2002
2,553,416 75/800,731 03/26/2002
2,553,417 75/801,129 03/26/2002
2,551,602 75/808,352 03/26/2002
2,553,434 75/809,511 03/26/2002
2,553,438 75/811,706 03/26/2002
2,553,454 75/819,017 03/26/2002
2,551,607 75/821,281 03/26/2002
2,553,459 75/821,407 03/26/2002
2,554,215 75/821,466 03/26/2002
2,553,461 75/822,271 03/26/2002
2,551,608 75/822,457 03/26/2002
2,551,611 75/823,640 03/26/2002
2,553,464 75/824,604 03/26/2002
2,551,621 75/833,094 03/26/2002
2,551,622 75/833,113 03/26/2002
2,553,486 75/835,397 03/26/2002
2,553,490 75/837,286 03/26/2002
2,551,627 75/839,277 03/26/2002
2,553,495 75/842,726 03/26/2002
2,554,220 75/843,412 03/26/2002
2,551,633 75/844,498 03/26/2002
2,553,507 75/847,079 03/26/2002
2,553,512 75/847,944 03/26/2002
2,553,513 75/848,011 03/26/2002
2,553,517 75/848,862 03/26/2002
2,553,520 75/851,897 03/26/2002
2,553,524 75/852,426 03/26/2002
2,553,525 75/853,160 03/26/2002
2,551,638 75/853,322 03/26/2002
2,553,533 75/855,902 03/26/2002
2,553,537 75/856,930 03/26/2002
2,551,642 75/857,134 03/26/2002
2,554,226 75/857,383 03/26/2002
2,553,542 75/858,727 03/26/2002
2,553,543 75/859,389 03/26/2002
2,553,544 75/859,412 03/26/2002
2,551,646 75/860,199 03/26/2002
2,551,647 75/860,775 03/26/2002
2,551,651 75/863,429 03/26/2002
2,551,654 75/864,076 03/26/2002
2,553,559 75/866,590 03/26/2002
2,551,660 75/869,467 03/26/2002
2,553,572 75/870,469 03/26/2002
2,553,574 75/871,242 03/26/2002
2,553,575 75/871,325 03/26/2002
2,551,663 75/872,788 03/26/2002
2,553,583 75/874,753 03/26/2002
2,553,586 75/876,046 03/26/2002
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 194 |
2,551,670 75/879,760 03/26/2002
2,551,671 75/881,457 03/26/2002
2,553,601 75/882,506 03/26/2002
2,551,674 75/883,078 03/26/2002
2,553,611 75/886,273 03/26/2002
2,554,234 75/887,396 03/26/2002
2,551,682 75/888,000 03/26/2002
2,553,616 75/888,242 03/26/2002
2,551,686 75/889,622 03/26/2002
2,551,695 75/894,057 03/26/2002
2,553,635 75/898,920 03/26/2002
2,551,700 75/899,763 03/26/2002
2,551,702 75/900,943 03/26/2002
2,554,238 75/901,383 03/26/2002
2,551,704 75/902,445 03/26/2002
2,553,648 75/904,845 03/26/2002
2,553,653 75/906,881 03/26/2002
2,551,711 75/907,255 03/26/2002
2,551,715 75/909,658 03/26/2002
2,554,241 75/910,623 03/26/2002
2,551,718 75/912,819 03/26/2002
2,553,667 75/913,219 03/26/2002
2,551,721 75/916,252 03/26/2002
2,551,725 75/917,916 03/26/2002
2,551,726 75/918,542 03/26/2002
2,553,676 75/918,724 03/26/2002
2,553,680 75/920,604 03/26/2002
2,553,690 75/924,320 03/26/2002
2,553,693 75/926,152 03/26/2002
2,553,694 75/926,563 03/26/2002
2,553,700 75/927,664 03/26/2002
2,551,737 75/928,527 03/26/2002
2,553,709 75/932,332 03/26/2002
2,551,749 75/937,049 03/26/2002
2,551,753 75/938,396 03/26/2002
2,554,255 75/940,940 03/26/2002
2,553,728 75/941,155 03/26/2002
2,553,729 75/941,156 03/26/2002
2,553,730 75/941,160 03/26/2002
2,551,758 75/942,279 03/26/2002
2,553,740 75/945,562 03/26/2002
2,553,741 75/955,444 03/26/2002
2,553,749 75/980,305 03/26/2002
2,553,752 75/980,703 03/26/2002
2,553,753 75/980,796 03/26/2002
2,553,754 75/980,874 03/26/2002
2,551,763 75/981,109 03/26/2002
2,553,762 75/981,487 03/26/2002
2,553,763 75/981,561 03/26/2002
2,553,766 75/981,630 03/26/2002
2,553,770 75/981,713 03/26/2002
2,553,772 75/981,766 03/26/2002
2,553,773 75/981,770 03/26/2002
2,553,778 76/000,292 03/26/2002
2,551,765 76/000,749 03/26/2002
2,551,766 76/000,889 03/26/2002
2,551,767 76/000,891 03/26/2002
2,553,779 76/001,492 03/26/2002
2,551,772 76/003,484 03/26/2002
2,554,258 76/004,836 03/26/2002
2,551,779 76/008,045 03/26/2002
2,551,783 76/008,472 03/26/2002
2,551,787 76/009,652 03/26/2002
2,553,794 76/009,711 03/26/2002
2,553,801 76/011,870 03/26/2002
2,553,807 76/013,818 03/26/2002
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 195 |
2,551,795 76/015,124 03/26/2002
2,551,796 76/015,151 03/26/2002
2,553,813 76/015,541 03/26/2002
2,551,799 76/017,059 03/26/2002
2,553,818 76/017,100 03/26/2002
2,553,826 76/019,216 03/26/2002
2,553,831 76/020,797 03/26/2002
2,551,810 76/023,794 03/26/2002
2,553,845 76/026,170 03/26/2002
2,551,819 76/027,055 03/26/2002
2,551,824 76/030,204 03/26/2002
2,551,826 76/030,512 03/26/2002
2,551,827 76/030,544 03/26/2002
2,551,830 76/031,770 03/26/2002
2,553,862 76/033,907 03/26/2002
2,553,865 76/035,045 03/26/2002
2,551,842 76/035,496 03/26/2002
2,551,851 76/038,405 03/26/2002
2,554,263 76/039,814 03/26/2002
2,553,885 76/040,100 03/26/2002
2,551,859 76/040,968 03/26/2002
2,551,863 76/041,744 03/26/2002
2,553,895 76/042,086 03/26/2002
2,553,910 76/046,168 03/26/2002
2,551,869 76/046,280 03/26/2002
2,554,265 76/047,214 03/26/2002
2,553,919 76/048,180 03/26/2002
2,553,920 76/048,195 03/26/2002
2,551,895 76/051,423 03/26/2002
2,551,902 76/051,844 03/26/2002
2,553,936 76/051,849 03/26/2002
2,551,908 76/054,402 03/26/2002
2,553,943 76/055,717 03/26/2002
2,551,917 76/058,847 03/26/2002
2,551,920 76/059,550 03/26/2002
2,553,952 76/059,919 03/26/2002
2,553,955 76/060,682 03/26/2002
2,551,925 76/061,522 03/26/2002
2,551,929 76/063,598 03/26/2002
2,553,964 76/063,942 03/26/2002
2,553,965 76/064,001 03/26/2002
2,551,930 76/064,109 03/26/2002
2,551,939 76/066,021 03/26/2002
2,551,943 76/066,468 03/26/2002
2,553,976 76/067,294 03/26/2002
2,554,278 76/068,111 03/26/2002
2,551,950 76/068,371 03/26/2002
2,553,985 76/069,820 03/26/2002
2,553,988 76/072,230 03/26/2002
2,553,992 76/074,337 03/26/2002
2,553,996 76/075,306 03/26/2002
2,551,973 76/077,916 03/26/2002
2,554,012 76/080,882 03/26/2002
2,554,014 76/081,916 03/26/2002
2,554,015 76/083,053 03/26/2002
2,551,994 76/083,071 03/26/2002
2,551,996 76/083,134 03/26/2002
2,551,998 76/083,969 03/26/2002
2,554,016 76/085,174 03/26/2002
2,554,018 76/085,386 03/26/2002
2,552,006 76/086,244 03/26/2002
2,554,287 76/087,434 03/26/2002
2,552,011 76/088,507 03/26/2002
2,552,013 76/088,752 03/26/2002
2,552,021 76/092,668 03/26/2002
2,552,028 76/095,153 03/26/2002
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 196 |
2,554,034 76/099,576 03/26/2002
2,552,040 76/100,399 03/26/2002
2,552,041 76/100,447 03/26/2002
2,554,038 76/101,093 03/26/2002
2,552,049 76/103,058 03/26/2002
2,552,061 76/104,619 03/26/2002
2,552,062 76/104,902 03/26/2002
2,552,066 76/105,732 03/26/2002
2,554,047 76/108,162 03/26/2002
2,554,051 76/108,890 03/26/2002
2,552,086 76/109,685 03/26/2002
2,554,055 76/110,737 03/26/2002
2,554,308 76/113,249 03/26/2002
2,552,097 76/113,924 03/26/2002
2,552,098 76/114,650 03/26/2002
2,554,060 76/118,188 03/26/2002
2,552,108 76/119,867 03/26/2002
2,552,110 76/120,082 03/26/2002
2,554,064 76/121,073 03/26/2002
2,554,315 76/123,149 03/26/2002
2,552,127 76/126,369 03/26/2002
2,552,129 76/127,159 03/26/2002
2,554,316 76/127,894 03/26/2002
2,554,318 76/128,010 03/26/2002
2,554,319 76/128,060 03/26/2002
2,552,134 76/129,754 03/26/2002
2,554,321 76/133,127 03/26/2002
2,552,143 76/136,668 03/26/2002
2,552,147 76/137,916 03/26/2002
2,552,152 76/139,482 03/26/2002
2,554,093 76/142,189 03/26/2002
2,552,165 76/142,939 03/26/2002
2,552,175 76/144,904 03/26/2002
2,552,181 76/146,916 03/26/2002
2,552,182 76/147,297 03/26/2002
2,552,190 76/149,955 03/26/2002
2,552,194 76/151,390 03/26/2002
2,554,100 76/151,898 03/26/2002
2,552,197 76/153,399 03/26/2002
2,552,198 76/153,626 03/26/2002
2,552,199 76/153,627 03/26/2002
2,554,331 76/154,091 03/26/2002
2,552,203 76/154,508 03/26/2002
2,552,218 76/161,266 03/26/2002
2,552,233 76/164,477 03/26/2002
2,554,104 76/165,564 03/26/2002
2,552,241 76/166,983 03/26/2002
2,552,247 76/168,777 03/26/2002
2,554,339 76/171,036 03/26/2002
2,552,256 76/171,426 03/26/2002
2,554,342 76/172,384 03/26/2002
2,554,345 76/174,512 03/26/2002
2,552,264 76/176,112 03/26/2002
2,552,274 76/179,005 03/26/2002
2,552,275 76/179,087 03/26/2002
2,552,277 76/179,446 03/26/2002
2,554,349 76/181,177 03/26/2002
2,552,292 76/185,885 03/26/2002
2,554,352 76/187,385 03/26/2002
2,554,353 76/189,327 03/26/2002
2,552,306 76/194,027 03/26/2002
2,554,118 76/194,506 03/26/2002
2,552,309 76/195,580 03/26/2002
2,552,314 76/198,206 03/26/2002
2,554,361 76/198,754 03/26/2002
2,552,324 76/203,398 03/26/2002
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 197 |
2,552,328 76/205,393 03/26/2002
2,552,341 76/208,919 03/26/2002
2,552,343 76/209,190 03/26/2002
2,552,344 76/209,241 03/26/2002
2,552,369 76/218,746 03/26/2002
2,552,370 76/219,336 03/26/2002
2,552,376 76/221,145 03/26/2002
2,552,399 76/228,144 03/26/2002
2,552,402 76/229,383 03/26/2002
2,552,404 76/230,829 03/26/2002
2,552,409 76/232,431 03/26/2002
2,552,423 76/235,333 03/26/2002
2,554,372 76/237,066 03/26/2002
2,552,449 76/239,864 03/26/2002
2,552,455 76/241,268 03/26/2002
2,552,464 76/242,717 03/26/2002
2,552,478 76/246,036 03/26/2002
2,552,481 76/246,957 03/26/2002
2,552,484 76/247,302 03/26/2002
2,554,377 76/247,770 03/26/2002
2,552,488 76/249,675 03/26/2002
2,552,508 76/255,529 03/26/2002
2,552,509 76/255,548 03/26/2002
2,554,379 76/256,031 03/26/2002
2,554,381 76/256,998 03/26/2002
2,552,523 76/260,483 03/26/2002
2,552,531 76/262,878 03/26/2002
2,552,543 76/267,016 03/26/2002
2,552,544 76/267,466 03/26/2002
2,552,545 76/268,233 03/26/2002
2,552,554 76/270,984 03/26/2002
2,552,567 76/273,478 03/26/2002
2,552,580 76/277,551 03/26/2002
2,554,387 76/278,360 03/26/2002
2,554,388 76/278,361 03/26/2002
2,552,583 76/279,306 03/26/2002
2,552,590 76/281,233 03/26/2002
2,552,592 76/281,763 03/26/2002
2,552,596 76/282,449 03/26/2002
2,552,597 76/282,915 03/26/2002
2,552,599 76/283,643 03/26/2002
2,552,601 76/283,800 03/26/2002
2,552,620 76/290,144 03/26/2002
2,552,637 76/296,625 03/26/2002
2,552,638 76/296,706 03/26/2002
2,552,642 76/297,390 03/26/2002
2,552,643 76/297,499 03/26/2002
2,552,646 76/298,869 03/26/2002
2,552,656 76/300,736 03/26/2002
2,552,660 76/302,430 03/26/2002
2,552,670 76/305,549 03/26/2002
2,552,673 76/305,932 03/26/2002
2,552,674 76/306,024 03/26/2002
2,552,681 76/307,218 03/26/2002
2,552,693 76/310,345 03/26/2002
2,552,697 76/312,758 03/26/2002
2,554,126 78/001,873 03/26/2002
2,552,701 78/004,235 03/26/2002
2,554,129 78/006,171 03/26/2002
2,554,140 78/019,475 03/26/2002
2,552,714 78/020,616 03/26/2002
2,552,715 78/021,186 03/26/2002
2,552,729 78/025,447 03/26/2002
2,552,730 78/025,481 03/26/2002
2,554,150 78/026,361 03/26/2002
2,554,406 78/027,451 03/26/2002
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 198 |
2,552,741 78/029,937 03/26/2002
2,552,746 78/032,184 03/26/2002
2,554,408 78/034,759 03/26/2002
2,552,752 78/034,786 03/26/2002
2,554,162 78/038,120 03/26/2002
2,552,762 78/042,729 03/26/2002
2,552,763 78/043,228 03/26/2002
2,552,781 78/060,696 03/26/2002
2,552,782 78/060,728 03/26/2002
2,552,783 78/060,759 03/26/2002
2,554,166 78/060,786 03/26/2002
2,552,784 78/060,787 03/26/2002
2,552,788 78/061,521 03/26/2002
2,552,789 78/062,788 03/26/2002
2,552,800 78/068,656 03/26/2002
2,552,803 78/072,666 03/26/2002
2,552,806 78/075,666 03/26/2002
2,552,809 78/076,049 03/26/2002
2,552,810 78/076,406 03/26/2002
2,552,814 78/077,057 03/26/2002
2,552,831 78/081,133 03/26/2002
2,552,834 78/082,410 03/26/2002
2,552,836 78/082,636 03/26/2002
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been
filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last
known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable,
notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its
assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty
days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of
default.
Timberstone Group Inc, Holland, OH, Registration No. 3475928 for the mark
"T TIMBERSTONE GROUP", Cancellation No. 92056242.
ROCHELLE ADAMS
Paralegal
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
DEBORAH S. COHN
Commissioner for Trademarks
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been
filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last
known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable,
notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its
assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty
days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of
default.
Prize Pony Inc., London, United Kingdom, Registration No. 3440191 for the
mark "PRIZE PONY", Cancellation No. 92055965.
AMY MATELSKI
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
DEBORAH S. COHN
Commissioner for Trademarks
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been
filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last
known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable,
notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its
assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty
days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of
default.
Epiphany Clubs and Resorts LLC, Greenwood Village, CO, Registration Nos.
3361843, 3496618 for the marks "EPIPHANY'S AVAILABILITY GUARANTEE" and
"EPIPHANY CLUBS & RESORTS", Cancellation No. 92056105.
CLARA VELA
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
DEBORAH S. COHN
Commissioner for Trademarks
| 37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication |
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application
without the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A
notice has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor.
The inventor whose signature is missing (Vladimir D. Volokh) may join in
the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration
complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is
PCT/US10/56843 and was filed on 16 November 2010 in the names of Vladimir
D. Volokh, Leonid B. Sharivker and Sergei Boulakhov entitled OPTIMIZATION
OF CUTTING EDGE GEOMETRY IN ROUNDED NOSE END MILLS. The national stage
application is assigned number 13/510,343 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date
of 12 September 2012.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice
has been sent to the last known addresses of the non-signing inventors.
The inventors whose signatures are missing (Sungun KIM and Byoungju KIM)
may join in the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or
declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application
number is PCT/KR2010/007725 and was filed 03 November 2010 in the names of
Sungun KIM, Soungmin IM, Byoungju KIM, Jiyoung HONG, Minsun KIM, and
Kyungjin KIM for the invention entitled DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR
CONTROLLING THE SAME. The national stage number is 13/509,104 and has a 35
U.S.C. 371(c) date of 10 May 2012.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application
without the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A
notice has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor.
The inventor whose signature is missing (Paolo DI ALBERTO) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/US2010/043330
and was filed on 27 July 2010 in the names of Hagen MARCZOK; Holger GOERG;
and Paolo DI ALBERTO for the invention entitled PARKING ASSIST SYSTEM. The
national stage application number is 13/384,672 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371
date of 23 July 2012.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of the inventor. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The
inventor whose signature is missing (Robert Blanch) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is
PCT/EP2010/054806 and was filed on 13 April 2010, in the name of Jonathan
Catchpole and Robert Blanch, for the invention entitled WIND TURBINE
LIGHTNING PROTECTION AND MONITORING SYSTEMS. The national stage
application number is 13/264,880 and has a 35 U.S.C. §371(c)(1), (c)(2) and
(c)(4) date of 17 October 2011.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application
without the signature of all of the inventors. The petition has been
granted. A notice has been sent to the last known address of the
non-signing inventor, Maher Albitar. The inventor whose signature is
missing may join in the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath
or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application
number is PCT/US2010/058781 and was filed on 02 December 2010 in the names
of Wanglong MA and Maher Albitar for the invention entitled MPL Mutations
in JAK2 V617F Negative Patients with Myeloproliferative Disease. The
national stage application is assigned number 13/511,845 and has a 35
U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(4) date of 31 August 2012.
Registration to Practice
The following list contains the names of persons seeking for registration
to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Final
approval for registration is subject to establishing to the satisfaction of
the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline that the person
seeking registration is of good moral character and repute. 37 CFR § 11.7
Accordingly, any information tending to affect the eligibility of any of
the following persons on moral ethical or other grounds should be furnished
to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline on or before December 16, 2012
at the following address: Mail Stop OED United States Patent and Trademark
Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22314
Boschert, Tyler John, 3260 Wade Court, Colorado Springs, CO 80917
Cesati III, Richard Raoul, Lantheus Medical Imaging, Inc., 331 Treble Cove
Road, BLDG: 500-3, North Billerica, MA 01862
Charlton, Graeme H.F., Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh, Box 11115, 2300-1055
West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E 3P3, Canada
Chen, Xu Ming Ming, 125 West Hoover Avenue, Apartment 7B, Ann Arbor, MI
48103
Chuang, Lesley Peiyin, 21 Overlook Ridge Terrace, Apartment 538, Revere,
MA, 02151
Engel, Paul Thomas, Howard and Howard PLLC, 450 West Fourth Street, Royal
Oak, MI 48067
Fairchild, Steven Royal, 292 Powers Street, 1B, Brooklyn, NY 11211
Ho, Julian Chi-Sheung, Bereskin & Parr LLP, 40 King Street West, 40th
Floor, Toronto, ON, M5H 3Y2, Canada
Jelsema, Sarah Elisabeth, Workman Nydegger, 60 East South Temple, Salt
Lake City, UT 84111
Kale, John Paul, 9624 North Princeville-Jubilee Road, Brimfield, IL 61517
Kuhlmann, Nicholas Sophus, Leffert Jay & Polglaze, P.A., 200 South Sixth
Street, Suite 3200, Minneapolis, MN 55402
Lee, Byoung Taek, Netchannel USA, Inc., 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite
1050, Los Angeles, CA 90010
Lee, Jung Min, 11000 NE 10th Street, #213, Bellevue, WA 98004
Lindberg, Eric Allan, 9130-B 45th Avenue, SW, Seattle, WA 98136
Nair, Gayatry Syamala, 1514 Sheridan Road, Apartment 2203, Atlanta, GA
30324
Ohyama, Tsuyoshi, 9330 NE Juanita Drive, Unit 401, Kirkland, WA 98034
Pinnow, Douglas Arthur, 7 Via del Lago, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
Rebhan, David Merrill, 6339 Edloe Street, Houston, TX 77005
Rzeszutek, Kathy, Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh, 2300-1055 West Georgia
Street, Box 11115, Vancouver, BC, V6E 3P3, Canada
Samuel, Alex, 203 Loudon Road, Unit 119, Concord, NH 03301
Saunders David Alan, 10908 Cokesbury Lane, Raleigh NC, 27614
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 202 |
Schonberger, Keith Alan, 22205 Swan Street, Apartment 531, South Lyon, MI
48178
Schwarzentraub, Brandon Lon, 10111 Rustleleaf Drive, Dallas, TX 75238
Shah, Samarkumar Kulinchandra, 2535 Boxbourne Court, Marietta, GA 30067
Sharifzadeh, Ali Reza, Arent Fox, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC, 20036
Shenoy, Sanjay Ramchandra, 1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100, Houston, TX
77002
Stouffer, Chad Owen, 1835 Arch Street, Apartment 1707, Philadelphia, PA
19103
Wachsman, Hal Dodge, 12583 Plymouth Court, Woodbridge, VA, 22192-2749
Weiss, Mark Howard, Weiss & Moy, P.C., 4204 North Brown Avenue, Scottsdale,
AZ 85251
Zidanic, Michael, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 401 Dulany
Street, Randolph Building 00C75, Alexandria, VA 22314
November 1, 2012 WILLIAM R. COVEY
Deputy General Counsel for Enrollment and Discipline and
Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline
| Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Monday, October 29, 2012, and Tuesday, October 30, 2012 |
Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
on Monday, October 29, 2012, and Tuesday, October 30, 2012
In view of the official closing of the Federal Government offices in the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, including the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO), on Monday, October 29, 2012, and Tuesday, October
30, 2012, the USPTO will consider both Monday, October 29, 2012, and
Tuesday, October 30, 2012, to be a "Federal holiday within the District of
Columbia" under 35 U.S.C. § 21 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2(d),
2.195 and 2.196. Any action or fee due on Monday, October 29, 2012, or
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 (or the preceding Saturday (October 27, 2012) or
Sunday (October 28, 2012)) will be considered as timely for the purposes
of, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1058, 1059, 1062(b), 1063, 1064, and
1126(d), or 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 133 and 151, if the action was taken,
or the fee paid, on the next succeeding business day on which the USPTO was
open, that is, Wednesday, October 31, 2012 (37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a) and 2.196).
37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(2), 2.195(a)(4) and 2.198 provide that certain
correspondence deposited in the Express Mail Service of the United States
Postal Service (USPS) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or 2.198 will be
considered filed on the date of deposit (as shown by the "date-in" on the
Express Mail mailing label) with the USPS. Thus, any paper or fee properly
deposited in the Express Mail Service of the USPS on Monday, October 29,
2012, or Tuesday, October 30, 2012, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.10 or
2.198 will be considered filed on its respective date of deposit in the
Express Mail Service of the USPS (as shown by a "date-in" of October 29,
2012, or October 30, 2012, on the Express Mail mailing label).
37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6(a)(4) and 2.195(a)(2) provide that patent and
trademark-related correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO
will be considered filed in the USPTO on the date the USPTO received the
electronic transmission. Thus, any patent and/or trademark-related
correspondence transmitted electronically to the USPTO on Monday, October
29, 2012, or Tuesday, October 30, 2012, will be considered filed in the
USPTO on the date the USPTO received the complete electronic transmission.
Patent correspondence successfully received by the USPTO through the
Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) and filed in compliance with the EFS-Web
Legal Framework will receive the date as indicated on the Acknowledgement
Receipt. See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 502.05 and
the USPTO Web site at
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/New_legal_framework.jsp.
November 2, 2012 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
| United States Postal Service Interruption and Emergency under 35 U.S.C. 21(a) |
United States Postal Service
Interruption and Emergency under 35 U.S.C. 21(a)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is designating the
interruption in service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) in the
areas affected by Hurricane Sandy including in Connecticut, Delaware,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Appalachian
region beginning on Monday, October 29, 2012, as a postal service
interruption and emergency within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 21(a) and 37
CFR 1.10(i) and 2.195(e).
Postal services in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Maryland, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, and the Appalachian region have been impacted by
Hurricane Sandy in varying degrees beginning on October 29, 2012. To
determine whether a post office has been closed or reopened, or postal
services have been suspended or resumed in a particular area due to the
storms, contact the post office directly or visit the USPS's Web site at:
http://www.usps.gov. More specific information should be available at
http://about.usps.com/news/service-alerts/welcome.htm.
Once the USPS, through its Internet Web site, has notified the public
that this interruption in the service of the USPS has ended, the
designation of this interruption and emergency within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 21(a) and 37 CFR 1.10(i) and 2.195(e) will terminate without
further notice from the USPTO.
Patent-Related Correspondence
37 CFR 1.10(i) addresses interruptions or emergencies in USPS "Express
Mail Post Office to Addressee" service that are designated by the Director
for patent-related correspondence. Correspondence covered by 37 CFR 1.10
that would have been filed with the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.10 during this
USPS service interruption, but which was not filed due to the USPS service
interruption, should be filed promptly after the termination of the USPS
service interruption with a petition in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10(i)
using "Express Mail" service in accordance with 37 CFR 1.10.
The provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 21(a) and 37 CFR 1.10(i) apply only to
postal interruptions and emergencies. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 21(a)
and 37 CFR 1.10(i) do not provide for the granting of a filing date to
correspondence as of the date on which it would have been filed but for
other exigencies, such as the unavailability of an office or building
other than a USPS facility. These provisions apply only if the post office
was closed or "Express Mail" service suspended in the affected areas on the
specified date due to Hurricane Sandy.
37 CFR 1.10(i) provides that any person attempting to file
correspondence by "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" service that was
unable to be deposited with the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in
"Express Mail" service which has been so designated by the Director may
petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a
particular date in the Office. 37 CFR 1.10(i) specifically provides that:
Any person attempting to file correspondence under this section that was
unable to be deposited with the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in
"Express Mail" service, which has been so designated by the Director, may
petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a
particular date in the Office, provided that:
(1) The petition is filed in a manner designated by the Director
promptly after the person becomes aware of the designated
interruption or emergency in "Express Mail" service;
(2) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 205 |
the original correspondence; and
(3) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the
satisfaction of the Director, that the correspondence would have
been deposited with the USPS but for the designated interruption
or emergency in "Express Mail" service, and that the
correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original
correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally
attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing
date.
Patent-related inquiries concerning this notice may be directed to
Eugenia A. Jones, Senior Legal Advisor in the Office of Patent Legal
Administration, at (571) 272-7727 or at PatentPractice@uspto.gov.
Trademark-Related Correspondence
37 CFR 2.195(e) and 2.198 address interruptions or emergencies in USPS
"Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" service that are designated by the
Director for trademark-related correspondence. Correspondence covered by
37 CFR 2.198 that would have been filed with the USPTO under 37 CFR 2.198
during this USPS service interruption, but which was not filed due to the
interruption, should be filed promptly after the termination of the USPS
service interruption with a petition in accordance with 37 CFR 2.146 and
2.198.
The provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 21(a) and 37 CFR 2.195(e) apply only to
postal interruptions and emergencies. These provisions do not provide for
the granting of a filing date to correspondence as of the date on which it
would have been filed but for other exigencies, such as the unavailability
of an office or building other than a USPS facility. These provisions
apply only if the post office was closed or "Express Mail" service
suspended in the affected areas on the specified date due to Hurricane
Sandy.
Under 37 CFR 2.195(e) and 2.198, any person attempting to file
correspondence by "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee" service that was
unable to be deposited with the USPS due to the interruption or emergency
in "Express Mail" service in the areas designated in this notice may
petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a
particular date in the Office. The petition must:
(1) Be filed promptly after the ending of the designated
interruption or emergency in "Express Mail" service;
(2) Include the original correspondence or a copy of the original
correspondence; and
(3) Include a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the
Director, that (a) the correspondence would have been deposited
with the USPS but for the designated interruption or emergency in
"Express Mail" service, and (b) the correspondence or copy of the
correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of
the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited with the
USPS on the requested filing date.
Please note that under 37 CFR 2.101(b)(2), 2.102(a)(2), 2.198(a)(1) and
7.4(b)(2), the Express Mail procedures cannot be used for the following
types of correspondence: applications for registration of marks;
amendments to allege use under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(c); statements of use under
15 U.S.C. § 1051(d); requests for extension of time to file a statement of
use under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(d); affidavits of continued use under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1058; renewal applications under 15 U.S.C. § 1059; requests to change or
correct addresses; combined filings under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1059;
combined affidavits or declarations under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1065;
responses to notices of irregularity under 37 CFR 7.14; requests for
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 206 |
transformation under 37 CFR 7.31; notices of opposition to applications
based on 15 U.S.C. § 1141f(a); and requests for extensions of time to
oppose applications based on 15 U.S.C. § 1141f(a). Therefore, it would be
inappropriate to file a petition seeking a filing date as of the date of
deposit of these types of correspondence as Express Mail.
The provisions of 37 CFR 2.198(e) on postal service interruptions or
emergencies apply only to "Express Mail Post Office to Addressee"
correspondence, and do not apply to correspondence with a certificate of
mailing pursuant to 37 CFR 2.197. Therefore, the petition procedure set
forth in this notice is not appropriate for correspondence with a
certificate of mailing. However, petitions concerning such correspondence
may be considered under 37 CFR 2.146 with the requisite showing of an
extraordinary situation, that justice requires relief, and that no other
party would be injured thereby.
Trademark-related inquiries concerning this notice may be directed to
Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination
Policy, at (571) 272-8946.
November 2, 2012 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Notice of Suspension
Hunaid Basrai of Bothell, Washington, registered patent agent
(Registration Number 53,973). Mr. Basrai has been suspended nunc pro tunc
from October 26, 2009, for sixty (60) months, with the final twenty-four
(24) months of the suspension stayed, and placed on probation for sixty
(60) months nunc pro tunc from October 26, 2009 by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for violating 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.23(a)
(engaging in disreputable or gross misconduct), 10.23(b)(3) (engaging in
illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), and 10.23(b)(6) (engaging in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice before the
Office).
Respondent pled guilty to Attempted Child Molestation in the Second
Degree, which is a felony offense under §§ 9A.44.086, 9A.28.020 of the
Revised Code of Washington. Respondent had been arrested for having
arranged to meet for oral sex a person who was posing on the Internet as 13
year-old female. The person was a police detective. Respondent represents
that he had agreed to meet the person because Respondent's past experience
of chatting in adult chat rooms led him to believe that some people posing
as underage girls were, in fact, adults. Respondent was ordered, inter
alia, to be confined for twelve months in a home detention program, to
participate in a program for the treatment of sexual deviancy, and to
register in the Washington State Sex Offender Registration program. Mr.
Basrai fully served his sentence on July 14, 2009.
A mitigating factor in this matter was the OED Director's receipt of a
factual statement from the state court judge who sentenced Mr. Basrai and
monitored his probation. The judge expressed that Mr. Basrai had complied
with all rules and requirements of treatment and probationary supervision
and that Mr. Basrai had gained insight into the dynamics and causes that
led to his crime and conviction.
This action is the result of a settlement agreement between Mr. Basrai
and the OED Director pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D)
and 32, and 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.20, 11.26 and 11.59. Disciplinary decisions
involving practitioners are posted at the Office of Enrollment and
Discipline's Reading Room located at:
http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp.
October 31, 2012 JAMES O. PAYNE
Deputy General Counsel for General Law
United States Patent and Trademark Office
on behalf of
DAVID M. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Patent Public Advisory Committee Annual Report 2012 |
PATENT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2012
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
2 NOVEMBER 2012
PATENT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
Voting Committee Members:
Damon C. Matteo
Chairman
Palo Alto Research Center
D. Benjamin Borson
Acting Chairman
Borson Law Group, PC
Louis J. Foreman
Enventys
Clinton Hallman
Kraft Foods
Esther M. Kepplinger
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Valerie McDevitt
University of South Florida
Michelle Lee
Steven W. Miller
Procter & Gamble
Wayne Sobon
Rambus Inc.
NonVoting Representatives:
Robert D. Budens
President
Patent Office Professional
Association (POPA)
Vernon Ako Towler
Vice President
National Treasury Employees
Union (NTEU, Local 243)
Catherine Faint
Vice President
National Treasury Employees
Union (NTEU, Local 245)
|
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 10500-0001
Re: Patent Public Advisory Committee Annual Report For Fiscal Year 2012
Mr. President:
As Acting Chairman of the Patent Public Advisory Committee ("PPAC") of the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO"), it is my great pleasure and privilege to convey to you the PPAC Annual Report for the 2012 fiscal year. To aid in your review, you will find an Executive Summary, which highlights six high level "themes" integral to USPTO operations, and that are interwoven with the various topical areas covered in this Annual Report.
Principal among these is the critical import of providing stable and adequate funding to the USPTO to support new initiatives to improve operations - and even to preserve current levels of operation. The new fee-setting authority arising from the America Invents Act ("AIA") are key aspects achieving that funding goal, and permitting the USPTO to retain an operating reserve and reserve fund will help ensure that the missions of the USPTO can be met. Attendant to the fee-setting authority provision in AIA, the PPAC held a series of public hearings during 2012, to obtain input from members of the public about this important aspect of USPTO operations.
Based upon those hearings, we prepared and submitted a Fee Setting Report published in September 2012, which we believe will aid members of the public in understanding and commenting upon the fee proposals put forth by the USPTO. A copy of the Fee Setting Report is attached as an Appendix to the Annual Report.
The America Invents Act also poses challenges both in implementing new obligations (e.g. First Inventor to File, Post-Grant Opposition, Inter partes Review) and many other new procedures. Through the PPAC's public meetings, we have obtained valuable input from stakeholders who rely upon the USPTO to provide predictable, efficient patent processes to promote investment and further job creation in the United States.
During 2012, PPAC subcommittees worked closely with USPTO personnel to assist in preparation and review of proposed rules to implement the AIA, and to help improve and update USPTO operations. As a result of our cooperative interaction with the USPTO, the Committee believes that major advances have been made to improve the patent processes in the United States, and to heighten our standing internationally as a leader in innovation,
Fiscal year 2012 brought with it significant progress on many fronts for the USPTO, but many challenges remain. Full implementation of the America Invents Act wi1l require additional thoughtful review from your office, the USPTO, members of the public and Congress. The USPTO needs to continue to advance its important initiatives including updating and improving its information technology operations, and its outreach to members of the public. The PPAC believes that building on the progress to date is not simply desirable, but is necessary to realize the true and full potential of the US patent system.
I welcome any questions or comments you or your staff might have regarding this Report.
| | Respectfully submitted, |
| |  |
| |
D. Benjamin Borson, M.A., J.D., Ph.D.
Acting Chair
Patent Public Advisory Committee
United States Patent & Trademark Office
|
| | |
Enclosure: Patent Public Advisory Committee Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Report
| cc: | The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, | Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee |
| | The Honorable Lamar S. Smith, | Chairman, House Judiciary Committee |
| | The Honorable Chuck Grassley, | Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee |
| | The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., | Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee |
| | The Honorable Robert Goodlatte, | Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet |
| | The Honorable Melvin Watt, | Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet |
| | The Honorable John Bryson, | Secretary of Commerce |
| | David J. Kappos, | Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office |
| | Teresa Stanek Rea, | Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office |
| | Margaret Focarino, | Commissioner for Patents |
|
The Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) thanks the USPTO and Director David Kappos for providing highly interactive, proactive, positive, and substantial opportunities to work with the USPTO. We applaud the USPTO and its personnel for their gracious and highly skilled analysis of issues facing the Agency and its stakeholders. In our view, the relationship between the PPAC and the USPTO has reached a very high level, enabling all members and USPTO personnel to engage in very open and complete discussion of the Agency’s current operations, new opportunities, and challenges facing the innovation communities in the United States and throughout the World. We all thank the officials of the USPTO with whom we have worked during the past year, and in particular, to the inspirational leadership of Director Kappos, who has set a very positive tone. We recognize the efforts and contributions made by the employees unions to work cooperatively in making positive changes in the USPTO. We view our ongoing work with the USPTO as firmly based on an extremely good working relationship. For this, we are extremely grateful, and look forward to our ongoing work with the USPTO.
The PPAC believes that the personnel, policies, and actions, of the Office have moved the Office substantially in achievement of the four key themes of (1) economic growth, (2) customer service, (3) organizational excellence, and (4) workforce excellence. This Report is to provide the readers with a review of the activities of the PPAC during 2011-2012, challenges faced by the USPTO, and the Committees conclusions and recommendations for continued execution on the goals and objectives stated in the Strategic Plan.
The PPAC holds quarterly meetings at the USPTO to address matters brought before it. These meeting are announced in advance, are open to the public, webcast, and have telephone call-in numbers so interested persons can provide real-time feedback and ideas. We encourage members of the public to submit comments and questions via telephone, email, or via the PPAC website. The Committee also holds hearings, roundtables and other publically announced events to obtain input regarding matters of significance to the USPTO and the innovation communities. In the past, the Committee held roundtables on Patent Quality and Pendency, and recently held hearings on the new Fee Setting provisions of the AIA.
For pre-decisional or matters confidential to the USPTO, the Committee forms subcommittees consisting of up to 4 members of the Committee, and subcommittees may meet informally from time to time, either in person or via teleconferences. The Committee has formed several standing subcommittees to address “Topical Areas,” focused upon issues that require action over time. The Topical Areas discussed in detail below represent matters of ongoing interest to the USPTO and the Committee. Topical Area subcommittees interact with USPTO personnel to obtain information, engage in in-depth discussions, and provide suggestions to assist the Office. Additionally, from time to time, the Committee forms ad-hoc subcommittees to address matters that are of short-term or immediate interest. For example, during the past year, as part of the USPTO’s roles in implementing the AIA, the Committee set up subcommittees to provide analysis and comment on individual proposed rules. The standing Finance subcommittee held Fee Setting hearings, and presented its findings to the Committee, which then finalized the Fee Setting Report for submission and publication.
Members of the subcommittees have greatly appreciated the high level of cooperation and trust afforded by Office personnel. For this trust, the Committee sincerely thanks Director Kappos and other Office personnel for helping to create a very positive working relationship.
Brief descriptions of the PPAC’s activities and how those have furthered the Strategic Plan are below. More detailed descriptions are provided in the individual Sections.
The Committee is pleased to report that work with the USPTO as part of Agency rulemaking has been very productive. The patent statutes require rulemaking by the USPTO to implement the policies reflected in the statute. The USPTO has been very forthcoming with pre-decisional proposals for Committee review and comment prior to the Agency publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Committee and the USPTO have cooperated and worked through numerous rulemaking proposals, including those required by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The Committee especially appreciates the timeliness with which the USPTO has kept us informed about upcoming rulemaking. Timeliness has been crucial to enable the Committee to carefully review proposals and provide feedback prior to public notices of proposed rules.
In the past several years, the USPTO has provided recommendations to Congress to provide the Agency with more predictable funding. With the passage of the AIA, the USPTO has gained substantial control over its own destiny through passage of provisions that provide Fee Setting Authority to the USPTO and create a “reserve fund” for any fees collected above appropriated amounts. The PPAC appreciates its enhanced role in the Fee Setting process, and the USPTO and the Committee have worked together over the past year to implement the intent of Congress in this provision.
The AIA has also provided stakeholders with new procedures that may be efficient alternatives to litigation. On September 16, 2012, a series of new procedures were implemented that provide the newly renamed Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with authority to hear matters that previously were within the exclusive realm of the courts. These new “Board Trials” hold promise for providing more cost effective alternatives to traditional procedures. Now that they have been implemented, the Committee has been informed that many new filings have already been made.
The Committee recommends that the USPTO review proposed rules and endeavor to avoid creating situations in which outside stakeholders increase their risks. For example, the Committee recommends that to the degree possible, that attorneys and agents not be required to make legal admissions against interest. We note that under the current Section 102 of the AIA, the burden of persuasion or proof is on the Office to show that a claimed invention is not patentable. The Committee urges the USPTO to avoid shifting the burden on patent applicants to provide binding statements on the record about priority of claims or prior art in advance of examination. The Committee appreciates the balance between applicants and the Office, but believes that the initial burden of showing unpatentability of a claim remains with the Office. The Committee applauds the Office for reaching out to the user communities to solicit input on policies and rules affecting patent applicants. We encourage the USPTO to continue to maintain this open, proactive attitude.
Other legislative proposals have been implemented and additional proposals are under consideration.
Previously, the bulk of fee-setting for the USPTO had been solely within the purview of Congress. The amount that the USPTO is authorized to spend is determined by the appropriations process as the United States economy goes through good times and less good times, the USPTO has had to address the very difficult task of trying to anticipate funding on a year-to-year basis, while at the same time, providing expert patent examination processing requiring a highly trained and experienced workforce. The Committee believes that with the passage of the AIA, the USPTO can expect a more stable funding environment and thereby be able to better plan for the future.
Pursuant to its obligations under the AIA, in 2012, the PPAC held a series of public Fee Setting hearings to hear views of a diverse group of individuals and organizations. We listened to the comments from the stakeholders and produced our first Fee Setting Report, which was published September 24, 2012. A section of this Annual Report below describes a synopsis and details of our work, and an Appendix to this Report contains the entire text of our Fee Setting Report.
The Committee recommends that in setting Fees, the Office appreciate the realities of fixed budgets of many organizations. We believe it to be important that the overall fee structure promote formation of companies that can implement the innovation created by inventors and their employers.
Under the dedicated leadership of Director Kappos, Commissioner Focarino and other key individuals, the USPTO has been striving to modernize the systems of the Office and streamline the accompanying processes to gain efficiencies wherever possible to improve operations and reduce pendency. While the USPTO has eliminated paper search files and paper applications, the processes associated with examination and handling of applications within the Office mostly still reflects the processes developed for paper processing. The USPTO successfully implemented a new, electronic system, in which documents were prepared and could be transmitted electronically, as image files. This process has worked very well, but more recently, the possibility of increasing efficiencies can be realized by moving to a text-based information system.
The USPTO has continued to develop new systems for more rapidly processing patent applications but the actual examination process remains the rate-limiting factor. Until recently, the backlog of unexamined patent applications increased to over 750,000. This meant delay (long pendency) in examination, and uncertainty in the marketplace. Due to the hard work of USPTO personnel, the backlog of unexamined patent applications is decreasing, although the decrease in this backlog is somewhat counterbalanced by an increase in Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs). The Committee applauds the USPTO for its efforts in new Post-Final procedures to address some of the problems with RCEs. Additional comments and recommendations appear below in this Report. The Committee encourages continued review of RCE procedures, and hopes to see a decrease in RCE filings in the future.
Some changes were implemented in the area of patent quality. For example patent quality is currently measured using a “Quality Composite,” consisting of several prior measures, as well as new measures. Some of the new measures are subjective (e.g., Applicant and Examiner Surveys), and some are more objective measures based on actual data made available through automated or in-person review. The Committee commends the Office for modifying its measures of quality, but recommends that the Office incorporate more objective measures of patent examination quality into its metrics.
The Committee also believes that decreasing patent pendency for certain applications is crucial to the US maintaining its leadership in technological progress. We commend the Office for implementation of the new “Track 1” process, and for making rapid examination possible under other circumstances, such as Applicant’s age, and certain critical technologies. The Committee encourages the Office to consider additional programs to decrease patent pendency.
As part of ongoing review and analysis, the Committee recommends that pendency reflect total pendency, from filing to issue. We believe that not including RCEs in pendency metrics may give the public an unrealistic view of pendency, particularly since RCEs represent a large proportion of all applications. We encourage the Office to pursue its stated goals of having average time to First Office Action on the Merits (FOAM) of 10 months and total pendency to issue of 20 months provided they can be achieved without reduced quality or maintenance of a sufficient working inventory of applications. The Committee believes that “Compact Prosecution” can significantly decrease overall pendency, and urges the Office to continue developing additional training and programs to achieve a FOAM that addresses all issues of patentability. The Committee remains willing to work with the Office to assist in identifying problems and developing possible solutions.
With the implementation of new and improved ways of producing, storing, transmitting and editing documents, with ongoing development of text-based systems, the USPTO has entered into a new and exciting phase, in the development of text-based systems. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has initiated a series of changes to the USPTO IT system, including a new computerized platform for Examiners. In 2012, the entire examining corps has received new laptop systems that are compatible with the new text-based electronic filing and examination processes being implemented.
Along with the new IT infrastructure, the USPTO has now completed a multifaceted review of its processes. Teams of individuals have reviewed many of the operations of the Office, have identified areas in which improvements in process can be made, and have made recommendations for their implementation. The Committee commends the Office for this initiative and has already seen improvements in many areas, including pre-examination, e-petitions, and other programs described below.
The Committee complements the Office for its bilateral and multilateral efforts to streamline international procedures to permit a more World-wide innovation infrastructure. The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs have been beneficial for applicants to more rapidly obtain patent protection in all participating patent offices, and we look forward to continuing to improve and simplify the PPH programs.
The Committee believes that the new “Global Dossier” concept has great merit. With the implementation of new IT systems in the United States and elsewhere, we welcome the ability of patent offices throughout the World to take advantage of a single source of much of the information relevant to their internal processing and examination. We especially believe that there may be a substantial saving of time and resources through the use of information sharing between offices.
The PPAC highly commends the USPTO for development of a nationwide workforce, with patent examiners, board judges and other employees distributed throughout the country. In 2012, the first Satellite Office in Detroit, Michigan opened for business, and now has patent examiners and PTAB judges in place. We believe that with improvements in IT systems, it is no longer necessary for examiners and judges to limit their work location to the USPTO offices in Alexandria. We recommend that the USPTO develop systems to support the satellite offices so that they may develop into beneficial hubs accessible for the public throughout the regions theses satellite office serve. We applaud the USPTO for this endeavor, and look forward to seeing new Satellite Offices in Dallas, Denver, and the Silicon Valley in California.
Finally, the PPAC renews its dedication to serve the USPTO, Applicants, and all other members of the innovation communities to help maintain our patent system among the best in the World.
The AIA has renamed the prior Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to reflect the new procedures authorized by Congress. Interference practice will be discontinued, as the older cases are resolved, and in its place, a new Derivation proceeding will be handled by the PTAB. The change is to remove the often difficult issue of determining date of invention based on pre-filing records. Derivation procedures will not be based on date of invention, but rather upon the effective filing date.
In addition to Derivation, a series of new proceedings (“Board Trials”) under the PTAB will include Inter partes review, Post-Grant Opposition, and Covered Business Methods. The PTAB maintains its jurisdiction over the appeals process as well as Ex parte Reexamination as well as the legacy Inter Partes Reexamination will continue under the jurisdiction of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). The CRU also takes on the new Supplemental Examination proceedings.
The Committee has been involved in review of the proposed Board rules, and thanks the Office for considering our views during the process. We believe that the new rules will adequately address the new Board Trial procedures, yet we remain concerned that some of the rules could be improved to increase the efficiency of Board proceedings, for example, with respect to discovery matters.
Under the leadership of Chief Judge James Smith, the PTAB has initiated a per curiam process, whereby some appeals can be addressed on the basis of the Applicant’s filing and the Examiner’s answer. Over 100 of such per curiam decisions have been rendered to date, and of these, many are based on Examiner’s answers, some are based on Applicant’s filings, some are “split” decisions, with certain matters resolved on the basis of the Applicant’s filings and others based on the Examiner’s answers.
To address Board staffing, the USPTO has begun an aggressive hiring program to provide sufficient numbers of Board Judges to handle the current backlog of appeals, as well as the new Board Trial proceedings. The Committee applauds the USPTO for this effort, and for placing Board members in the Detroit Satellite Office, and looks forward to additional members being hired and strategically placed in Alexandria and in the Satellite Offices.
As a result of the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA) in September 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, Office or Agency) has been busy implementing this new law in 2012 and consequently created a significant amount of work for the PPAC in reviewing all of the proposals for this implementation. In addition to the AIA related work, the USPTO handled its usual load of legislative issues and outreach. This section summarizes: (i) the USPTO’s rule-making and legislative tasks and accomplishments in 2012, (ii) the PPAC’s assistance with the same, and (iii) work remaining to be done in 2013 and beyond.
On September 16, 2011, the America Invents Act became law. The AIA is multi-faceted legislation that introduced a number of new provisions of the patent law, requires the USPTO and other government agencies to conduct studies into certain areas of intellectual property law, and requires the USPTO to establish new programs that assist applicants in filing and prosecuting patent applications.
To keep the public abreast of its AIA implementation activities, the USPTO established a special AIA micro-site within the USPTO main website to house all implementation information. The AIA micro-site contains a variety of features including explanations of the new provisions, frequently asked questions, AIA speeches, and blogs. The Office updates the micro-site on a weekly basis to share the most current AIA information with the public.
Additionally, the USPTO has conducted broad outreach to educate the public about the AIA and its implementation activities. USPTO officials have given more than 200 AIA-focused presentations and speeches since the legislation was enacted. They likewise have traveled to many regions of the country and engaged with a variety of stakeholders (e.g., private practitioners, in house counsel, universities, small business, and independent inventors).
The Agency received and considered 171 public comments to its proposed rules and received and incorporated feedback to its proposed rules from the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), the Patent Public Advisory Committee, the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget.
1. Provisions of Law
There are twenty provisions in the AIA that impact USPTO operations and must be implemented by the Agency. These provisions have effective dates ranging from sixty-days to 18 months or longer after enactment and include changes to implement (i) inventor’s oath and declaration provisions, (ii) pre-issuance submissions of prior art by third parties, (iii) miscellaneous post patent provisions such as citation of prior art in a patent file, (iv) statute of limitations provisions for the Office of Disciplinary Proceedings, (v) supplemental examination, (vi) inter partes review, (vii) post-grant review, (viii) a transitional program for covered business method patents, and (ix) derivation proceedings, as well as implementation of the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions.
The USPTO successfully implemented seven provisions of the AIA in the first sixty-days after enactment, and later implemented nine additional provisions that were required to be effective one-year after enactment. To do so, the Agency employed notice-and-comment rulemaking. From January to March of 2012, the Agency published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register for many of these provisions and solicited public written comments to be submitted in sixty-day comment periods. The Agency likewise hosted a series of eight cross-country roadshows to gather feedback from the public. This was the first time that the Agency engaged in such extensive public outreach at the proposed rule stage. The Agency has prepared final rules and released them to the public over the course of the year and, most recently, on August 16, 2012. In building these final rules, the Agency made modifications based upon the public input it has received. The Agency conducted additional cross-country roadshows to educate the public about the final and certain proposed rules and to answer questions.
Thus far, the Agency has admirably and timely met all of its AIA implementation deadlines for the new provisions of the patent law, is on track to complete remaining events by the statutory due dates and has been commendably welcoming and receptive of the comments submitted by PPAC and the public. By the one year anniversary of the passage of the AIA (September 16, 2012), seven provisions of the AIA have gone into effect:
| ● | Inventor's oath or declaration; |
| ● | Preissuance submissions; |
| ● | Supplemental examination; |
| ● | Citation of patent owner claim scope statements; |
| ● | Post grant review; |
| ● | Inter partes review; and |
| ● | Covered business method review |
One of the yet-to-be-implemented provisions of the AIA having greatest impact on the entire patent user community is Section 3 of the AIA. This Section contains changes to (1) convert the U.S. patent system from a “first to invent” system to a “first inventor to file” system, (2) eliminate the requirement that a prior public use or sale activity be “in this country” to be a prior art activity, (3) treat U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications as prior art as of their earliest effective filing date, regardless of whether the earliest effective filing date is based upon an application filed in the U.S. or in another country, and (4) treat commonly owned patents and patent application publications, or those resulting from a joint research agreement, as being by the same inventive entity for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The changes in Section 3 take effect on March 16, 2013. The USPTO has published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking for changes to implement, and examination guidelines for implementing, the first inventor to file provisions. Comments for both are due on or before October 6, 2012.
2. Studies
The AIA requires the USPTO to conduct 7 studies over the next 4 years either alone or in consultation with other government agencies. The status of those 7 studies is as indicated in Table 1 below.
| Table 1: Studies required under the AIA |
| Topic |
Due Date from Enactment |
Status |
| International Patent Protection for Small Businesses |
4 months |
Complete |
| Prior User Rights |
4 months |
Complete |
| Genetic Testing |
9 months (6/16/12) |
Extended |
| Misconduct Before the Office |
Every 2 years |
Future |
| Satellite Offices |
3 years |
Future |
| Virtual Marking |
3 years |
Future |
| Implementation of AIA |
4 years |
Future |
During the first year after enactment of the AIA, the USPTO was required to and successfully completed the top three listed studies in the table above.
Regarding the study on Genetic Testing the Agency held two hearings, but has postponed the completion date of the study due to the need for further review, discussion and analysis, and has so notified Congress.
The Agency successfully and timely completed the International Patent Protection for Small Businesses and Prior User Rights studies within the first four months of enactment and submitted reports to Congress. For both of these studies, the Agency collaborated with other Agencies specified in the AIA, conducted public hearings to receive witness testimony, and collected written public comments. In turn, the Agency presented findings of fact based upon the hearing testimony and written comments and offered recommendations to Congress in the reports. Director Kappos testified on the findings of this report in front of the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet on February 1, 2012.
In the International Patent Protection for Small Businesses study, the Agency investigated how the USPTO and other federal agencies can help small businesses with patent protection overseas. Based upon its analysis, the Agency recommended engaging in diplomacy and harmonization to reduce costs associated with filing foreign patent applications (e.g., via small entity discounts), expanding intellectual property education and training for U.S. small businesses, and engaging industry on how to best to support U.S. small business efforts to patent internationally (e.g., via corporate venture capital), and conducting further study regarding governmental financial assistance to U.S. small businesses (e.g., loans and grants). For the study, the USPTO also consulted with the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration and ultimately submitted a thirty-three page report to Congress on January 13, 2012.
In the report on prior user rights, the USPTO analyzed prior user rights in other industrialized countries and concluded the following:
| ● | the prior user rights defense in the AIA is consistent with that offered by major trading partners. The Director’s Feb. 1, 2012 testimony noted, however, that the one year limitation in the provision was more restrictive than the approach used in other countries and this might be an issue open to further review; |
| ● | there is no substantial evidence that the prior user rights defense in the AIA will have a negative impact on innovation, venture funding, small businesses, universities, or independent inventors; |
| ● | the prior user rights defense in the AIA appropriately balances protection between trade secrets and patents; and |
| ● | the U.S. patent law should provide for a prior user rights defense to address the inequity inherent in a first-inventor-to-file system. |
The Agency concluded that the U.S. should re-evaluate economic impact of the prior user rights defense in its 2015 required review of the AIA. The Agency consulted with the United States Trade Representative, Secretary of State, and Attorney General as part of this study and ultimately issued a sixty page report to Congress on January 13, 2012.
The Agency also held two public hearings on genetic testing where twenty witnesses testified on this topic. The agency also received twenty-three written comments after extending the April 4, 2012 deadline in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prometheus. On behalf of USPTO, the Department of Commerce notified the relevant congressional leadership that given the complexity and diversity of opinions received, more time was needed to conduct additional stakeholder outreach and finalize a set of recommendations. The USPTO currently plans to host a roundtable early next year to finalize this process.
3. Programs
The Agency must establish four new programs under the AIA within four years from enactment. Below in Table 2 is a summary of the status of each of the programs.
| Table 2: Programs under the AIA |
| Topic |
Due Date from Enactment |
Status |
| Pro Bono |
Immediately |
Complete |
| Diversity of Applicants |
6 months (3/16/12) |
Complete |
| Patent Ombudsman for Small Businesses |
12 months (9/16/12) |
Complete |
| Satellite Offices |
3 years |
Ongoing |
The Agency successfully and timely established the Pro Bono and Diversity of Applicants programs. Under the Pro Bono program, on the date of enactment, the Agency began partnering with intellectual property law organizations to create pro bono programs to assist under-resourced independent inventors and small business in filing and prosecuting patent applications in the USPTO. To date, the Agency has helped to set up two programs in Minneapolis and Denver. The Minnesota program was the pilot program, had twelve clients and issued one patent by June 14, 2012. The Agency also established a nationwide clearing house for pro bono intake, screening and referral that was set to launch in the summer of 2012. Moreover, the Agency targets additional pro bono programs to be operational by the end of 2012 in Northern California, Southern California, Texas, Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia.
The Agency is actively working on the remaining two programs, Patent Ombudsman for Small Businesses and Satellite Offices, with projections of having them running by the statutory due dates. Regarding the establishment of satellite offices, the USPTO is required to open three within three years from the enactment of the AIA.
On July 13, 2012, the USPTO opened the first of its satellite offices in Detroit, Michigan. The office represents the first phase of the USPTO’s Nationwide Workforce Program, an effort to hire more patent examiners and seek out additional resources and technical expertise in locations across the country.
Further, on July 2, 2012, the USPTO announced plans to open additional USPTO satellite offices in or around Dallas, Texas, Denver, Colorado, and Silicon Valley, California. The Denver office is slated to open in November 2013, and site selection is on-going for the Dallas and Silicon Valley locations. The USPTO intends for the four offices (Detroit, Dallas, Denver and the Silicon Valley) to “function as hubs of innovation and creativity [and] helping protect and foster American innovation in the global marketplace....” The USPTO also hopes to “attract talented IP experts throughout the country who will work closely with entrepreneurs to process patent applications, reduce the backlog of unexamined patents, and speed up the overall process, allowing businesses to move their innovation to market more quickly, and giving them more room to create new jobs.”
Selection of the four sites was based upon a detailed analysis of criteria including geographical diversity, regional economic impact, ability to recruit and retain employees, and the ability to engage the intellectual property community. The USPTO and the Department of Commerce received extensive public input before selecting the sites of the satellite offices. In addition to reviewing over 600 public comments in response to a public Federal Register Notice, USPTO officials met with hundreds of state and local officials, congressional delegations, and policy leaders, as requested. The selection team developed a model to evaluate over 50 metropolitan areas based on the previously stated criteria to assess operational cost and feasibility, ability to improve patent quality, and ability to employ U.S. veterans.
Finally, by the end of summer 2012, the Agency plans to roll out the Patent Ombudsman program, which the Agency already has piloted and now will make permanent.
On the legislative front, the USPTO has been provided support and/or technical assistance related to the following intellectual property legislation and congressional reports over the past year, including: (i) technical corrections to the America Invents Act, (ii) proposed implementing legislation for the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) and the Hague Treaty on Industrial Designs, and (iii) relevant appropriations bills that impact USPTO (namely the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations for FY 2013.
In addition, the USPTO contributed to the following congressional reports required as part of its annual appropriation for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, including required reports related to economic and national security, IG recommendations, quality, information technology improvements and trademark squatting.
The Agency participated in six congressional hearings on (i) the prior user rights defense, on February 1, 2012 by the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, (ii) fiscal year 2013 appropriations, on March 1, 2012 by the House Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, (iii) implementation of the America Invents Act, on May 16, 2012 by the House Judiciary Committee, (iv) implementation of the America Invents Act and international harmonization efforts, on June 20, 2012 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, (v) international IP enforcement -- protecting patents, trade secrets and market access, on June 27, 2012 by the House of Representatives Subcommittee, and (vi) economic espionage on June 28, 2012 by the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
In addition, the Agency conducted outreach to stakeholders and Congress. For example, for congressional staffers, the USPTO gave a training program on a “Day in the Life” of a patent examiner so the staff could gain a better understanding of the patent application and prosecution process that occurs at the Agency. In addition, the Agency held several congressional staff meetings and briefings on various ongoing issues such as the status of the USPTO’s satellite offices, implementation of the America Invents Act, international outreach and negotiations (in particular, WIPO treaties and negotiations) and the Hague Treaty on Designs and Patent Law Treaty implementing legislation.
Finally, the Agency conducted numerous “roadshows” related to its rule packages and held a roundtable discussion at the USPTO on the topic of First Inventor to File (FITF), among others. Both of the latter two items were meant to give the user community the opportunity to learn more about the proposed rules and the USPTO an opportunity to facilitate discussion and respond to questions regarding the proposed rules.
1. PPAC’s Role in Rule Making
In accordance with statute, the Patent Public Advisory Committee is required to provide input to the Notice of Proposed Rules prior to publication to the public and again prior to publication of final rules. The Patent Public Advisory Committee has done so for each of the packages of rules provided to it so far and looks forward to continuing to do so for rules packages that have yet to publish.
2. PPAC’s Role in Fee Setting Procedures
In 2012, in accordance with its newly delegated authority to set fees via Section 10 of the AIA, the USPTO published a proposed set of fees. As a part of PPAC’s statutory obligations to gather public reaction and comments on the proposed fees, PPAC held two public hearings. A more complete discussion of these matters is provided below in the Finance Section of this Report. The complete Fee Setting Report is found in an Appendix to this Report and at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/fees.jsp
Looking ahead to 2013, work remains to be done on the implementation of the micro entity, first-inventor-to-file and fee setting rules. For the studies, work remains on the studies relating to misconduct before the office, satellite offices, virtual marking and implementation of the AIA. Finally, the USPTO will have additional work in 2013 in setting up its satellite offices. The PPAC looks forward to helping and working with the Agency with these upcoming efforts.
Inevitably, when rules change as much as they have under the AIA, questions will remain as to the application of the new rules. PPAC advises that as the Office continues to promulgate new rules, it provide numerous examples in its guidelines of how a rule is to be applied under various fact scenarios so that the examiners and the applicants can be guided by both the same rules and assumptions. This is especially true for the new “first inventor to file” and prior art rules, which impact all applicants and which are sufficiently complex (with numerous exceptions to the general rule) to benefit from providing clarifying examples.
All of that said, the Office is commended for its rule making endeavor and public education and outreach endeavors. The passage of the AIA represents the biggest change to our patent laws in over fifty years. Implementing all these new laws under tight deadlines is no minor task. Throughout the process, the Office has demonstrated excellent transparency, openness to public and PPAC comments, and adaptability to changing circumstances. Exceptional efforts have been advanced by the USPTO with exceptional results in meeting the arduous and numerous deadlines, with demonstrated flexibility in developing the implementing rules. PPAC particularly commends the Office for its numerous “roadshows” and public hearings to inform the user community of its efforts and to receive input from this community on the same.
The Committee believes that some if not a majority of recommendations made by the 3 major IP organizations (AIPLA, IPO, and ABA) for improving and strengthening the rules of practice for contested cases have not been adopted. In particular, mandatory discovery, swifter and more certain procedures for resolving discovery disputes would strengthen the program and reduce costs for all participants, including the Office.
The USPTO relies entirely upon access to user fees paid by patent applicants to accomplish the critical role it plays in rewarding and driving innovation. It is believed that there is a strong correlation between a vibrant patent system and a thriving national economy. For this reason, continued full access to user fees is of paramount importance to the USPTO, patent applicants and the country.
Because of the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA), Fiscal Year 2012 was an extremely busy year for the USPTO. A number of provisions of the AIA came into effect in September of 2011, including a 15% surcharge on patent fees. As a consequence, there was an increase in fees paid (a “bubble”) to the USPTO immediately prior to the implementation of the surcharge to take advantage of the lower fees. Because this bubble was paid in FY 2011 and was revenue above the authorized spending limit, it resulted in $209 M of user fees not being accessible to the USPTO. It is hoped that commitments of the AIA will end such events and ensure access by the USPTO to all fees paid by users.
Fees from two programs implemented by the USPTO under the AIA, the 15% surcharge and Track 1 (a program providing expedited examination for a fee), are directly accessible to the USPTO above the Congressional appropriated amount in FY 2012. However, because some users had already paid fees earlier than their due date before the implementation of the 15% surcharge (money to which the Office was not given access), there was a trough of receipts from fees in the beginning of FY 2012. Additionally, the Office set a limit on the number of Track 1 applications which could be filed at 10,000, but fewer than 5,000 are expected to have been filed by the end of the FY. Consequently, income from these programs has been lower than projected. Revenue has largely recovered during the year from the dip and another bubble of revenue from fee payments is expected prior to implementation of the CPI adjustment scheduled for October 5, 2012. The Office will likely finish the FY with close to $120 M in an operating reserve.
In 2012, in accordance with the newly delegated authority to set fees via Section 10 of the America Invents Act (AIA), The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) notified the PPAC of the Office’s intent to set or adjust patent fees and submitted a preliminary patent fee proposal with supporting materials on February 7, 2012 (February 2012 Proposal). As a part of our statutory obligations to gather public reaction and comments on the proposed fees, the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) held two public hearings, one on February 15, 2012 at the USPTO in Alexandria and a second on February 23, 2012 in Sunnyvale, California.
Subsequent to the fee setting hearings and in preparation of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register, the PPAC provided verbal feedback to the USPTO with comments on the proposed fees and suggestions for potential changes to the fees. The USPTO considered these comments in its revised NPRM for Setting or Adjusting Patent Fees (September 2012 NPRM). Also as a part of our statutory obligations, the PPAC must make a written report available to the public of the comments, advice, and recommendations of the committee regarding the proposed fees before the Office issues any final fees. That fee-setting report is attached as Appendix A to this PPAC annual report, and was published on September 24, 2012. The Office will consider and analyze any comments, advice, or recommendations received from the PPAC, along with public comments to the NPRM before finally setting or adjusting fees.
Compared to the first proposal of February 2012, the NPRM has proposed new reduced fees from those originally proposed in almost all areas. This is a welcome adjustment, particularly in light of the fact that most organizations filing patent applications have set budgets for patent activity. Increases in the fees will necessitate hard decisions on how to expend those limited resources.
In response to criticism about the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) growth and backlog, the USPTO has responded with the creation of two programs, an After-Final pilot and a program for the consideration of prior art following the payment of the issue fee, both aimed at a reduction of RCE filing. These are an excellent step in efforts to curb the escalation of RCE growth and backlog.
The fee for submitting a Track 1 application has been reduced which should increase the usage of this valuable program. The program provides increased cooperative efforts in identifying allowable subject matter and offers an avenue for speedy examination of important applications.
The elimination of the large fee for late provision of an oath/declaration is excellent and should be well received by practitioners. The changes allowing the submission of patent applications by non-patent entities mandated by the AIA allow better harmonization with the international community.
The NPRM eliminates the fee for filing an appeal brief and moves this fee to a point at which the appeal actually moves forward to the PTAB. In this way, payment is not necessary if following submission of the appeal brief, the prosecution is reopened, making it more efficient for both applicant and the Office.
Changes in both the Inter Partes review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR) create graduated fees for increasing numbers of claims, reduce the overall cost of the programs and establish step-wise fees for services rendered. These are positive changes in the programs reflected in lowering of the costs.
The proposed fees for RCEs are still increased above a regular utility application or a Continuation. This is not understood because they should cost less than examining an unexamined application. Additionally, while the fee was reduced for the first RCE, the fee for second and subsequent RCEs remains at the originally high proposed level. RCEs remain a concern for both the Office and applicants but increasing their fees only aggravates applicants and likely will not decrease their filing. It is believed that if an RCE is needed, one will be filed. It must be noted also that the large backlog of RCEs represents an “iceberg” of future pendency increases and a large amount of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) given for the delays experienced in picking them up again for examination. From a public policy view, neither of these outcomes is desirable.
Excess claims fees, while reduced from the February proposal, still are quite high. This does not seem to be justified by costs for examining the claims and represents a move toward the high fees of other patent offices, without the ability to have multiply dependent claims examined or unity of invention applied.
Utilization of the new programs for contested applications depends upon the implementing rules and the costs associated with these programs. Although a coordinated effort was expended by the patent bar associations, ABA, IPO and AIPLA, to provide suggestions for implementing these programs, the resulting rules seem more complicated than necessary and do not adopt a more structured or automatic discovery protocol.
Supplemental Examination provides a beneficial new avenue for a patentee to present additional prior art to the USPTO for consideration following grant of the patent. However, the arbitrary and steep fees proposed and the limited number of references that may be considered per request may diminish the usefulness of this program.
The fees for Ex Parte Reexamination remain very high in the September NPRM and appear inconsistent with the necessary work to be completed. The examination of these applications will not involve testimony or interaction with a third party so the underlying cost assumptions are not understood. Also, unlike other programs, there is no provision for separate fees for individual services.
Overall, the September NPRM represents an improvement over the February proposals but in general the increased fees compared to current fees, which already represent a 15% surcharge over last year, seem higher than expected for an initial fee-setting effort.
The fees have been set to accomplish the mandates of the USPTO, establish an Operating Reserve and achieve laudable reductions in patent pendency. It is suggested that both the Operating Reserve and pendency reduction might be reached at a slower pace, allowing a further reduction in the proposed fees. For many reasons, a reduction of pendency is a necessary step, but it is not certain that the goal of 10 months to first office action is absolutely required. The pendency goals must be established to create a backlog of unexamined applications that provides a distribution of the applications across the Patent Examining Corps that ensures the desired “soft landing”.
However, the Office is commended for this first fee-setting endeavor. Throughout the process, the Office has demonstrated excellent transparency, openness to public and PPAC comments and adaptability to changing circumstances. Exceptional efforts have been advanced by the USPTO with exceptional results in meeting the deadlines, with demonstrated flexibility in developing the implementing rules.
These actions are clear evidence of a well-run Agency, a competent and dedicated staff and an exceptional leader, the Under Secretary of Commerce, Mr. David Kappos. The PPAC strongly endorses the process undertaken in this fee-setting activity and appreciates the commitment to task and cooperation of the USPTO shown to the PPAC and public throughout the process.
While the proposed fees still raise some concerns, the PPAC applauds the efforts and endorses the fees in general with some reservations noted in the fee-setting report. It is hoped that the report will be helpful to the public in assessing the September NPRM and to the USPTO in finalizing the fees.
The PPAC believes that the USPTO must be afforded full access to all fees in order to continue modernizing IT systems, hiring and maintaining a competent staff adequate to provide high quality patents with a reasonable pendency. Access to any receipts above the authorized appropriations should be made readily available upon request.
The PPAC recommends that the USPTO consider the comments of the PPAC and those received from the public related to the September NPRM and determine whether additional reductions may be appropriate to the fees.
Because a bubble of user fees paid in advance of the 15% surcharge were paid in FY 2011, $208 M from FY 2011 was made unavailable. This early payment of fees reduced collections at the beginning of FY 2012 and the reduced revenues caused a delay in some important programs of the USPTO, including the vitally essential improvements needed in IT infrastructure to help achieve the goals of the USPTO in reducing patent pendency. The PPAC believes that access to the $208 M should be provided.
Since the USPTO is fully funded by user fees, the Committee recommends that the USPTO budget should be exempt from sequestration.
Issuance of high quality patents with a reasonable pendency remains the most important priority for the USPTO. Applicants need to be able to rely on the validity of their granted patents with a high degree of certainty and be able to obtain the patent rights while the invention is still relevant in the marketplace.
The USPTO made strides of improvement in both pendency and quality during FY 2012, largely due to the leadership of Director Kappos and his team of managers. Significantly, the Office has continued to build on the focus of working with patent applicants to quickly identify allowable subject matter resulting in a record year of patent grants. The Office developed several initiatives to reduce bureaucratic barriers, provide additional options and streamline processes to facilitate improved interactions with the USPTO, leading to increased customer satisfaction. There are still a number of areas for improvement but Director Kappos has shown a willingness to embrace change and the PPAC is certain the Office will continue to focus on changes to continue improving quality and pendency.
The AFCP provides additional time for examiners to consider responses filed after a final rejection to determine whether the application can be put into condition for allowance. By concluding prosecution at that point, applicants may avoid the need for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) or appeal. This pilot program will be evaluated to determine if it contributes to the USPTO priority of issuance of high quality patents with reasonable pendency.
QPIDS provides an avenue for the consideration of newly discovered prior art after the payment of the issue fee, if certain conditions can be met. The handling of related applications at different times in foreign offices and the USPTO has contributed to the filing of RCEs for this reason. This pilot program also represents a step forward in creating options for applicants to avoid the need for filing an RCE.
The PPAC applauds the creation of both of these programs.
Implementation of Track 1, an AIA mandated pay-for expedited examination program, began on September 26, 2011. Although the Office designed the program to accept just 10,000 requests, only about 5,000 requests have been made in FY 2012. The cost of $4800 is perhaps seen as too high by some applicants and the September NPRM has proposed reducing the fee to $4000.
For an Applicant needing quick examination, this program offers significant advantages. The Office takes the goal of completion of examination in twelve months seriously and examination proceeds at a very rapid pace. It appears that the Office works more closely with an Applicant to identify allowable subject matter and is open to meaningful interviews and productive discussions to advance prosecution. While there is a fee, Track 1 provides significant benefits in timeliness and cooperation, making it worth considering for some applications.
The Committee recommends that the Track I program be modified so that should one RCE be necessary, the application would not be moved to the regular docket, but would remain expedited throughout the prosecution of the original application and one RCE.
As a quality measure, the USPTO has implemented a “Patent Quality Composite”, composed of seven individual factors, including internal USPTO measures of the quality of the actions setting forth the final disposition, the quality of actions during the course of examination and perceived quality of the patent process from both an external and an internal perspective. This composite represents a step in the right direction and results from work done with the PPAC, but does not go far enough to find objective measurements of quality that depart from just the historic internal USPTO evaluation of their own quality. However, we note that since the inception of the composite, external perceptions of improvements/declines have been consistent with internal USPTO evaluations of their own quality.
The PPAC approves the move to a Quality Composite to permit a more comprehensive view of patent quality. However, the PPAC continues to believe that more concrete, objective statistics should be included into the composite. The Committee continues to be willing to work with the USPTO to refine quality metrics. For example, following an appeal, a significant number (approximately 25%) of Applications are either re-opened or allowed based on the evaluation done in either a pre-appeal brief conference or an appeal conference. This statistic seems at odds with the internal review reporting high quality for final rejections. The Committee recommends that more objective metrics that represent outcomes, rather than just internal reviews, be incorporated into the quality composite. Because the Composite still is based in large part on subjective metrics, the user community questions the reliability of the current metric.
In our 2012 Annual Report, the Committee provided some metrics of Patent Examination Quality. A portion of that Report is included below.
An internal Reengineering Restriction Practice Working Group recommends that patent Applicants be required to elect claim 1 (first claimed invention) in the event of a restriction. The rationale for this recommendation is the elimination of the time currently taken after the Examiner prepares a Restriction Requirement until the Applicant makes an election. This is something for consideration but it is not clear that such a proposal would solve the concerns the practitioners currently have regarding presently applied restriction requirements or that it would actually reduce the time taken by the Office to prepare the restriction requirements. Although this recommendation is in line with the typical European Patent Office procedure of selecting groups under Unity of Invention practice, the Committee believes that this proposal must be preceded by an improvement in substantive Restriction practice, or replaced by a move to a European style Unity of Invention standard.
The Committee believes that restriction practice must be improved. The Committee believes that currently in some Technology Centers, applications are restricted too much, and for reasons not related to the scope of the overall subject matter sought to be patented. The Committee believes that most patent Applicants submit claims covering what is believed to be the proper scope. Even though Examiners justify the imposition of a restriction of independent or distinct inventions based on a “search or examination burden,” many Applicants remain frustrated by the inability to have a full set of claims examined, and are forced into the expensive Divisional practice, with the concordant delay and loss of effective patent term. The Committee believes that in the short-term, restriction practice could be improved through greater training and supervision of Examiners and the elimination of subsequent restriction of claims not subject to restriction in the original application in subsequent applications, including Divisionals.
Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) continue to be a problem adversely affecting overall pendency and a source of frustration for both the Office and applicants. As of September, 2012, the Committee was informed that the rate of filing RCEs has slowed, but as of that date, the RCE backlog was about 90,000 – 100,000 cases. With the recent change in the Examiner Count System, RCEs are now placed on a docket that does not require Examiners to respond in a sufficiently timely fashion. While RCEs are counted as a new application for intake, RCEs are not counted by the Office as part of the backlog of unexamined applications. The impressive reductions in the backlog stemming from COPA have almost been matched by a growing backlog of RCEs awaiting examination. RCEs are not included in the “Traditional Pendency” numbers reported by the USPTO, despite the fact that they represent a significant proportion of the first actions and disposals. For the “Traditional Pendency” numbers, the pendency of that application stops at the filing of an RCE and any subsequent pendency is captured only in the “Traditional Total Pendency Including RCEs” numbers. Consequently, the “Traditional Total Pendency” does not represent an accurate picture of the pendency. Moreover, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) begins at four (4) months from filing for an RCE but fourteen (14) months for a continuation so the large backlog of RCEs awaiting examination represent a large increase in pendency in the “Traditional Total Pendency Including RCEs” and significant amounts of PTA. The Committee notes that the USPTO has added a category, “Traditional Total Pendency including RCEs”, on its dashboard that captures the pendency of applications including RCEs. This was a positive step. However, the Office primarily uses the “Traditional Total Pendency” without including RCEs for its reports and planning. Note that the Fee Setting NRPM identified pendency only with “Traditional Total Pendency” thus providing no insight into what the fees will deliver for pendency of RCEs. The Committee recommends that the Office ensures swifter action on RCEs by examiners, move RCEs back to the amended docket, develop and report pendency expectations and goals for RCEs, and continue developing mechanisms to reduce applicants need to file RCEs.
The Committee acknowledges with appreciation the training completed by the Office on Compact Prosecution. However, the Committee believes that more is needed to achieve actual compact prosecution. It is believed that the citation of new prior art, that could have been applied to the original claims, in a final rejection contributes to the filing of RCEs. Both applicants and the Office share responsibility for this problem but encouraging a complete search and first office action will assist in reducing RCEs.
The Committee recommends that the Office increase Examiner training in proper grounds for issuing a Final Office Action, and recommends that relatively minor matters of form not be proper grounds for issuing a Final Office Action. The Committee urges the Examination Corps to increase use of telephone or in-person interviews to address minor issues prior to allowance.
The Office’s new focus on achieving the ambitious goals of having a First Action on the Merits by 10 months, and final resolution in 20 months has focused the Office’s attention on stuck cases (cases under examination that have become stuck for extended periods of time) and the oldest cases in the inventory of applications awaiting examination (the “tail”). Stuck cases have been identified and analyzed to determine the blockages in each situation, after which appropriate action has been taken. Some cases become stuck because of difficulties in resolving petitionable matters, printer rushes, formalities issues, particularly difficult examination issues or other reasons. The Committee recommends that the Office continue to develop and implement plans to identify root causes for stuck cases. The PPAC is ready to assist in this endeavor.
Clearing the Oldest Patent Applications, or COPA, was a concerted effort by the entire examining corps to initiate examination on the oldest applications in the unexamined case backlog. The effort took place over the past 2 Fiscal Years, targeting all cases older than 16 months at the beginning of FY 2011 and then all cases older than 13 months at the beginning of FY 2012. By the end of Fiscal Year 2012, the age distribution of unexamined new cases in the backlog had been substantially compressed so that less than 6% were older than 25 months. The effort resulted in a drop in average first action pendency from over 28 months at the end of FY 2011 to less than 23 months by the end of the first quarter of FY 2012. It is expected that the average first action pendency at the end of first quarter FY 2013 will be less than 18 months. The intense focus on the oldest cases to be examined reduced the number of cases older than 3.5 years to less than 350, or 0.06% of the backlog inventory. The Committee believes that continuing this reduction in oldest cases and overall average pendency will be helped in part by hiring additional examiners, and in part by reducing the number of times an application is transferred between TCs or art units.
The creation of a Central Transfer Unit (CTU) will help prevent cases from languishing for lack of an Examiner to handle the case. In the event that there is a dispute about which TC, art unit or Examiner should examine a particular case, the CTU will have the authority to assign the case appropriately.
The Office should continue to explore reasons for and categories of “stuck” cases. For example, in situations in which applicant requests withdrawal of an office action, such as an improper restriction requirement or final rejection, the Examiner may promise that this will be done but such cases frequently languish before such action is actually completed. This increases pendency and reduces patent term because the Office has not provided PTA for such situations, despite the fact that in these situations it stems from Office delay.
In order to reduce these delays, is the Committee recommends that applications be given a special status and placed on a docket when an action is being withdrawn. Additionally, applicants should have the ability to request that such status be accorded their case based on the promise of the Office. Based on this status, the application would be required to be acted upon within a set period of time, and proper PTA given to the patent that issues from such a case.
Because the workload of Examiners is high, and not likely to decrease, addressing the challenges of hiring and retention of qualified Examiners remains a priority. The Committee believes that without full funding and retention of funds by the Office in a revolving or reserve fund, this problem will increase in magnitude, making it difficult for the Office to reach its stated pendency goals.
Members of the Committee have noted significant improvement in timeliness of patent issuance. We commend the Office for making efforts to decrease unneeded delays in processing Issue Fees, printer rushes and other factors that have delayed patent issuance in the past. We look forward to greater improvements in timeliness of issuance, as the new electronic and IT tools are made available.
The USPTO has announced the desired goal of decreasing First Office Action pendency to 10 months, and pendency to issue of 20 months. A reasonable amount of time for an applicant to wait for a first office action and to receive a patent is an essential feature of a first-class patent office, while their invention remains relevant and meaningful in the marketplace. Consequently, the USPTO needs to reduce its current pendency times (both to first office action and total pendency). Because of delays in the passage of the AIA, the USPTO has modified the time to achieve these pendency goals.
The PPAC supports reducing pendency and while the proposed levels are laudable, there is nothing magical about the proposed pendency times. The USPTO will remain successful even with slightly higher pendencies. The important aspect is to ensure that the inventory level provides a “soft landing”: achieving desired pendency while accommodating potential fluctuations of application filing, retention of examiners and changes in RCE filings stemming from the programs being instituted by the USPTO.
It is worth noting that the AIA retained a unique feature of US patent law relating to prior art. A patent publication is still considered to be prior art as of its effective filing date for both novelty and obviousness purposes. Generally, patent applications are published by about 18 months after the effective filing date (of the application or an earlier-filed priority application, such as a Provisional application). Under the stated goal of first Office Action on the merits by 10 months, and allowance by 20 months, there may be prior art that is unknown to both the Applicant and the USPTO, prior to the first office action and even prior to average issuance.
In particular, the Committee believes that there may be applications that receive first Office Actions on the merits for which the full panoply of prior art is, at the time of examination, unavailable. In such cases, if there is a publication of prior art that occurs after the filing date of an application under examination, it is likely that a first Office Action on the merits may be incomplete.
In the absence of knowledge of a piece of effective prior art, a first Office Action on the merits may allow claims that would be later found unpatentable based on subsequently published prior art having an earlier effective filing date. In such situations, the Office may have to revisit (one way or another) the examination process, and incur greater costs than those associated with a full examination at the beginning of the process (Compact Prosecution).
Even if the Office does not re-open prosecution based on the newly published prior art, with the new Post Grant Opposition proceeding under the AIA, such later-published prior art would be available to opponents prior to the end of the 9-month opposition deadline. An opponent, upon finding a recently published piece of prior art, may be in an advantageous position to challenge a newly issued patent, upset the expectation of the patentee that such a newly issued patent would be presumed valid, and increase costs for both Patentee and the Office. These situations may increase the uncertainty of the patenting process, and may undermine the expected revenues to the USPTO.
The Committee recommends that the Office review the time needed to provide a First Office Action on the Merits that addresses all issues (Compact Prosecution), and be able to adjust its procedures to meet the desired pendency goals without jeopardizing the very laudable goal of Compact Prosecution.
Recent progress has been made on substantive patent law harmonization in the so-called “Tegernsee Group.” The Tegernsee Group was formed in July 2011 and is comprised of the Heads of the European, Danish, French, German, UK, Japanese and United States patent offices. Over the course of the last year, patent law experts from these offices prepared a comparative analysis of substantive law applied in each jurisdiction. On April 19-20, 2012, the Tegernsee Heads reconvened near Munich to consider the results of the experts’ work. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Heads agreed to a statement outlining further specific work for the experts to undertake, with a view to studying 1) grace period, 2) 18-month publication, 3) the prior art effect of secret prior art, and 4) prior user rights for additional fact finding and convergence. The Tegernsee Heads will reconvene this October in Geneva, Switzerland to endorse the work done and agree to a way forward, for example possibly in treaty-text writing exercises in the Group B+ Working Group I at WIPO.
The USPTO has also made significant outreach gains in perhaps the most important harmonization issue: establishment of a common grace period regime. As Europe is an outlier (the European Patent Convention not providing for one), the Director and key staff from both Patents and Policy and External affairs have visited several cities there (in one instance, six cities in four days) and met with key American Chamber of Commerce symposia, US embassy staff, ministries, IP offices, and European users to discuss the issue. These efforts seem to have contributed to changing attitudes towards a grace period, which many believe pro-innovation and pro-economic growth.
Also, in June of this year, the heads of the IP5 offices agreed to establish a new patent harmonization experts’ panel, which will build on the work of the Tegernsee efforts. This effectively adds two other major offices—those of Korea and China—to the larger discussion.
In summary, , given that passage of the AIA has opened a new window for the harmonization discussions, the USPTO has undertaken substantial and proactive efforts to nudge the IP system towards harmonization, which would save users of the international patent system significant resources, time while providing greater certainty
In the fall of 2011, the USPTO refined its concept of the “Global Dossier.” In essence, it envisions a virtual environment which takes into account all of the stakeholders in an inventive activity, including filers, offices, their examiners, litigants, investors—where all of the activity of a patent family is available for viewing (or interaction as appropriate)—in a single portal. It further envisions a system where the user can pre-plan and pre-select cross-filing routes, smart software enabling compliance with differing requirements (thereby reducing delay or inadvertent loss of rights), and opt into worksharing programs such as the Patent Prosecution Highway.
A key aspect of the proposal provides an outcome for and an “umbrella” over the many IT-related projects that are currently underway among the trilateral, IP5, and WIPO relationships in which USPTO is currently engaged. During the winter of 2011-12, bilateral engagement was undertaken with the JPO to refine the proposal, and it was introduced in the IP5 context at its May, 2012 Deputy Heads meeting. Only weeks later, in June, the concept was endorsed by the IP5 Heads as the vision around which technical work in the IP5, plus WIPO, should be undertaken going forward. It was further agreed that the IP5 foundation project workplans be revised, re-missioned, or sunsetted accordingly.
An outreach program, including a “task force” of user representatives from AIPLA, IPO, Business Europe, JIPA, and others has also been agreed to by IP5 office heads. This effort will begin immediately.
The Patent Prosecution Highway continues to prove a major success for the global worksharing regime. As of September 30, 2012, the number of PPH entries has approached 13,000 and USPTO is receiving requests at the rate of 400 to 500 per month. Recently, “PPH 2.0” was implemented, which is a program designed to streamline entry requirements—principally by allowing applicants to self-certify claim correspondence. The result has been to drastically reduce the request processing time and time to start examination.
The excellent statistical results continue in terms of reduced numbers of office actions and high grant rates. According to the AIPLA, these statistics amount to cost savings for users from $2,000 per application to over $10,000 in complex cases where appeals and RCEs are avoided.
As with the harmonization efforts, significant outreach efforts by USPTO, often in conjunction with user groups such as the AIPLA and IPO, continue both domestically and internationally.
An issue over the past several years has been the extent that US filers in the PPH have received rapid prosecution and allowances in the foreign patent offices. This was a particular issue among users with respect to the JPO. Recent statistics from the JPO show that about 70% of US filers are getting their PPH applications granted. (After appeals, the grant rate could actually be as high as 84 %.) PPAC understands that the JPO has instructed its examiners to adopt the search of a worksharing office to the extent they can. Hopefully, this will result in an increase in the grant rate of US PPH filed applications. However, the PTO should continue to closely monitor these statistics to insure that US filers’ grant rates under the PPH program increase to levels in the JPO approximating those of US grants of Japan PPH filers.
1. Worksharing with Korea
The first phase of the worksharing effort with the Korean office (KIPO) has concluded and many lessons have been learned. A second phase will be initiated upon the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the USPTO Director and the new commissioner of KIPO later this year. Initial planning for that includes movement from an office of first filing to office of second filing worksharing orientation to one centered upon which office does the initial work, which fits with the new Mottainai model in the PPH system. It will also build on the collaboration system currently piloted between EPO, KIPO, and USPTO, with the aim to provide business requirements for examiner (and user) collaboration in the proposed Global Dossier environment.
2. Outsourcing PCT Searches
Over the last several years, outsourcing has enabled the USPTO to become a world leader in overall PCT timeliness. The USPTO is taking all steps to maintain the progress made, notwithstanding funding cuts to the contract necessitated by the overall budget situation during FY 2011. In addition, quality has improved in view of the more recent change to U.S. patent examiner standards for the contracted work.
3. Patent Cooperation Treaty – Work Sharing (PCT-PPH)
In FY 2011, the USPTO initiated pilot PCT-Patent Prosecution Highways (PCT-PPH) with five additional International Authorities: IP Australia (IPAU), Rospatent, the Austrian Patent Office (APO), the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (SPTO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV) and the National Board of Patents and Registration (NBPR) in Finland. In FY2012, the USPTO initiated a PCT-PPH pilot with the State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C. (SIPO). Further in FY2012, Rospatent began operating as a competent International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority for international applications filed by U.S. nationals and residents.
The USPTO is now participating in the second phase of a Collaborative Search and Examination Pilot Program with KIPO and EPO. In this pilot, examiners from the three Offices work together to create a single, high quality PCT search report and written opinion. The pilot will be used to test the feasibility of establishing such a system on a permanent basis.
4. Patent Cooperation Treaty – Systemic Improvement
The USPTO, in conjunction with the United Kingdom IP Office (UKIPO), has developed a plan to improve the PCT. This plan, referred to as “PCT 20/20”, is comprised of a series of improvements which will increase quality, enhance transparency and simplify the PCT system. The plan has received generally favorable responses when presented to the Trilateral Offices and users, the IP5 Offices and the PCT Working Group at WIPO.
Table 3 below shows the data for PCT procedures through August 2012
| Table 3: PCT Timeliness |
| |
FY2009 |
FY2010 |
FY2011 |
FY2012 (thru Aug) |
RO/US
Receipt to record copy mailing |
21 days |
13 days |
10 days |
11 days |
DO/EO/US
Receipt to release |
379 days |
251 days |
159 days |
98 days |
ISA/US
Mailing of ISR/WO within 16 months from priority |
77% |
82% |
81% |
53% |
| Mailing of ISR/WO within 18 months of priority |
87% |
91% |
92% |
87% |
IPEA/US
Mailing of IPER within 28 months from priority |
14% |
14% |
21% |
31% |
| Mailing of IPER within 30 months of priority |
22% |
19.5% |
27% |
37% |
The Committee commends the Office for its efforts on these international cooperation and work sharing initiatives and recommends their continued expansion and improvement. In particular, the Committee recommends that the Office review these efforts to ensure that the initiatives promote the overall objectives of harmonization, international work sharing, reduce duplication of efforts by offices and promote best practices to improve timeliness and quality.
The Committee strongly endorses the efforts of the Office to push for substantive harmonization of patent laws, especially a grace period that protects disclosures of information prior to the filing of an application.
The Committee also endorses the Global Dossier program and offers its assistance to the Office, along with the designated bar associations, in prioritizing international work efforts. On PPH, the Committee supports the USPTOs efforts to increase use of the PPH arrangements by applicants and notes the positive results achieved to date. The Committee supports the PPH 2.0 program which has promise to increase consistency among the various offices and simplify the requirements for applicants.
Overall, the Committee commends the Office on its proactive actions in FY2012 in the international arena. The Office has become a leader for change and the Committee fully endorses the actions this past year and offers its support and efforts for FY2013 to further the work already in progress.
In this Section of the Report, the PPAC describes the continued progress made and recommendations for improving patent examination and processing at the USPTO by improving the Office’s information technology (IT) system under the direction of the Office of Chief Information Office (“OCIO”), and coordinated with Process Reengineering (“PRE”) teams (described in the following section). The OCIO and Process Reengineering teams continue to work in parallel and in collaboration to identify and remedy deficiencies in the current patent processing systems.
As noted in our report last year, the USPTO has continued its Agency-wide effort to identify inefficiencies and unnecessary delays and reengineered operations. The overall goal of this effort is to provide more timely and high quality processing of applications from filing through issue and beyond. Improvements in processing will decrease pendency of the patenting process and lead to more rapid creation of companies to take advantage of our culture of innovation. Central to this mission is the creation of a modern information technology (IT) infrastructure that forms the framework for improvements in processes within the Office.
Instead of attempting to remedy the above problems through incremental improvement in the image-based system, the OCIO has devised an overall structure for the new PTO IT system based on interactive, text-based system, using markup language, “XML”. An interactive, text-based system will permit Office personnel to use modern IT hardware and software to produce a system that is not “locked into” a particular IT framework.
In addition, OCIO has agile software development, integrate various tasks through individualized, task-specific program modules. After establishing its core architecture, each module can be tested, refined, and if necessary, replaced by improved modules.
One key element is funding, which is rate limiting. At this critical time in creation of the new IT system, the Committee believes that such cuts are counterproductive and will result in significant delays in improving the patent system, with the consequent threat to the United States’ position in the World innovation ecosystem. Without significant resources applied over a sufficient time period, the development of any new IT system is necessarily delayed.
Since our last Report, the PPAC has noted that substantial progress has been made in the following areas.
1. IT Infrastructure Improvements
The Office has been working on a number of initiatives to improve and strengthen the various components of its IT infrastructure over the last several years. They developed a Road Map Capital Investment Decision Paper (CIDP) and gained USPTO management approval in 2008, and have been moving forward on development and implementation. The Work was focused on nine programs, defining 163 projects. The office has completed 111 of these projects, and 17 additional ones are in various stages of completion. Other projects were closed, especially when it was determined they had been superseded by other programs, such as Patents End To End (see further below). All the pending projects are expected to be completed this calendar year. And the Office has completed these projects, estimated to be under budget by 7.2%.
These infrastructure improvements were in the following areas:
Organizational Strengthening
The OCIO implemented a simplified organization structure; developed a Strategic Human Capital Implementation Plan, identified critical skill gaps and implemented training programs to address them; improved staff performance appraisal Plans; and implemented Executive Information System (EIS) as the OCIO financial system.
Process Standardization
The OCIO implemented an updated Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) process, compatible with both waterfall or Agile software and application development; implemented an Enterprise Project Management System (EPMS); implemented an OCIO Policy Management function; and is developing and implementing IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) processes for Incident, Problem, Service, and Event Management.
Data Center Stabilization
Addressed power shortfalls for the Data Center; established the architecture, the physical and logical mapping of all components, and migration/expansion plans for the Data Centers; replaced a substantial portion of the obsolete infrastructure through Capital Hardware Plans (servers, storage, etc.) - 52% replaced, 54% virtual.
Telecommunications Infrastructure
Implemented PTONet III, the first complete telecommunications upgrade to the PTO campus, and network security infrastructure; implemented the CIO Command Center, which established a centralized monitoring, performance and security center dedicated to the rapid diagnosis and response to suspected incidents or outages; completed a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone replacement project and is completing projects to deploy Unified Business Collaboration Tools.
AIS Stabilization
Concluding identification of systems for analysis of root cause failures and implemented recommendations for architecture, design, and other enhancements to these systems; finishing replacement of end-of-life HP-UX Servers for 22 systems; completed numerous projects enhancing existing systems, based on the recommendations of root cause failures analysis; implemented an improved USPTO Public Access Internet website, e-Newsletter, Infrastructure Code Table upgrade, metrics, and other enhancements. Much of this project was placed on hold due to funding and the investment into Patents End to End.
Desktop Stabilization
Adopted the required Federal Desk Core Configuration (FDCC) framework and practices; established desktop baselines and architecture; established desktop rights management; implemented improvements to USPTO’s patch management process; completed other projects for Windows XP SP3 upgrade, Symantec Endpoint Protection, IE 8 upgrade, PTOFAX 2.0, and the Desktop Management Tool Set; completed projects to implement Universal Laptops with compliant Windows 7 baseline.
Service Desk
Completed selection and implementation of a Service Desk tools suite (Remedy), compliant with established IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Processes; completing implementation of the IT Service Management (ITSM) tool for incident and problem management; completing ITSM projects for release, service, governance, change, etc. This project is completing early in FY13 due to a late funding start.
Disaster Recovery
Selected an alternate processing site for disaster recovery and implemented infrastructure necessary to support disaster recovery operations, including Internet and network connectivity; implemented the data bunkering of USPTO critical data to the Boyers, Pennsylvania (external, remote) backup site; and is completing testing of failover capability for some applications to Boyers, and implementing supporting configuration management tool sets. This project is ending in FY13 due to a late funding start.
Enterprise Architecture
Developed an enterprise Service Oriented Architecture strategy and plan; developed an enterprise architecture governance process and implementation plan; completed implementation of enterprise architecture tools such as Troux and GEARS.
Overall, the PPAC has been impressed by the ability of the Office to establish a strong and very successful OCIO capability for the delivery of large, multi-year, multi-program information technology infrastructure efforts. They appear to have firmly institutionalized portfolio, program, and project management practices (processes, templates, tools); along with practices for cross-functional collaboration, and reporting at the OCIO. These are very favorable and seem exemplified by their achievements for some of the large application development and deployment programs described further below. The IT Road Map ends on September 30, with a few continuing projects finishing by year-end. Management and enhancement of the IT infrastructure portfolio will continue under the purview of the Capital Hardware IT Replacement Portfolio (for end users and IT facilities) and the Enterprise Infrastructure Portfolio (for various other programs).
2. Patents End-To-End (PE2E)
Patents End-to-End has made great strides in implementing new functionality, converting patent application data to structured text, and planning to obtain text from applicants. Patents End-to-End has been deployed to internal pilot audiences an entirely new infrastructure that cover examination functions related to examiner dockets, case review, document viewing, and reference management. Work on managing Office Action drafting is ongoing, and PE2E remains on track to release to incrementally larger pilot audiences as it adds new functionality throughout 2013.
The biggest challenge has been obtaining converted text for patent applications, and Patents End-to-End has explored multiple conversion options to ensure that it has the data necessary to support releases to its pilot audiences. Initially, OCIO was focusing on the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) as the test/pilot audience for the system. However, the data conversion requirements were very difficult to meet for that pilot (CRU requires all patent case documents to be converted, all together, to be effective but also requires a maximum 60 day turnaround for a first office action). These two priorities conflicted and caused legacy data conversion and integration to proceed slower than planned. Further, AIA critical CRU and IT implementation requirements reduced resources available for PE2E. The Independent oversight specialist recommends moving the test focus away from CRU, due to these issues. OCIO believes that engagement with the intensive requirements of the CRU was very beneficial for establishing PE2E requirements and development, even if it is difficult to use them as a full test pilot of the system. Over the final quarter of Fiscal Year 2012, data conversion options have become increasingly clear, prompting a reevaluation of the composition of the pilot audience for Patents End-to-End releases. The Office is now focusing using a cross-section of the examination corps as the pilot audience, to narrow focus of document conversion efforts, provide more flexibility on conversion times, allow examiners to self-select for PE2E pilot usage, and allow earlier and wider exposure to all Technical Center (TC) areas. The Office has changed the PE2E deployment plans, with an initial deployment to pilot audiences in November 2012. While the Office has been delayed in getting testing of the PE2E system, the delay has not been severe and the PPAC remains reasonably satisfied that this program is both very important and remains reasonably on track to deliver promised results. PPAC will remain engaged in reviewing progress towards new deployment plans.
3. Patent Application Text Initiative (PATI)
During the PATI program, claims, specification, and abstracts of all active patent applications have been converted to structured text. Patent examiners have access to this text in Office legacy IT tools, and PATI will be the key source of data for PE2E’s new tools suite. PATI has now converted claims, specifications and abstracts of all active backfiles (63 million + documents), from image data to full XML4IP standard text. The Office has successfully completed all the hardware upgrades as part of the Infrastructure programs enabling corps-wide deployment of PATI data. OCIO plans to expand the scope of PATI text conversion to include IDS and Remarks documents. There will be follow-on continuous data conversion of additional document types.
4. Text to PTO (Text2PTO)
The Text2PTO program is projected to allow text submissions of patent applications from applicants. It will provide applicants with a suite of pre-submission tools to analyze and validate applications. Planning for Text2PTO began in 2012, and outreach to the intellectual property community is underway to vet different approaches, understand applicant needs, and communicate the advantages of text-based submission. The early outcome of this activity will be a prototype scheduled for November 2012, including application submission and analytic reports. Text2PTO allows conversion of Open Document (.docx) application data into XML4IP information, and online validation of application data.
5. Patent Review Processing System (PRPS)
The OCIO has also successfully completed a new PRPS system for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Again using agile software development approaches, an integrated team of IT and PTAB judges have worked over a period of several months to develop a new system to allow submission and management of the information that will be used during new post-grant processes of the AIA, including post-grant oppositions, inter partes review, and the transitional program for covered business method patents. Since a number of these processes went into operation at the one year anniversary of the AIA (September 16, 2012), the Office and this integrated team worked very hard to develop, test and go live with the new PRPS. The Office ensured that the PRPS went live over the weekend, allowing a number of requesters to file new petitions through PRPS immediately.
All of these new IT systems are impressive. The OCIO has demonstrated each of the modules to the PPAC as they have been completed. The use of agile software development continues to payoff in terms of successful deployment of additional critical IT functionality for the Office. The Committee commends the Office on the smart investments, and looks forward to further deployment, especially with the promise of increased and ostensibly more reliable funding through AIA that allows better and more consistent investment. Reductions in current user fees this fiscal year provide some worry about this promise.
The PPAC believes that the efforts so far have produced valuable results, and encourages the OCIO and USPTO to rapidly address the following areas.
| |
1. |
Provide stable sources of funding |
| |
|
|
a. |
Ensure that fee setting under Section 18 of AIA by the USPTO is adequate to meet Office IT needs. |
| |
|
|
b. |
Continue development of the Operating Reserve Fund authorized by the AIA. |
| |
|
|
c. |
Carefully monitor user receipts and manage competing requirements to ensure necessary long-term investments |
| |
2. |
Continue to upgrade Office IT infrastructure |
| |
|
|
a. |
Continue migration to a text-based IT system with the Text2PTO program and PE2E. |
| |
|
|
b. |
Expand network capabilities |
| |
|
|
c. |
Improve cyber-security |
| |
|
|
d. |
Continue Agile development of new Process Reengineering (PRE) tools and processes |
| |
|
|
e. |
Implement new PRE tools |
| |
3. |
Continue to upgrade and expand links with stakeholders |
| |
|
|
a. |
Expand access to USPTO data and knowledge through the web |
| |
|
|
b. |
Continue partnerships with stakeholders, industry and other Intellectual Property Organizations to ensure meeting both internal and external stakeholder requirements. |
| |
|
|
c. |
Continue to improve the PTO website with modern assistance technologies |
| |
|
|
d. |
Expand use of collaboration tools between internal and external stakeholders |
The USPTO has made significant progress in identifying inefficiencies in its operations and providing remedies. As of June 2012, the USPTO has provided reports with recommendations addressing Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), Appeal and Pre-Appeals, Commercial Database (CDB) Usage, US application processing of International applications under 35 U.S.C. 371, Management Operations, Call Centers, and Petitions. These areas have been addressed by the formation of a “Process Reengineering Team,” (“PRE”) each tasked with setting up and coordinating efforts of individualized Working Groups, each of which addresses a focused set of issues. The teams were created to take advantage of the experiences of internal and external stakeholders in the patent process. Identifying and removing inefficiencies should lead to improved patent processing and should promote innovation and jobs in the United States. The Committee hopes that increased efficiency will lead to more rapid processing of patent applications, improved examination quality, decreased pendency, and decreased costs to patent applicants.
Some Reengineering programs will be enhanced by the new IT infrastructure discussed above that will support a fully electronic patent system (including PE2E and Text2PTO). These improvements, allowing for a more efficient US patent system, with easier access by examiners to relevant prior art, and quicker allowance of valid patents and rejection of unworthy patent applications, should result in increased investment in technology, creation of new companies and jobs, and improve the overall economic situation, helping keep the United States a world leader in innovation and job creation.
The Reengineering process is divided into three Phases. Phase I includes analyses of restriction practice, double patenting, color drawings, elimination of unneeded forms, classification and transfer of cases, central reexamination and reissue, pre-examination streamlining, enhancing technical knowledge between examiners, management operations, applicant/office interface, post-examination streamlining, information disclosure and PCT processing. Phase I programs resulted in over 200 individual process improvement recommendations. If all of those recommendations are implemented, the USPTO estimates annual cost savings of millions of dollars could be realized.
Phase II includes analyses of sequence listing, application and publication numbering, clearing oldest patent application (COPA), “stuck case” clearance, petitions for Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), and patent reform (AIA).
Phase III includes appeals and pre-appeals, commercial database usage, 371 case processing, technical support staff implementation, workflow system functions and business rules, risk analysis, employee relations and call centers.
The Committee thanks the Office for these efforts, and we hope that the efficiencies created will decrease pendency, increase quality and decrease costs to applicants. With the new Fee Setting authorization provided in the AIA, the Committee hopes that cost savings through increasing process efficiencies can be directly translated into decrease cost to the Office, with the savings passed onto patent applicants through reduced fees or at least a slower increase in fees.
1. Pre-Examination Streamlining
This Working Group recommended automated data entry and formalities review using structured text. Capture of text data including Title, Inventors, Continuity, Priory and other data for preparation of Filing Receipts would have high impact on patent applicants. The Office estimates that with full implementation of automated data entry, the cost savings could be from $2 – 10 million annually, and would increase accuracy, quality and decrease pendency. The Committee thanks the Office for this initiative and believes that it should be fully implemented and further steps should be automated.
2. Improve Searching and Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
In June 2012, the CPC reported to the Committee on its efforts to create a new USPTO, EPO partnership do develop a shared searching system. This working group has embarked on an ambitious plan to combine features of the European Classification system (ECLA) and the current USPTO system. This effort produced a bilateral initiative that may be a model for a broader application among the countries of the IP5 (WIPO, Japanese Patent Office (JPO), European Patent Office (EPO), State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO), and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). This system would be aligned with the International Patent Classification (IPC) and WIPO standards. Currently, the USPTO is engaged in discussions with representatives of IP5 countries to further refine and implement the new classification system.
The Committee believes that such a system could be very effective and improve the examination process. Given that the USPTO has acquired a tremendous amount of highly useful information in its own databases, the Committee believes that it would be very important for this information to be brought up current in any new classification system. In other words, the USPTO should make the current USPTO system fully searchable by the new system and that the new system is backwards compatible.
3. Information Disclosure
The Committee agrees that IDS practice is currently very time consuming and may not be the best way of identifying the best prior art. The Committee notes that the USPTO recently proposed moving to a new standard for IDSs based on the “but for-plus” approach taken by the Federal Circuit in the Therasense case. The Committee believes that the “but for-plus” standard will be more certain than the current 37 C.F.R. 1.56 rule, and recommends implementation of the new standard. This could save Applicants time, cost of complying with the “reasonable examiner” standard, and further, recommends that the USPTO, in its new rulemaking, provide guidance about what types of information an Applicant need not disclose in an IDS.
The Committee recommends developing some form of a new tool into the IT system that would permit an Applicant to (one way or another) list a series of references on a form, and then either through applicant-provided links or search capability in available global patent databases (USPTO patents/application database, WIPO database, Medline, Derwent, etc,) allow the IT system to automatically download into the appropriate electronic file at the USPTO. The Committee also recommends that the new tool permit an Applicant to indicate which other applications (Continuations, CIPs, Divisionals, Related Applications, and foreign counterparts) may be related without having to refile all relevant information in all related cases. . Then the new tool might then automatically download into the application file prior filed IDSs, search reports (WIPO, EPO, JPO etc), Office Actions, Examination Reports and Replies. The Committee believes that such a new IT tool would save time, money and improve accuracy and completeness of such submissions.
4. Petitions
The Committee believes that processing of Petitions can be inconsistent and take too much time. This problem is exacerbated by the large volume of Petitions and requests, varying types, and varied responsibilities for deciding Petitions. Petitions are handled by the Office of Petitions, Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA), PCT Legal Administration, Technology Centers (TCs), Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP/OPPE), Office of Data management (ODM/Pubs), and the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). Outside the Patent Examination Unit, Petitions are addressed by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference, now the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED).
Additionally, similar types of petitions may be handled differently in different organizations, routing may be difficult, and processing may be inconsistent. These complexities and others can each add pendency of up to 100 days or more.
The Committee believes that Petition processing should be carefully reviewed, and where possible, a central docketing system should be used. This could result in fewer petitions becoming “lost” or deferred without disposition. The Committee encourages the Office to develop improved processing rules to improve Intake and Routing, Drafting and Decisions, Mailing and Hand-Off, and updating the processes to reflect current Office structure.
To partially address these problems, the USPTO has implemented an “e-Petitions” process. E-Petitions currently are used for submission of drawings in color, Petitions to Make Special based on Age of Applicant, delayed payment of Maintenance Fees, Terminal Disclaimers, and other “routine” matters. The electronic Terminal Disclaimer (“e-TD”) process is now available whereby a terminal disclaimer can be filed and granted instantly. Prior to implementing the e-TD, processing of TD Petitions took an average of 25.3 days. The time from filing to allowance has decreased from 40.5 days to less than 10 days for those cases for which a TD is the only outstanding issue. No eTDs have been disapproved; 100% are granted, compared with 19% disapproval rate under the prior system.
Rapid analysis of Petitions is essential to reducing pendency and improving examination quality. Petitions that are dismissed are particularly difficult, because unless a Petition is denied, there is no opportunity for Appeal. In some cases, delays in handling Petitions may lead to months or even years of inconclusive examination.
The Committee recommends that all petitionable issues be addressed promptly and completely, without unnecessary dismissals for lack of form or other non-merits reasons. The Committee recommends that all Petitions be placed on a single docket, with a well-defined time frame for resolution, in a fashion similar to examination docketing.
5. National Phase Applications based on 35 U.S.C. 371
An applicant who files an International Patent Application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) may have that application filed in the United States either through the “regular” route via 35 U.S.C. 371, or via the “bypass route” under 35 U.S.C. 111. The “bypass” route is nearly identical to the filing of a regular United States utility application. However, an application entering the United States via 371 faces some unique situations. Docketing, workflow, document retrieval, tracking, notification of defects in the application, problems with forms, and other matters can delay, increase cost, and may be confusing.
The Committee recommends the Office to perform Root-Cause analysis of problems with 371 applications, identify potential common solutions, and begin implementing “pilot” programs to test solutions. We recommend implementing electronic data retrieval, document tracking and identification of other electronic procedures that would expedite filing and initial processing of such applications. The Committee also recommends that PCT Legal work with OPAP/OIPE to identify ways of simplifying the initial steps in application processing, including adjustment of claim fees due to multiply dependent claims filed in PCT International Applications that do not enter the US National Phase with a Preliminary Amendment to remove multiple dependencies.
6. Examiner and SPE Training
In 2011, the Office has approved up to 25 hours per examiner for refresher and leadership development training. The Committee commends this initiative, and would like to see training increased. The Committee understands that Primary Examiners and SPEs require ongoing training to remedy past deficiencies and to develop understanding of the changing landscape of patentability. We also agree that SPEs are in a unique position given their management responsibilities in addition to maintaining high levels of expertise in examination. The Committee believes that without training in effective management skills, Examiners may not receive proper, up-to-date guidance needed to properly address examination issues. The Committee also notes that the Office has introduced training in Negotiating the Patent Examining Process, which emphasizes cooperative problem-solving techniques while negotiating with Applicants to identify allowable claimed subject matter.
The Committee appreciates the Office’s efforts to implement the recent guidelines on Section 112, and preparation of new Section 101 guidelines based on the Mayo v. Prometheus decision. The Committee also thanks the USPTO for efforts in providing technology-specific examples that integrate Section 112 guidance on breadth, with the Supreme Court’s holding that breadth is also an important issue in rendering decisions based on Section 101 (e.g., “preemption”). The Committee understands the challenges facing the innovation communities to understand and properly implement the Court’s holdings in Mayo, Bilski v. Kappos, and other key decisions, and offers to assist the Office in its efforts.
The Committee believes it is critical that the Office recruit and maintain a qualified and competent work force. Human capital initiatives influence the Office’s ability to timely and effectively accomplish its strategic plan goals.
Underlying the Office’s goal to reduce the backlog of patent applications and decrease pendency is the stated goal of hiring 1500 new patent examiners in fiscal year 2012. In the FY 2013 President’s Budget, the Office projected an end of the year examiner staffing level of 7,852. The Office has a total of 7,837 patent examiners, plus 105 design examiners, and 122 CRU, with 1,505 new examiners on board as of September 2012. As a result of the significant progress the Agency has already made in achieving its priority goals and transitioning to a sustainable funding model, the USPTO is modifying and accelerating its long-term plans to recognize the progress that has been made to date, and to take advantage of the recent trends in terms of lower examiner attrition and higher production. This includes revalidating the total number of new patent examiner hires in FY 2013, and leveraging the nationwide workforce to facilitate hiring more examiners with significant prior IP-related experience, and those with some level of IP background. Hiring experienced former examiners and IP professionals will allow the Patent organization to reduce the time necessary for training, and realize benefits that will enable the USPTO to still achieve its performance targets of 10 months for first action pendency, and 20 months for total patent pendency. This will meet stakeholder expectations, and also allow the Office to begin taking actions to achieve greater effectiveness and contain costs; for example, to begin making a soft landing from the aggressive hiring efforts in 2012 and 2013 by gradually reducing end-of-year examiner staffing levels, while still maintaining pendency and backlog at levels that facilitate effective and efficient operations.
1. Examiner Retention and Training
Examiner retention and training is an important factor that can positively affect efforts to improve quality and pendency. The Office attrition rate has stabilized with a projected attrition rate for 2012 of 3.1% as compared to 2.96% in 2011 and 3.75% in 2010. Participation in the most recent Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey was a remarkable 76% which is an improvement of 11%. The survey offers employees the opportunity to voice their opinion on organizational climate, culture, employee engagement, job satisfaction, among other things. The survey results provide feedback to Federal agencies on how to improve their work environment to increase productivity and employee engagement. It is also important to note, however, that attrition rates are historically lower during more challenging economic conditions. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Office continue to focus on initiatives to maintain its stabilized attrition rate by continuing to monitor and improve employee training and satisfaction in order to retain experienced, productive examiners.
2. Efforts to Enhance Technical Knowledge and Training of Examiners
In an effort to enhance technical knowledge and training of Examiners the USPTO enhances patent examination fundamentals, communication, and cooperation between the examiner and applicant. The USPTO utilizes a highly successful compact prosecution training and refresher training program that encompasses over 20 training modules designed to enhance examiners’ knowledge and skills in procedural and legal topics pertaining to patent examination. In addition, the USPTO has also implemented the Patent Examiner Technical Training Program (PETTP).
The Patent Examiner Technical Training Program (PETTP) provides scientists and experts as lecturers to patent examiners in order to update them on technical developments, the state of the art, emerging trends, maturing technologies, and recent innovations in their fields. Data is collected for the PETTP program in 2 ways -- total training hours; and the number and types of participating organizations.
| |
● |
Training Hours |
| |
|
|
o |
For FY 12, the Office provided 17,222.25 total training hours |
| |
|
|
o |
For FY 11, the Office provided 12,233 total training hours |
| |
|
|
o |
These changes represent a 41% increase in training hours in FY 12. |
| |
● |
Participating Organizations (university/educational institutions vs. private organizations/individuals). |
| |
|
|
o |
University/Educational Institution Participation |
| |
|
|
|
▪ |
In FY 12, 19 universities/educational institutions participated (including such institutions as Johns Hopkins, Brandeis, Cornell, Stanford, University of California, NIST, Duke, NIH, Columbia, Georgetown, Penn State among others) |
| |
|
|
|
▪ |
In FY 11, 8 universities participated |
| |
|
|
|
▪ |
Significant improvement in university outreach in FY 12 (137% increase), principally due to collaboration with AUTM and assistance from UT Austin |
| |
|
|
o |
Private Organizations/Individuals, |
| |
|
|
|
▪ |
In FY 12, 63 private organizations/individuals participated, including a Nobel Prize Laureate. Many provided multiple lectures on multiple topics. |
| |
|
|
|
▪ |
In FY 11, 60 private organizations/individuals participated |
The Office continues to encourage greater participation in the program, for example, the newly announced USPTO/Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) Patent Examiners Training Initiative, a joint program designed to utilize the expertise of the Association of University Technology Managers members working in university technology transfer offices to identify key faculty members to participate in training programs for patent examiners.
This enhanced communication contributes to improving overall patent quality and decreasing patent pendency. Another new program is the Site Examiner Education (SEE) program, this program allows Examiners to travel to companies and educational institutions to learn about updates on technology or new technologies and experience how technologies operate in the field. The Office of Patent Training (OPT) also continues to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the ISO-9001 (International Organization for Standardization) certified New Patent Examiner Training Program.
The USPTO via the Office of Patent Training also administers The New Patent Examiner Training Programs include: the Intellectual Property Experienced Examiner Training Program and the Entry Level Training Program, which are each a two-phased program completed in 12-months.
| |
● |
Intellectual Property Experienced Examiner Training Curriculum
This curriculum includes enhanced instruction in legal, procedural, and automation training, in areas such as: more than a dozen specialized applications used in patent examination, multiple search systems, databases and commonly used office applications such as: Classification Systems, Searching (classification, text), Claim Interpretation, Advanced Text Searching, Technology Center (TC) Specific tools such as STN and Dialog, Writing an Effective Examiner’s Answer, Appeal Procedure and Practice (Appeal Conference and Pre-Conference; Prevent Administrative Remand). |
| |
● |
Entry Level Two-Phased 12-Month New Examiner Training Curriculum
The legal and procedural training of this curriculum includes enhanced instruction in areas such as: Classification Systems, Searching (classification, text), Claim Interpretation, and Advanced Text Searching, Writing an Effective Examiner’s Answer, Appeal Procedure and Practice (Appeal Conference and Pre-Conference; Prevent Administrative Remand).
|
| |
● |
Technical training includes Introduction to examining applications in specific areas of technology, the current state of specific technologies, ongoing technology topics, etc. |
| |
● |
Automation training includes classes in more than a dozen specialized applications used in patent examination, multiple search systems, databases, and commonly-used office applications. |
| |
● |
Life skills training includes time management, ethics training, stress management, balancing quality and production, professionalism, benefits and financial planning basics, balancing work and personal life, diversity training and negotiating conflict. |
The Office of Patent Training (OPT) also provides Management Training. A two-phase training program for new Supervisory patent examiners provides coaching and mentoring, leadership, and software training modules in an effort to help patent examiners reach their full potential. Patent managers and supervisors will continue to participate in a Leadership Development Program which focuses on educating and creating leaders.
An Experienced Patent Managers Program is provided and designed for Patent Managers with more than one year of experience. Courses offered focus on coaching and mentoring and senior leadership development.
A Train the Trainer Program offers training to new Trainers who manage a lab of new Examiners. The courses concentrate on the daily operation and supervision of Examiners in the lab at the Patent Training Academy. The modules are a combination of theory and application and include mentoring, presentations and feedback, coaching, lab management and supervision, and adult education.
In addition the OPT provides continuing education training for experienced Examiners at the USPTO.
The Legal Lecture Series Program is offered periodically to patent examiners and based on major court decisions and office policies.
The In-House Patent Law and Evidence Course provides training for patent examiners on authoritative court decisions on statutory issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 and the handling of evidence during the examination of applications.
Negotiating in the Patent Examination Process Training is an interactive lecture and workshop designed to teach the fundamentals of negotiating issues which arise during the patent examination process utilizing effective collaborative communication skills.
The Office held a Leadership Forum providing training opportunities to its management and leadership team to impart practical knowledge on how to improve efficiencies and effectiveness and to combine education with collaboration to make sure management has the tools needed to lead the workforce in meeting the current and future challenges.
The Committee believes that periodic, timely and up-to-date training is very important to maintaining an effective examination corps. We understand that there are a series of “Partnership Meetings,” “Tech-Fairs,” and other in-person programs. The Committee recommends that the USPTO continue to provide such programs, and ideally, at the USPTO and Satellite Offices. The Committee also recommends that these programs be continued and expanded to further include presentations by expert Examiners (Supervisory Patent Examiners (SPEs), Quality Assurance Specialists (QASs), Academic, Industry experts, and legal experts. The Committee also believes that these programs should be made available via internet access, and other technology platforms.
The Committee supports continuing and expanding the existing examiner training initiatives and recommends enhancing the training efforts by providing timely training to examiners of recent court decisions to further improve quality and maintain consistency.
Geographical expansion of the Office’s work force allows for a number of strategic benefits to the Office and applicants: improved recruiting and expansion of exceptionally well qualified applicants, enhanced employee retention (potentially allowing the Office to retain its trained and experienced examiners for an entire career), reduced real estate and infrastructure costs, and improved outreach to applicants. Development and support of a nationwide workforce also improves retention and recruitment efforts in technical areas where recruitment has historically not been as robust.
As of August 31st, 2012, 89% of patent employees are participating in some form of telework program up from 82.5% in 2011. The USPTO continued to support and promote the Patents Hoteling Program (PHP) which permits examiners to work from remote locations. The number of teleworkers in PHP increased to 3,084 patent examiners and 336 technical support staff as of August 31, 2012. Implementation of the Office’s new flexibility under the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 enabled the Office to launch the Telework Enhancement Act Pilot Program (TEAPP), initially launched to twenty-five percent of full time teleworkers waiving the “twice a bi-week” reporting requirement. The new program is voluntary, allowing eligible workers to live more than 50 miles from the USPTO and allowing them to change their duty station to an alternate worksite in the city in which they work. Further demonstrating a USPTO distributed workforce in FY 2012 11 percent of patent examiners (751) live more than 50 miles from the Alexandria campus, residing in 42 states. The Committee commends the Office’s initiatives for the geographical expansion of the work force, and recommends the TEAPP be made permanent and provided to a larger percentage of employees. The Committee believes that the Office should explore other venues for in-person interviews, including use of Satellite Offices, other Federal venues, and web-ex or other tools. To this end, the Committee recommends that the USPTO test other high-quality conferencing systems.
The USPTO’s satellite offices further support the Agency’s mission to foster the growing contribution that intellectual property makes to the economy. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) dictates that at least three satellite offices be established by the USPTO in three years as part of a larger effort to modernize the U.S. patent system by September 2014. The Detroit satellite office is the first of four selected, officially opened in July 13, 2012 and is expected to create approximately 120 highly skilled jobs in Detroit in the first year of operations.
Three future satellite offices were announced to be located in Denver, Colorado; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; and Silicon Valley, California. Satellite offices have been advanced to enable the Office and applicants to realize the potential benefits of: expansion of the applicant pool, enhanced employee retention, reduced real estate and infrastructure costs, and improved outreach to applicants. The Committee recommends while the Office moves forward with the establishment of the three additional satellite offices, it remain focused on addressing the concerns also brought about by further expansion of a distributive workforce such as management challenges and maintaining consistency and quality.
The Committee recommends that the USPTO receive consistent funding and full access to the fees collected in order to continue its expansion, training, and retention of the Examining Corps. Many applicants depend on prompt and accurate examination to support their current businesses and future growth. The USPTO needs consistent and predicable funding in order to make long range plans to effectively meet existing and future demands for its services, including continued implementation of AIA.
On September 16, 2012, the formerly named Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences was renamed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The change in name reflects the additional proceedings to be handled by the Board under the AIA. The backlog of appeals before the Board has generally increased over the past few years, and the USPTO is faced with the challenge of maintaining timely appeals as well as accommodating the new Board Trial procedures.
To address the backlog of appeals as well as the expected filings under Inter partes review, Post-Grant Opposition, Derivation and Supplemental Examination, the Board is undergoing a period of aggressive hiring of new Judges. As of September 10, 2012, the total number of Judges is now 150. Some of these new appointees will be located in the satellite offices in Detroit, Denver, Dallas, and the Silicon Valley in California. The current goal is to hire 100 new Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) in 2012. The Board expects new hires from the USPTO Examining Corps, Office of the General Counsel, the International Trade Commission, Department of Justice, private practice, and industry.
Since 2010, there has been a trend to increasing the backlog of appeals before the Board. As of the fourth quarter of 2012, the number of appeals in the queue is about 26,000. However, during fiscal year 2012, the backlog has stopped increasing, due in part to the number of new Judges, lower than expected numbers of new filings, and the efforts by current Judges.
The Committee believes that it is imperative for the Board to render rapid, fair decisions, because the PTAB is in a unique position to evaluate the decisions made by the examining corps. Further, the Committee believes that with the number of RCEs being in the backlog of the examining corps, that delays in patentability decisions are increasingly frustrating to the customers of the USPTO, namely, patent Applicants.
The Committee is encouraged by the balance of decisions by the Board. It is apparent that the Board is carefully reviewing Examiner’s decisions, and in fiscal year 2012, about 1/3 of Board decisions are reversals of Examiner’s rejections, about ½ are affirmances, and about 15% were partial affirmances. The Committee is also encouraged by the low numbers of Administrative remands and appeals dismissed.
The Board has also instituted a per curiam process, whereby certain appeals can be decided based on the written record. During fiscal year 2012, the Board has rendered 119 per curiam decisions, with 77 adopting the position of the Examiner’s answer, 25 adopting the position of the Appellant’s briefing, 16 adopting parts of the Examiner’s answer and parts of Appellant’s briefing. The Committee believes that these initial results reflect a balanced approach.
The Committee recommends that the PTAB consider making more decisions precedential and informative. Precedential and informative decisions are very helpful in providing the public with a degree of predictability and accuracy of decisions. Such predictability is crucial for making decisions about whether and how to appeal an adverse decision of patentability by an Examiner.
As the new Board Trial programs become more widely used (Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Opposition, Covered Business Methods, and Derivation), the Committee expects that the work of the PTAB in these new decisions will complement the Appeal process. The Committee believes that the Applicant community will benefit greatly from having PTAB decisions reflected in a timely fashion in the examination process. Therefore, the Committee recommends that Patents work closely with the PTAB to identify and implement mechanisms for improved and continual training of Examiners, SPEs, and others responsible for the examination process.
The Committee has included comments in other Sections of this Report, and hopes that the USPTO and the Board will consider these and other views positively as the rules for Board Trials are refined in the future.
The Committee believes that the PTAB is in a very good position to provide information essential to the evolving standards for patentability. Although the PTAB has issued few Precedential or Informative Opinions in the past two years, we believe that Examiner and SPE training can be improved by such decisions being brought to the Examining Corps early. It is not the intent of this recommendation that such PTAB decisions necessarily reflect Examiner performance under their Performance Appraisal Plans (PAPs), but rather as a training resource to provide Examiners with the most current views of the Board.
Decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are also very informative to the Examining corps. For fiscal year 2012, the Federal Circuit heard 105 patent cases, with 66 affirmances, 26 dismissed, and 12 remanded (with one reversed).
The Committee believes that consistent decision making by the Federal Circuit and the Board will be very helpful in providing predictability for the users of the patent system in this country. That predictability will be enhanced if the Examining corps has access to, and is trained in how changes if the law should be reflected in the examination process.
In 2010 the USPTO published a 5-year strategic plan, outlining themes, goals and objectives for the Office. The main themes of the Department of Commerce (DOC) are: (1) economic growth, (2) customer service, (3) organizational excellence, and (4) workforce excellence. These themes are reflected in specific DOC goals, DOC objectives and USPTO goals as shown in Table 4 below.
| Table 4: Key Themes, Goals and Objectives of the USPTO Strategic Plan |
| DOC Theme |
DOC Goal |
DOC Objective |
USPTO Goal |
| Economic Growth |
Innovation and Entrepreneurship Goal:
Develop the tools, systems, policies and technologies critical to transforming our economy.
Fostering U.S. competitiveness, and driving the development of new businesses.
|
Facilitate intellectual property protection by reducing patent and trademark pendency and increasing quality of issued patents and trademarks.
Expand international markets for U.S. firms and inventors by improving the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights
|
Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness.
Optimize Trademark Quality and Timeliness.
Provide Domestic and Global Leadership to improve intellectual Property Policy, Protection and Enforcement Worldwide.
|
| Customer Service |
Create a culture of outstanding communication and services to our internal and external customers. |
|
Achieve Organizational Excellence. |
| Organizational Excellence |
Create a high performing organization with integrated, efficient and effective service delivery |
|
|
| Workforce Excellence |
Develop and support a diverse, highly qualified workforce with the right skills in the right job to carry out the mission. |
|
|
The Committee believes that the USPTO has aggressively pursued the themes, objectives and goals of the Strategic Plan, and congratulates Director Kappos and other USPTO personnel for their vision, dedication, and teamwork. The Committee stands ready to offer its ongoing assistance in furtherance of these activities that are crucial to the continued economic progress in the United States.
| | Respectfully submitted, |
| | |
| |
D. Benjamin Borson, M.A., J.D., Ph.D.
Acting Chair, Patent Public Advisory Committee
|
APPENDIX
Full Report of the PPAC on Fee Setting
Executive Summary
The America Invents Act (AIA) authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to set fees for their services and requires the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) to review the fee proposals, hold public hearings on the proposals, provide comments and suggestions to the USPTO on the proposed fees, and publish a report outlining these comments and suggestions. The USPTO published proposed new fees on February 7, 2012. Upon review of these proposals and consideration of the public comments, the PPAC identified concerns and verbally relayed these to the USPTO.
Taking these comments into consideration, on September 6, 2012, the USPTO published a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) setting forth new proposed fees, which represent a reduction from the originally proposed fees. The PPAC commends the USPTO for seriously considering the public and PPAC comments and responding with reductions in the proposed fees.
Positive Aspects of the September NPRM
Compared to the first proposal of February 2012, the NPRM proposes reduced fees in almost all areas.
In response to criticism about the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) growth and backlog, the USPTO has responded with the creation of two programs, an After-Final pilot and a program for the consideration of prior art following the payment of the issue fee, both aimed at a reduction of RCE filing. These are an excellent step in efforts to curb the escalation of RCE growth and backlog.
The fee for submitting a Track 1 application has been reduced which should increase the usage of this valuable program. The program provides increased cooperative efforts in identifying allowable subject matter and offers an avenue for speedy examination of important applications.
The elimination of the large fee for late provision of an oath/declaration is excellent and will be well received by practitioners. The changes mandated by the AIA allow better harmonization with the international community.
The NPRM eliminates the fee for filing an appeal brief and moves this fee to a point at which the appeal actually moves forward to the PTAB. In this way, payment is not necessary if following submission of the appeal brief, the prosecution is reopened, making it more efficient for both applicant and the Office.
Changes in both the Inter Partes review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR) create graduated fees for increasing numbers of claims, reduce the overall cost of the programs and establish step-wise fees for services rendered. These are positive changes in the programs reflected in lowering of the costs.
Areas For Further Consideration and Change
The proposed fees for RCEs are still increased above a regular utility application or a Continuation. This is not understood as they cost less to administratively handle and to examine. Additionally, while the fee was reduced for the first RCE, the fee for second and subsequent RCEs remains at the originally high proposed level. RCEs remain a concern for both the Office and applicants but increasing their fees only aggravates applicants and likely will not decrease their filing. It is believed that if an RCE is needed, one will be filed. It must be noted also that the large backlog of RCEs represents an “iceberg” of future pendency increases and a large amount of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) given for the delays experienced in picking them up again for examination. From a public policy view, these are undesirable.
Excess claims fees, while reduced from the February proposal, still are quite high. This does not seem to be justified by costs for examining the claims and represents a move toward the high fees of other patent offices, without the ability to have multiply dependent claims examined or unity of invention applied.
Utilization of the new programs for contested applications depends upon the implementing rules and the costs associated with these programs. A coordinated effort was expended by the patent bar associations, ABA, IPO and AIPLA, to provide suggestions for implementing these programs. However, the rules seem more complicated than necessary an do not adopt a more structured or automatic discovery protocol.
Supplemental Examination provides a beneficial new avenue for a patentee to present additional prior art to the USPTO for consideration following grant of the patent. However, the steep fees proposed and the limited number of references that may be considered may diminish the usefulness of this program.
The fees for Ex Parte Reexamination remain very high in the September NPRM and appear inconsistent with the necessary work to be completed. The examination of these applications will not involve testimony or interaction with a third party so the underlying cost assumptions are not understood. Also, unlike other programs, there is no provision for separate fees for individual services.
Conclusions
Overall, the September NPRM represents an improvement over the February proposals but in general the increased fees compared to current fees, which already represent a 15% surcharge over last year, are deemed to be higher than expected for an initial fee-setting effort.
The fees have been set to accomplish the mandates of the USPTO, establish an Operating Reserve and achieve laudable reductions in patent pendency. It is suggested that both the Operating Reserve and pendency reduction might be reached at a slower pace, allowing a further reduction in the proposed fees. For many reasons, a reduction of pendency is a necessary step, but it is not certain that the goal of 10 months to first office action is absolutely required. The pendency goals must be established to create a backlog of unexamined applications that provides a distribution of the applications across the Patent Examining Corps that ensures the desired “soft landing”.
However, the Office is commended for this first fee-setting endeavor. Throughout the process, the Office has demonstrated excellent transparency, openness to public and PPAC comments and adaptability to changing circumstances. Exceptional efforts have been advanced by the USPTO with exceptional results in meeting the deadlines, with demonstrated flexibility in developing the implementing rules.
These actions are clear evidence of a very well-run Agency, a competent and dedicated staff and an exceptional leader, the Under Secretary of Commerce, Mr. David Kappos. The PPAC strongly endorses the process undertaken in this fee-setting activity and appreciates the commitment to task and cooperation of the USPTO shown to the PPAC and public throughout the process.
While the proposed fees still raise some concerns, the PPAC applauds the efforts and endorses the fees in general with some reservations noted in this report. It is hoped that this report will be helpful to the public in assessing the September NPRM and to the USPTO in finalizing the fees.
Background
In 2012, in accordance with the newly delegated authority to set fees via Section 10 of the America Invents Act (AIA), The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) notified the PPAC of the Office’s intent to set or adjust patent fees and submitted a preliminary patent fee proposal with supporting materials on February 7, 2012 (February 2012 Proposal). As a part of our statutory obligations to gather public reaction and comments on the proposed fees, the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) held two public hearings, one on February 15, 2012 at the USPTO in Alexandria and a second on February 23, 2012 in Sunnyvale, California.
Subsequent to the fee setting hearings and in preparation of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register, the PPAC provided verbal feedback to the USPTO regarding comments on the proposed fees and suggestions for potential changes to the fees. The USPTO considered these comments in its revised NPRM for Setting or Adjusting Patent Fees (September 2012 NPRM). Also as a part of our statutory obligations, the PPAC must make a written report available to the public of the comments, advice, and recommendations of the committee regarding the proposed fees before the Office issues any final fees. The Office will consider and analyze any comments, advice, or recommendations received from the PPAC before finally setting or adjusting fees.
As has been a consistent feature since Director Kappos took the helm of the USPTO, working with the USPTO in considering the new proposed fees has been a very positive experience. All employees at the USPTO have been extremely helpful, timely and forth-coming with any and all information needed to complete the task. They demonstrated a sincere effort to assist the PPAC and provide a transparent view of their analysis and the fees they deemed necessary for the funding of the Office and improvement in pendency and reduction of the backlog of unexamined applications.
Public Comments
Written copies of the oral testimony provided at the public hearings are available at http://www.uspto.gov/about/advisory/ppac/fee-setting-comments.jsp#heading-4.
Copies of the written public comments on the February 2012 Proposal submitted to the PPAC via the USPTO may be found at http://www.uspto.gov/about/advisory/ppac/fee-setting-comments.jsp.
PPAC Finance Sub-Committee
The PPAC created a Finance Sub-Committee to take the lead in organizing the hearings, working with USPTO personnel, and preparing an initial draft of the Fee-Setting Report. PPAC Sub-Committees allow the members to efficiently complete the necessary work on the various topics while staying within the allocated amount of time that members may spend on USPTO matters.
Almost all members of the PPAC attended both public hearings. However, the initial evaluation of comments made by the public, communications with the USPTO regarding the February 2012 Proposal, the September 2012 NPRM, and the drafting of this fee-setting report were completed by the finance sub-committee of the PPAC. The members of this sub-committee are Esther Kepplinger, Wayne Sobon, Damon Matteo, and Ben Borson. After considering the testimony given at the two fee-setting hearings and the written comments sent in to the USPTO, the Finance Sub-Committee of the PPAC provided verbal feedback to the USPTO regarding comments on the proposed fees and suggestions for potential changes to the fees. These comments and feedback were provided to the USPTO on April 11, 2012. Subsequent to receiving the comments from the public during the public hearings, and to receiving the initial feedback of the PPAC Finance Sub-Committee, the USPTO has revised its initial fee proposals in a number of respects. The following report of the PPAC, initially drafted by the Sub-Committee and provided by the full PPAC, will describe the feedback given to the USPTO regarding the February 2012 Proposal, and with respect to the September 2012 NPRM, where we approve of changes that have been made to the fee schedule, and where we believe further work remains to be done.
General Considerations and Approaches
Understanding the finances of the USPTO, the new and important procedures and obligations provided for by the AIA, and the costs associated with improving the USPTO’s outdated and dangerously fragile IT systems, the PPAC endorses an increase in the fees above the level set by the 15% surcharge. The current levels of receipts are insufficient to allow the Office to make critical infrastructure improvements or improve operations and provide the service patent applicants deserve. Importantly, the Office and PPAC recognize and highlight that the AIA requires the USPTO to set all of its fees, in the aggregate, to recover its overall projected costs of operation.
The crucial questions are not necessarily whether fee increases in many respects are necessary, but exactly which ones, for how much and for which reasons.
Behavioral Incentives
Within the ambit of overall aggregate revenue recovery, the AIA allows the USPTO to set individual fees at levels to encourage or discourage behaviors by applicants. As a policy matter, the PPAC advised that while some use of fees to encourage or discourage behavior may be appropriate, significant use of this ability to set fees at very high levels to discourage actions is not recommended because it is not clear that the USPTO will always take into consideration the factors driving applicants to certain behaviors, which may be at cross-purposes with particular desires of the USPTO. For example, court decisions push applicants to take certain actions, such as submitting larger numbers of claims of varying scope or filing follow-on applications as continuations or divisionals to cover all possible subject matter to which they may be entitled.
Yet, the Office should remain mindful of the predictable effects of any particular fee, both on applicant behavior and on the Office, its staff and examiners. Any particular fee structure, especially if it departs from strict cost recovery, can engender either beneficial or perverse incentives to all actors within our patent system. While the Office notes in various points their concerns about applicant behavior, they have not focused enough concern (in so far as both public comment and PPAC considered reflection find) on behaviors by the Office overall.
Despite best intentions and the high professionalism of both applicants and examiners and other USPTO staff, improperly devised incentives (and the accompanying procedures, rules and regulations) can engender perverse outcomes that wise regulators would seek to avoid. We will note several areas where both rules and incentives seem to be conspiring to produce exactly those sorts of outcomes and areas, especially in some of the new procedures (e.g., contested cases) as well as old (e.g., RCE applications). An important part of new fee setting approach of the AIA is to ensure (just as in other rate setting for other regulated entities) that ratepayers (that is, applicants) aren’t directly saddled with internal operational inefficiencies, providing no incentive to the Office for improvements. PPAC encourages the USPTO to scrutinize carefully not only its recommended new set of fees, but also its companion proposed AIA-implementing rules to ensure that the proper incentives are provided for all stakeholders in the US patent system, and to help derive the maximum benefit and the minimum harm from the promise of the AIA.
Fee Setting Assumptions of Elasticity
The USPTO’s proposed fees considered estimates of the applicants’ responses to the fees. In particular, economic analysis of “price elasticity” was prepared and presented to the PPAC and the public as a part of the February 2012 Proposal. The Office’s analysis indicated that there would be some reduction in requested services if fees were increased. The PPAC heard testimony that for certain applicants, including large corporations, the amount of funds available to participate in the patent system were limited, namely, that with fixed patent budgets, any increase in fees would likely lead to some reduction in the demand for patent rights.
The PPAC received input from start-up and small entities that indicated that they too are subject to budgetary constraints and that increased fees are likely to result in decreased numbers of patent application filings.
The PPAC believes that if applicants decrease participation in the patent system, there is likely to be less return to the USPTO in the form of filing, examination, issue, and maintenance fees. Therefore, the PPAC suggests that the anticipated income to the Office may be less than expected.
The PPAC also reviewed the experience of the Office with the “Track 1” process, whereby for an additional fee, a new patent application could be moved to the “head of the line” for examination. Initially, the Office believed that this process would be very popular with Applicants and therefore set a ceiling of 10,000 such cases in the initial program. The experience to date is that the Track 1 program was not as popular as originally believed, and in 2011, the Office included RCEs in the Track 1 program. With the payment of an additional fee, an Applicant could have an RCE moved to the “head of the line” for more rapid examination. Even with the addition of RCEs to Track 1, fewer than about half of the hoped-for 10,000 cases during FY 2012 have been filed using Track 1. Anecdotally, this reduced usage stems from what some patent applicants perceive as too high a cost for the program.
Thus, the PPAC believes that the elasticity assumptions made by the Office may have been overly optimistic, and with the proposed increases in fees, the actual funds to be recovered may be significantly less than anticipated. Participation in the new programs provided by the USPTO in implementing the AIA will also be driven, at least in part, by cost. Thus, the results experienced by the Office for Track 1 seem relevant to the new programs of the AIA.
Finance Sub-Committee Feedback
This section highlights the positions of the PPAC to the February 2012 Proposals and reflects the feedback delivered to the USPTO regarding that proposal.
Key Initial Sub-Committee Suggestions (between February 2012 Proposal and August 2012 NPRM):
Basic Examination Fees
First, the Finance Sub-Committee noted that the public was especially concerned about the overall rise in fees for existing examination services, that it was too steep as an initial step in fee-setting, particularly on the heels of an across the board 15% surcharge instituted by the AIA legislation.
As proposed, the fees were set at levels to provide significant new revenue to achieve stated (aggressive) pendency goals by certain dates, and to generate an operating reserve of money adequate for operations of the Office for about 3 months, that is, $756 million (by FY2015). The Finance Sub-Committee suggested that the timeframes set for achieving both of these was too short and that setting the fees lower to provide a slower growth of the operating reserve and slightly longer period to reach the stated pendency goals was preferable. The Sub-Committee noted that our sense of the applicant and public community was that a more gradual approach better balanced the needs of the office and the potential shock of a new fee system.
We generally approved of the way the USPTO was seeking to manage the balance between the front-end (filing, search, and examination) fees and the back-end (issue and maintenance) fees. We recommended that this general balance be maintained as a good set of incentives (departing from strict specific cost recovery) that encourages participation in the patent system. Even still, we suggested that the increases to the front-end fees were still too steep (recognizing that the overall set of initial fees: File/Search/Examine and then Issue/Publication was set lower than the current post-surcharge fees). We also raised concerns that the elasticity calculation utilized to estimate demand for maintaining patent rights may underestimate the decrease in demand for this service, particularly for the 3rd stage maintenance fee (i.e., that the jump from $4,730 to $7,600 was simply so large that the Office thereby might be putting at risk a significant amount of revenue from issued patents, on which so much of the rest of the fee structure depends). A suggestion was also made that a pay-as-you-go approach might be beneficial for applicants, allowing them to pay the initial filing fee and later depending on interest in the invention, decide whether or not to pay the search and/or examination fees.
RCE Fees
As proposed, the fee for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application was increased significantly (from $930 to $1,700). It was suggested that this fee should not be raised as proposed, because many applicants find it necessary to utilize an RCE in order to achieve an allowance of the invention. The PPAC encouraged additional programs and work by the USPTO to reduce the need for RCEs. The PPAC also noted (as explained further below) the problematic incentives that this significant increase might place on the Office and its staff.
Claims, Oaths and Notices of Appeal
Feedback to the USPTO also included concerns that the significant increase for excess claims fees was too high (that there was no good evidence that each additional claim costs that much more in examiner time), and the new fee for a late submission of the oath or declaration was inappropriate. Similarly, advice was given that the proposed increase for a Notice of Appeal was too large, particularly since it is often used as an extension of time and in many situations, no subsequent appeal is actually pursued by applicant, and further, that it might be better to break up into another pay-as-you-go approach, with separate fees for the Notice of Appeal and the Appeal Brief. Moreover, the fee for forwarding a brief to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was deemed in excess of what seems reasonable given that this costs the Office very little to accomplish.
The Sub-Committee did note that the increases for extensions of time made sense as an area of pure incentive: delays in filing responses were nearly entirely in the control of patentees, delays in prosecution not only lead to increased work for the USPTO (as examiners have to pick up long-dormant cases to review the latest response), but also cut against overall pendency goals. One area where we noted this does not apply is in after-final practice, where applicants may be put to the excruciating wait for a response from an examiner, but then if unsuccessful, require paying significantly increased extensions of time before re-filing the case, or a notice of appeal.
Contested Cases
Regarding the new Contested Cases fees (for Post-Grant Review (PGR), Inter Partes Review (IPR), as well as Ex Parte Review , and Covered Business Method review (CBM)), the PPAC Sub-Committee noted several things. First, we noted that a number of the public comments had focused significant concern about how high the fees were. We noted that it was difficult to untangle (as in most of the fee issues) the relationship between fee and Rule
We expressed concern that the structure of the fee calculation for PGR, IPR and CBM imposed significant costs at arbitrary points based on the number of claims at issue. We expressed doubt that such proposed fees really bore any relation to actual cost recovery, and that such rapidly escalating fees might engender perverse behaviors by patent-holders---filing an unnecessary number of additional claims in applications simply to make the cost of review prohibitively expensive. We suggested a more incremental approach, perhaps based on either the number of grounds in the request (i.e., 102, 103, 112) or the types of grounds (for example, reviews under section 102/103 seem ostensibly easier and less expensive than under 112 or 101 grounds, or, costlier still, under prior public use), or simply institute a per-claim system without arbitrary cliffs.
We also suggested that these fees be broken at least into two pieces, first upon petition and second upon institution of the procedure by the USPTO.
We also noted that it is difficult to separate the filing costs for these contested cases with the estimated prosecution costs for the participants (both challenger and patent-holder). Many have estimated these cases could cost as much as $250k to $500k or more to prosecute to conclusion. We noted this pointed in two directions. First, we generally agreed that the filing costs should bear some strong relation to the actual costs of the office. If the USPTO charged too little for these challenges, it would provide improper incentives for challengers to file frivolous petitions, attempting to keep legitimate patent-holders “penned down” in the patent office. There are even those who fret about the potential of a whole new cottage industry of patent challengers (some have called them “inverse trolls”) who might challenge patents hoping to settle quickly with patentees for below their costs of defense.
But if the Office sets the fees too high, the USPTO may have the perverse incentives of both granting and maintaining too many contested cases of little or no objective basis, given the significant fees the office might receive.
A number of esteemed commentators and the general public have directed concerns at the proposed rules for these new Contested Cases (including representatives of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and the American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law section (ABA-IPL)), who have all separately and jointly argued for greater certainty in the discovery rules and more set discovery for the parties, to avoid predictable and extremely costly discovery battles.
Supplemental Examination
Similar to Contested Cases, it was noted that the proposed fees for new Supplemental Examinations seemed to bear no rational relationship to expected costs. We objected to the Office basing historic calculations on all types of ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) rather than simply patentee-initiated EPRs, since those were most like what Supplemental Examination would be. Third-party initiated EPRs would be expected to have a larger number of more complicated issues than the former. Further, the structure of the proposed fees (e.g., steep cliffs at 21+ claims) made little sense, even in some sense getting it backwards, since usually there are significant economies of scale from handling larger numbers of claims (which are often simply dependent claims all within the same inventive concept). Both the sorts of ways that various USPTO officials spoke about Supplemental Examination, and the initial fee proposal, seemed to carry more than a whiff of approbation against the procedure, with assumptions it would only be used by those who may have committed quasi-egregious misconduct. However, much of the public and the members of the PPAC sub-committee suggested that its purpose and promise was to provide a ready way to ensure that patents (especially those about to be enforced) were as strong as possible and to avoid the oft-bemoaned “plague” of inequitable conduct charges that impeded enforcement of patents of high quality.
We recommended changing Supplemental Examination fees to a lower base cost with additional per-claim fees model.
USPTO Notice of Proposed Rule Making re Fees
In the following section, the PPAC offers its evaluation of the September 2012 NPRM.
Upon consideration of the comments from the public and the Finance Sub-Committee, the USPTO has made revisions to the proposed fees as noted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 6, 2012. As is clear from the revisions to the proposed fees outlined in the NPRM, the USPTO listened to the various comments and concerns raised and consequently reduced or revised a number of the proposed fees. The PPAC commends the USPTO for demonstrating willingness to change and compromise in the application of their new fee-setting authority. This behavior is the hallmark of a well-run, responsive government Agency. While the level of some fees has been reduced, the overall increase in fees is still significant, especially since it follows the recent 15% surcharge. There are some concerns that the increased fees will strain already limited patenting budgets and have more impact on filing and payment of maintenance fees than projected. While generating adequate funds for a first-class patent office is essential, it must be balanced with the public policy of ensuring access to intellectual property coverage.
Operating Reserve
The PPAC agrees with the USPTO that the creation of an operating reserve is a sound business practice to allow for continuity of service and the ability to complete long-term plans more effectively and efficiently. The USPTO proposes to increase the time needed to fully generate an operating reserve at a level of funds that would permit running the USPTO for about three months. Specifically, the NPRM proposal would set fees that would eventually (with current projections) fund an operating reserve at $757 million by fiscal 2017 rather than by 2015 as originally proposed. The PPAC agrees that a more gradual accumulation of the operating reserve, by distributing the cost over more years and consequently more applicants, is an improved plan since that places the burden on a larger number of applications. While the PPAC generally agrees with an operating reserve of three months, this size of an operating reserve ($757 M) is still of some concern to the PPAC as access to spend all generated funds, as part of annual appropriations processes, is not assured under the AIA. But also more gradually building up the operating reserve allows for a greater amount time to test that Congress continues to uphold its side of the bargain, providing durable support of the Office and its ability to fully access all user fees.
Pendency Goals
A reasonable amount of time for an applicant to wait for a first office action and to receive a patent is an essential feature of a first-class patent office, while the invention remains relevant and meaningful in the marketplace. Consequently, the USPTO needs to reduce its current pendency times (both to first office action and total pendency). The USPTO had proposed to reduce first action pendency to ten (10) months by 2014 and the total pendency to twenty (20) months by 2015. For one or more reasons, including a later than expected implementation of the 15% surcharge, the USPTO has now reconsidered these goals and lowered a number of fees, setting 2015 for reaching 10 months pendency to first office action, and 2016 reaching a total pendency of 20 months. The PPAC supports reducing pendency and while the proposed levels are laudable, there is nothing magical about the proposed pendency times. The USPTO will remain successful even with slightly higher pendencies, and the PPAC believes this is a fruitful area for public comment and testimony directed to the PPAC and/or the Office to assist the Office in goal-setting. The important aspect is to ensure that the inventory level across the Patent Examining Corps provides a “soft landing”: achieving desired pendency while accommodating potential fluctuations of application filing, retention of examiners and changes in RCE filings stemming from the programs being instituted by the USPTO.
Furthermore, in discussing pendency timeframes, it is worth noting that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) retained a particular feature of US patent law relating to prior art. Importantly, a patent publication in the United States or a foreign country is still considered to be prior art as of its effective filing date for both novelty and obviousness purposes. Generally, patent applications are published by about 18 months after the effective filing date (of the application or an earlier-filed priority application, such as a Provisional application). Under the stated goal of first Office Action on the merits by 10 months, and allowance by 20 months, there may be prior art that is unknown to both the Applicant and the USPTO. The Sub-Committee believes that there may be applications that receive first Office Actions on the merits for which the full panoply of prior art is, at the time of examination, unavailable. In such cases, if there is a publication of prior art that occurs after the filing date of an application under examination, it is likely that a first Office Action on the merits may be incomplete.
In the absence of knowledge of a piece of effective prior art, a first Office Action on the merits may allow claims that would be later found unpatentable based on subsequently published prior art having an earlier effective filing date. In such situations, the Office may revisit the examination process, and incur greater costs than those associated with a full examination at the beginning of the process (Compact Prosecution).
Even if the Office does not re-open prosecution based on the newly published prior art, with the new Post Grant Opposition proceeding under the AIA, such later-published prior art would be available to opponents prior to the end of the 9-month opposition deadline. An opponent, upon finding a recently published piece of prior art, may be in an advantageous position to challenge a newly issued patent, upset the expectation of the patentee that such a newly issued patent would be presumed valid, and increase costs for both Patentee and the Office.
These situations may increase the uncertainty of the patenting process, and may undermine the expected revenues to the USPTO.
Specific Fees in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
Filing, Search, Examination, Issue, Publication and Maintenance Fees
The current combined filing, search and examination fees (post surcharge) are $1,250. The February 2012 Proposal fees were $1,840 and the September 2012 NPRM proposes $1,600 for these services. This is a better approach. The balance of fees distributed between the front end and back end still are preserved so that the levels encourage applicants to enter the patent system and file patent applications. While the filing, search and examination fees as proposed by the NPRM represent an increase of 28% compared to the current equivalent fees, because the issue fee and publication fee are proposed to be a lower amount in total to paid by successful patent applicants, the total fees in the NPRM for filing, search, examination, publication and issue are lower than those currently in place, even though the initial filing search and examination fees are raised above the current level.
Lowering the issue fee and publication fee is reasonable. However, PPAC notes shifting fees earlier in the examination process can (at the margin) discourage some otherwise meritorious patent filings. But our assessment is that since overall costs through issuance are lower, the proposed system is sensible.
The maintenance fees set forth in the NPRM are reasonable since by this point in the process, patentees should have a better sense of the value of their Intellectual Property (IP), although the PPAC still questions the increase proposed for the third stage maintenance fee. Given the percentage of patentees who currently pay for this stage, the concern is that revenues will decrease more than projected when fewer patentees elect 3rd stage maintenance. As the USPTO has noted, the AIA Fee Setting authority does not contemplate a once-and-done approach, but careful (at least yearly) review of fees and the observed behaviors of both applicants and Office personnel in response to the fees. PPAC encourages such continual review, especially with respect to things like responses to the 3rd Maintenance Fee and potential future course-corrections.
RCEs
RCEs are, for better or worse, often a necessary part of examination for a significant number of patent applications for a variety of reasons. From the applicant side, an application may involve complicated subject matter, submission of new evidence to rebut a rejection, the filing of newly received prior art, or a failure of applicants to limit the claims quickly enough or completely comprehend the aspects of the rejections. On the examiner’s side, a failure to do a full and complete search on all reasonable issues for the first office action, and thereby a lack of compact prosecution, and/or making essentially improper final rejections with newly cited prior art can force applicants to either appeal or refile the case as an RCE. As a consequence, applicants rely on RCEs to continue the prosecution and eventually (and justly) receive a patent on their invention. RCEs are mostly filed by applicants genuinely attempting to move prosecution forward and get a patent and not generally, it is believed, simply to delay the prosecution (applicants have the ability to file further continuation applications to proceed with other claim sets or to keep a particular patent family in prosecution in any case). RCEs are a source of frustration for both the Office and the applicants, with both parties contributing to the problem. However, from both casual conversation and also in public statements, the USPTO seems to place the blame for the rapid growth in RCE applications solely and squarely on applicants. The change several years ago to move RCEs to the special new case docket (rather than an examiner’s amended docket) causes (as one would expect) significant delays in acting on RCEs. That the Office has proposed significant increases in the RCE fees adds salt to an existing wound: applicants must pay more for what most perceive as a reduction in service. Thus, the proposed increase in fees for RCEs was not well received by the public.
Given the fact that RCE pendency does not show up in the primary measurement of USPTO “Traditional Pendency”1, and that the Office gets paid additional money when it requires applicants to refile the same case one, two or more times as an RCE, it should come as no surprise that the burden of RCE filings has increased. In fact, increases in RCE backlog have nearly matched any decreases in the unexamined application backlog2. Again, there are incentives on both sides to file RCE (applicants continue to need to achieve allowance) examiners get further (albeit reduced) counts for RCE prosecution, and the pendency of RCEs is not included in the Traditional Pendency numbers. It is against this backdrop that any proposed increase in RCE fees must be weighed. While the USPTO may be correct that the proposed fees enable the Office to recoup estimated processing costs (estimated at $1,696 for FY 2010), from the applicant’s point of view, that is work that may be avoidable with more compact prosecution and a number of process adjustments. Furthermore, it should be noted that an RCE is filed as an amendment, so patent term adjustment (PTA) begins accruing at four months from filing. The increasing backlog of RCEs and their increasing pendency, only generates further PTA for a larger number of applicants. From a public policy standpoint, this increased effective term of a larger number of issued patents may not be a good thing and may not serve the overall patent system.
1To be sure, the USPTO has added a separate "Traditional Total Pendency Including RCEs", now standing at about 40 months, but the main number used to judge the Office and its progress towards reducing pendency is "Traditional Total Pendency". The submission of an RCE and abandonment of the earlier case terminates the "pendency" for the measurement of Traditional Pendency for that application. Subsequent time required for the examination of that or any additional RCE is not captured in the reported Traditional Pendency. Given the significant number of RCEs filed, this amounts to substantial unreported pendency in the Traditional Pendency numbers. The reported time for "Traditional Pendency Including RCEs" will continue to increase because there are a growing number of backlogged RCEs and applications do not become part of pendency numbers until work is completed on any particular application.
2The Unexamined Patent Application Backlog has decreased from about 740,000 cases in June 2010 to below 640,000 case in June 2012; the RCE backlog has increased over the same time from 35,000 cases to 90,000 cases. The Appeal backlog has increased by over 10,000 cases as well over the same time. Source: USPTO, June PPAC Hearing presentations.
PPAC commends the USPTO for the newly established pilot programs to address RCEs by providing time for the consideration of amendments after final and a program for the consideration of new references (after payment of the issue fee) that were not known by the applicants. These programs are a laudable effort by the USPTO to help reduce the need for RCEs. However, the PPAC recommends that more is needed to address this issue. Specifically, these programs provide some relief once a final rejection or allowance has occurred but additional efforts can be made to ensure that improper final rejections do not occur.
Also, it is suggested that the USPTO establish a mechanism for easier resolution of improper rejections. For example, actual participation by applicant in the pre-appeal brief conference might help reduce both the RCEs and the appeals to the BPAI. To be sure, in many instances, the rejections set forth are proper and well-articulated with applicants not fully comprehending the scope of the claims or the exact Office position. However, in many other instances the examiners seem not to grasp the point(s) of a particular invention, do incorrect or inadequate searching, accordingly providing only bare-bones first office action rejections, and then suddenly force cases to final when applicants respond. Having the option of a third party independent evaluation of the rejection and arguments along with applicant participation in a meeting can in many cases resolve the issue by identifying allowable subject matter or indicating that an appeal really is needed.
Furthermore, many of these problems might be avoided by providing better ways for applicants to meet with examiners before the search, to explain their invention and help provide a guide to their application. Examiners can then request section 112 modifications to claims to better focus their inquiry. The entire system would benefit from more open and early communication between applicant and examiner. Recent upgrades and web and/or video conferencing can help make such early orientation meetings straightforward and easy to accomplish.
In response to the comments received, the NPRM proposes reducing the fee for an RCE from the February 2012 Proposal of $1,700 to $1,200 (still a 29% increase over current post-surcharge fees) and retaining the proposed fee of $1,700 for second and subsequent RCEs (an 83% increase and greater than the proposed $1600 fee for filing, searching and examining a completely new application). The USPTO acknowledges that the cost of completing an RCE is less than that required for an original utility application. Thus, the increased costs to applicant being proposed to treat an RCE (and particularly a second and subsequent RCE) compared to the fees proposed for a utility or continuation application seems illogical. Viewed in this light, some might even deem the higher proposed fees for RCEs punitive (as noted in several of the submitted public comments) because the proposed fees would charge higher fees for less work for an RCE compared to a straight continuation application. It should also be noted that the change imposed by the USPTO of moving RCEs from the amended docket to the special new case docket has not reduced the filing of RCEs. It is believed that if an applicant needs to file an RCE, they will do so, even if the fees are raised. Thus, raising the fees on RCEs may have little or no effect on their filing (or even increase them), but such a step will likely antagonize applicants, as has already been noted in the public comments provided to the USPTO. The PPAC recommends that a small increase in the fee for an RCE might be appropriate but it should align more closely to the associated required work, and certainly be less than the fees for new or continuation applications. The higher fee for second and subsequent RCEs should be eliminated because these become easier and cheaper to examine and any number of continuations may be filed at the same cost per continuation. Rather than punishing applicants for pursuing their inventions by filing an RCE, it is suggested that the USPTO continue to find ways to reduce applicants’ need for the RCEs in the first place.
Prioritized Examination
The NPRM proposes to reduce the cost for a Track 1 application from $4,800 to $4,000. This is an encouraging step. Some applicants have deemed the cost too steep, but it is recognized that some level of fee is necessary to ensure that not all applications enter this program. However, at the same time, during FY 2012 the Office has not received even close to the 10,000 application-per-year limit, so the pricing of this Track 1 may still be too high. The Office might look at bringing the cost down a bit further to find what the optimal pricing might be (this fee is almost entirely incentive--although it seems that more Office personnel engage at each action of the Track 1 application, perhaps increasing costs). Anecdotally, the program offers benefits to applicant as the Examiner and supervisor have been demonstrating an even higher level of cooperation and pro-active behavior to help identify allowable subject matter in the application filed as Track 1 cases. The speedy resolution combined with a willingness of Office personnel to discuss and suggest options make this a winning program.
Excess Claims Fees
The NPRM proposes to slightly reduce the originally proposed increases for excess claims fees. However, the proposed increases are still quite significant, as the independent claims in excess of 3 would increase by 68% from $250 to $420 per claim. Similarly, the total claims in excess of 20 would increase 33% from $60 per claim to $80. This increase seems excessive, especially in light of the fact that applicants cannot take advantage of multiple dependent claims in the manner available in other patent offices. In the typical application, the claim sets are more or less variations on themes claiming the invention from several angles. A thorough first search by the examiner for the overall inventive concept would not require a significant further amount of work for the additional claims (and if the claims are to distinct inventions, examiners have shown little hesitance to issue restriction requirements). Moreover, as noted earlier, applicants are pushed by court decisions to include more claims of varying scope, but then face substantial fees at the USPTO to file those required claims. The PPAC recommends that the final fees should be further reduced from the proposals for excess claims.
Appeal Fees
The February 2012 Proposal fees provided changing the existing fees of $620 for a Notice of Appeal and $620 for submitting a brief to $1,500 for a Notice of Appeal, no charge for the submission of a brief but $2,500 for forwarding the brief to the PTAB. In the September 2012 NPRM, the proposal reduces these fees to $1,000 and $2,000. It is understood that eliminating the fee for the submission of a brief is to avoid refunding the fee should the examiner reopen prosecution or allow the application, thus obviating the need for going to the PTAB at that point. This is a positive step forward, however, the fees for these services still seem quite high. There is a concern that the fees are being proposed, at least in part, to discourage filing an appeal or filing an RCE. However, applicants must choose one of those lines of action for resolution of cases. In some instances there has been excellent examination and the issue is a difference of opinion. However, in many instances, the applicant is driven to appeal or filing of an RCE due to significant problems with the examination. These fee proposals raise the costs for applicants, regardless of which path happens. It is also noted that a Notice of Appeal is frequently utilized as an extension of time and it is understood that the Office set the fee at this level recognizing this usage, but in some instances applicants are forced to pay extensions of time and/or file a Notice of Appeal stemming from slow Office treatment of an After-Final submission. However, there would now be a stark difference between a two month extension of time of $600 and the $1,000 proposed for the Notice of Appeal. These appeal fees might be acceptable if the Office provided a better mechanism for an Office third party resolution of legitimate problems in the examination of applications (during pre-appeal conferences, Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) review, a more robus ombudsman or SPE review of cases). Currently, the pre-appeal brief conference does not involve the applicant and is generally regarded as of limited value. Appeal conferences are required when an appeal brief is submitted, but again no participation by the applicant is permitted. Consequently, the PPAC recommends a program to permit real-time applicant participation in these processes (and conducting them earlier) since we believe this will reduce appeals and RCEs. PPAC also recommends lowering the initial Notice of Appeal fee back to around its current post-surcharge amount of $620 (for example $750), and if the case is not reopened or allowed by the examiner, then charging the increased amount for forwarding the brief to the Board and thereby funding the formal appeal.
Oath/Declaration Fees
While the originally proposed fees included a $3,000 fee for filing an oath or declaration up to the notice of allowance, this new fee was eliminated from the NPRM. The PPAC applauds the USPTO for working with the patent community to resolve the issues, harmonize practice with other patent offices, and permit filing of applications by assignee. This willingness to compromise and identify solutions is a very positive action by the USPTO.
Correction of Inventorship
A new fee of $1,700 was proposed for the correction of inventorship after a first action is completed by the USPTO. The NPRM proposes reducing this fee to $1,000, and acknowledges that this fee is not set itself to recover actual costs. However, inventorship depends upon the claims examined and, eventually, those issued; during the examination process claims change due to restriction requirements and/or amendments. A fee for changing the inventorship stemming from a restriction requirement or amendments to the claims does not seem appropriate. Further, what matters to the Office is any enlargement of inventorship, which might require a further search, not a reduction of inventorship as claims get more limited either from amendment or restriction. This rule should be tightened to only pertain to correction of inventorship which adds an inventor after the first office action. This still seems rather high.
Supplemental Examination
The February 2012 Proposal for Supplemental Examination fees were $7,000 for filing the Request and $20,000 for proceeding to reexamination, once the Office determined there was a substantial new question of patentability. As noted, PPAC (and members of the public) challenged the assumptions underlying these costs, especially since the Office indicated it based its estimates on historic costs for reviewing and prosecuting all ex parte reexaminations (not just patentee-initiated reexams). PPAC also noted that the structure of the implementing rule for Supplemental Examination, allowing only a maximum of 10 items of information to be reviewed, together with the steep costs of each examination, did not make rational sense. PPAC proposed a more graduated approach---a filing fee per reviewed patent, with additional fees for each additional reference.
The USPTO in its NPRM, has sharply reduced the fees for Request (from $7,000 to $4,400) and for reexamination (from $20,000 to $13,600), and has increased the number of allowed references from 10 to 12. But all of these fees still seem very high, given that the Office estimates that the total unit cost of an original examination of a patent is only $3,569 (FY 2011). For the most part, Supplemental Examination will be used akin to reviews of IDSs after-final (that at least is how many in the applicant community view this option if it is going to be useful to patentees). PPAC recommends that these fees be brought down in line with original examination, that the Office publish its estimates of historic costs for patentee-initiated reexaminations as a comparable, and at the very least, allow in the implementing Rule that a patentee be permitted one Supplemental Examination filing per issued patent regardless of the number of references submitted with an additional per reference fee for each reference submitted above some number, such as 12. An entire new filing should not be required for a patentee to submit more than 12 references.
Contested Cases
In light of PPAC and public comments that the initial proposed fees for the contested cases were too high, the USPTO reduced each set of fees roughly by 15%, and also added (in some instances) “staging” of fees depending on what actions are taken. How the final implementing Rules get deployed bears a great deal on whether accompanying fees are reasonable and overall, how both applicants and the Office will respond to these regulatory and financial incentives.
Ex Parte Reexamination
The Office drastically increased the fees for all EPRs from the present post-surcharge fee of $2,520 to $17,750 in the initial fee proposal and which the Office has now reduced in the NPRM by 15% to $15,000. The Office has provided historic cost data3 to support this significant increase. The proposed increase is troubling from a number of respects. First, given that prior to AIA USPTO fees were set by Congress, upon informed request by the USPTO (subject to yearly cost-of-living adjustments), why was this significant discrepancy between fee and cost not seen earlier? Second, why are these reexaminations (which can only be based on patents and publications, involve no testimony and no interaction with third parties other than the patentee) costing so much? The Office’s cost estimates, even for simply reviewing the petition, are $1,800 (higher than the proposed fee for the entire initial examination), and then processing a refused request at around $4,000. Historic costs for examination of the newly cited references are estimated at $13,430. These costs seem very high and PPAC suggests there should be ways to streamline review, provide for quicker and more straightforward decision making and bring these internal costs down. Third, just as in other areas of petition and then institution, the Office should break this fee into two pieces: petition and then examination. If the Office is concerned about collecting the fee once a petition is granted, simply (a) take credit card forms of payment, (b) sequester certain funds in the petitioner’s deposit account, (c) as proposed for IPR, take both fees but provide a (much more) streamlined path for refund or (d) find some other way of securing future payment. The PPAC encourages the Office to construct a much more streamlined and state-of-the-art system for a pay-as-you-go approach to many of these fees.
3See http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/cost_calc_supplemental_exam.pdf.
Inter Partes Review
The existing Inter Partes Reexamination fee is $8,800. The initial proposed fee for the new IPR contested proceedings was a flat fee of $27,200, for a maximum of 20 claims. In light of comments by PPAC and by the public, the USPTO in its NPRM has changed these fees and made a more graduated system. There is now an IPR Request fee of $9,000 (with $200 for each challenged claim greater than 20) and an IPR Institution fee of $14,000 (plus $400 for each claim subject to the instituted case greater than 15), for a $23,000 total plus $200 for first 15 claims and $600 per each claim above 15 in the final case.
PPAC recognizes that the Office has done two important things: (a) bring down the overall costs of IPRs and (b) break the fees into separate chunks, depending on whether the petition is granted or not. Given that IPRs involve contests between parties, it would be expected that the actual historic costs for these sorts of actions would be significantly higher than basic examination, or ex parte reexamination. Some of the public comments have raised concerns about how high these proposed fees are, for both IPR and PGR actions, arguing that high entrance fees will dampen use of these tools for policing improperly granted patents and blunt the effect of AIA on overall patent quality. PPAC believes that these concerns are misplaced. PPAC generally approves the current fee structure for IPR, as striking the right balance between cost recovery and incentive for use.
First, the initial Request and Institution fees are just the beginning of the costs of these contested cases. As noted above, experts and commentators estimate that prosecution of contested cases (including attorney fees, discovery costs and other related expenses) will range from $250K to $500K and above, per case. If a requestor cannot afford or is dissuaded from filing the initial fees (only 5 to 10% of the total estimated costs of a case) they should not be filing a contested case. They can file an EPR (but see our comments above on those costs which we do believe are too high). And in any case, the point of these proceedings is to provide a cheaper, quicker approach to settling validity issues than full-scale declaratory judgment actions in Federal court.
Second, there are real dangers of providing perverse incentives, both for requestors as well as the Office in setting IPR and PGR fees too high or low compared with actual costs. For the requestor, too low would incentivize a rash of frivolous attacks on patents. Already, concerns have been raised about engendering a new cottage industry of patent-attackers (“inverse trolls”, see above). And for the Office, too high above historic costs would incentivize the Office to grant too many Requests of low probable value, again given the “profitability” of the work.
PPAC is pleased that the Office broke the fee into two main parts. PPAC would encourage, though, the institution of other methods of payment (a true pay-as-you-go approach) along the lines discussed above for EPR. PPAC is also pleased that the Office has provided a base fee and additional per-claim fees to eliminate some of the strange and illogical effects of the original fee proposal. PPAC notes that since the Office has been able to do that in the context of IPR and PGR, it should be able to do the same with respect to Supplemental Examination4.
4As an example, in the prior proposal, an IPR with 40 challenged claims would cost $40,800 flat rate, whether the request was successful to institute proceedings or not. In the new proposal, for the same IPR request, it would cost $23,000 base fee plus $14,000 in excess claim fees ($200 x 20 + $400 x 25) , or $35,000 total.
The PPAC still raises concerns about the final proposed rules for governing these contested cases. Despite well-reasoned and passionate calls by all the major intellectual property organizations in America, the Office has resisted calls for (in particular) more structured and automatic discovery in these proceedings. This will be the single most significant driver of costs for prosecuting these contested cases: for requester, for patentee and for the Office. PPAC strongly recommends that the Office do further work to streamline the structure and conduct of these proceedings. The higher the costs for conducting these proceedings, the greater the disincentive to legitimate challengers, and the greater the incentive to gamesmanship and parasitical attacks on legitimate patent holders.
Post Grant Review/Covered Business Methods
Very similar comments apply to PGR and CBM. The initial proposal was for a flat fee for up to 20 challenged claims of $35,800. The Office, in its NPRM, has broken that fee down and reduced by approximately 15%, to a $12,000 Request fee (with $250 per additional challenged claim above 20) and an institution fee of $18,000 (with $550 per excess claim above 15), or a total of $30,000 per PGR plus $800 per excess claim.
For much the same reasons, PPAC is pleased the Office has both reduced the fee somewhat and broken it down into separate fees, with more logical excess claim charges. These cases are going to be expensive for both challenger and patentee. The Office should recoup its estimated costs for managing these cases, to ensure adequate support and efficient shepherding. Setting these entrance fees too high or too low can cause significantly misplaced incentives either for requestors or the Office or both. At the same time, PPAC reiterates its concerns about the structure of the final rules for the conduct of these contested cases. How complicated those proceedings are and how unstructured the discovery disputes between parties become, has a direct bearing on how successful these new proceedings will be to improving our patent system, or whether they will simply be just another area of dysfunction.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of public comment and PPAC feedback, the USPTO has provided an NPRM proposing revised fees according to Section 10 of the AIA. The PPAC applauds both the process undertaken by the Office in this initial implementation of their new authority and the outcome and fees reflected in the NPRM. The Office seriously considered the public and PPAC comments and reduced the proposed fees. However, as set forth in this report, the PPAC still has concerns about the levels of certain fees.
Areas of Commendation
In response to the comments, the USPTO has reduced the proposed fees in almost all areas, which is a positive step that should be well received.
The creation of programs by the Office to reduce the need for RCEs is laudable. The ability to have more references and/or amendments considered after final rejection will greatly assist applicants and should pay dividends to the Office in reduced RCE filings. A significant step has also been made in creating the program for the consideration of newly discovered references after payment of the issue fee. Given the international focus of many applicants, this program allows the submission of prior art cited by another patent office at this critical point in the U.S. prosecution.
Reducing the fee for Track 1 may increase the usage of this valuable program. This program does seem to provide more concerted efforts by the Office to assist applicants in reaching allowable subject matter.
The elimination of the proposed fee for submission of a late oath or declaration was an exceptionally excellent step in cooperation with practitioners. It helps harmonize the U.S. with other patent offices and simplify filing in the U.S.
Another good change in the NPRM is the elimination of the fee for filing a brief, but rather payment only when the brief is forwarded to the PTAB for the actual appeal. This is more efficient for both applicant and the Office.
Changes to the fee structure for both Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR) are commended for creating graduated fees for numbers of claims, reducing the overall cost of the programs, and creating step-wise fees for services.
Areas For Improvement
Still of concern are the increased fees proposed for RCEs given that the Office proposes higher fees than for a continuation application. Having placed the RCEs on a slower docket has created a quite large backlog, already a source of frustration for applicants. Charging higher fees for less service is not a positive step. It should also be noted that the backlog of RCEs are an “iceberg” of longer pendency (Traditional Pendency Including RCEs) for the future and represent significant potential Patent Term Adjustment (PTA).
While the excess claims fees were reduced, they still seem quite high and it is not clear that the cost for examining these claims justifies the additional cost being charged.
Reducing the cost for a Notice of Appeal was appropriate, but it is still higher than a two-month extension of time. Since applicants are sometimes forced to pay this fee to keep an application alive, efforts to promptly process amendments after final are important.
The proposed rules governing the contested cases seem more complicated than necessary. Despite coordinated suggestions made by representatives of the AIPLA, IPO and ABA, the Office has maintained its approach and not adopted a more structured or automatic discovery protocol. It is hoped that should the process prove unwieldy, the Office will be open to swift modifications.
Supplemental Examination can provide a useful mechanism for permitting a patentee to gain consideration of information after granting of the patent. However, the steep proposed fees and limited number of references to be considered may make this program less useful than hoped.
The drastically increased fees for Ex Parte Reexamination do not appear aligned with the work to be done (consideration of patents and publications, involving no testimony and no interaction with third parties other than the patentee). Also, the failure to provide payment of separate fees for individual services is a disappointment.
Overall, the Office is commended for an excellent first foray into the fee-setting arena. In general, the Office is applauded for being transparent, receptive to suggestions and flexible. The Office performed an incredible job of drafting all rule packages in a timely and exceptionally competent manner. To keep the PPAC and public well informed throughout the process, communications, including an excellent website, significant outreach in the form of Roadshows across the country and public hearings, have been well executed. While the proposed fees reflected in the NPRM are not perfect, they are a compromise and sensible approach to new programs and modifications of existing ones. The PPAC endorses the efforts and the fees in general, with the caveats noted in this report. It is hoped that additional changes may be made following this report and public comments. However, should the final fees prove incorrect or the participation in the patent system does not conform to the assumptions made with the elasticity calculations, the PPAC suggests that the fees be revisited and the PPAC looks forward to working with the USPTO in developing future modifications of the fees.
Statutory Authority of the PPAC
35 U.S.C. §5 – Patent & Trademark Office Public Advisory Committee
(a) Establishment of Public Advisory Committees
(1) Appointment – The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall have a Patent Public Advisory Committee and a Trademark Public Advisory Committee, each of which shall have nine voting members who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce. Members of each Public Advisory Committee shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, and three shall be appointed for a term of 2 years. In making appointments to each Committee, the Secretary of Commerce shall consider the risk of loss of competitive advantage in international commerce or other harm to United States companies as a result of such appointments.
(2) Chair – The Secretary shall designate a chair of each Advisory Committee, whose term as chair shall be for 3 years.
(3) Timing of Appointments – Initial appointments to each Advisory Committee shall be made within 3 months after the effective date of the Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act. Vacancies shall be filled within 3 months after they occur.
(b) Basis for Appointments – Members of each Advisory Committee
(1) shall be citizens of the United States who shall be chosen so as to represent the interests of diverse users of the United States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to patents, in the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and with respect to trademarks, in the case of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee;
(2) shall include members who represent small and large entity applicants located in the United States in proportion to the number of applications filed by such applicants, but in no case shall members who represent small entity patent applications, including small business concerns, independent inventors, and nonprofit organizations, constitute less than 25 percent of the members of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and such members shall include at least one independent inventor; and
(3) shall include individuals with substantial background and achievement in finance, management, labor relations, science, technology, and office automation. In addition to the voting members, each Advisory Committee shall include a representative of each labor organization recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Such representatives shall be nonvoting members of the Advisory Committee to which they are appointed.
(c) Meetings – Each Advisory Committee shall meet at the call of the chair to consider an agenda set by the chair.
(d) Duties – Each Advisory Committee shall
(1) review the policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to patents, in the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and with respect to Trademarks, in the case of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee, and advise the Director on these matters.
(2) within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year
| |
(A) |
prepare an annual report on the matters referred to in paragraph (1); |
| |
(B) |
transmit the report to the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and |
| |
(C) |
publish the report in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. |
(e) Compensation – Each member of each Advisory Committee shall be compensated for each day (including travel time) during which such member is attending meetings or conferences of that Advisory Committee or otherwise engaged in the business of that Advisory Committee, at the rate which is the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5. While away from such member’s home or regular place of business such member shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5.
(f) Access To Information – Members of each Advisory Committee shall be provided access to records and information in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, except for personal or other privileged information and information concerning patent applications required to be kept in confidence by section 122.
(g) Applicability of Certain Ethics Laws – Members of each Advisory Committee shall be special Government employees within the meaning of section 202 of title 18.
(h) Inapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee – The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to each Advisory Committee.
(i) Open Meetings – The meetings of each Advisory Committee shall be open to the public, except that each Advisory Committee may by majority vote meet in executive session when considering personnel, privileged, or other confidential information.
(j) Inapplicability Of Patent Prohibition – Section 4 shall not apply to voting members of the Advisory Committees.
Damon C Matteo, Chairman
 Damon C. Matteo is Vice President & Chief Intellectual Property Officer of the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Mr. Matteo's career spans twenty years in all facets of the strategic creation, management and commercialization of high-value intellectual capital assets – all in an international context. On the creation side, these efforts align research targeting with the creation of intellectual capital assets that secure advantaged technology positions in the marketplace, and realize broader corporate objectives. In optimizing returns from these assets, Mr. Matteo regularly employs new business creation, start-ups, venture/strategic funding, M&A, licensing, assertion as well as direct-to-product vehicles. Aside from their strategic benefits, a number of these transactions were themselves each valued at over US$250 million. In creating and commercializing these innovations, Mr. Matteo operates across industry domains which span: mobile computing, clean-tech (e.g. water & solar), web and e-commerce, computer and consumer electronics, networking (e.g. interoperability and security) and telecom.
In recognition of this professional standing, Mr. Matteo's awards and distinctions include being named one of the "Fifty Most Influential People in Intellectual Property" by both Intellectual Asset Magazine and Managing Intellectual Property Magazine, the National Technology Transfer Excellence Award given by the U.S. Federal Government, NewsLink's "Profile In Excellence" for technology transactions and Senior Distinguished Fellow for the Center For Advanced Technology.
A recognized thought leader dedicated to developing new theory and best-practice in realizing value from intellectual capital assets, Mr. Matteo is also an author, by-line columnist, subject of frequent interviews and sought-after lecturer at graduate universities and professional organizations worldwide. Mr. Matteo also serves as an expert for the US Congress, federal agencies e.g. U.S. Department Of Commerce, U.S. Security & Exchange Commission (SEC), the United Nations, as well as for corporations, universities and at trial.
Mr. Matteo serves as Chairman of the US Patent & Trademark Office's Public Advisory Committee, which operates like a Board Of Directors (overseeing operations, goals, performance, budget, etc…) for the USPTO. Other Board memberships include the European Center For Intellectual Property Studies and Chair of the Silicon Valley Licensing Executive Society.
|
D. Benjamin Borson, M.A., J.D., Ph.D., Acting Chairman
 Dr. Ben Borson is Founder and President of the Borson Law Group, PC in Lafayette, California. He is a patent attorney representing individual inventors and small- and mid-sized companies that create and exploit intellectual property assets. His clients are in the biological arts (biotechnology, chemistry, and pharmaceutical sciences), scientific and medical instrumentation, materials science, semiconductor processing, software, video technology, and mechanical arts. He has 17 years of experience as a practitioner, and focuses on patent preparation, prosecution, opinions and licensing. Additionally, he assists clients in trademark, copyright, and scientific counseling.
Dr. Borson is an active lecturer and author in intellectual property law, and prepared and prosecuted over 100 issued patents. He is Adjunct Professor of Law at Golden Gate University, where he teaches patent law and biotechnology law in the J.D. program. Dr. Borson is a member of the AIPLA patent, USPTO, and biotechnology committees, and is co-chair of the Patentability Sub-Committee. He is active in the IP Law and International Law Sections of the State Bar of California, is a past member of the IP Section Executive Committee. He is past co-chair of the Council of State Bar Sections, and served on the Board of Governor’s Task Force on Sections. Ben is Chair of the Business Law Corporate Counsel Section of the Contra Costa County Bar Association. Ben was appointed to the PPAC in 2009 by Secretary Locke.
Dr. Borson earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from San Francisco State College, a Masters of Arts degree in Biology from the University of California, Riverside, a Ph.D. degree in Physiology from the University of California, San Francisco, and a J.D. degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law.
He is licensed to practice law in California, District Court in California and to practice before the USPTO.
Prior to entering law, Dr. Borson was a member of the faculty at the University of California, San Francisco, Cardiovascular Research institute, where he ran a research program in basic biomedical science, and trained post-doctoral fellows and staff in research methods. He also was a member of the faculty of the Department of Physiology. He is author of over 70 peer-reviewed articles, reviews and abstracts in physiology, biochemistry and molecular biology. He was the recipient of research grants from the National Institutes of Health, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, American Lung Association, the Parker B. Francis Foundation and other groups.
Dr. Borson is founder and Past President of the BioScience Forum, a non-profit educational organization. He is a past member of the Federated Association of Societies for Experimental Biology, American Lung Association, American Physiology Society, American Association of Cell Biologists, American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. Prior to entering science, he was a Certified Flight Instructor and holds a Commercial Pilot License.
|
Louis J. Foreman
 Louis Foreman is founder and Chief Executive of Enventys, an integrated product design and engineering firm. He is also CEO of Edison Nation. Louis graduated from The University of Illinois with a Bachelors of Science degree in Economics. His interest in starting businesses and developing innovative products began while a sophomore with his first company founded in his fraternity room. Over the past 20 years Louis has created 9 successful start-ups and has been directly responsible for the creation of over 20 others. A prolific inventor, he is the inventor of 10 registered US Patents, and his firm is responsible for the development and filing of well over 500 more.
The recipient of numerous awards for entrepreneurial achievement, his passion for small business extends beyond his own companies. Louis is an adjunct professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, teaching at Queens University and Belmont Abby College. He received the Instructor Achievement Award for his teaching at Central Piedmont Community College, and was recognized by the National Museum of Education for his Distinguished Contributions to Education. Louis is the
Entrepreneur in Residence at The McColl School of Business at Queens University. He is a frequent lecturer and radio / TV guest on the topics of small business creation and innovation, and is frequently invited by national trade associations to be a featured speaker on the topic of innovation.
In addition to being an inventor, Louis is also committed to inspiring others to be innovative. Louis is the creator of the Emmy® Award winning PBS TV show, Everyday Edisons, and serves as the Executive Producer and lead judge. The show is in its fifth season and appears nationally on PBS. In 2007, Louis became the publisher of Inventors Digest, a 25 year old publication devoted to the topic of American Innovation. In 2009, his first book, The Independent Inventor’s Handbook, was published by Workman Publishing.
Louis serves on the Board of Directors of the James Dyson Foundation, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), The United Inventors Association (UIA), and the Intellectual Property Owners Educational Foundation (IPOEF). He is co-chairman of the NC Institute for Emerging Issues Business Committee on Creativity.
|
Clinton H. Hallman, Jr.
 Clinton Hallman is the Chief Patent Counsel for Kraft Foods Group, Inc. He has global responsibility for patent matters at Kraft and manages a staff with counsel in the Chicago area, New York and Zurich. His time at Kraft has involved a variety of experiences including major litigation matters, business divestures, and IP strategy development. Prior to working at Kraft he was a patent counsel at the Altria Group for several years where he was responsible for patent prosecution, opinion work and significant client counseling. His responsibilities there included a stint at an Altria subsidiary that was created to market technology developed for the tobacco industry in other areas such as medical devices, fuel injector technology and alloys. Clinton has had a sting in private practice at a small IP boutique where he handled patent, trademark and copyright matters working with companies in the textiles and furniture industries. Clinton got his start in IP at Mobil Oil Corporation where he worked as a project engineer and construction manager for several years before joining the office of patent counsel. His patent work at Mobil included support of the plastics division of Mobil Chemical.
Clinton served as an officer in the US navy having been commissioned in 1977. His service was all sea duty with most of that time assigned to the engineering departments of the ships on which he served.
Clinton is a 1977 graduate of the US Naval Academy with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. He is a 1994 graduate of the George Mason University School of Law in the Patent Track. He is admitted to practice in Illinois (Corporate), North Carolina and Virginia. He is a member of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the American Bar Association. He sits on the board of directors of the Greater Chicago Food Depository.
Clinton is married and has two sons, ages 26 and 20. He lives and works in the suburbs north of Chicago, Il.
|
Esther M. Kepplinger
 Esther Kepplinger is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati’s Chief Patent Counselor. She serves a key role within the firm on USPTO practice and procedures enhancing the firm's practice before the Agency, provides client strategic patent counseling and serves as an expert witness on patent examination procedures. In 2009, she was appointed by Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, to serve on the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC), an advisory committee to the USPTO. Prior to joining the firm in 2005, Ms. Kepplinger served as the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations for five years (2000-2005) at the USPTO. In this capacity, she oversaw the day-to-day operations of the Examining Corps, was responsible the achievement of the quality, pendency and productivity goals and helped in the development of patent policy. She played an active role in the Trilateral activities and led the drafting of WIPO PCT Search and Examination Guidelines and WIPO Standards for submitting nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences in international patent applications. She spent 32 years at the USPTO in various positions, including examiner.
|
Michelle Lee
 Michelle K. Lee is the former and first Deputy General Counsel and Head of Patents, Patent Strategy and Partnerships at Google Inc. During her nine years at Google, Ms. Lee has overseen almost all aspects of patent related matters including general strategy, prosecution, acquisitions, licensing, third part disputes, amicus related efforts, policy and press outreach. During her tenure at Google, Ms. Lee has been involved in many of Google’s higher stakes legal matters including the acquisition of YouTube, participation in the $4.5B Nortel patent auction and advising on the mobile phone patent wars.
Prior to her position at Google, Ms. Lee was a partner at the Silicon Valley law firm of Fenwick & West LLP, where she counseled high-technology companies on a range of issues including licensing, intellectual property, litigation, employment, M&A and corporate matters.
Prior to Fenwick & West LLP, Ms. Lee worked at Keker & Van Nest LLP as a litigator representing her clients in commercial, intellectual property, employment and securities disputes.
Ms. Lee received a master of science degree in computer science and a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, both from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where she graduated at the top of her class.
Ms. Lee received her law degree from Stanford Law School and was editor of the Stanford Law Review. Prior to attending law school, Ms. Lee worked as a computer science researcher at the Hewlett Packard Company and the M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Upon graduating from law school, Ms. Lee clerked for Judge Vaughn R. Walker on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Thereafter, Ms. Lee clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. for Judge Paul R. Michel.
Ms. Lee serves on several boards including the Stanford Law School Board of Visitors, the George Washington University Law School’s Intellectual Property Benefactors Program and the Santa Clara Law School’s High Technology Law Board.
|
Valerie Landrio McDevitt, J.D., MST
 Valerie Landrio McDevitt is the Assistant Vice President at the University of South Florida, Office of Technology Transfer, the Division of Patents and Licensing. In 2010, USF was ranked 20th among technology transfer offices in licensing revenue and 9th among universities for US patents issued.
Prior to joining USF, Valerie served as assistant patent counsel and a research chemist for Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals. She also participated in the American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellowship program and worked as a science advisor with a House subcommittee in Washington, D.C.
Valerie received her BS in Chemistry from Siena College in Loudonville, New York, MST in Chemistry at the University of Florida, and a JD at Emory University School of Law. She is a certified licensing professional through LES, a registered technology transfer professional through ATTP, a member of the Georgia and Florida bars, and is admitted to practice before the Federal Patent and Trademark Office.
|
Steven W. Miller
 Steven W. Miller is Vice President & General Counsel – Intellectual Property for The Procter & Gamble Company. In this position, he oversees about 150 patent and trademark attorneys worldwide, and advises Procter & Gamble’s senior management on intellectual property issues. Mr. Miller has authored numerous P&G patents and patent applications and has been involved in a number of license agreements, acquisitions, interferences, arbitrations, and litigation, both in the U.S. and abroad.
Mr. Miller is currently on the Executive Committee and Vice President for the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel (ACPC); on the Board of Directors and Past President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association Education Foundation (IPOEF); on the Board of Directors and Past President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); on the Board of Directors for the National Inventors Hall of Fame; on the Steering Committee for the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform; on the Dean’s National Council for The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; on the Advisory Council for Intellectual Property at the Franklin Pierce Law Center; and is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), American Bar Association – Intellectual Property Committee, and Cincy IP. He received a J.D. with Honors and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, cum laude, from The Ohio State University.
He is licensed to practice in Ohio; US Patent & Trademark Office; United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth and Federal Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.
|
Wayne Sobon
 Wayne P. Sobon is Vice President and Chief IP Counsel for Rambus Inc., at its Sunnyvale, California office. Originally from Phoenix, Arizona, Wayne received his B.S. degree in physics and B.A. degree in German Studies from Stanford University in 1984 and his J.D. and M.B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1992. Wayne worked at several Silicon Valley law firms, and most recently as Associate General Counsel, and Director of Intellectual Property for Accenture from 2000 to 2011.
Wayne is First Vice President of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), a member of the USPTO‘s Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC), a member of the board of Invent Now.org of the National Inventor Hall of Fame, and a prior member of the board of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO).
|
| Request to Serve as International Depositary Authority under the Budapest Treaty |
Request to Serve as International Depositary
Authority under the Budapest Treaty
The United States of America is a Contracting Party to the Budapest
Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms
for the Purpose of Patent Procedure (Budapest Treaty). Under the Treaty,
an inventor is permitted to rely on a single deposit of a microorganism in
an approved international depositary authority (IDA) to satisfy the
national disclosure requirements of any member State. An institution
serving as an IDA is capable of storing biological material and has
established procedures that assure compliance with the Budapest Treaty.
The Treaty authorizes each member State to designate depositaries on its
territory to serve as an IDA.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hereby solicits
requests from private and public depositaries located in the United States
to serve as IDAs. Each request must explain and, to the extent
practicable, provide evidence of the depository's capacity to meet the
obligations of the Treaty. Such request must also include an offer by the
depository to assume the cost of transferring deposits made under the
Treaty to another IDA in the event of default of any of its Treaty
obligations. The availability of funds for such transfer, if needed, must
be available through a bond, special reserve fund, escrow account or other
means judged suitable by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
All requests will be evaluated and each requesting depositary promptly
notified of the decision reached.
Article 6 of the Budapest Treaty, reproduced below, sets forth the
requirements with which an institution needs to comply to acquire IDA
status. Currently, there two designated IDAs in the U.S. - the
Agricultural Research Service Culture Collection (NRRL) and the American
Type Culture Collection (ATCC). Both entities acquired status on January
31, 1981. The USPTO recently nominated Provasoli-Guillard National Center
for Marine Algae and Microbiota (NCMA) as an additional IDA for the
purposes of the Treaty. The USPTO takes this occasion to remind private
and public depositories in the United States of the opportunity to serve
and invites additional interest and participation as an IDA. The Treaty
and other related documents are available via the World Intellectual
Property Organization's Web site at:
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/budapest/.
Questions or inquiries concerning this notice may be addressed to the
Administrator for Policy and External Affairs, Shira Perlmutter, at
shira.perlmutter@uspto.gov.
Article 6
Status of International Depositary Authority
(1) In order to qualify for the status of international depositary
authority, any depositary institution must be located on the territory of a
Contracting State and must benefit from assurances furnished by that State
to the effect that the said institution complies and will continue to
comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (2). The said
assurances may be furnished also by an intergovernmental industrial
property organization; in that case, the depositary institution must be
located on the territory of a State member of the said organization.
(2) The depositary institution must, in its capacity of international
depositary authority:
(i) have a continuous existence;
(ii) have the necessary staff and facilities, as prescribed in the
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 210 |
Regulations, to perform its scientific and administrative tasks under this
Treaty;
(iii) be impartial and objective;
(iv) be available, for the purposes of deposit, to any depositor
under the same conditions;
(v) accept for deposit any or certain kinds of microorganisms,
examine their viability and store them, as prescribed in the Regulations;
(vi) issue a receipt to the depositor, and any required viability
statement, as prescribed in the Regulations;
(vii) comply, in respect of the deposited microorganisms, with the
requirement of secrecy, as prescribed in the Regulations;
(viii) furnish samples of any deposited microorganism under the
conditions and in conformity with the procedure prescribed in the
Regulations.
(3) The Regulations shall provide the measures to be taken:
(i) where an international depositary authority discontinues,
temporarily or definitively, the performance of its functions in respect of
deposited microorganisms or refuses to accept any of the kinds of
microorganisms which it should accept under the assurances furnished;
(ii) in case of the termination or limitation of the status of
international depositary authority of an international depositary
authority.
October 26, 2012 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Errata
"All reference to Patent No. RE. 43,770 to Emmett Ronald Worley, et al
of Odessa, TX for SPHERICAL SAND SEPARATORS appearing in the Official
Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,297,771 to Kum Tae Lee, et al of Seoul
Korea, Republic of for OPTICAL ASSEMBLY, BACKLIGHT UNIT HAVING THE SAME,
AND DISPLAY APPARATUS THEREOF appearing in the Official Gazette of October
30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,297,785 to Hideo Nagai of Osaka, Japan
for LIGHT-EMITTING APPARATUS appearing in the Official Gazette of October
30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,298,013 to John Mark Myer, et al of
Millersville, PA for ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR appearing in the Official Gazette
of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,298,166 to Carl Hoffmeier, et al of
Solana Beach, CA for ADJUSTABLE DORSAL NIGHT SPLINT appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,298,207 to Pierre Rebours of Hilaire De
La Cote, France for AUTOMATIC RELAY PUMP SYSTEM AND METHOD appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,298,261 to Shawn Huxel, et al of
Lawrenceville, NJ for MEDICAL DEVICE AND PROCEDURE FOR ATTCHING TISSUE TO
BONE appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,298,283 to William E. Cohn of Bellaire,
TX for APPARATUS FOR REPLACING A CARDIAC VALVE appearing in the Official
Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,298,932 to Martin Gutsche, et al of
Dorfen, Germany for VERTICAL INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE, MEMORY DEVICE AND
ASSOCIATED PRODUCTION METHOD appearing in the Official Gazette of October
30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,345 to Sorren Henningsen Nielsen, et
al of Lystrup, Denmark for POLYPHONIC TUNER appearing in the Official
Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,346 to Sorren Henningsen Nielsen, et
al of Lystrup, Denmark for POLYPHONIC TUNER appearing in the Official
Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,425 to Craig M. Whitehouse, et al of
Branford, CT for MULTI-ION GUIDE INTERFACE FOR REDUCED BACKGROUND NOISE IN
MASS SPECTROMETRY appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012
should be deleted since no patent was grantaed."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,651 to John D. Joannopoulos, et al of
Belmont, MA for WIRELESS ENERGY TRANSFER ACROSS VARIABLE DISTANCES
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,704 to Shunpei Yamazaki, et al of
Setagaya, Japan for LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND DISPLAY COMPRISING LIGHT
EMITTING DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 212 |
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,731 to Zdenko Grajcar of Crystal, MN
for REDUCTION OF HARMONIC DISTORTION FOR LED LOADS appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,751 to Julie Anne Morris, et al of
Raleigh, NC for PROXIMITY POWER PAD appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,840 to Alexander Dribinsky, et al of
Naperville, IL for CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING CHARGE INJECTION IN
RADIO FREQUENCY SWITCHES appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30,
2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,884 to Julie E. Fouquet, et al of
Portola Valley, CA for GALVANIC ISOLATORS AND COIL TRANSDUCERS appearing in
the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,299,945 to James J. Fallon, et al of
Armonk, NY for METHODS FOR ENCODING AND DECODING DATA appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,138 to Yohei Takada, et al of Osaka,
Japan for IMAGE CAPTURING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD THEREOF, AND PROGRAM
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,251 to Yoshiro Tachibana of
Inagi-Shi, Japan for PRINTING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF AND
PROGRAM appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,264 to Mitsuharu Hattori, et al of
Nagoya-Shi, Japan for IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS appearing in the Official
Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,267 to Shunsuke Iguchi of Tokyo,
Japan for IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR SELECTING
DIFFERENT MODE TO INCREASE A DEGREE OF GLOSS OF A PRINT PRODUCT appearing
in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no
patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,270 to Osamu Iinuma of Machida-Shi,
Japan for IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING IMAGE FORMING
APPARATUS appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,447 to Derchang Kau, et al of
Cupertino, CA for ENERGY-EFFICIENT SET WIRE OF PHASE CHANGE MEMORY WITH
SWITCH appearing in the Offcial Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,547 to Eric Sachse, et al of Dresden,
Germany for CIRCUIT, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN TWO NODES
OF A RADIO NETWORK appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,548 to Kazunori Aoki, et al of
Hadano-Shi, Japan for SIGNAL ANALYZER appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,589 to Joon Kui Ahn of Seoul Korea,
Republic of for METHOD FOR ACQUIRING RESOURCE REGION INFORMATION FOR PHICH
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 213 |
AND METHOD OF RECEIVING PDCCH appearing in the Official Gazette of October
30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,300,793 to Rajesh Ramanathan, et al of
Redmond, WA for MULTIMODAL CONVERSATION PARK AND RETRIEVAL appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,301,144 to Muralidhar Malreddy, et al of
Overland Park, KS for USE OF PRE-HANDOFF MACRO-CARRIER DATA FOR
PRIORITIZATION OF CARRIERS IN FEMTOCELL FREQUENCY-HOPPING PILOT BEACONS
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,301,205 to Gilad Odinak of Bellevue, WA
for SHARING ACCOUNT INFORMATION AND A PHONE NUMBER BETWEEN PERSONAL MOBILE
PHONE AND AN IN-VEHICLE EMBEDDED PHONE appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,301,534 to Tsuyoshi Uehara, et al of
Tokyo, Japan for METHOD FOR MANAGING BUYER TRANSCATIONS AND SETTLEMENTS
USING COMMUNICATION NETWORK BETWEEN COMPUTERS, AND METHOD FOR RELAYING
INFORMATION FOLLOWING BUYER CONSUMPTION TRENDS TO THE BUYER appearing in
the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent
was granted.
"All reference to Patent No. 8,301,568 to Takashi Kumagai, et al of
Tokyo, Japan for COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, COMMUNICATION METHOD, DISTRIBUTION
APPARATUS, DISTRIBUTION METHOD AND TERMINAL APPARATUS appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,301,721 to Gregory G. Raleigh of
Woodside, CA for VERIFIABLE DEVICE ASSISTED SERVICE USAGE BILLING WITH
INTEGRATED ACCOUNTING, MEDIATION ACCOUNTING, AND MULTI-ACCOUNT appearing in
the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,301,730 to Kenji C. Obata, et al of
Seattle, WA for METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR BUILDING AND DISTRIBUTING APPLICATION
PROFILES VIA THE INTERNET appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30,
2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,301,774 to David A. Farber, et al of
Ojai, CA for DELIVERING RESOURCES TO CLIENTS IN A DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING
ENVIRONMENT appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,302,106 to Mark J. Nixon, et al of Round
Rock, TX for APPARATUS AND METHODS TO ACCESS INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of October 30,
2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
| Certificates of Correction |
Certificates of Correction
for November 6, 2012
6,185,678 8,131,903 8,213,138 8,246,928
6,435,279C1 8,133,069 8,213,194 8,247,506
6,510,434 8,133,733 8,213,307 8,247,756
6,609,754 8,134,702 8,213,641 8,247,913
6,622,036 8,134,726 8,213,673 8,247,965
6,715,816 8,134,923 8,213,676 8,247,990
6,721,587 8,135,531 8,213,757 8,248,103
6,742,833 8,135,678 8,213,932 8,248,388
6,846,477C1 8,135,875 8,214,221 8,249,118
6,950,668 8,138,004 8,214,319 8,249,472
7,042,240 8,138,123 8,214,656 8,249,727
7,100,986 8,138,318 8,214,711 8,250,158
7,156,416 8,138,908 8,214,759 8,250,203
7,175,221 8,139,069 8,215,120 8,250,820
7,178,944 8,139,348 8,215,328 8,251,064
7,361,466 8,139,872 8,215,575 8,251,188
7,429,642 8,140,322 8,215,939 8,251,511
7,431,710 8,140,694 8,216,380 8,251,628
7,455,996 8,140,718 8,216,398 8,252,004
7,471,849 8,140,779 8,216,466 8,252,295
7,487,243 8,141,144 8,216,577 8,252,538
7,539,749 8,142,560 8,216,621 8,252,559
7,576,743 8,142,562 8,216,672 8,253,230
7,587,365 8,142,632 8,216,770 8,253,397
7,593,952 8,142,684 8,217,085 8,253,635
7,602,214 8,143,260 8,217,540 8,254,021
7,632,650 8,143,362 8,217,646 8,254,055
7,632,870 8,144,055 8,218,100 8,254,057
7,638,282 8,144,223 8,218,351 8,254,059
7,651,593 8,145,037 8,218,490 8,254,127
7,677,280 8,146,072 8,218,494 8,254,173
7,702,463 8,146,210 8,218,606 8,254,175
7,715,352 8,147,693 8,218,680 8,254,197
7,743,121 8,147,949 8,219,314 8,254,199
7,751,307 8,148,125 8,219,524 8,254,354
7,809,067 8,148,989 8,219,867 8,254,729
7,840,247 8,149,792 8,220,069 8,254,833
7,861,075 8,149,946 8,220,118 8,254,981
7,871,606 8,149,977 8,220,165 8,255,213
7,893,682 8,150,229 8,220,927 8,255,262
7,899,560 8,150,549 8,221,592 8,255,523
7,900,905 8,150,644 8,221,730 8,255,830
7,903,728 8,150,948 8,221,811 8,255,921
7,916,887 8,151,873 8,221,823 8,256,036
7,928,763 8,153,583 8,222,290 8,256,141
7,942,938 8,154,189 8,222,588 8,256,312
7,951,608 8,155,072 8,222,691 8,256,333
7,956,645 8,155,575 8,222,760 8,256,582
7,979,235 8,156,257 8,223,656 8,256,626
7,993,194 8,156,920 8,223,690 8,256,634
7,995,430 8,157,633 8,223,800 8,256,695
8,001,912 8,157,723 8,224,725 8,256,912
8,003,800 8,157,730 8,225,318 8,256,921
8,007,795 8,158,193 8,225,467 8,256,953
8,012,750 8,158,725 8,225,560 8,257,277
8,014,200 8,158,822 8,225,631 8,257,336
8,022,792 8,159,102 8,226,359 8,257,467
8,029,781 8,159,834 8,227,134 8,257,657
8,030,370 8,161,286 8,227,434 8,257,683
8,031,683 8,162,073 8,227,561 8,257,692
8,032,322 8,162,417 8,227,613 8,257,977
8,033,170 8,163,808 8,228,326 8,258,010
| November 27, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1384 OG 215 |
8,033,678 8,163,976 8,228,482 8,258,034
8,034,993 8,165,920 8,228,648 8,258,066
8,037,846 8,166,508 8,229,064 8,258,395
8,048,568 8,167,087 8,229,557 8,258,451
8,049,367 8,168,429 8,229,751 8,258,515
8,052,252 8,169,344 8,229,869 8,258,599
8,053,143 8,169,992 8,229,870 8,258,623
8,053,563 8,170,182 8,229,875 8,258,895
8,054,954 8,170,665 8,229,876 8,258,921
8,056,634 8,171,414 8,230,002 8,259,218
8,057,292 8,171,468 8,230,273 8,259,461
8,059,443 8,174,037 8,230,339 8,259,491
8,059,641 8,174,439 8,230,388 8,260,270
8,062,891 8,174,533 8,231,361 8,260,315
8,063,164 8,176,432 8,232,487 8,260,781
8,066,996 8,177,797 8,232,781 8,260,882
8,068,231 8,180,131 8,233,280 8,261,295
8,068,232 8,180,383 8,233,371 8,261,521
8,069,722 8,182,701 8,233,373 8,261,793
8,074,515 8,183,212 8,233,558 8,261,958
8,074,620 8,183,902 8,234,285 8,262,214
8,075,542 8,184,723 8,234,350 8,262,569
8,082,117 8,185,137 8,234,567 8,262,580
8,082,289 8,186,256 8,235,188 8,263,035
8,085,426 8,186,741 8,235,209 8,263,543
8,085,638 8,188,373 8,236,097 8,264,075
8,088,039 8,188,785 8,236,311 8,264,194
8,088,266 8,188,966 8,236,406 8,264,668
8,090,152 8,191,274 8,236,684 8,264,939
8,091,331 8,195,258 8,236,767 8,264,950
8,091,663 8,196,252 8,237,020 8,265,207
8,092,369 8,197,369 8,237,402 8,265,477
8,094,502 8,198,031 8,237,813 8,265,674
8,099,727 8,198,424 8,238,753 8,266,096
8,099,766 8,199,327 8,239,396 8,267,145
8,100,273 8,199,333 8,239,419 8,267,150
8,102,904 8,199,648 8,239,421 8,267,307
8,103,639 8,200,228 8,239,429 8,268,645
8,103,735 8,200,331 8,239,486 8,271,699
8,104,410 8,200,739 8,239,526 8,271,909
8,104,667 8,200,807 8,239,821 8,272,321
8,107,625 8,201,060 8,239,855 8,277,710
8,108,182 8,201,357 8,240,709 8,278,183
8,109,997 8,202,269 8,240,716 8,281,055
8,111,382 8,202,324 8,240,941 8,281,084
8,111,494 8,203,272 8,241,305 8,281,419
8,116,028 8,203,766 8,241,476 8,285,643
8,117,215 8,204,062 8,242,463 D. 654,029
8,118,031 8,205,140 8,242,750 D. 658,377
8,118,515 8,208,241 8,242,926 D. 661,899
8,118,523 8,208,397 8,243,039 D. 663,160
8,119,647 8,208,518 8,243,107 D. 663,306
8,120,618 8,209,028 8,243,259 D. 664,188
8,122,066 8,209,518 8,243,523 D. 664,285
8,122,263 8,209,648 8,243,544 D. 664,646
8,123,126 8,209,663 8,243,571 D. 664,647
8,123,349 8,209,988 8,244,019 D. 664,648
8,123,523 8,210,532 8,244,504 D. 664,649
8,124,984 8,210,568 8,244,641 D. 665,739
8,125,288 8,210,909 8,244,696 RE. 43,308
8,125,625 8,210,914 8,244,716 RE. 43,378
8,126,367 8,211,012 8,244,888 RE. 43,422
8,126,881 8,211,277 8,244,935 RE. 43,479
8,127,088 8,211,354 8,244,936 RE. 43,480
8,127,988 8,211,444 8,245,128 RE. 43,483
8,128,195 8,211,924 8,245,151 RE. 43,506
8,129,111 8,212,062 8,245,206 RE. 43,583
8,129,710 8,212,370 8,245,271 RE. 43,707
8,131,602 8,212,543 8,245,291
8,131,603 8,212,604 8,246,559
8,131,885 8,213,075 8,246,883
| Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
October 15 – October 19, 2012
| Date Issued |
Type of Case(1) |
Proceeding or Appn. Number |
Party or Parties |
TTAB Panel (2) |
Issue(s) |
TTAB Decision |
Opposer’s or Petitioner’s mark and goods or services |
Applicant’s or Respondent’s mark and goods or services |
Mark and goods or services cited by Examining Attorney |
Issued as Precedent of TTAB |
| 10-15 |
OPP
|
91195817 |
Generation’s Afield T.V. Show, LLC v. Miller Creek Production Company |
Quinn Cataldo Bergsman* |
2(d) |
Opposition Sustained |
GENERATION’S AFIELD TV SHOW (and design) [entertainment in the nature of on-going television programs in the field of hunting, fishing and outdoor activities; a show on these subjects broadcast on television, satellite, internet and other media; providing information on hunting and fishing via the internet ] |
GENERATIONS AFIELD [entertainment services in the nature of on-going television programs in the field of hunting, fishing and outdoor activities] |
|
No |
| 10-16 |
OPP
(R) |
91190109 |
Lisa Hawkins v. Green Resources Group, LLC |
Zervas* Taylor
Ritchie |
2(d) |
Opposition Dismissed (Request for Reconsideration Denied) |
IT’S HIP TO BE GREEN [shirts and hats] [various on-line retail store services] |
IT’S HIP TO BE GREEN [various types of printed matter and other items in Class 16, including paper bags and containers, recycled paper, stationery, bumper stickers, decals, stickers and calendars] |
|
No |
| 10-16 |
EX |
85276151 |
Citrus Fresh Carpet Cleaning Inc. |
Quinn* Zervas
Shaw |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
CITRUS FRESH (and design) [cleaning of carpets, area rugs, furniture, car interiors, tile and grout in a home or commercial environment] |
CITRUS FRESH [carpet and room deodorizer; spray deodorizing air freshener] |
No |
| 10-16 |
OPP
(SJ) |
91201464 |
Invesco Powershares Capital Management LLC v. Pureshares LLC |
Bucher
Taylor Mermelstein [Opinion "By the Board" (Goodman)] |
2(d) |
Partial Summary Judgment Granted to Opposer |
POWERSHARES [investment services, namely, offering exchange traded fund products based on a mutual fund index] |
PURESHARES [strategic financial advisory services] |
|
No |
| 10-18 |
EX |
77884436 |
Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha, dba Casio Computer Co., Ltd. |
Bucher Ritchie Lykos*
|
2(e)(1) |
Refusal Affirmed as to the refused goods |
|
PREMIUM AUTO [digital cameras; batteries; AC adaptors] |
|
No |
| 10-18 |
OPP
(SJ) |
91202371 |
Embotelladora Aga Del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V. v. Jose Alfonso Serrano Gonzalez |
Zervas
Wellington Kuczma [Opinion "By the Board" (Goodman)] |
2(d) |
Partial Summary Judgment Granted to Opposer |
CABALLITOS (with and without design) CABALLITOS FRUITS (with design) [soft drinks] |
CABALLITO CERRERO (with and without design) [tequila] |
|
No |
| 10-18 |
OPP |
91193283 |
Wet Dog Media, Inc. v. Rodale, Inc. |
Wellington* Ritchie
Adlin |
Non-use; 2(f) |
Opposition Sustained |
WOMEN’S RUNNING [magazine featuring women’s sports] |
WOMEN’S RUNNING [providing information, news, commentary, and instruction through the internet, podcasts and videos, on exercise, athletic events, physical fitness, training, nutrition, weight loss and related subjects (Class 41)] [providing a web site with similar information (Class 44)] |
|
No |
| 10-19 |
OPP |
91193930 |
Churchill Cellars, Inc. v. Brian Graham |
Holtzman Cataldo* Mermelstein |
2(d); lawfulness of prior use by applicant |
Opposition Dismissed |
PARLAY [wine] |
PARLAY [wine] |
|
No |
| 10-19 |
EX |
77867186 |
Liquid Health Labs, Inc. |
Bucher Wolfson* Shaw
|
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
POWERCAP [Dietary supplemental drinks in the nature of vitamin and mineral beverages; vitamin fortified beverages; vitamin and mineral beverages made by adding vitamin and mineral supplements from a bottle cap to water or other liquid; vitamin and mineral supplements in a bottle cap for making vitamin and mineral beverages when added to water or other liquid] |
ACAI POWERCAPS [dietary supplements; nutritional supplements] |
No |
| 10-19 |
EX |
77731385 |
ScanSource, Inc. |
Bucher Zervas*
Shaw |
23(c) |
Refusal Affirmed as to the refused services in Class 35 |
|
PARTNER SERVICES [business development consulting services (Class 35)] |
|
No |
(1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (R)=Request for Reconsideration; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss (2) *=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
October 22 – October 26, 2012
| Date Issued |
Type of Case(1) |
Proceeding or Appn. Number |
Party or Parties |
TTAB Panel (2) |
Issue(s) |
TTAB Decision |
Opposer’s or Petitioner’s mark and goods or services |
Applicant’s or Respondent’s mark and goods or services |
Mark and goods or services cited by Examining Attorney |
Issued as Precedent of TTAB |
| 10-22 |
CANC
|
92051046 |
David J. Deacy v. Michelle D. Kraft |
Holtzman Kuhlke* Bergsman |
2(d) |
Petition to Cancel Denied |
PET PAGES (with and without design) [publication and distribution of yellow page pet resource directories] [website featuring pet ads, pet directory, pet forums, a pet gallery and pet news]; PETPAGES (and design) [website featuring pet ads, pet directory, pet forums, pet gallery and pet news] |
PET YELLOW PAGES [telephone directories] |
|
No |
| 10- 22 |
EX
(R) |
77248621 |
Crown Equipment Corp. |
Bucher Cataldo* Wolfson |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed as to Class 9 goods subject to refusal (Request for Reconsideration Denied) |
|
CROWN INSITE [electronic systems using hardware and software to locate, route and track lift trucks and operators, monitoring performance, generating reports and in fleet management and consulting] |
INSITE [radio frequency identification system for locating or tracking personnel and equipment and vehicles; computer programs, software and various types of equipment used in such systems and applications] |
No |
| 10-22 |
EX |
77894877 |
Cosway (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Company No. 50118-A) |
Seeherman* Holtzman
Shaw |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
BIOGLO (and design) [wide variety of cosmetics, personal care items, soaps and cleansers, toiletries, not being for use on teeth or gums] |
BIO GLOW [dentifrice for teeth and gums] |
No |
| 10-23 |
EX |
85036916 |
Bedrock Brands, LP |
Quinn
Cataldo Adlin* |
2(e)(4) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
GRISWALD [Carry-all bags; Carrying cases; Duffel bags; Luggage; Shoulder bags; Travel bags (Class 18)] [Bottle openers; Insulated containers for food or beverage for domestic use; Portable coolers; Utensils for barbecues, namely, forks, tongs, turners (Class 21)] [Coats; Foul weather gear; Headwear; Jackets; Rain suits; Ski wear; Snowboarding suits; Sweat shirts; T-shirts (Class 25)] |
|
No |
| 10-23 |
EX |
85266411 |
TharpeRobbins Company, Inc. |
Quinn* Bucher
Lykos
|
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT [providing employee recognition programs to businesses to promote and reward job quality, productivity, loyalty and longevity] |
BUTTERFLY FX [business consulting services featuring professional consultations and business planning] |
No |
| 10-23 |
EX |
85128623 |
Bams Holdings Group LLC (aka Bank Associates Merchant Services) |
Quinn
Taylor
Wellington* |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed as to these refused classes |
|
BAMS [various items of hardware, software and related products involved in electronic payment processes (Class 9)] [wide variety of services involved in credit care and other electronic payment processes, including web based services (Class 36)] |
BAMpay [providing secure commercial transactions and payment options using a mobile device at a point of sale (Class 36)] |
No |
| 10-24 |
EX |
85127536 |
William E. Gridley |
Quinn Holtzman* Kuczma |
2(e)(1) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
BOAT VENT [ventilators for covers, namely, vehicle covers, tarps, canopies, umbrellas] |
|
No |
| 10-25 |
EX |
77758863 |
Milo Shammas |
Zervas Bergsman* Lykos
|
2(e)(1); 2(f) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
PROBIOTICS [a wide variety of fertilizers; blood powder; bone meal; brewers' grain; compost; manures; fertilizing preparations; leaf mold; peat; rice bran] |
|
No |
| 10-26 |
EX |
77566329 77566330 |
Arcus Capital Partners, LLC |
Bucher
Zervas
Taylor* |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed as to both applications |
|
ARCUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT and ARCUS CAPITAL PARTNERS (both for) [financial planning and consulting, namely wealth and capital management services] |
ARCUS FINANCIAL BANK [banking services; financial services, namely, administration and management of health savings accounts] |
No |
(1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (R)=Request for Reconsideration; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss (2) *=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
| Mailing and Hand Carry Addresses for Mail to the United States Patent and Trademark Office |
MAILING AND HAND CARRY ADDRESSES FOR
MAIL TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
For most correspondence (e.g., new patent applications) no mail stop
is required because the processing of the correspondence is routine.
If NO mail stop is included on the list below, no mail stop is required
for the correspondence. See the listing under "Mail to be Directed to the
Director of the Patent And Trademark Office" for additional mail stops
for patent-related correspondence. Only the specified type of document
should be placed in an envelope addressed to one of these special mail
stops. If any documents other than the specified type identified for each
special mail stop are addressed to that mail stop, they will be
significantly delayed in reaching the appropriate area for which they are
intended. The mail stop should generally appear as the first line in
the address.
Most correspondence may be submitted electronically. See the USPTO's
Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) internet page
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp for additional
information.
Please address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service
(USPS) as follows:
Mail Stop _____
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
If no Mail Stop is indicated below, the line beginning Mail Stop should
be omitted from the address.
NEW: Effective September 16, 2012, the Mail Stop description for Mail
Stop Ex Parte Reexam is being revised and a new Mail Stop for supplemental
examination requests is being added as Mail Stop Supplemental Examination.
Except correspondence for Maintenance Fee payments, Deposit Account
Replenishments (see 37 CFR 1.25(c)(4)), and Licensing and Review (see 37 CFR
5.1(c) and 5.2(c)), please address patent-related correspondence to be
delivered by other delivery services (Federal Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL,
Laser, Action, Purolator, etc.) as follows:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window, Mail Stop _____
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop
Designations Explanation
Mail Stop 12 Contributions to the Examiner Education Program.
Mail Stop 313(c) Petitions under 37 CFR 1.313(c) to withdraw a
patent application from issue after payment of
the issue fee and any papers associated with the
petition, including papers necessary for a
continuing application or a request for
continued examination (RCE).
Mail Stop AF Amendments and other responses after final
rejection (e.g., a notice of appeal (and any
request for pre-appeal brief conference)),
other than an appeal brief.
Mail Stop Amendment Information disclosure statements, drawings, and
replies to Office actions in patent applications
with or without an amendment to the application or
a terminal disclaimer. (Use Mail Stop AF for
replies after final rejection.)
Mail Stop Appeal For appeal briefs or other briefs under
Brief-Patents part 41 of title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (e.g., former 37 CFR 1.192).
Mail Stop Public comments regarding patent-related
Comments-Patent regulations and procedures.
Mail Stop Conversion Requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) to convert a
nonprovisional application to a provisional
application and requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3)
to convert a provisional application to a
nonprovisional application.
Mail Stop EBC Mail for the Electronic Business Center including:
Certificate Action Forms, Request for Customer
Number, and Requests for Customer Number Data
Change (USPTO Forms PTO-2042, PTO/SB/124A and 125A,
respectively) and Customer Number Upload
Spreadsheets and Cover Letters.
Mail Stop Expedited Only to be used for the initial filing of
Design design applications accompanied by a
request for expedited examination under
37 CFR 1.155.
Mail Stop Express Requests for abandonment of a patent
Abandonment application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.138,
including any petitions under 37 CFR
1.138(c) to expressly abandon an
application to avoid publication of the
application.
Mail Stop Applications under 35 U.S.C. 156 for patent term
Hatch-Waxman PTE extension based on regulatory review of a product
subject to pre-market review by a regulating
agency. This mail stop is also to be used for
additional correspondence regarding the
application for patent term extension under
35 U.S.C. 156. It is preferred that such initial
requests be hand-carried to:
Office of Patent Legal Administration
Room MDW 7D55
600 Dulany Street (Madison Building)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop ILS Correspondence relating to international patent
classification, exchanges and standards.
Mail Stop Issue Fee All communications following the receipt of a
PTOL-85, "Notice of Allowance and Fee(s)
Due," and prior to the issuance of a patent
should be addressed to Mail Stop Issue Fee,
unless advised to the contrary.
Assignments are the exception. Assignments
(with cover sheets) should be faxed to
571-273-0140, electronically submitted
(http://epas.uspto.gov), or submitted in a
separate envelope and sent to Mail Stop
Assignment Recordation Services,
Director - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
as shown below.
Mail Stop L&R All documents pertaining to applications subject
to secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 181, or
national-security classified and required to be
processed accordingly. Such papers, petitions for
foreign filing license pursuant to 37 CFR 5.12(b)
for which expedited handling is requested, and
petitions for retroactive license under 37 CFR
5.25 may also be hand carried to Licensing and
Review:
Technology Center 3600, Office of the Director
Room 4B41
501 Dulany Street (Knox Building)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop Missing Requests for a corrected filing receipt and
Parts replies to OPAP notices such as the Notice
of Omitted Items, Notice to File Corrected
Application Papers, Notice of Incomplete
Application, Notice to Comply with Nucleotide
Sequence Requirements, and Notice to File Missing
Parts of Application, and associated papers and
fees.
Mail Stop MPEP Submissions concerning the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure.
Mail Stop Patent Ext. Applications for patent term extension or
adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 and any
communications relating thereto. This mail stop
is limited to petitions for patent term extension
under 35 U.S.C. 154 for applications filed
between June 8, 1995 and May 29, 2000, and patent
term adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. 154 for
applications filed on or after May 29, 2000.
For applications for patent term extension under
35 U.S.C. 156, use Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE.
For applications for patent term extension or
adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 that are mailed
together with the payment of the issue fee, use
Mail Stop Issue Fee.
Mail Stop Patent Submission of comments regarding search templates.
Search Template
Comments
Mail Stop PCT Mail related to international applications filed
under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in the
international phase and in the national phase
under 35 U.S.C. 371 prior to mailing of a
Notification of Acceptance of Application Under
35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 (Form
PCT/DO/EO/903).
Mail Stop Petition Petitions to be decided by the Office of Petitions,
including petitions to revive and petitions to
accept late payment of issue fees or maintenance
fees.
Mail Stop PGPUB Correspondence regarding publication of patent
applications not otherwise provided, including:
requests for early publication made after filing,
rescission of a non-publication request, corrected
patent application publication, and refund of
publication fee.
Mail Stop Post In patented files: requests for changes of
Issue correspondence address, powers of attorney,
revocations of powers of attorney, withdrawal as
attorney or agent and submissions under 37
CFR 1.501. Designation of, or changes to, a fee
address should be addressed to Mail Stop M
Correspondence. Requests for Certificate of
Correction need no special mail stop, but
should be mailed to the attention of Certificate
of Correction Branch.
Mail Stop RCE Requests for continued examination under
37 CFR 1.114.
Mail Stop Correspondence pertaining to the reconstruction
Reconstruction of lost patent files.
Mail Stop Ex Parte Original requests for Ex Parte Reexamination
Reexam and all subsequent correspondence other
than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)). Effective
September 16, 2012, this mail stop is also to be
used for any papers to be filed in an ex parte
reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of
a supplemental examination proceeding.
Mail Stop Inter Original requests for Inter Partes Reexamination
Partes Reexam and all subsequent correspondence other than
correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)).
Mail Stop Reissue All new and continuing reissue application filings.
Mail Stop Sequence Submission of the computer readable form (CRF) for
applications with sequence listings, when the CRF
is not being filed with the patent application.
Mail Stop Supplemental (Effective September 16, 2012). Requests for
Examination Supplemental Examination, including original
request papers and any other correspondence, other
than correspondence to the Office of the
Solicitor (see 37 CFR Secs. 1.1(a)(3) AND 1.302(c)).
This mail stop is limited to original request papers
and any other papers that are to be filed in a
supplemental examination proceeding. For any papers
to be filed in an ex parte reexamination proceeding
ordered as a result of a supplemental examination
proceeding, use "Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam".
Information for addressing patent-related correspondence may also be found
on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp.
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
Please address trademark-related correspondence to be delivered by the
United States Postal Service (USPS), except documents sent to the Assignment
Services Division for recordation, requests for copies of trademark
documents, and documents directed to the Madrid Processing Unit, as follows:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be mailed to:
Madrid Processing Unit
600 Dulany Street
MDE-7B87
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Deputy Commissioner for
Trademark Policy regarding Letters of Protest must be mailed to:
Letter of Protest
ATTN: Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Policy
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Director regarding the Fastener
Quality Act (FQA) must be mailed to:
Director, USPTO
ATTN: FQA
600 Dulany Street, MDE-10A71
Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Commissioner regarding the
recordal of a Native American Tribal Insignia (NATI) must be mailed to:
Native American Tribal Insignia
ATTN: Commissioner for Trademarks
600 Dulany Street
MDE-10A71
Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
Do NOT send any of the following via USPS certified mail or with a
"signature required" option: submissions to the Madrid Processing Unit,
Letters of Protest, applications for recordal of insignia under the
Fastener Quality Act, notifications of Native American Tribal Insignia.
Trademark-related mail to be delivered by hand or other private courier
or delivery service (e.g., UPS, Federal Express) to the Trademark Operation,
the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be delivered to:
Trademark Assistance Center
Madison East, Concourse Level Room C 55
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Information for addressing trademark-related correspondence may also be found
on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/mail.jsp.
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Please address correspondence to be directed to a mail stop identified
below to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as follows
(unless otherwise instructed):
Mail Stop _____
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Mail Stop
Designations Explanation
Mail Stop 3 Mail for the Office of Personnel from NFC.
Mail Stop 6 Mail for the Office of Procurement.
Mail Stop 8 All papers for the Office of the Solicitor except
communications relating to pending litigation and
disciplinary proceedings; papers relating to pending
litigation in court cases shall be mailed only to
Office of the Solicitor, P.O. Box 15667, Arlington,
VA 22215 and papers related to pending disciplinary
proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge or
the Director shall be mailed only to the Office of
the Solicitor, P.O. Box 16116, Arlington, VA 22215.
Mail Stop 11 Mail for the Electronic Ordering Service (EOS).
Mail Stop 13 Mail for the Employee and Labor Relations Division.
Mail Stop 16 Mail related to refund requests, other than
requests for refund of a patent application
publication fee. Such requests should be directed
to Mail Stop PGPub.
Mail Stop 17 Invoices directed to the Office of Finance.
Mail Stop 24 Mail for the Inventor's Assistance Program,
including complaints about Invention Promoters.
Mail Stop 171 Vacancy Announcement Applications.
Mail Stop Assignment All assignment documents, security interests,
Recordation Services and other documents to be recorded in the
Assignment records. Note that documents with
cover sheets that are faxed to 571-273-0140 or
submitted electronically (http://epas.uspto.gov)
are processed much more quickly than those
submitted by mail.
Mail Stop Document All requests for certified or uncertified
Services copies of patent or trademark documents.
Mail Stop EEO Mail for the Office of Civil Rights.
Mail Stop External Mail for the Office of External Affairs.
Affairs
Mail Stop Interference Communications relating to interferences and
applications and patents involved in interference.
Mail Stop M Mail to designate or change a fee
Correspondence address, or other correspondence related to
maintenance fees, except payments of
maintenance fees in patents. See below for
the address for maintenance fee payments.
Mail Stop OED Mail for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
Maintenance Fee Payments
Unless submitted electronically over the Internet at www.uspto.gov,
payments of maintenance fees in patents should be mailed through the
United States Postal Service to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979070
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Alternatively, payment of maintenance fees in patents (Attn: Maintenance
Fee) using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier may be made to:
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Attn: Maintenance Fee
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Deposit Account Replenishments
To send payment to replenish deposit accounts, send the payments through
the United States Postal Service to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979065
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Alternatively, deposit account replenishments (Attn: Deposit Accounts)
using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.)
may be delivered to:
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Attn: Deposit Accounts
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
Information abount deposit account replenishments may also be found on
the USPTO's web site at
http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/cfo/finance/Deposit_Account_
Replenishments.jsp
Top of Notices
| Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent and Trademark Resource Centers |
Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for
Public Use in Patent and Trademark Resource Centers
The following libraries, designated as Patent and Trademark Resource Centers
(PTRCs), provide public access to patent and trademark information received
from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This
information includes all issued patents, all registered trademarks, the
Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, search tools such
as the Cassis CD-ROM suite of products and supplemental information in a
variety of formats including online, optical disc, microfilm and paper.
Each PTRC also offers access to USPTO resources on the Internet and to
PubWEST (Web based examiner search tool), a system used by patent examiners
that is not available on the Internet.
Staff assistance and training is provided in the use of this information.
All information is available free of charge. However, there may be charges
associated with the use of photocopying and related services. Hours of
service to the public vary, and anyone contemplating use of these
collections at a particular library is urged to contact that library in
advance about its services and hours to avoid inconvenience.
State Name of Library Telephone Contact
Alabama Auburn University Libraries (334) 844-1737
Birmingham Public Library (205) 226-3620
Alaska Fairbanks: Keith B. Mather Library,
Geophysical Institute,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks (907) 474-2636
Arkansas Little Rock: Arkansas State
Library (501) 682-2053
California Los Angeles Public Library (213) 228-7220
Riverside: University of
California, Riverside, Orbach
Science Library (951) 827-3316
Sacramento: California State
Library (916) 654-0261
San Diego Public Library (619) 236-5813
San Francisco Public Library (415) 557-4500
Sunnyvale Public Library (408) 730-7300
Colorado Denver Public Library (720) 865-1711
Connecticut Fairfield: Ryan-Matura Library
Sacred Heart University (203) 371-7726
Delaware Newark: University of Delaware
Library (302) 831-2965
Dist. of Columbia Washington: Howard University
Libraries (202) 806-7252
Florida Fort Lauderdale: Broward County
Main Library (954) 357-7444
Miami-Dade Public Library (305) 375-2665
Orlando: University of Central
Florida Libraries (407) 823-2562
Georgia Atlanta: Library and Information
Center, Georgia Institute of
Technology (404) 385-7185
Hawaii Honolulu: Hawaii State Library (808) 586-3477
Illinois Chicago Public Library (312) 747-4450
Macomb: Western Illinois
University Libraries (309) 298-2722
Indiana Indianapolis-Marion County Public
Library (317) 269-1741
West Lafayette Siegesmund
Engineering Library,
Purdue University (765) 494-2872
Iowa Davenport: Davenport Public Library (563) 326-7832
Kansas Wichita: Ablah Library, Wichita
State University 1 (800) 572-8368
Kentucky Louisville Free Public Library (502) 574-1611
Louisiana Baton Rouge: Troy H. Middleton
Library, Louisiana State University (225) 388-8875
Maine Orono: Raymond H. Fogler Library,
University of Maine (207) 581-1678
Maryland Baltimore: University of Baltimore
Law Library (410) 837-4554
College Park: Engineering and
Physical Sciences Library,
University of Maryland (301) 405-9157
Massachusetts Amherst: Physical Sciences Library,
University of Massachusetts (413) 545-2765
Boston Public Library (617) 536-5400
Ext. 4256
Michigan Ann Arbor: Art, Architecture &
Engineering Library,
University of Michigan (734) 647-5735
Big Rapids: Ferris Library for
Information, Technology &
Education, Ferris State
University (231) 592-3602
Detroit: Public Library (313) 481-1391
Minnesota Hennepin County Library
Minneapolis Central Library (612) 543-8000
Mississippi Jackson: Mississippi Library
Commission (601) 961-4111
Missouri Kansas City: Linda Hall Library (816) 363-4600
Ext. 724
St. Louis Public Library (314) 352-2900
Montana Butte: Montana Tech Library of
the University of Montana (406) 496-4281
Nebraska Lincoln: Engineering Library,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (402) 472-3411
New Hampshire Concord: University of New
Hampshire School of Law (603) 513-5130
Nevada Reno: University of Nevada, Reno,
Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center (775) 784-6500
Ext. 257
New Jersey Newark Public Library (973) 733-7779
Piscataway: Library of Science and
Medicine, Rutgers University (732) 445-2895
New Mexico Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico General Library (505) 277-4412
New York Albany: New York State Library (518) 474-5355
Buffalo and Erie County Public
Library (716) 858-7101
Rochester Public Library (716) 428-8110
New York: New York Public Library,
Science Industry & Business Library (212) 592-7000
North Carolina Charlotte: J. Murrey Atkins
Library, (704) 687-2241
University of North Carolina at
Charlotte (919) 515-2935
North Dakota Grand Forks: Chester Fritz Library,
University of North Dakota (701) 777-4888
Ohio Akron - Summit County Public (330) 643-9075
Library
Cincinnati and Hamilton County,
Public Library of (513) 369-6932
Cleveland Public Library (216) 623-2870
Dayton: Paul Laurence Dunbar
Library, Wright State University (937) 775-3521
Toledo/Lucas County Public Library (419) 259-5209
Oklahoma Stillwater: Oklahoma State
University Edmon Low Library (405) 744-6546
Pennsylvania Philadelphia, The Free Library of (215) 686-5394
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Library of (412) 622-3138
University Park: PAMS Library,
Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7617
Puerto Rico Bayamon: Learning Resources Center,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 993-0000
Ext. 3222
Mayaquez General Library,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 832-4040
Ext. 2023
Bayamon, Learning Resources Center,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 786-5225
Rhode Island Providence Public Library (401) 455-8027
South Carolina Clemson University Libraries (864) 656-3024
South Dakota Rapid City: Devereaux Library,
South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology (605) 394-1275
Tennessee Nashville: Stevenson Science and
Engineering Library, Vanderbilt
University (615) 322-2717
Texas Austin: McKinney Engineering
Library, University of Texas at
Austin (512) 495-4511
College Station: West Campus
Library, Texas A & M University (979) 845-2111
Dallas Public Library (214) 670-1468
Houston: The Fondren Library, Rice
University (713) 348-5483
Lubbock: Texas Tech University (806) 742-2282
San Antonio Public Library (210) 207-2500
Utah Salt Lake City: Marriott Library,
University of Utah (801) 581-8394
Vermont Burlington: Bailey/Howe Library,
University of Vermont (802) 656-2542
Washington Seattle: Engineering Library,
University of Washington (206) 543-0740
West Virginia Morgantown: Evansdale Library,
West Virginia University (304) 293-4695
Wisconsin Wendt Commons Library,
University of Wisconsin-Madison (608) 262-0696
Milwaukee Public Library (414) 286-3051
Wyoming Cheyenne: Wyoming State Library (307) 777-7281
Top of Notices
| Patent Technology Centers |
| PATENT TECHNOLOGY CENTERS |
| AVERAGE FILING DATE OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVING A FIRST OFFICE ACTION IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS1
|
Technology
Center |
GAU |
Avg Filing Date |
| 1600 |
BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND ORGANIC CHEMISTRY |
| |
1610 |
05/20/2011 |
| |
1620 |
05/20/2011 |
| |
1630 |
05/14/2011 |
| |
1640 |
07/05/2011 |
| |
1650 |
06/14/2011 |
| |
1660 |
08/07/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
06/01/2011 |
| |
|
|
| 1700 |
CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND DESIGNS |
| |
1710 |
11/10/2010 |
| |
1720 |
01/16/2011 |
| |
1730 |
03/17/2011 |
| |
1740 |
03/17/2011 |
| |
1750 |
12/13/2010 |
| |
1760 |
05/17/2011 |
| |
1770 |
02/15/2011 |
| |
1780 |
12/25/2010 |
| |
1790 |
03/14/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
02/09/2011 |
| |
|
|
| 2100 |
COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOFTWARE |
| |
2110 |
01/09/2011 |
| |
2120 |
09/19/2010 |
| |
2140 |
09/19/2010 |
| |
2150 |
06/04/2011 |
| |
2160 |
07/14/2011 |
| |
2170 |
12/22/2010 |
| |
2180 |
09/28/2010 |
| |
2190 |
04/05/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
12/07/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 2400 |
NETWORKING, MULTIPLEXING, CABLE AND SECURITY |
| |
2410 |
12/10/2010 |
| |
2420 |
12/19/2010 |
| |
2430 |
11/22/2010 |
| |
2440 |
01/25/2011 |
| |
2450 |
01/03/2011 |
| |
2460 |
10/22/2010 |
| |
2470 |
11/04/2010 |
| |
2480 |
08/01/2010 |
| |
2490 |
11/19/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
11/16/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 2600 |
COMMUNICATIONS |
| |
2610 |
03/08/2011 |
| |
2620 |
01/22/2011 |
| |
2630 |
10/28/2010 |
| |
2640 |
04/20/2011 |
| |
2650 |
09/13/2010 |
| |
2660 |
11/07/2010 |
| |
2670 |
08/13/2010 |
| |
2680 |
11/28/2010 |
| |
2690 |
10/07/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
11/22/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 2800
|
SEMICONDUCTORS/MEMORY, CIRCUITS/MEASURING AND TESTING, OPTICS/PHOTOCOPYING |
| |
2810 |
05/08/2011 |
| |
2820 |
03/30/2011 |
| |
2830 |
02/09/2011 |
| |
2850 |
11/16/2010 |
| |
2860 |
04/29/2011 |
| |
2870 |
01/09/2011 |
| |
2880 |
03/02/2011 |
| |
2890 |
05/20/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
02/21/2011 |
| |
|
|
| 2900
|
|
| |
2910 |
12/19/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
12/19/2011 |
| |
|
|
| 3600
|
TRANSPORTATION, CONSTRUCTION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LICENSE AND REVIEW
|
| |
3610 |
05/14/2011 |
| |
3620 |
03/20/2011 |
| |
3630 |
04/17/2011 |
| |
3640 |
02/15/2011 |
| |
3650 |
12/31/2010 |
| |
3660 |
12/19/2010 |
| |
3670 |
03/30/2011 |
| |
3680 |
03/20/2011 |
| |
3690 |
08/23/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
03/20/2011 |
| |
|
|
| 3700
|
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS |
| |
3710 |
02/27/2011 |
| |
3720 |
12/01/2010 |
| |
3730 |
12/16/2010 |
| |
3740 |
05/08/2010 |
| |
3750 |
09/28/2010 |
| |
3760 |
12/25/2010 |
| |
3770 |
11/22/2010 |
| |
3780 |
11/10/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
11/04/2010 |
| |
|
|
| |
1 Report last updated on 10-31-12. |
Top of Notices
Top of Notices November 27, 2012