| Amendments, Drawings, CPA Practice |
Referenced Items (353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361) |
(359) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2014-0001]
RIN 0651-AC92
Changes to Continued Prosecution Application Practice
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Interim rule.
SUMMARY: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) revised and streamlined
the requirements for the inventor's oath or declaration. In implementing
the AIA inventor's oath or declaration provisions, the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (Office) provided that an applicant may postpone the
filing of the inventor's oath or declaration until allowance if the
applicant provides an application data sheet indicating the name,
residence, and mailing address of each inventor. The rules pertaining to
continued prosecution applications (which are applicable only to design
applications) require that the prior nonprovisional application of a
continued prosecution application be complete, which requires that the
prior nonprovisional application contain the inventor's oath or
declaration. This interim rule revises the rules pertaining to continued
prosecution applications to permit the filing of a continued prosecution
application even if the prior nonprovisional application does not contain
the inventor's oath or declaration if the continued prosecution application
is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional
application contains an application data sheet indicating the name,
residence, and mailing address of each inventor.
DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2014.
Comment Deadline Date: Written comments must be received on or before
May 5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the
Internet addressed to: AC92.comments@uspto.gov. Comments also may be
submitted by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments--Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked
to the attention of Eugenia A. Jones, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of
Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent
Examination Policy.
Comments likewise may be sent by electronic mail message over the
Internet via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking
Portal Web site (http://www.regulations.gov) for additional instructions on
providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to
receive comments by electronic mail message over the Internet because
sharing comments with the public is more easily accomplished. Electronic
comments in plain text are preferred, but comments in ADOBE® portable
document format or MICROSOFT WORD® format are also acceptable. Comments
not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that
facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document
format.
Comments will be available for viewing via the Office's Internet Web
site (http://www.uspto.gov). Because comments will be made available for
public inspection, information that the submitter does not desire to make
public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in the
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugenia A. Jones, Senior Legal Advisor,
 Top of Notices (359) December 30, 2014 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1409 CNOG 1973 |
Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner
for Patent Examination Policy, at (571) 272-7727.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary: Purpose: This interim rule permits the filing of a
continued prosecution application even if the prior nonprovisional
application does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration. This
change is to avoid the need for applicants to file the inventor's oath or
declaration in an application in order to file a continued prosecution
application of that application.
Summary of Major Provisions: This interim rule provides that the prior
nonprovisional application of a continued prosecution application that was
filed on or after September 16, 2012 is not required to contain the
inventor's oath or declaration if the prior nonprovisional application
contains an application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and
mailing address of each inventor.
Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant
under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
Background: The Office has revised the rules of practice pertaining to
the inventor's oath or declaration to permit an applicant to postpone the
filing of the inventor's oath or declaration until payment of the issue fee
if the applicant provides an application data sheet indicating the name,
residence, and mailing address of each inventor. See Changes To Implement
the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, 77 FR 48776, 48779-80 (Aug. 14, 2012), and Changes to
Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62367, 62376 (Oct. 21, 2013). The
rules of practice pertaining to continued prosecution applications (which
are applicable only to design applications) require that the prior
nonprovisional application of a continued prosecution application be a
design application that is complete as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b). See 37
CFR 1.53(d)(1)(ii) (requires that the prior nonprovisional application of a
continued prosecution application be a design application that is complete
as defined by 37 CFR 1.51(b)). 37 CFR 1.51(b) in turn requires that an
application contain the inventor's oath or declaration to be complete. See
37 CFR 1.51(b)(2). This interim rule amends 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1)(ii) to permit
the filing of a continued prosecution application even if the prior
nonprovisional application does not contain the inventor's oath or
declaration if the continued prosecution application is filed on or after
September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an
application data sheet indicating the name, residence, and mailing address
of each inventor. This change is to avoid the need for applicants to file
the inventor's oath or declaration in an application in order to file a
continued prosecution application of that application.
Discussion of Specific Rules
The following is a discussion of the amendments to Title 37 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 1.
Section 1.53: Section 1.53(d)(1)(ii) is amended to change "[t]he prior
nonprovisional application is a design application that is complete as
defined by § 1.51(b)" to "[t]he prior nonprovisional application is a
design application that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b), except for
the inventor's oath or declaration if the application is filed on or after
September 16, 2012, and the prior nonprovisional application contains an
application data sheet meeting the conditions specified in
§ 1.53(f)(3)(i)."
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: This interim rule revises the
procedures that apply to the filing of a continued prosecution application.
| Top of Notices (359) December 30, 2014 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1409 CNOG 1974 |
The changes in this interim rule do not change the substantive criteria of
patentability. Therefore, the changes proposed in this rulemaking involve
rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or interpretive rules. See JEM
Broad. Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("[T]he critical
feature of the procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] is that it
covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests
of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties
present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency") (quoting Batterton
v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also Bachow Commc'ns
Inc. v. F.C.C., 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an
application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act);
Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules
for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the
substantive standard for reviewing claims).
In addition, the Office, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B),
finds good cause to adopt the changes in this interim rule without prior
notice and an opportunity for public comment, as such procedures are
contrary to the public interest. Delay in the promulgation of this rule to
provide notice and comment procedures would cause harm to those applicants
who file a continued prosecution application where the prior nonprovisional
application does not contain the inventor's oath or declaration. Immediate
implementation of the changes in this interim rule is in the public
interest because: (1) The public does not need time to conform its conduct
as the changes in this interim rule merely ease the requirements for filing
a continued prosecution application; and (2) those applicants who are
currently ineligible to file a continued prosecution application because
the prior nonprovisional application does not contain the inventor's oath
or declaration will benefit from the changes in this interim rule. See
Nat'l. Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass'n v. U.S., 59 F.3d 1219, 1223-24
(Fed. Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not
required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), or any
other law. See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does
not require notice and comment rulemaking for "interpretative rules,
general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice") (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). In addition, pursuant to
authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the changes in this interim rule may be
made immediately effective because they relieve restrictions in the
requirements for filing a continued prosecution application.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity for
public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law,
neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is required. See 5 U.S.C.
603.
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review):
The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, the
Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored
the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining
the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that
maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5)
identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public in
an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant
disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector and the public as
a whole, and provided on-line access to the rulemaking docket; (7)
attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across
government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation;
| Top of Notices (359) December 30, 2014 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1409 CNOG 1975 |
(8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and
freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of
scientific and technological information and processes.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking does not contain
policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of
a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking will
not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; (2)
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; or
(3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not
required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).
G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this
rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).
H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets
applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking does
not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21,
1997).
J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rulemaking
will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking
implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
K. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the United
States Patent and Trademark Office will submit a report containing the rule
and other required information to the United States Senate, the United
States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
Government Accountability Office. The changes in this interim rule are not
expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million
dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore,
this interim rule is not a "major rule" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this
notice do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result
in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or
a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the
private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one
year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
M. National Environmental Policy Act: This rulemaking will not have any
effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does
| Top of Notices (359) December 30, 2014 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1409 CNOG 1976 |
not contain provisions which involve the use of technical standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the Office consider the impact of
paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public.
This interim rule involves information collection requirements which are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549). This rulemaking does
not impose any additional collection requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act which are subject to further review by OMB.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of information,
Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR Part 1 is amended as
follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR Part 1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).
2. Section 1.53 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
§ 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The prior nonprovisional application is a design application that
is complete as defined by § 1.51(b), except for the inventor's oath or
declaration if the application is filed on or after September 16, 2012, and
the prior nonprovisional application contains an application data sheet
meeting the conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i).
* * * * *
February 27, 2014 MICHELLE K. LEE
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
[1401 OG 60]