| Fees, Deposit Accounts, Credit Cards, Refunds, etc. |
Referenced Items (72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93) |
(74) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
RIN 0651-AC28
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2008-0023]
Fiscal Year 2009
Changes to Patent Cooperation Treaty
Transmittal and Search Fees
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is
amending the rules of practice to adjust the transmittal and search
fees for international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation
Treaty (PCT). The Office is adjusting the PCT transmittal and search
fees to recover the estimated average cost to the Office of processing
PCT international applications and preparing international search
reports and written opinions for PCT international applications.
DATES: Effective Date:
The changes to 37 CFR 1.445 are effective on January 12, 2009 and
are applicable to any international application having a receipt date
that is on or after January 12, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Boris Milef, Legal Examiner, Office of
PCT Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent
Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-3288; or by mail
addressed to: Box Comments Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PCT enables United States applicants to
file one application (a PCT international application) in a
standardized format in English in a Receiving Office (either the United
States Patent and Trademark Office or the International Bureau of the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)) and have that application
acknowledged as a regular national or regional filing by PCT member
countries. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1801 (8th ed.
2001) (Rev. 7, July 2008). The primary benefit of the PCT system is the
ability to delay the expense of submitting papers and fees to the PCT
national offices. See MPEP § 1893.
The Office acts as a Receiving Office for United States residents
and nationals. See 35 U.S.C. 361(a), 37 CFR 1.412(a), and MPEP § 1801.
A Receiving Office functions as the filing and formalities review
organization for PCT international applications. See MPEP § 1801.
The Office, in its capacity as a Receiving Office, received over 50,000
PCT international applications in each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
The Office also acts as an International Searching Authority (ISA). See
35 U.S.C. 362(a), 37 CFR 1.413(a), and MPEP § 1840. The primary functions
of an ISA are to establish: (1) International search reports, and (2)
written opinions of the ISA. See MPEP § 1840.
The transmittal and search fees for a PCT international application
are provided for in 35 U.S.C. 376. See 35 U.S.C. 376 (the Office "may
also charge" a "transmittal fee," "search fee," "supplemental
search fee," and "any additional fees" (35 U.S.C. 376(a)), and the
"amounts of [these] fees * * * shall be prescribed by the Director"
(35 U.S.C. 376(b)). In addition, 35 U.S.C. 41(d) provides that fee
amounts set by the Office "recover the estimated average cost to the
Office of such processing, services, or materials." See 35 U.S.C.
41(d). The current PCT transmittal, search, and supplemental search
fees are set at amounts that do not recover the estimated average cost
 Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 325 |
to the Office of performing these functions for PCT international
applications. Therefore, the Office is adjusting the PCT transmittal
fee, search fee, and supplemental search fee to recover the estimated
average cost to the Office of processing PCT international applications
and preparing international search reports and written opinions for PCT
international applications.
The Office uses an Activity Based Information (ABI) methodology to
determine the estimated average costs on a per process, service, or
material basis. The ABI analysis includes compiling the Office costs
for a specified activity, including the direct costs (e.g., direct
personnel compensation, contract services, maintenance and repairs,
communications, utilities, equipment, supplies, materials, and
training), an appropriate allocation of direct allocated costs (e.g.,
rent, program-related automation, and personnel compensation benefits
such as medical insurance and retirement), and an appropriate
allocation of indirect allocated costs (e.g., general financial and
human resource management, non-program specific automation, and general
Office expenses). The direct cost for an activity plus its direct
allocated costs and indirect allocated costs is the "fully burdened"
cost for that activity. The "fully burdened" cost for an activity is
then divided by production measures (number of that activity completed)
to arrive at the fully burdened per-unit cost for that activity. The
cost for a particular process is then determined by ascertaining which
activities occur for the process, and how often each such activity
occurs for the process.
The ABI analysis in this final rule is based upon fiscal year 2007
costs, as fiscal year 2007 is the most recent fiscal year for which
complete cost and production measure information is available. The
Office is adjusting the fiscal year 2007 cost by the change in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) between fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2009 as the CPI-U is a reasonable basis for
determining the changes in Office costs between fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal year 2009. Thus, the Office will adjust the fiscal year 2007
costs by five percent to account for the increase in Office costs
between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2009 to determine the
estimated fiscal year 2009 costs. The Office plans to revalidate these
costs every three to five years, and use the CPI-U as the basis for
adjustment of these fees in the intervening years as the changes in the
CPI-U is a reasonable basis for determining the year-to-year changes in
Office costs.
Finally, the fiscal year 2009 cost amounts are rounded by applying
standard arithmetic rules to the nearest five dollars for fee setting
purposes so that the resulting fee amounts will be convenient to patent
users.
The processing of PCT international applications involves the
following activities, with the fiscal year 2007 costs of the activity
per PCT international application indicated in parentheses: (1)
Application capture and initial processing ($20); (2) application
scanning ($96); (3) application formalities review ($107); and (4)
classification and security review ($7). Thus, the Office estimates
that the average fiscal year 2007 cost to the Office of processing a
PCT international application was $230. Therefore, the estimated
average fiscal year 2009 cost to the Office of processing a PCT
international application is $241 ($230 multiplied by 1.05).
Accordingly, this final rule sets the transmittal fee at $240.00.
The Office currently prepares an international search report and
written opinion for a PCT international application by one of three
methods: (1) Transcribing an Office action for a prior-filed
application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), if possible; (2) having an Office
examiner prepare the international search report and written opinion;
and (3) acquiring the international search report and written opinion
| Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 326 |
from a competitive source.
Obtaining an international search report and written opinion for a
PCT international application by transcribing an Office action for a
prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) involves having Office
personnel transcribe the Office action for the prior-filed application
into an international search report and written opinion. The Office
estimates that the average fiscal year 2007 cost to the Office of this
activity per international search report and written opinion was $218.
Acquiring the international search report and written opinion by
having an Office examiner prepare the international search report and
written opinion involves at least the following activities, with the
fiscal year 2007 costs of the activity per international search report
and written opinion indicated in parentheses: (1) Fee processing and
classification of the application by technology center art unit ($108);
and (2) analysis, search of prior art, and preparation of an
international search report and written opinion by an Office examiner
($2,284). Thus, the Office estimates that the average fiscal year 2007
cost to the Office of acquiring an international search report and
written opinion by having an Office examiner prepare the international
search report and written opinion was $2,392.
Acquiring the international search report and written opinion from
a competitive source involves the following activities, with the fiscal
year 2007 costs of the activity per international search report and
written opinion indicated in parentheses: (1) Contract for an
international search report and written opinion ($1,837) (direct
allocated costs are excluded from this cost amount because the use of
Office space is not involved); and (2) contract oversight and quality
review of international search report and written opinion ($237). Thus,
the Office estimates that the average fiscal year 2007 cost to the Office
of acquiring the international search report and written opinion by
acquiring the international search report and written opinion from a
competitive source was $2,074.
Preparing an international search report and written opinion for a
PCT international application by transcribing an Office action for a
prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is a viable option for
only an incidental number (five percent) of PCT international
applications due to the current pendency to first Office action.
Therefore, to meet the time frames established in the PCT, the Office
must rely upon having an Office examiner prepare the international
search report and written opinion, or acquiring the international
search report and written opinion from a competitive source, in the
vast majority (ninety-five percent) of PCT international applications.
The Office is migrating towards obtaining international search reports
and written opinion for a PCT international application from a
competitive source in the ninety-five percent of applications for which
transcribing an Office action for a prior-filed application under 35
U.S.C. 111(a) is not a viable option. Therefore, the fiscal year 2009
average cost of obtaining an international search report and written
opinion for a PCT international application is estimated on the basis
of the Office transcribing an Office action for a prior-filed
application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in five percent of applications and
acquiring the international search report and written opinion from a
competitive source in ninety-five percent of applications, resulting in
a composite fiscal year 2007 cost of $1,981 ($2,074 multiplied by 0.95
plus $218 multiplied by 0.05). Therefore, the estimated average fiscal
year 2009 cost of preparing an international search report and written
opinion for a PCT international application is $2,080 ($1,981
multiplied by 1.05). Accordingly, this final rule sets the search fee
and supplemental search fee at $2,080.
Discussion of Specific Rules
| Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 327 |
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, is amended as
follows:
Section 1.445: Section 1.445(a)(1) is amended to change the
transmittal fee from $300.00 to $240.00. Section 1.445(a)(2) is amended
to change the search fee from $1,800.00 to $2,080.00. Section
1.445(a)(3) is amended to change the supplemental search fee from
$1,800.00 to $2,080.00.
Response to Comments: The Office published a notice proposing to
adjust the transmittal and search fees for international applications
filed under the PCT to recover the estimated average cost to the Office
of processing PCT international applications and preparing
international search reports and written opinions for PCT international
applications. See Fiscal Year 2009 Changes to Patent Cooperation Treaty
Transmittal and Search Fees, 73 FR 34672 (June 18, 2008), 1332 Off.
Gaz. Pat. Office 295 (July 15, 2008) (proposed rule), and Fiscal Year
2009 Changes to Patent Cooperation Treaty Transmittal and Search Fees,
73 FR 38027 (July 2, 2008), 1332 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 421 (July 29,
2008) (correction).
Comment: The Office received one comment (from the American
Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)) in response to the
proposed rule making notice. The comment supported the principle that
patent users should pay the average costs incurred by the Office in
providing services but raised a number of concerns with respect to the
proposed changes to the transmittal and search fees. The comment first
requested information on how the transmittal and international search
fees under § 1.445 were calculated so that the patent user
community can determine whether the proposed increases in fees are
necessary or reasonable. The comment also stated that the international
search fee under § 1.445 overcharges and discriminates against U.S.
nationals using the PCT because the costs for search and examination of
national applications are subsidized by issue and maintenance fees, and
PCT applications from U.S. nationals generally result in national stage
applications which will generate issue and maintenance fees to the same
extent as other national applications. The comment also stated that the
international search fee under § 1.445 overcharges and
discriminates against U.S. applicants who file PCT applications
claiming priority of an earlier-filed U.S. national application, as
such applicants will pay both the full national search fee and the full
international search fee thus effectively paying twice for the same
search. The comment also questioned why the transmittal fee set forth
in § 1.445(a)(1) is higher than transmittal fees charged by other
PCT Receiving Offices and suggested that instead of increasing the
transmittal fee, the Office should determine how it can perform its
Receiving Office functions at costs in line with the rest of the world.
Response: The basis for the estimated average costs to the Office
of processing PCT international applications and preparing
international search reports and written opinions for PCT international
applications has been discussed previously. The patent fee structure
set forth in 35 U.S.C. 41 is a combination of specified patent fees (35
U.S.C. 41(a), (b), (d)(1), and (d)(2)(A) through (C)) that cover
enumerated processing, services, and materials, and a provision (35
U.S.C. 41(d)(2)) directing the Office to establish fees for all other
processing, services, or materials relating to patents that are not
otherwise specified in 35 U.S.C. 41. The provisions of 35 U.S.C.
41(d)(2) apply to the PCT fees by the Office under the authority
provided in 35 U.S.C. 376. See H. Rep. 97-542, at 8 (1982) (noting that
the "other processing" and "services" covered by 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2)
(then 35 U.S.C. 41(d)) include inter alia the processing of PCT
international applications). The transmittal and international search
fees under § 1.445 are not fees specified under 35 U.S.C. 41, but
rather are processing or services pertaining to PCT international
applications. Thus, 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2) provides for the Office to set
| Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 328 |
the transmittal and international search fees to recover their
estimated average costs to the Office.
The application filing fees (filing, search, and examination fees)
for an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), which currently total
$1090.00 ($545.00 small entity) for an original nonprovisional patent
application (other than plant or design), do not recover the Office's
costs of initial processing and examination of an application, but
rather this cost is subsidized by patent issue and maintenance fees.
See H.R. Rep. 108-241, at 15 (2003) (noting that the Office's costs of
examining applications are subsidized by issue and maintenance fees).
35 U.S.C. 41(a) and (b) provide a fee structure under which the
application filing fees for an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) are
lower than the Office's costs of initial processing and the examination
provided for in 35 U.S.C. 132(a) and are subsidized by patent issue and
maintenance fees. 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376 do not provide for the Office to
establish PCT international stage fees lower than the Office's costs
and to subsidize the costs by revenue generated from patent issue and
maintenance fees. Rather, 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2) provides for fees that
recover the estimated average cost to the Office of the processing,
services, or materials, which is incongruous with setting a fee lower
than the cost of the processing, service, or material and to be
subsidized by revenue generated from other fees. In any event, since
international applications under the PCT do not themselves mature into
patents, it is appropriate that the fees paid in PCT international
applications accurately reflect the costs to the Office of the processing,
search, and examination of these applications.
The Office provides a reduced search fee for applications entering
the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 where the search fee has been
paid on the PCT international application to the Office as an International
Searching Authority. See § 1.492(b)(2).
The Office does not provide a reduced search fee for PCT international
applications where there has been a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C.
111(a). As discussed previously, the Office's current pendency to first
Office action does not allow for the use of the search in the prior-filed
application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for the preparation of an international
search report and written opinion for a PCT international application for
the vast majority of applications, if the Office is to meet the time frames
established in the PCT. Thus, the Office generally incurs the cost of
conducting separate searches for the PCT international application and the
prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in this situation.
The PCT transmittal fee being adopted in this final rule is lower
than what some Receiving Offices charge and higher than what other
Receiving Offices charge. What transmittal and search fees other
Receiving Offices and International Searching Authorities charge are
immaterial. The Office encounters different costs than do other
Receiving Offices and International Searching Authorities for a number
of reasons beyond the control of the Office. In addition, it is not
clear that other Receiving Offices and International Searching
Authorities set their transmittal or search fees on a cost-recovery
basis as provided for in 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2).
Rule Making Considerations
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
The Office is revising the rules of practice to adjust the
transmittal and search fees for international applications filed under
the PCT. The Office is adjusting the PCT transmittal and search fees to
recover the estimated average cost to the Office of processing PCT
| Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 329 |
international applications and preparing international search reports
and written opinions for PCT international applications.
2. Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Rules
The Office is adjusting the PCT transmittal and search fees to
recover the estimated average cost to the Office of processing PCT
international applications and preparing international search reports
and written opinions for PCT international applications. The changes in
this final rule are authorized by 35 U.S.C. 41(d) and 376.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Affected Small Entities
The Small Business Administration (SBA) small business size
standards applicable to most analyses conducted to comply with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are set forth in 13 CFR 121.201. These
regulations generally define small businesses as those with fewer than
a maximum number of employees or less than a specified level of annual
receipts for the entity's industrial sector or North American Industry
Classification System code. The Office, however, has formally adopted
an alternate size standard for the purpose of conducting an analysis or
making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-
related regulations. See Business Size Standard for Purposes of United
States Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
Patent-Related Regulations, 71 FR 67109 (Nov. 20, 2006), 1313 Off. Gaz.
Pat. Office 60 (Dec. 12, 2006). This alternate small business size
standard is the previously established size standard that identifies
the criteria entities must meet to be entitled to pay reduced patent
fees. See 13 CFR 121.802. If patent applicants identify themselves on a
patent application as qualifying for reduced patent fees, the Office
captures this data in the Patent Application Location and Monitoring
(PALM) database system, which tracks information on each patent
application submitted to the Office.
Unlike the SBA small business size standards set forth in 13 CFR
121.201, this size standard is not industry-specific. Specifically, the
Office's definition of small business concern for Regulatory
Flexibility Act purposes is a business or other concern that: (1) Meets
the SBA's definition of a "business concern or concern" set forth in
13 CFR 121.105; and (2) meets the size standards set forth in 13 CFR
121.802 for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees, namely an
entity: (a) Whose number of employees, including affiliates, does not
exceed 500 persons; and (b) which has not assigned, granted, conveyed,
or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the
invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an
independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a
non-profit organization or a small business concern under this
definition. See Business Size Standard for Purposes of United States
Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Patent-
Related Regulations, 71 FR at 67112, 1313 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 63.
The changes in this final rule will apply to any small entity who
files a PCT international application in the United States Receiving
Office and to any small entity who requests a search by the United
States International Searching Authority. The Office received between
52,000 and 53,000 PCT international applications in each of fiscal
years 2006 and 2007. There is no provision in 35 U.S.C. 376 (or
elsewhere) for a small entity reduction for the transmittal or search
fees for a PCT international application. Thus, PCT applicants do not
indicate and the Office does not record whether a PCT international
application is filed by a small entity or a non-small entity. The
Office's PALM and Revenue Accounting and Management (RAM) systems
indicate that 12,043 of the PCT international applications in fiscal
year 2006 claim priority to a prior application (nonprovisional or
provisional) that has small entity status, and that 2,559 of the PCT
international applications in fiscal year 2006 do not claim priority to
| Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 330 |
any prior nonprovisional application or provisional application. The
Office's PALM and RAM systems indicate that 12,716 of the PCT
international applications in fiscal year 2007 claim priority to a
prior application (nonprovisional or provisional) that has small entity
status, and that 4,016 of the PCT international applications in fiscal
year 2007 do not claim priority to any prior nonprovisional application
or provisional application.
4. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rules, Including an Estimate of the
Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report
or Record
This final rule does not involve any reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements. This final rule only adjusts the PCT
transmittal and search fees. As discussed previously, there is no
provision in 35 U.S.C. 376 (or elsewhere) for a small entity reduction
for the transmittal or search fees for a PCT international application.
The following table (Table 1) indicates the PCT international stage fee,
the number of payments of the fee received by the Office in fiscal year
2007 (number of entities who paid the applicable fee in fiscal year 2007),
the former fee amount, the revised fee amount, and the net amount of the
fee adjustment.
Table 1
Fiscal Year
Former fee Revised fee Fee
amount amount Fee adjustment 2007 payments
Transmittal fee ...................................... 54,335
300.00 240.00 (60.00)
Search Fee ........................................... 30,965
1800.00 2080.00 280.00
Supplemental
Search Fee ......................................... 941
1800.00 2080.00 280.00
The PCT international search fee and supplemental search fee were
adjusted from $1,000.00 to $1,800.00 in November of 2007. See April
2007 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures, 72 FR 51559
(Sept. 10, 2007), 1323 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 26 (Oct. 2, 2007) (final
rule). Thus, the change to the search fee and supplemental search fee
in this final rule is a $280.00 increase over the current search fee
and supplemental search fee set in November of 2007, and a $1,080.00
increase over the search fee and supplemental search fee that was in
effect prior to November of 2007.
The PCT does not preclude United States applicants from filing
patent applications directly in the patent offices of those countries
which are Contracting States of the PCT (with or without previously
having filed a regular national application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or
111(b) in the United States) and taking advantage of the priority
rights and other advantages provided under the Paris Convention and the
World Trade Organization (WTO) administered Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs Agreement). See MPEP §
1801. That is, the PCT is not the exclusive mechanism for seeking
patent protection in foreign countries, but is instead simply an
optional alternative route available to United States patent applicants
for seeking patent protection in those countries that are Contracting
States of the PCT. See id.
In addition, an applicant filing an international application under
the PCT in the United States Receiving Office (the United States Patent
| Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 331 |
and Trademark Office) is not required to use the United States Patent
and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority. The
European Patent Office (except for applications containing business
method claims) or the Korean Intellectual Property Office may be
selected as the International Searching Authority for PCT international
applications filed in the United States Receiving Office. The
applicable search fee if the European Patent Office is selected as the
International Searching Authority European is currently $2665.00 (set
by the European Patent Office), and the applicable search fee if the
Korean Intellectual Property Office is selected as the International
Searching Authority is currently $244.00 (set by the Korean
Intellectual Property Office). The Office also recently entered into an
agreement with IP Australia under which IP Australia may be selected as
the International Searching Authority for certain PCT international
applications filed in the United States Receiving Office.
5. Description of Any Significant Alternatives Which Accomplish the Stated
Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities
The alternative of not adjusting the PCT transmittal and search
fees would have a lesser economic impact on small entities, but would
not accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes. See 35
U.S.C. 41(d) (provides that fees set by the Office recover the
estimated average cost to the Office of the processing, services, or
materials).
6. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Rules
The Office is the sole agency of the United States Government
responsible for administering the provisions of title 35, United States
Code, pertaining to the examination of patent applications and granting
of patents. Therefore, no other federal, state, or local entity shares
jurisdiction over the examination and granting of patents.
The Office previously adjusted the patent fees set by statute to
reflect fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). See Revision of
Patent Fees for Fiscal Year 2009, 73 FR 47534 (Aug. 14, 2008), 1334
Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 45 (Sept. 2, 2008) (final rule). The Office is
also in the process of studying the cost of a number of processes and
services covered by the cost-recovery provisions of 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2)
(e.g., reexamination proceeding costs), and the Office will propose
adjustments to the fees for these processes and services if
appropriate. The changes that would be proposed in any rule makings
resulting from this study would also not duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the changes proposed in this notice.
Other countries, however, have their own patent laws, and an entity
desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for
patent in that country, in accordance with the applicable law. Although
the potential for overlap exists internationally, such overlap cannot
be avoided except by treaty harmonizing the patent laws for all
countries (such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property, or the PCT).
Nevertheless, the Office believes that there are no other
duplicative or overlapping rules.
B. 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).
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
| Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 332 |
This rulemaking has been determined to be significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as amended by Executive
Order 13258 (Feb. 26, 2002) and Executive Order 13422 (Jan. 18, 2007).
D. 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).
E. 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).
F. 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).
G. 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).
H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar.
15, 1988).
I. 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 this final rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the Government
Accountability Office. The changes in this final 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 final rule is not a "major rule" as defined in 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The changes in this final rule 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
| Top of Notices (74) December 29, 2009 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1349 CNOG 333 |
Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
K. National Environmental Policy Act
This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of
environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
L. 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
inapplicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions which
involve the use of technical standards.
M. Paperwork Reduction Act
The changes in this final rule involve 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 et seq.). The collection of information involved in this notice
has been reviewed and approved by OMB under OMB control number 0651-
0021. The Office did not resubmit an information collection package to
OMB for its review and approval because the changes in this final rule
concern revised fees for existing information collection requirements
associated with the information collection under OMB control number
0651-0021. The Office will submit fee revision changes to the inventory
of the information collection under OMB control number 0651-0021.
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
37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of
Information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Small Businesses.
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. The authority citation for subpart is revised to read as follows:
Authority: §§ 1.401 to 1.499 also issued under 35 U.S.C. 41
and 351 through 376.
. 3. Section 1.445 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and
(a)(3) to read as follows:
§ 1.445 International application filing, processing and search fees.
(a) * * *
(1) A transmittal fee (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 14) $240.00
(2) A search fee (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 16) $2,080.00
(3) A supplemental search fee when required, per additional $2,080.00
invention
* * * * *
October 21, 2008 JON W. DUDAS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
[1337 OG 97]