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 1369 O.G. 5, on August 2, 2011.
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 May 1, 2012, and
was announced in the Official Gazette at 1378 O.G. 5, on May 1, 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
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 3 |
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, effective January 10, 2012, was announced
in the Official Gazette at 1378 O.G. 162, on May 8, 2012. The search fee of
Rospatent will increase effective June 1, 2012, as also 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 May 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 $2,041.00
Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents &
Trademarks of Russia (Rospatent) as ISA $415.00 1
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
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 4 |
Restoration of Priority
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).
April 30, 2012 ANDREW H. HIRSHFELD
Deputy Commissioner for
Patent Examination Policy
United States Patent and Trademark Office
1 The search fee will increase to $453 effective June 1, 2012.
| 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 July 28, 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 7,565,703 through 7,568,237
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on July 26, 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 6,920,642 through 6,922,846
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on July 24, 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 6,263,508 through 6,266,817
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 June 20, 2012
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,076,191 09/288,009 06/20/00
6,076,194 09/419,763 06/20/00
6,076,203 08/430,196 06/20/00
6,076,214 09/274,649 06/20/00
6,076,215 09/059,083 06/20/00
6,076,217 09/055,720 06/20/00
6,076,218 09/057,474 06/20/00
6,076,219 09/232,067 06/20/00
6,076,220 09/208,863 06/20/00
6,076,221 09/154,936 06/20/00
6,076,231 09/143,043 06/20/00
6,076,233 09/084,775 06/20/00
6,076,236 09/286,639 06/20/00
6,076,240 09/118,970 06/20/00
6,076,242 09/125,195 06/20/00
6,076,247 09/135,131 06/20/00
6,076,250 09/011,936 06/20/00
6,076,251 08/891,449 06/20/00
6,076,259 08/981,551 06/20/00
6,076,267 08/803,524 06/20/00
6,076,269 09/021,972 06/20/00
6,076,270 08/865,376 06/20/00
6,076,273 08/525,604 06/20/00
6,076,275 09/109,906 06/20/00
6,076,276 09/124,308 06/20/00
6,076,277 09/254,673 06/20/00
6,076,282 09/194,222 06/20/00
6,076,283 09/201,053 06/20/00
6,076,290 09/156,879 06/20/00
6,076,295 08/846,385 06/20/00
6,076,306 09/019,308 06/20/00
6,076,307 08/244,398 06/20/00
6,076,308 09/015,047 06/20/00
6,076,310 09/039,872 06/20/00
6,076,320 08/871,395 06/20/00
6,076,323 09/042,501 06/20/00
6,076,324 08/966,053 06/20/00
6,076,325 09/094,197 06/20/00
6,076,327 09/081,820 06/20/00
6,076,331 09/068,855 06/20/00
6,076,337 08/995,943 06/20/00
6,076,338 09/182,795 06/20/00
6,076,340 09/009,298 06/20/00
6,076,364 09/263,279 06/20/00
6,076,383 08/985,308 06/20/00
6,076,390 09/202,051 06/20/00
6,076,391 09/125,680 06/20/00
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 7 |
6,076,402 09/104,730 06/20/00
6,076,410 09/145,317 06/20/00
6,076,415 09/163,021 06/20/00
6,076,448 09/012,472 06/20/00
6,076,450 09/053,799 06/20/00
6,076,461 09/184,354 06/20/00
6,076,462 09/319,942 06/20/00
6,076,473 09/250,250 06/20/00
6,076,474 09/018,247 06/20/00
6,076,495 08/834,814 06/20/00
6,076,501 09/156,184 06/20/00
6,076,505 09/229,421 06/20/00
6,076,506 09/082,135 06/20/00
6,076,508 09/116,996 06/20/00
6,076,518 09/032,039 06/20/00
6,076,521 08/652,555 06/20/00
6,076,522 09/180,648 06/20/00
6,076,526 09/320,302 06/20/00
6,076,536 09/167,360 06/20/00
6,076,539 09/132,932 06/20/00
6,076,542 09/351,655 06/20/00
6,076,545 08/840,421 06/20/00
6,076,546 09/039,663 06/20/00
6,076,549 09/165,406 06/20/00
6,076,554 09/320,313 06/20/00
6,076,555 09/093,791 06/20/00
6,076,558 09/137,795 06/20/00
6,076,559 09/306,655 06/20/00
6,076,560 09/300,401 06/20/00
6,076,561 09/176,034 06/20/00
6,076,565 09/123,674 06/20/00
6,076,567 09/272,485 06/20/00
6,076,575 09/034,121 06/20/00
6,076,577 09/241,895 06/20/00
6,076,578 08/944,730 06/20/00
6,076,586 08/780,514 06/20/00
6,076,594 09/182,579 06/20/00
6,076,609 09/273,629 06/20/00
6,076,613 09/149,692 06/20/00
6,076,614 09/349,696 06/20/00
6,076,615 09/029,191 06/20/00
6,076,618 09/131,419 06/20/00
6,076,619 09/209,652 06/20/00
6,076,620 09/026,559 06/20/00
6,076,626 08/801,865 06/20/00
6,076,638 09/298,082 06/20/00
6,076,645 09/142,214 06/20/00
6,076,657 09/048,558 06/20/00
6,076,667 09/304,985 06/20/00
6,076,669 09/149,492 06/20/00
6,076,670 09/122,550 06/20/00
6,076,672 09/197,838 06/20/00
6,076,681 09/033,293 06/20/00
6,076,687 09/129,068 06/20/00
6,076,689 09/019,536 06/20/00
6,076,700 09/168,479 06/20/00
6,076,707 09/161,910 06/20/00
6,076,711 09/271,872 06/20/00
6,076,712 09/177,241 06/20/00
6,076,714 08/959,172 06/20/00
6,076,718 08/506,599 06/20/00
6,076,724 09/347,394 06/20/00
6,076,727 09/077,000 06/20/00
6,076,731 09/055,694 06/20/00
6,076,732 08/890,362 06/20/00
6,076,735 09/065,459 06/20/00
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 8 |
6,076,736 08/958,695 06/20/00
6,076,741 09/019,988 06/20/00
6,076,762 08/930,842 06/20/00
6,076,768 09/249,557 06/20/00
6,076,771 09/030,627 06/20/00
6,076,780 09/067,520 06/20/00
6,076,781 09/016,067 06/20/00
6,076,782 09/219,590 06/20/00
6,076,790 09/045,916 06/20/00
6,076,794 08/974,631 06/20/00
6,076,802 09/297,693 06/20/00
6,076,803 09/267,558 06/20/00
6,076,805 09/382,322 06/20/00
6,076,807 09/114,728 06/20/00
6,076,808 09/248,489 06/20/00
6,076,809 09/113,739 06/20/00
6,076,810 08/955,130 06/20/00
6,076,811 09/306,500 06/20/00
6,076,813 09/076,481 06/20/00
6,076,815 08/894,631 06/20/00
6,076,816 09/199,007 06/20/00
6,076,818 08/890,551 06/20/00
6,076,822 08/989,263 06/20/00
6,076,824 08/990,669 06/20/00
6,076,832 08/973,979 06/20/00
6,076,841 09/009,546 06/20/00
6,076,847 09/140,167 06/20/00
6,076,848 08/961,214 06/20/00
6,076,853 09/003,850 06/20/00
6,076,855 09/096,549 06/20/00
6,076,858 09/086,946 06/20/00
6,076,862 09/138,867 06/20/00
6,076,865 09/233,759 06/20/00
6,076,868 09/247,387 06/20/00
6,076,879 09/270,149 06/20/00
6,076,885 08/604,026 06/20/00
6,076,891 09/046,979 06/20/00
6,076,892 08/868,678 06/20/00
6,076,896 08/932,900 06/20/00
6,076,897 08/925,488 06/20/00
6,076,900 08/942,766 06/20/00
6,076,901 08/964,767 06/20/00
6,076,904 09/261,485 06/20/00
6,076,916 08/979,321 06/20/00
6,076,936 08/756,160 06/20/00
6,076,946 09/246,083 06/20/00
6,076,947 09/141,060 06/20/00
6,076,951 09/182,242 06/20/00
6,076,954 09/244,199 06/20/00
6,076,960 09/147,377 06/20/00
6,076,963 09/175,466 06/20/00
6,076,980 09/222,503 06/20/00
6,076,991 09/078,799 06/20/00
6,076,993 08/876,886 06/20/00
6,076,995 09/239,788 06/20/00
6,077,004 09/136,477 06/20/00
6,077,016 08/823,544 06/20/00
6,077,021 08/401,720 06/20/00
6,077,026 09/050,321 06/20/00
6,077,031 09/294,778 06/20/00
6,077,043 08/769,794 06/20/00
6,077,052 09/146,229 06/20/00
6,077,058 08/981,596 06/20/00
6,077,072 09/156,753 06/20/00
6,077,081 08/890,759 06/20/00
6,077,093 09/360,222 06/20/00
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 9 |
6,077,095 08/900,691 06/20/00
6,077,108 09/001,914 06/20/00
6,077,112 09/217,096 06/20/00
6,077,118 09/013,619 06/20/00
6,077,120 09/202,114 06/20/00
6,077,127 09/293,591 06/20/00
6,077,129 09/155,570 06/20/00
6,077,135 08/994,156 06/20/00
6,077,137 09/227,333 06/20/00
6,077,143 09/304,685 06/20/00
6,077,147 09/336,552 06/20/00
6,077,148 09/258,599 06/20/00
6,077,153 08/978,694 06/20/00
6,077,161 08/928,212 06/20/00
6,077,171 09/197,416 06/20/00
6,077,191 09/020,261 06/20/00
6,077,195 09/135,710 06/20/00
6,077,203 09/161,025 06/20/00
6,077,209 08/932,789 06/20/00
6,077,216 09/136,854 06/20/00
6,077,217 08/881,063 06/20/00
6,077,224 09/046,324 06/20/00
6,077,225 09/012,291 06/20/00
6,077,233 09/041,522 06/20/00
6,077,248 09/007,547 06/20/00
6,077,252 08/932,619 06/20/00
6,077,255 08/869,867 06/20/00
6,077,256 09/167,291 06/20/00
6,077,264 09/155,640 06/20/00
6,077,267 08/424,067 06/20/00
6,077,270 09/177,334 06/20/00
6,077,272 08/916,851 06/20/00
6,077,274 09/148,876 06/20/00
6,077,278 09/154,705 06/20/00
6,077,303 09/067,216 06/20/00
6,077,307 08/961,672 06/20/00
6,077,310 09/239,770 06/20/00
6,077,315 09/005,218 06/20/00
6,077,320 08/988,951 06/20/00
6,077,321 08/966,295 06/20/00
6,077,324 08/584,819 06/20/00
6,077,330 09/043,597 06/20/00
6,077,342 09/296,899 06/20/00
6,077,345 08/833,857 06/20/00
6,077,360 09/276,762 06/20/00
6,077,378 08/910,515 06/20/00
6,077,380 09/037,252 06/20/00
6,077,391 08/811,726 06/20/00
6,077,400 09/295,565 06/20/00
6,077,406 09/292,623 06/20/00
6,077,414 09/029,824 06/20/00
6,077,421 08/687,115 06/20/00
6,077,422 08/850,922 06/20/00
6,077,428 08/913,813 06/20/00
6,077,436 08/781,996 06/20/00
6,077,451 08/826,162 06/20/00
6,077,454 08/867,268 06/20/00
6,077,456 08/263,496 06/20/00
6,077,458 08/809,199 06/20/00
6,077,467 09/412,165 06/20/00
6,077,471 08/895,769 06/20/00
6,077,477 09/011,393 06/20/00
6,077,478 09/111,371 06/20/00
6,077,479 08/983,534 06/20/00
6,077,482 09/004,981 06/20/00
6,077,483 09/089,574 06/20/00
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 10 |
6,077,487 08/964,934 06/20/00
6,077,505 08/873,167 06/20/00
6,077,507 08/832,320 06/20/00
6,077,508 09/046,106 06/20/00
6,077,509 08/469,648 06/20/00
6,077,513 08/848,908 06/20/00
6,077,515 08/696,372 06/20/00
6,077,519 08/785,831 06/20/00
6,077,521 09/057,103 06/20/00
6,077,523 09/311,744 06/20/00
6,077,539 08/966,506 06/20/00
6,077,550 08/953,996 06/20/00
6,077,552 09/375,411 06/20/00
6,077,554 08/977,336 06/20/00
6,077,568 08/942,925 06/20/00
6,077,582 09/000,204 06/20/00
6,077,589 09/126,977 06/20/00
6,077,595 09/013,983 06/20/00
6,077,603 08/899,295 06/20/00
6,077,614 09/214,791 06/20/00
6,077,623 09/096,849 06/20/00
6,077,629 09/026,586 06/20/00
6,077,632 09/184,507 06/20/00
6,077,637 09/309,793 06/20/00
6,077,641 09/354,044 06/20/00
6,077,644 09/207,202 06/20/00
6,077,646 08/929,116 06/20/00
6,077,648 09/235,436 06/20/00
6,077,655 09/276,196 06/20/00
6,077,664 08/656,664 06/20/00
6,077,666 08/853,194 06/20/00
6,077,671 09/047,175 06/20/00
6,077,673 09/222,248 06/20/00
6,077,675 08/823,110 06/20/00
6,077,677 09/205,049 06/20/00
6,077,682 09/045,631 06/20/00
6,077,687 08/906,769 06/20/00
6,077,695 08/981,715 06/20/00
6,077,701 09/222,734 06/20/00
6,077,703 09/224,551 06/20/00
6,077,704 08/858,203 06/20/00
6,077,712 08/984,322 06/20/00
6,077,716 09/368,580 06/20/00
6,077,722 09/115,316 06/20/00
6,077,727 08/786,285 06/20/00
6,077,755 09/118,284 06/20/00
6,077,765 08/946,775 06/20/00
6,077,791 09/038,466 06/20/00
6,077,794 08/871,527 06/20/00
6,077,809 09/107,317 06/20/00
6,077,812 09/028,636 06/20/00
6,077,813 08/732,257 06/20/00
6,077,815 09/000,433 06/20/00
6,077,820 09/262,565 06/20/00
6,077,829 09/180,884 06/20/00
6,077,833 08/777,266 06/20/00
6,077,835 09/114,475 06/20/00
6,077,838 09/327,736 06/20/00
6,077,845 09/340,729 06/20/00
6,077,849 09/280,602 06/20/00
6,077,852 09/057,723 06/20/00
6,077,854 09/048,592 06/20/00
6,077,859 09/311,320 06/20/00
6,077,872 09/199,694 06/20/00
6,077,884 09/101,908 06/20/00
6,077,887 09/084,696 06/20/00
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 11 |
6,077,891 08/919,011 06/20/00
6,077,893 08/300,902 06/20/00
6,077,895 08/763,167 06/20/00
6,077,899 08/952,486 06/20/00
6,077,902 09/172,749 06/20/00
6,077,913 09/048,609 06/20/00
6,077,915 09/233,010 06/20/00
6,077,918 08/973,638 06/20/00
6,077,920 08/968,991 06/20/00
6,077,933 09/309,053 06/20/00
6,077,945 09/019,746 06/20/00
6,077,947 08/485,598 06/20/00
6,077,948 08/361,441 06/20/00
6,077,950 09/247,146 06/20/00
6,077,952 09/327,667 06/20/00
6,077,954 08/691,206 06/20/00
6,077,958 09/300,531 06/20/00
6,077,961 09/251,408 06/20/00
6,077,962 09/219,898 06/20/00
6,077,966 08/709,036 06/20/00
6,078,003 09/285,737 06/20/00
6,078,007 09/360,692 06/20/00
6,078,010 08/938,936 06/20/00
6,078,012 08/663,876 06/20/00
6,078,015 09/010,713 06/20/00
6,078,016 09/244,891 06/20/00
6,078,023 09/067,541 06/20/00
6,078,026 09/273,907 06/20/00
6,078,027 09/153,789 06/20/00
6,078,032 09/130,947 06/20/00
6,078,034 09/234,083 06/20/00
6,078,036 09/073,561 06/20/00
6,078,044 08/855,543 06/20/00
6,078,052 08/921,234 06/20/00
6,078,055 09/044,082 06/20/00
6,078,073 08/878,208 06/20/00
6,078,074 08/985,182 06/20/00
6,078,096 08/955,016 06/20/00
6,078,110 09/042,395 06/20/00
6,078,112 08/989,702 06/20/00
6,078,118 09/043,776 06/20/00
6,078,130 09/189,211 06/20/00
6,078,135 08/991,262 06/20/00
6,078,136 09/187,950 06/20/00
6,078,144 09/346,913 06/20/00
6,078,159 09/252,044 06/20/00
6,078,161 09/044,794 06/20/00
6,078,172 08/851,648 06/20/00
6,078,179 08/840,069 06/20/00
6,078,187 09/013,753 06/20/00
6,078,203 09/019,893 06/20/00
6,078,207 09/159,787 06/20/00
6,078,211 09/173,096 06/20/00
6,078,218 09/033,109 06/20/00
6,078,230 08/843,433 06/20/00
6,078,232 09/418,464 06/20/00
6,078,233 09/051,485 06/20/00
6,078,235 09/115,605 06/20/00
6,078,247 09/126,028 06/20/00
6,078,248 09/321,580 06/20/00
6,078,257 09/410,908 06/20/00
6,078,260 09/217,072 06/20/00
6,078,261 09/189,385 06/20/00
6,078,264 08/838,049 06/20/00
6,078,272 09/207,060 06/20/00
6,078,278 08/764,838 06/20/00
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 12 |
6,078,281 08/990,714 06/20/00
6,078,282 09/105,954 06/20/00
6,078,300 09/107,925 06/20/00
6,078,302 09/023,986 06/20/00
6,078,304 08/546,330 06/20/00
6,078,316 08/434,285 06/20/00
6,078,326 09/255,411 06/20/00
6,078,329 08/720,069 06/20/00
6,078,334 09/064,036 06/20/00
6,078,338 09/038,412 06/20/00
6,078,340 09/018,151 06/20/00
6,078,342 09/388,871 06/20/00
6,078,343 08/797,181 06/20/00
6,078,347 08/966,564 06/20/00
6,078,351 08/777,887 06/20/00
6,078,354 08/824,397 06/20/00
6,078,358 08/757,532 06/20/00
6,078,369 09/151,298 06/20/00
6,078,389 09/376,542 06/20/00
6,078,405 08/931,703 06/20/00
6,078,410 08/760,712 06/20/00
6,078,414 08/985,065 06/20/00
6,078,419 08/856,999 06/20/00
6,078,422 08/978,044 06/20/00
6,078,423 08/973,516 06/20/00
6,078,424 09/114,356 06/20/00
6,078,431 09/264,491 06/20/00
6,078,434 09/102,892 06/20/00
6,078,436 09/064,098 06/20/00
6,078,449 08/848,119 06/20/00
6,078,450 08/891,122 06/20/00
6,078,454 08/573,319 06/20/00
6,078,455 09/350,832 06/20/00
6,078,456 09/311,495 06/20/00
6,078,457 08/879,025 06/20/00
6,078,460 08/934,895 06/20/00
6,078,462 08/996,915 06/20/00
6,078,464 08/622,380 06/20/00
6,078,469 08/933,685 06/20/00
6,078,472 09/067,190 06/20/00
6,078,477 09/126,112 06/20/00
6,078,479 08/500,741 06/20/00
6,078,480 08/391,379 06/20/00
6,078,481 09/093,224 06/20/00
6,078,498 08/975,871 06/20/00
6,078,508 09/238,805 06/20/00
6,078,521 09/385,794 06/20/00
6,078,525 09/233,855 06/20/00
6,078,536 09/207,534 06/20/00
6,078,555 09/031,540 06/20/00
6,078,556 09/084,354 06/20/00
6,078,557 09/292,285 06/20/00
6,078,562 08/796,620 06/20/00
6,078,563 09/310,697 06/20/00
6,078,597 08/752,332 06/20/00
6,078,602 08/982,945 06/20/00
6,078,614 08/933,252 06/20/00
6,078,616 08/816,867 06/20/00
6,078,629 09/228,140 06/20/00
6,078,636 08/921,539 06/20/00
6,078,640 09/106,893 06/20/00
6,078,641 09/143,520 06/20/00
6,078,646 09/400,956 06/20/00
6,078,655 08/919,030 06/20/00
6,078,659 09/163,223 06/20/00
6,078,665 08/954,795 06/20/00
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 13 |
6,078,678 09/311,747 06/20/00
6,078,680 08/900,191 06/20/00
6,078,686 08/941,669 06/20/00
6,078,689 09/080,145 06/20/00
6,078,707 08/717,355 06/20/00
6,078,713 09/093,442 06/20/00
6,078,716 09/275,354 06/20/00
6,078,723 08/977,748 06/20/00
6,078,733 08/614,833 06/20/00
6,078,737 08/932,960 06/20/00
6,078,741 08/795,917 06/20/00
6,078,756 08/846,436 06/20/00
6,078,757 09/309,666 06/20/00
6,078,760 09/114,167 06/20/00
6,078,774 09/390,626 06/20/00
6,078,775 09/110,266 06/20/00
6,078,776 09/300,943 06/20/00
6,078,786 08/931,646 06/20/00
6,078,801 09/002,941 06/20/00
6,078,803 08/750,669 06/20/00
6,078,808 08/878,977 06/20/00
6,078,816 09/082,429 06/20/00
6,078,824 08/911,775 06/20/00
6,078,830 08/943,380 06/20/00
6,078,834 09/257,566 06/20/00
6,078,842 08/997,404 06/20/00
6,078,845 08/756,296 06/20/00
6,078,846 09/008,711 06/20/00
6,078,849 09/209,489 06/20/00
6,078,853 09/061,152 06/20/00
6,078,858 09/009,313 06/20/00
6,078,860 09/078,752 06/20/00
6,078,872 09/421,628 06/20/00
6,078,881 09/033,198 06/20/00
6,078,890 09/088,034 06/20/00
6,078,896 08/964,870 06/20/00
6,078,898 09/040,677 06/20/00
6,078,901 08/834,741 06/20/00
6,078,913 09/022,280 06/20/00
6,078,915 08/755,763 06/20/00
6,078,955 08/917,726 06/20/00
6,078,967 09/030,665 06/20/00
6,078,968 08/992,202 06/20/00
6,078,983 08/862,322 06/20/00
6,078,984 08/824,789 06/20/00
6,079,003 08/974,972 06/20/00
6,079,007 09/037,494 06/20/00
6,079,011 08/964,113 06/20/00
6,079,017 08/982,572 06/20/00
6,079,035 09/035,924 06/20/00
6,079,041 08/691,649 06/20/00
6,079,043 09/086,023 06/20/00
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON June 15, 2012
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,748,601 10/095,234 06/15/04
6,748,607 10/452,844 06/15/04
6,748,616 10/616,818 06/15/04
6,748,619 10/104,521 06/15/04
6,748,620 10/043,316 06/15/04
6,748,621 10/164,803 06/15/04
6,748,624 10/317,671 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 14 |
6,748,628 10/176,108 06/15/04
6,748,633 10/124,840 06/15/04
6,748,637 10/288,753 06/15/04
6,748,641 10/134,512 06/15/04
6,748,645 09/628,804 06/15/04
6,748,648 09/899,879 06/15/04
6,748,651 09/818,521 06/15/04
6,748,656 09/908,674 06/15/04
6,748,665 10/234,934 06/15/04
6,748,667 10/218,824 06/15/04
6,748,668 10/241,714 06/15/04
6,748,674 10/288,816 06/15/04
6,748,678 10/167,998 06/15/04
6,748,680 10/072,105 06/15/04
6,748,684 09/609,664 06/15/04
6,748,686 10/114,225 06/15/04
6,748,690 10/371,933 06/15/04
6,748,692 10/279,258 06/15/04
6,748,694 10/263,613 06/15/04
6,748,695 10/000,890 06/15/04
6,748,696 10/208,107 06/15/04
6,748,700 10/291,439 06/15/04
6,748,701 10/148,265 06/15/04
6,748,702 10/329,136 06/15/04
6,748,709 09/891,279 06/15/04
6,748,711 09/965,130 06/15/04
6,748,722 10/319,968 06/15/04
6,748,725 10/068,601 06/15/04
6,748,733 09/863,031 06/15/04
6,748,743 10/188,480 06/15/04
6,748,758 10/454,965 06/15/04
6,748,761 10/457,732 06/15/04
6,748,762 10/279,763 06/15/04
6,748,764 09/954,752 06/15/04
6,748,773 10/302,718 06/15/04
6,748,775 09/719,411 06/15/04
6,748,780 10/388,095 06/15/04
6,748,785 10/110,433 06/15/04
6,748,794 10/190,404 06/15/04
6,748,798 10/353,969 06/15/04
6,748,802 10/369,393 06/15/04
6,748,816 10/098,959 06/15/04
6,748,818 10/144,239 06/15/04
6,748,821 10/084,073 06/15/04
6,748,827 10/073,606 06/15/04
6,748,839 10/003,758 06/15/04
6,748,842 10/436,604 06/15/04
6,748,843 09/342,482 06/15/04
6,748,846 10/115,652 06/15/04
6,748,847 10/268,868 06/15/04
6,748,856 10/227,861 06/15/04
6,748,857 10/629,073 06/15/04
6,748,859 10/237,169 06/15/04
6,748,861 09/527,131 06/15/04
6,748,862 09/939,997 06/15/04
6,748,864 10/010,697 06/15/04
6,748,868 10/377,773 06/15/04
6,748,873 10/008,010 06/15/04
6,748,879 10/214,321 06/15/04
6,748,883 10/261,968 06/15/04
6,748,888 10/602,867 06/15/04
6,748,893 09/869,546 06/15/04
6,748,894 10/057,209 06/15/04
6,748,897 10/277,833 06/15/04
6,748,898 10/212,996 06/15/04
6,748,903 10/440,939 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 15 |
6,748,906 10/133,070 06/15/04
6,748,911 10/188,776 06/15/04
6,748,912 10/444,196 06/15/04
6,748,920 10/443,081 06/15/04
6,748,921 10/389,891 06/15/04
6,748,924 10/174,068 06/15/04
6,748,932 10/361,538 06/15/04
6,748,936 10/417,183 06/15/04
6,748,938 10/325,480 06/15/04
6,748,939 10/417,563 06/15/04
6,748,942 10/199,983 06/15/04
6,748,953 10/170,043 06/15/04
6,748,954 09/983,320 06/15/04
6,748,955 10/075,378 06/15/04
6,748,968 09/596,251 06/15/04
6,748,974 10/369,030 06/15/04
6,748,978 10/188,285 06/15/04
6,748,990 10/040,381 06/15/04
6,748,991 09/989,461 06/15/04
6,748,993 10/110,028 06/15/04
6,748,995 09/938,222 06/15/04
6,749,000 10/321,738 06/15/04
6,749,001 09/952,765 06/15/04
6,749,004 09/512,815 06/15/04
6,749,009 10/079,197 06/15/04
6,749,011 10/214,564 06/15/04
6,749,013 09/403,674 06/15/04
6,749,014 10/046,013 06/15/04
6,749,019 10/042,824 06/15/04
6,749,021 09/841,498 06/15/04
6,749,032 10/293,115 06/15/04
6,749,045 10/181,344 06/15/04
6,749,046 10/325,489 06/15/04
6,749,054 10/375,275 06/15/04
6,749,061 09/938,769 06/15/04
6,749,066 10/222,680 06/15/04
6,749,069 10/398,404 06/15/04
6,749,074 10/271,036 06/15/04
6,749,079 09/741,876 06/15/04
6,749,080 10/382,143 06/15/04
6,749,082 10/323,172 06/15/04
6,749,088 10/364,546 06/15/04
6,749,094 10/166,559 06/15/04
6,749,101 10/651,775 06/15/04
6,749,106 10/183,193 06/15/04
6,749,108 10/369,041 06/15/04
6,749,122 09/467,255 06/15/04
6,749,126 09/720,506 06/15/04
6,749,127 10/071,205 06/15/04
6,749,138 10/092,059 06/15/04
6,749,141 10/236,174 06/15/04
6,749,142 10/078,525 06/15/04
6,749,146 09/533,978 06/15/04
6,749,147 10/305,573 06/15/04
6,749,148 09/747,771 06/15/04
6,749,150 10/003,489 06/15/04
6,749,151 10/435,609 06/15/04
6,749,155 10/243,251 06/15/04
6,749,159 10/255,726 06/15/04
6,749,167 10/145,536 06/15/04
6,749,168 10/154,492 06/15/04
6,749,170 10/372,682 06/15/04
6,749,174 10/236,739 06/15/04
6,749,183 10/238,868 06/15/04
6,749,191 10/265,675 06/15/04
6,749,194 10/004,594 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 16 |
6,749,197 10/330,996 06/15/04
6,749,199 10/003,722 06/15/04
6,749,201 10/150,116 06/15/04
6,749,202 10/304,457 06/15/04
6,749,207 10/244,178 06/15/04
6,749,208 10/139,694 06/15/04
6,749,219 10/238,476 06/15/04
6,749,220 09/785,856 06/15/04
6,749,224 10/166,792 06/15/04
6,749,225 09/485,055 06/15/04
6,749,228 10/093,551 06/15/04
6,749,237 10/107,374 06/15/04
6,749,239 10/248,915 06/15/04
6,749,240 10/017,220 06/15/04
6,749,245 10/662,318 06/15/04
6,749,246 10/194,509 06/15/04
6,749,248 10/338,978 06/15/04
6,749,252 10/313,404 06/15/04
6,749,257 10/020,317 06/15/04
6,749,262 09/793,871 06/15/04
6,749,268 10/184,834 06/15/04
6,749,271 10/049,836 06/15/04
6,749,275 10/177,164 06/15/04
6,749,278 10/127,435 06/15/04
6,749,280 10/318,215 06/15/04
6,749,285 10/267,009 06/15/04
6,749,293 10/170,763 06/15/04
6,749,295 10/330,318 06/15/04
6,749,305 10/604,976 06/15/04
6,749,306 10/214,739 06/15/04
6,749,311 10/227,251 06/15/04
6,749,314 10/298,384 06/15/04
6,749,317 10/045,231 06/15/04
6,749,332 10/229,807 06/15/04
6,749,342 10/030,800 06/15/04
6,749,347 09/714,225 06/15/04
6,749,349 10/187,994 06/15/04
6,749,351 10/330,883 06/15/04
6,749,353 09/936,256 06/15/04
6,749,354 10/214,162 06/15/04
6,749,355 10/056,655 06/15/04
6,749,356 10/453,257 06/15/04
6,749,360 09/913,382 06/15/04
6,749,362 10/302,190 06/15/04
6,749,364 09/979,428 06/15/04
6,749,367 10/279,372 06/15/04
6,749,372 10/004,793 06/15/04
6,749,375 10/016,994 06/15/04
6,749,376 09/734,247 06/15/04
6,749,379 10/382,503 06/15/04
6,749,380 10/096,527 06/15/04
6,749,383 10/040,943 06/15/04
6,749,385 10/228,749 06/15/04
6,749,387 09/926,722 06/15/04
6,749,393 09/928,710 06/15/04
6,749,395 10/048,810 06/15/04
6,749,396 10/173,009 06/15/04
6,749,400 10/231,420 06/15/04
6,749,401 10/208,565 06/15/04
6,749,405 10/123,627 06/15/04
6,749,413 09/977,898 06/15/04
6,749,418 09/898,457 06/15/04
6,749,442 10/270,044 06/15/04
6,749,445 10/328,871 06/15/04
6,749,456 10/441,579 06/15/04
6,749,473 10/283,633 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 17 |
6,749,475 10/268,134 06/15/04
6,749,478 09/973,916 06/15/04
6,749,484 10/145,717 06/15/04
6,749,486 10/204,707 06/15/04
6,749,492 10/373,263 06/15/04
6,749,496 10/260,014 06/15/04
6,749,501 09/941,967 06/15/04
6,749,503 09/806,436 06/15/04
6,749,520 09/743,147 06/15/04
6,749,521 10/304,517 06/15/04
6,749,522 10/385,318 06/15/04
6,749,523 09/760,291 06/15/04
6,749,527 10/299,077 06/15/04
6,749,530 10/105,157 06/15/04
6,749,536 09/848,712 06/15/04
6,749,541 10/074,430 06/15/04
6,749,542 10/133,257 06/15/04
6,749,543 09/971,178 06/15/04
6,749,545 10/120,371 06/15/04
6,749,549 10/409,169 06/15/04
6,749,550 10/396,835 06/15/04
6,749,562 09/988,239 06/15/04
6,749,565 09/866,019 06/15/04
6,749,573 09/784,414 06/15/04
6,749,602 10/090,694 06/15/04
6,749,616 09/989,963 06/15/04
6,749,619 09/989,813 06/15/04
6,749,633 10/129,817 06/15/04
6,749,641 10/044,166 06/15/04
6,749,656 10/220,694 06/15/04
6,749,657 10/150,246 06/15/04
6,749,660 09/873,576 06/15/04
6,749,666 10/133,825 06/15/04
6,749,667 10/278,193 06/15/04
6,749,670 10/091,239 06/15/04
6,749,672 09/846,800 06/15/04
6,749,679 10/055,554 06/15/04
6,749,686 10/127,155 06/15/04
6,749,688 09/270,781 06/15/04
6,749,701 10/287,634 06/15/04
6,749,705 10/002,459 06/15/04
6,749,709 10/132,312 06/15/04
6,749,711 10/359,522 06/15/04
6,749,712 09/938,287 06/15/04
6,749,717 09/439,314 06/15/04
6,749,720 10/103,647 06/15/04
6,749,728 10/321,780 06/15/04
6,749,731 10/059,073 06/15/04
6,749,743 10/265,050 06/15/04
6,749,763 09/630,680 06/15/04
6,749,766 10/339,399 06/15/04
6,749,768 10/009,075 06/15/04
6,749,769 10/092,115 06/15/04
6,749,770 09/948,028 06/15/04
6,749,771 09/743,609 06/15/04
6,749,783 09/933,725 06/15/04
6,749,795 09/997,557 06/15/04
6,749,798 10/030,531 06/15/04
6,749,800 10/056,578 06/15/04
6,749,807 09/314,497 06/15/04
6,749,814 09/518,794 06/15/04
6,749,822 10/090,018 06/15/04
6,749,828 09/701,585 06/15/04
6,749,829 10/201,339 06/15/04
6,749,831 09/423,546 06/15/04
6,749,833 09/866,524 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 18 |
6,749,834 09/884,786 06/15/04
6,749,836 09/885,257 06/15/04
6,749,837 09/889,505 06/15/04
6,749,842 10/057,215 06/15/04
6,749,845 09/784,670 06/15/04
6,749,851 09/942,938 06/15/04
6,749,853 09/483,679 06/15/04
6,749,854 09/934,634 06/15/04
6,749,859 10/183,118 06/15/04
6,749,861 10/028,597 06/15/04
6,749,862 10/212,426 06/15/04
6,749,866 10/039,285 06/15/04
6,749,867 09/991,059 06/15/04
6,749,871 10/141,492 06/15/04
6,749,874 10/333,573 06/15/04
6,749,882 09/859,979 06/15/04
6,749,886 10/117,111 06/15/04
6,749,894 10/183,342 06/15/04
6,749,895 10/094,897 06/15/04
6,749,901 09/645,384 06/15/04
6,749,920 09/030,876 06/15/04
6,749,924 10/142,387 06/15/04
6,749,926 10/031,958 06/15/04
6,749,932 08/652,579 06/15/04
6,749,943 10/188,208 06/15/04
6,749,948 10/145,296 06/15/04
6,749,949 10/093,480 06/15/04
6,749,955 10/349,440 06/15/04
6,749,963 09/942,991 06/15/04
6,749,983 09/330,418 06/15/04
6,749,993 10/337,303 06/15/04
6,749,995 10/353,420 06/15/04
6,750,001 10/331,311 06/15/04
6,750,002 10/058,395 06/15/04
6,750,003 10/391,757 06/15/04
6,750,004 09/966,984 06/15/04
6,750,008 09/350,841 06/15/04
6,750,014 09/785,881 06/15/04
6,750,023 10/101,135 06/15/04
6,750,025 09/112,956 06/15/04
6,750,029 09/603,635 06/15/04
6,750,031 08/583,912 06/15/04
6,750,037 10/176,558 06/15/04
6,750,038 09/920,785 06/15/04
6,750,040 09/602,725 06/15/04
6,750,046 09/897,425 06/15/04
6,750,047 09/932,167 06/15/04
6,750,052 09/121,211 06/15/04
6,750,055 09/800,823 06/15/04
6,750,057 09/896,720 06/15/04
6,750,063 09/697,121 06/15/04
6,750,067 10/126,772 06/15/04
6,750,070 10/282,604 06/15/04
6,750,107 09/565,429 06/15/04
6,750,112 10/178,641 06/15/04
6,750,118 10/141,299 06/15/04
6,750,124 10/071,756 06/15/04
6,750,125 10/419,808 06/15/04
6,750,128 10/396,410 06/15/04
6,750,131 10/055,356 06/15/04
6,750,137 09/519,599 06/15/04
6,750,142 09/983,190 06/15/04
6,750,153 10/001,358 06/15/04
6,750,163 09/829,527 06/15/04
6,750,164 09/855,924 06/15/04
6,750,170 10/004,744 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 19 |
6,750,171 10/418,684 06/15/04
6,750,172 09/805,203 06/15/04
6,750,182 09/169,649 06/15/04
6,750,192 09/819,769 06/15/04
6,750,195 10/260,323 06/15/04
6,750,199 09/904,756 06/15/04
6,750,200 09/710,419 06/15/04
6,750,202 09/830,741 06/15/04
6,750,204 10/179,590 06/15/04
6,750,206 09/070,630 06/15/04
6,750,207 09/495,723 06/15/04
6,750,208 09/601,665 06/15/04
6,750,210 10/066,964 06/15/04
6,750,211 10/357,297 06/15/04
6,750,212 09/350,690 06/15/04
6,750,216 10/146,693 06/15/04
6,750,220 10/174,016 06/15/04
6,750,222 10/318,573 06/15/04
6,750,227 10/372,577 06/15/04
6,750,232 10/333,689 06/15/04
6,750,238 09/570,485 06/15/04
6,750,242 10/111,027 06/15/04
6,750,243 09/509,032 06/15/04
6,750,244 09/825,373 06/15/04
6,750,249 09/806,636 06/15/04
6,750,251 10/134,404 06/15/04
6,750,252 10/148,850 06/15/04
6,750,255 10/053,133 06/15/04
6,750,259 10/191,386 06/15/04
6,750,265 09/437,276 06/15/04
6,750,267 10/036,096 06/15/04
6,750,271 09/951,443 06/15/04
6,750,280 09/869,762 06/15/04
6,750,300 09/978,919 06/15/04
6,750,303 10/427,027 06/15/04
6,750,304 10/136,912 06/15/04
6,750,314 10/396,408 06/15/04
6,750,316 10/125,611 06/15/04
6,750,319 10/117,193 06/15/04
6,750,321 09/723,185 06/15/04
6,750,322 09/891,053 06/15/04
6,750,325 09/348,224 06/15/04
6,750,329 08/251,574 06/15/04
6,750,330 09/310,981 06/15/04
6,750,334 08/595,590 06/15/04
6,750,336 10/285,571 06/15/04
6,750,341 09/929,808 06/15/04
6,750,344 08/924,851 06/15/04
6,750,345 09/992,789 06/15/04
6,750,347 10/174,145 06/15/04
6,750,348 09/535,314 06/15/04
6,750,351 10/297,812 06/15/04
6,750,354 10/256,836 06/15/04
6,750,358 10/012,025 06/15/04
6,750,364 10/185,489 06/15/04
6,750,366 10/011,176 06/15/04
6,750,373 10/146,675 06/15/04
6,750,381 08/805,813 06/15/04
6,750,385 09/700,819 06/15/04
6,750,387 10/082,777 06/15/04
6,750,393 10/177,040 06/15/04
6,750,409 10/050,702 06/15/04
6,750,410 10/189,368 06/15/04
6,750,411 10/289,742 06/15/04
6,750,413 10/423,316 06/15/04
6,750,414 10/460,081 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 20 |
6,750,416 09/462,826 06/15/04
6,750,438 10/097,702 06/15/04
6,750,440 10/009,866 06/15/04
6,750,444 09/846,375 06/15/04
6,750,445 09/581,818 06/15/04
6,750,446 10/046,076 06/15/04
6,750,448 10/386,127 06/15/04
6,750,453 10/155,770 06/15/04
6,750,454 10/006,436 06/15/04
6,750,459 10/237,830 06/15/04
6,750,498 10/245,584 06/15/04
6,750,499 10/212,225 06/15/04
6,750,503 09/829,969 06/15/04
6,750,504 10/063,444 06/15/04
6,750,509 10/156,540 06/15/04
6,750,514 10/264,908 06/15/04
6,750,516 10/035,792 06/15/04
6,750,518 10/215,187 06/15/04
6,750,526 10/152,008 06/15/04
6,750,535 10/173,887 06/15/04
6,750,558 10/019,234 06/15/04
6,750,560 10/332,926 06/15/04
6,750,563 10/317,867 06/15/04
6,750,570 10/030,372 06/15/04
6,750,571 10/367,379 06/15/04
6,750,581 10/056,890 06/15/04
6,750,586 09/964,342 06/15/04
6,750,588 10/454,394 06/15/04
6,750,590 10/280,304 06/15/04
6,750,591 10/445,126 06/15/04
6,750,592 09/985,898 06/15/04
6,750,594 10/137,691 06/15/04
6,750,596 10/243,195 06/15/04
6,750,599 10/298,007 06/15/04
6,750,600 09/848,644 06/15/04
6,750,601 10/157,815 06/15/04
6,750,602 10/211,652 06/15/04
6,750,603 10/301,978 06/15/04
6,750,605 09/925,351 06/15/04
6,750,621 09/950,894 06/15/04
6,750,624 10/143,141 06/15/04
6,750,625 09/929,025 06/15/04
6,750,666 10/228,590 06/15/04
6,750,667 10/263,483 06/15/04
6,750,672 10/119,067 06/15/04
6,750,682 10/166,255 06/15/04
6,750,691 10/287,023 06/15/04
6,750,701 10/052,779 06/15/04
6,750,707 10/066,694 06/15/04
6,750,709 10/021,423 06/15/04
6,750,710 10/203,049 06/15/04
6,750,732 09/920,089 06/15/04
6,750,733 10/098,784 06/15/04
6,750,744 10/228,270 06/15/04
6,750,748 09/925,581 06/15/04
6,750,759 09/729,247 06/15/04
6,750,763 10/066,832 06/15/04
6,750,785 09/928,612 06/15/04
6,750,788 09/863,140 06/15/04
6,750,803 09/791,329 06/15/04
6,750,806 10/453,215 06/15/04
6,750,810 10/385,617 06/15/04
6,750,812 10/079,584 06/15/04
6,750,817 10/251,788 06/15/04
6,750,826 10/069,821 06/15/04
6,750,856 09/955,033 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 21 |
6,750,864 09/713,674 06/15/04
6,750,870 09/730,948 06/15/04
6,750,871 09/773,625 06/15/04
6,750,885 09/606,741 06/15/04
6,750,888 09/286,467 06/15/04
6,750,921 09/538,567 06/15/04
6,750,925 10/247,922 06/15/04
6,750,930 09/896,165 06/15/04
6,750,935 10/308,052 06/15/04
6,750,940 09/963,939 06/15/04
6,750,943 10/160,301 06/15/04
6,750,945 10/393,476 06/15/04
6,750,950 09/720,789 06/15/04
6,750,952 10/198,701 06/15/04
6,750,967 10/258,882 06/15/04
6,750,974 10/244,891 06/15/04
6,750,975 09/995,128 06/15/04
6,750,978 09/632,534 06/15/04
6,750,993 09/659,578 06/15/04
6,750,995 09/682,007 06/15/04
6,751,001 10/350,917 06/15/04
6,751,004 10/286,209 06/15/04
6,751,019 09/879,437 06/15/04
6,751,021 10/169,926 06/15/04
6,751,025 10/168,386 06/15/04
6,751,032 10/283,244 06/15/04
6,751,039 10/008,317 06/15/04
6,751,052 09/611,009 06/15/04
6,751,057 10/057,551 06/15/04
6,751,060 09/730,106 06/15/04
6,751,069 10/075,742 06/15/04
6,751,083 10/111,847 06/15/04
6,751,089 10/251,580 06/15/04
6,751,093 10/339,859 06/15/04
6,751,095 10/299,824 06/15/04
6,751,100 10/150,313 06/15/04
6,751,102 10/388,986 06/15/04
6,751,138 10/300,813 06/15/04
6,751,160 08/678,699 06/15/04
6,751,162 10/220,011 06/15/04
6,751,163 09/340,965 06/15/04
6,751,171 09/216,038 06/15/04
6,751,172 09/933,829 06/15/04
6,751,175 09/458,074 06/15/04
6,751,178 09/553,157 06/15/04
6,751,180 10/054,999 06/15/04
6,751,182 09/466,176 06/15/04
6,751,183 10/068,900 06/15/04
6,751,192 08/892,891 06/15/04
6,751,195 09/291,222 06/15/04
6,751,201 09/049,964 06/15/04
6,751,219 09/553,500 06/15/04
6,751,221 09/036,197 06/15/04
6,751,225 09/272,846 06/15/04
6,751,229 09/618,340 06/15/04
6,751,234 09/562,201 06/15/04
6,751,238 09/553,501 06/15/04
6,751,240 09/903,732 06/15/04
6,751,256 09/714,723 06/15/04
6,751,274 09/737,406 06/15/04
6,751,278 09/964,174 06/15/04
6,751,279 09/658,646 06/15/04
6,751,283 10/213,467 06/15/04
6,751,286 10/150,053 06/15/04
6,751,287 09/700,350 06/15/04
6,751,300 09/898,023 06/15/04
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 22 |
6,751,308 10/148,741 06/15/04
6,751,311 09/612,203 06/15/04
6,751,326 09/809,130 06/15/04
6,751,332 09/988,269 06/15/04
6,751,344 09/578,233 06/15/04
6,751,369 09/628,015 06/15/04
6,751,372 10/026,837 06/15/04
6,751,376 10/354,607 06/15/04
6,751,399 09/008,261 06/15/04
6,751,400 09/396,268 06/15/04
6,751,408 10/266,633 06/15/04
6,751,409 10/446,943 06/15/04
6,751,417 09/502,043 06/15/04
6,751,425 10/295,853 06/15/04
6,751,474 09/670,449 06/15/04
6,751,476 10/279,915 06/15/04
6,751,479 09/738,057 06/15/04
6,751,485 09/894,737 06/15/04
6,751,497 10/098,069 06/15/04
6,751,499 09/977,449 06/15/04
6,751,506 10/154,334 06/15/04
6,751,511 09/556,789 06/15/04
6,751,524 10/208,355 06/15/04
6,751,526 09/135,973 06/15/04
6,751,528 09/722,187 06/15/04
6,751,531 10/410,243 06/15/04
6,751,547 09/994,515 06/15/04
6,751,548 10/007,940 06/15/04
6,751,550 10/201,555 06/15/04
6,751,551 10/127,543 06/15/04
6,751,554 10/383,040 06/15/04
6,751,570 10/001,554 06/15/04
6,751,574 10/201,572 06/15/04
6,751,581 09/569,205 06/15/04
6,751,586 09/631,584 06/15/04
6,751,588 09/449,424 06/15/04
6,751,589 09/666,493 06/15/04
6,751,593 09/779,499 06/15/04
6,751,597 09/695,046 06/15/04
6,751,602 10/287,963 06/15/04
6,751,608 09/977,400 06/15/04
6,751,625 09/826,215 06/15/04
6,751,628 10/043,553 06/15/04
6,751,629 10/448,674 06/15/04
6,751,643 09/768,812 06/15/04
6,751,648 09/410,095 06/15/04
6,751,650 09/606,437 06/15/04
6,751,664 09/609,215 06/15/04
6,751,685 09/837,520 06/15/04
6,751,696 09/835,263 06/15/04
6,751,718 09/818,008 06/15/04
6,751,733 09/335,056 06/15/04
6,751,734 09/531,746 06/15/04
6,751,745 09/617,135 06/15/04
6,751,759 09/706,089 06/15/04
6,751,761 09/600,484 06/15/04
6,751,770 09/974,675 06/15/04
6,751,779 09/531,013 06/15/04
6,751,800 09/265,635 06/15/04
6,751,803 09/576,995 06/15/04
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON June 17, 2012
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 23 |
7,386,894 11/081,594 06/17/08
7,386,901 11/293,494 06/17/08
7,386,912 11/132,994 06/17/08
7,386,914 11/277,271 06/17/08
7,386,918 10/585,282 06/17/08
7,386,919 11/602,050 06/17/08
7,386,925 11/542,223 06/17/08
7,386,936 11/217,878 06/17/08
7,386,941 11/252,119 06/17/08
7,386,944 10/983,023 06/17/08
7,386,950 10/725,533 06/17/08
7,386,952 11/623,611 06/17/08
7,386,954 11/333,599 06/17/08
7,386,961 11/280,458 06/17/08
7,386,977 11/096,053 06/17/08
7,386,988 10/796,516 06/17/08
7,386,998 10/802,170 06/17/08
7,387,010 11/783,022 06/17/08
7,387,011 11/727,877 06/17/08
7,387,019 11/523,102 06/17/08
7,387,041 11/206,327 06/17/08
7,387,051 11/729,248 06/17/08
7,387,060 11/134,595 06/17/08
7,387,063 10/878,581 06/17/08
7,387,071 10/574,324 06/17/08
7,387,079 11/277,259 06/17/08
7,387,084 11/424,792 06/17/08
7,387,088 11/201,677 06/17/08
7,387,090 11/317,686 06/17/08
7,387,094 11/492,934 06/17/08
7,387,096 11/822,917 06/17/08
7,387,104 10/551,824 06/17/08
7,387,113 11/551,341 06/17/08
7,387,121 10/312,027 06/17/08
7,387,125 10/318,928 06/17/08
7,387,129 11/011,334 06/17/08
7,387,130 11/633,459 06/17/08
7,387,134 11/093,881 06/17/08
7,387,137 11/050,842 06/17/08
7,387,144 11/067,424 06/17/08
7,387,151 10/763,879 06/17/08
7,387,182 11/286,705 06/17/08
7,387,186 11/246,310 06/17/08
7,387,188 10/928,141 06/17/08
7,387,192 11/579,077 06/17/08
7,387,193 11/591,840 06/17/08
7,387,198 11/190,252 06/17/08
7,387,202 11/415,627 06/17/08
7,387,205 11/271,695 06/17/08
7,387,209 11/612,461 06/17/08
7,387,210 11/281,316 06/17/08
7,387,218 10/928,676 06/17/08
7,387,221 10/811,406 06/17/08
7,387,224 10/667,731 06/17/08
7,387,226 11/219,961 06/17/08
7,387,227 11/773,407 06/17/08
7,387,228 11/603,025 06/17/08
7,387,229 10/761,412 06/17/08
7,387,232 11/246,446 06/17/08
7,387,241 10/557,983 06/17/08
7,387,245 11/078,284 06/17/08
7,387,255 11/019,207 06/17/08
7,387,258 10/477,948 06/17/08
7,387,262 10/855,629 06/17/08
7,387,263 11/043,081 06/17/08
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 24 |
7,387,273 11/724,021 06/17/08
7,387,275 11/269,507 06/17/08
7,387,284 11/346,335 06/17/08
7,387,285 11/065,508 06/17/08
7,387,294 11/783,918 06/17/08
7,387,303 11/164,046 06/17/08
7,387,308 11/103,629 06/17/08
7,387,313 11/591,235 06/17/08
7,387,320 10/899,412 06/17/08
7,387,332 11/423,549 06/17/08
7,387,334 11/063,127 06/17/08
7,387,336 11/499,646 06/17/08
7,387,340 11/089,742 06/17/08
7,387,347 11/169,324 06/17/08
7,387,351 10/980,846 06/17/08
7,387,370 11/098,706 06/17/08
7,387,388 11/103,154 06/17/08
7,387,390 11/239,117 06/17/08
7,387,391 11/133,764 06/17/08
7,387,394 11/049,286 06/17/08
7,387,402 11/125,784 06/17/08
7,387,403 11/299,094 06/17/08
7,387,407 11/537,949 06/17/08
7,387,408 10/511,214 06/17/08
7,387,411 11/684,377 06/17/08
7,387,413 10/895,155 06/17/08
7,387,414 11/725,580 06/17/08
7,387,426 11/266,930 06/17/08
7,387,427 11/584,298 06/17/08
7,387,442 10/509,083 06/17/08
7,387,443 10/526,734 06/17/08
7,387,446 11/804,133 06/17/08
7,387,451 11/546,931 06/17/08
7,387,452 11/716,674 06/17/08
7,387,460 11/028,651 06/17/08
7,387,461 10/844,013 06/17/08
7,387,463 11/320,505 06/17/08
7,387,467 11/315,910 06/17/08
7,387,473 11/281,170 06/17/08
7,387,475 10/333,469 06/17/08
7,387,482 11/260,734 06/17/08
7,387,489 11/253,026 06/17/08
7,387,501 11/076,853 06/17/08
7,387,505 11/603,826 06/17/08
7,387,506 11/717,192 06/17/08
7,387,509 11/136,381 06/17/08
7,387,510 11/150,710 06/17/08
7,387,512 11/245,966 06/17/08
7,387,518 11/317,563 06/17/08
7,387,522 11/470,411 06/17/08
7,387,532 11/742,494 06/17/08
7,387,536 11/728,754 06/17/08
7,387,537 11/619,472 06/17/08
7,387,541 11/790,307 06/17/08
7,387,553 10/780,342 06/17/08
7,387,555 10/901,320 06/17/08
7,387,561 11/156,291 06/17/08
7,387,562 11/696,211 06/17/08
7,387,564 10/581,957 06/17/08
7,387,566 11/367,630 06/17/08
7,387,573 11/248,434 06/17/08
7,387,576 10/544,966 06/17/08
7,387,579 11/476,031 06/17/08
7,387,587 10/534,841 06/17/08
7,387,588 10/557,945 06/17/08
7,387,599 11/772,826 06/17/08
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 25 |
7,387,606 11/018,845 06/17/08
7,387,609 11/017,852 06/17/08
7,387,619 10/488,239 06/17/08
7,387,627 11/227,003 06/17/08
7,387,653 11/728,352 06/17/08
7,387,659 11/048,502 06/17/08
7,387,661 10/554,897 06/17/08
7,387,664 11/268,489 06/17/08
7,387,670 10/591,578 06/17/08
7,387,674 11/819,475 06/17/08
7,387,682 10/762,224 06/17/08
7,387,686 10/550,753 06/17/08
7,387,693 11/460,693 06/17/08
7,387,698 10/495,060 06/17/08
7,387,705 11/123,576 06/17/08
7,387,712 10/273,390 06/17/08
7,387,714 10/702,827 06/17/08
7,387,717 10/631,726 06/17/08
7,387,720 10/836,913 06/17/08
7,387,725 11/171,347 06/17/08
7,387,729 11/307,859 06/17/08
7,387,744 11/858,089 06/17/08
7,387,750 10/987,777 06/17/08
7,387,764 10/446,432 06/17/08
7,387,771 09/980,266 06/17/08
7,387,777 10/782,456 06/17/08
7,387,779 10/032,221 06/17/08
7,387,791 10/889,969 06/17/08
7,387,797 10/239,345 06/17/08
7,387,798 11/234,906 06/17/08
7,387,800 10/485,801 06/17/08
7,387,804 10/449,773 06/17/08
7,387,808 10/204,768 06/17/08
7,387,814 11/291,591 06/17/08
7,387,819 11/311,079 06/17/08
7,387,832 10/527,636 06/17/08
7,387,833 10/478,693 06/17/08
7,387,846 11/254,710 06/17/08
7,387,857 11/199,379 06/17/08
7,387,873 10/336,424 06/17/08
7,387,895 10/543,452 06/17/08
7,387,905 11/582,379 06/17/08
7,387,906 10/890,289 06/17/08
7,387,923 11/255,656 06/17/08
7,387,933 11/418,425 06/17/08
7,387,948 11/196,338 06/17/08
7,387,965 10/848,250 06/17/08
7,387,980 11/233,227 06/17/08
7,387,981 11/823,651 06/17/08
7,387,993 10/332,712 06/17/08
7,388,003 10/923,080 06/17/08
7,388,006 10/384,775 06/17/08
7,388,012 11/227,698 06/17/08
7,388,016 11/634,601 06/17/08
7,388,020 10/472,412 06/17/08
7,388,022 11/493,155 06/17/08
7,388,023 11/567,878 06/17/08
7,388,032 10/799,320 06/17/08
7,388,050 11/021,714 06/17/08
7,388,054 11/275,332 06/17/08
7,388,064 10/513,756 06/17/08
7,388,067 10/557,815 06/17/08
7,388,068 10/525,151 06/17/08
7,388,092 11/617,665 06/17/08
7,388,095 11/604,563 06/17/08
7,388,111 11/583,346 06/17/08
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 26 |
7,388,112 11/171,228 06/17/08
7,388,118 10/299,739 06/17/08
7,388,119 10/484,247 06/17/08
7,388,121 10/498,885 06/17/08
7,388,149 11/121,287 06/17/08
7,388,166 10/560,483 06/17/08
7,388,174 10/729,744 06/17/08
7,388,177 11/025,184 06/17/08
7,388,181 11/588,876 06/17/08
7,388,186 11/028,495 06/17/08
7,388,191 11/485,356 06/17/08
7,388,192 11/483,779 06/17/08
7,388,199 10/570,198 06/17/08
7,388,211 11/453,810 06/17/08
7,388,213 11/233,607 06/17/08
7,388,222 11/304,189 06/17/08
7,388,282 11/180,979 06/17/08
7,388,286 11/313,721 06/17/08
7,388,302 11/880,488 06/17/08
7,388,305 11/340,371 06/17/08
7,388,309 11/226,922 06/17/08
7,388,313 10/590,736 06/17/08
7,388,315 11/038,224 06/17/08
7,388,324 11/081,039 06/17/08
7,388,330 10/992,761 06/17/08
7,388,332 10/680,896 06/17/08
7,388,333 10/574,636 06/17/08
7,388,334 10/817,768 06/17/08
7,388,337 11/453,013 06/17/08
7,388,353 11/084,723 06/17/08
7,388,355 11/711,751 06/17/08
7,388,357 11/146,525 06/17/08
7,388,363 10/579,967 06/17/08
7,388,373 11/012,096 06/17/08
7,388,387 11/619,333 06/17/08
7,388,410 11/350,711 06/17/08
7,388,449 11/297,288 06/17/08
7,388,457 11/038,977 06/17/08
7,388,460 10/922,395 06/17/08
7,388,463 11/048,149 06/17/08
7,388,465 11/033,538 06/17/08
7,388,472 11/287,091 06/17/08
7,388,473 11/159,148 06/17/08
7,388,477 11/240,413 06/17/08
7,388,482 10/554,303 06/17/08
7,388,483 11/317,570 06/17/08
7,388,484 11/204,781 06/17/08
7,388,488 10/952,789 06/17/08
7,388,505 11/325,040 06/17/08
7,388,509 11/238,818 06/17/08
7,388,514 11/186,376 06/17/08
7,388,515 11/105,724 06/17/08
7,388,523 11/484,933 06/17/08
7,388,528 11/655,532 06/17/08
7,388,537 11/251,558 06/17/08
7,388,554 10/908,907 06/17/08
7,388,558 11/638,447 06/17/08
7,388,560 10/925,562 06/17/08
7,388,569 10/496,948 06/17/08
7,388,573 08/535,791 06/17/08
7,388,575 10/913,472 06/17/08
7,388,577 10/524,445 06/17/08
7,388,592 10/765,039 06/17/08
7,388,594 11/131,238 06/17/08
7,388,597 11/025,950 06/17/08
7,388,598 10/780,154 06/17/08
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 27 |
7,388,611 11/000,501 06/17/08
7,388,622 11/142,431 06/17/08
7,388,634 10/832,518 06/17/08
7,388,646 10/953,768 06/17/08
7,388,682 09/640,805 06/17/08
7,388,688 10/859,662 06/17/08
7,388,689 11/499,749 06/17/08
7,388,699 11/484,477 06/17/08
7,388,701 11/639,987 06/17/08
7,388,735 11/317,445 06/17/08
7,388,742 10/691,352 06/17/08
7,388,744 11/458,780 06/17/08
7,388,746 11/519,072 06/17/08
7,388,748 11/322,449 06/17/08
7,388,750 11/373,411 06/17/08
7,388,755 10/775,201 06/17/08
7,388,758 11/294,121 06/17/08
7,388,759 11/321,164 06/17/08
7,388,760 11/324,608 06/17/08
7,388,762 11/705,820 06/17/08
7,388,767 11/180,897 06/17/08
7,388,774 11/876,117 06/17/08
7,388,787 11/370,059 06/17/08
7,388,807 11/573,201 06/17/08
7,388,841 10/689,207 06/17/08
7,388,842 10/797,762 06/17/08
7,388,879 10/111,564 06/17/08
7,388,880 10/175,046 06/17/08
7,388,891 11/075,425 06/17/08
7,388,896 11/253,138 06/17/08
7,388,906 10/838,180 06/17/08
7,388,948 10/853,572 06/17/08
7,388,950 10/896,558 06/17/08
7,388,952 11/545,401 06/17/08
7,388,956 10/751,603 06/17/08
7,388,960 11/037,010 06/17/08
7,388,967 11/091,358 06/17/08
7,388,968 10/296,128 06/17/08
7,388,992 11/314,110 06/17/08
7,389,002 10/805,293 06/17/08
7,389,007 11/389,264 06/17/08
7,389,011 11/699,389 06/17/08
7,389,018 11/799,007 06/17/08
7,389,029 10/710,303 06/17/08
7,389,035 10/373,705 06/17/08
7,389,037 10/618,311 06/17/08
7,389,039 10/778,315 06/17/08
7,389,086 10/746,696 06/17/08
7,389,093 10/897,900 06/17/08
7,389,135 10/550,211 06/17/08
7,389,137 11/119,677 06/17/08
7,389,142 10/630,468 06/17/08
7,389,152 11/145,319 06/17/08
7,389,155 11/002,429 06/17/08
7,389,162 11/224,563 06/17/08
7,389,165 10/809,680 06/17/08
7,389,170 10/704,909 06/17/08
7,389,181 11/216,465 06/17/08
7,389,188 11/548,363 06/17/08
7,389,197 10/465,967 06/17/08
7,389,198 11/708,385 06/17/08
7,389,207 11/135,137 06/17/08
7,389,242 10/430,829 06/17/08
7,389,250 10/367,631 06/17/08
7,389,259 11/748,225 06/17/08
7,389,282 11/264,748 06/17/08
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 28 |
7,389,287 11/273,653 06/17/08
7,389,306 10/895,624 06/17/08
7,389,326 11/591,499 06/17/08
7,389,344 10/283,780 06/17/08
7,389,348 11/202,991 06/17/08
7,389,353 10/347,864 06/17/08
7,389,378 10/789,304 06/17/08
7,389,392 11/262,491 06/17/08
7,389,404 11/224,875 06/17/08
7,389,449 11/069,879 06/17/08
7,389,467 10/848,563 06/17/08
7,389,469 11/142,182 06/17/08
7,389,491 11/268,791 06/17/08
7,389,504 10/694,777 06/17/08
7,389,507 10/361,446 06/17/08
7,389,518 10/742,526 06/17/08
7,389,521 10/880,610 06/17/08
7,389,539 10/756,690 06/17/08
7,389,541 10/751,501 06/17/08
| Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 07/09/2012 |
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a
Late Maintenance Fee from 07/09/2012
Patent Application Filing Issue Granted
Number Number Date Date Date
5,839,933 08/911,561 08/14/97 11/24/98 07/12/12
5,860,995 08/729,633 09/23/96 01/19/99 07/12/12
5,880,834 09/047,083 03/24/98 03/09/99 07/12/12
5,970,794 08/984,683 12/03/97 10/26/99 07/12/12
5,976,645 09/088,797 06/01/98 11/02/99 07/10/12
6,017,164 09/153,584 09/15/98 01/25/00 07/10/12
6,082,144 09/002,417 01/02/98 07/04/00 07/10/12
6,441,032 09/635,527 08/09/00 08/27/02 07/12/12
6,485,159 09/775,892 02/03/01 11/26/02 07/13/12
6,508,205 09/640,922 08/17/00 01/21/03 07/09/12
6,550,338 09/611,928 07/07/00 04/22/03 07/13/12
6,604,324 09/444,546 11/22/99 08/12/03 07/12/12
6,698,683 10/185,374 06/28/02 03/02/04 07/12/12
6,699,563 10/280,988 10/24/02 03/02/04 07/11/12
6,715,427 09/966,929 09/28/01 04/06/04 07/11/12
6,736,741 10/346,038 01/16/03 05/18/04 07/10/12
6,743,154 09/974,896 10/12/01 06/01/04 07/12/12
7,207,423 10/491,734 09/02/04 04/24/07 07/12/12
7,326,028 11/337,266 01/23/06 02/05/08 07/15/12
7,346,564 09/020,122 02/06/98 03/18/08 07/11/12
7,347,256 11/194,426 08/01/05 03/25/08 07/12/12
7,367,368 11/345,144 02/01/06 05/06/08 07/12/12
7,375,689 11/560,812 11/16/06 05/20/08 07/12/12
7,377,889 10/749,313 12/30/03 05/27/08 07/11/12
7,381,669 11/328,305 01/09/06 06/03/08 07/12/12
| 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).
RE. 43,410, Re. S.N.: 13/506,307, Apr. 10, 2012, Cl.: 166/077,
UNIVERSAL CARRIER FOR GRIPPERS IN A COILED TUBING INJECTOR, John E. Goode,
Owner of Record: Varco I/P, Inc, Attorney or Agent: Marc A. Hubbard,
Ex. Gp.: 3672
RE. 43,437, Re. S.N. 13,463,296, May 03, 2012, Cl. 717, STORAGE VOLUME
HANDLING SYSTEM WHICH UTILIZES DISK IMAGES, Byron B. Han, et al, Owner of
Record: APPLE INC., Cupertino, CA, Attorney or Agent: Daniel R. Brownstone,
Ex. Gp.: 2199
5,323,960, Re. S.N. 13,169,738, Jun. 27, 2012, Cl. 137, THERMOSTATIC
CONTROL VALVE WITH FLUID MIXING AND NON-LINEAR RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS,
Kevin B. Kline, Indianapolis, IN, Owner of Record: Magaral, LLC,
Indianapolis, IN, Attorney or Agent: Daniel J. Lueders, Ex. Gp.: 3753
6,212,575, Re. S.N.: 13,457,231, Apr. 26, 2012, CL: 719/328.000,
EXTENSIBLE, REPLACEABLE NETWORK COMPONENT SYSTEM, Michael A. Cleron,
Owner of Record: Apple Inc., Attorney or Agent: Richard J. Lutton, Jr.,
Ex. GP.: 2194
6,268,490, Re. S.N. 13,533,781, Jun. 26, 2012, Cl. 536,
BICYCLONUCLEOSIDE AND OLIGONUCLEOTIDE ANALOGUES, Takeshi Imanishi, et al,
Owner of Record: Santaris Pharma A/S, Attorney or Agent: Eric K. Steffe,
Ex. Gp.: 1623
6,544,397, Re. S.N. 13,463,087, May 03, 2012, Cl. 205, METHOD FOR
ENHANCING THE SOLDERABILITY OF A SURFACE, Ronald Redline, et al, Owner of
Record: MacDermid, Inc., Attorney or Agent: Jennifer Calcagni, Ex. Gp.:
1741
6,743,325, Re. S.N. 13,485,167, May 31, 2012, Cl. 156, FLEXIBLE
MATERIAL, David Stirling Taylor, Accrington, United Kingdom, Owner of
Record: STIRLING MOULDINGS LIMITED, Padiham, GB, Attorney or Agent:
Timothy E. Levstik, Ex. Gp.: 1746
6,848,443, Re. S.N. 13/371,787, Feb. 13, 2012, Cl./Sub 128/200,
AEROSOL DELIVERY APPARATUS, James N. Schmidt, et al., Owner of Record:
Trudell Medical International, London, Canada, Attorney or Agent: Andrew
D. Stover, Ex. Gp: 3771
7,110,332, Re. S.N. 13/528,202, Jun. 20, 2012, Cl. 369/047,
RECORD CARRIER HAVING A SERVO TRACK WITH POSITION INFORMATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A MODULATION TYPE AND PERMANENT INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A DIFFERENT MODULATION TYPE, AND APPARATUS FOR SCANNING THE RECORD
CARRIER, Cornelis Marinus Schep, et al., Owner of Record: Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V., Eindhoven, NL, Attorney or Agent: Michael E.
Belk, Ex. Gp.: 2627
7,440,501, Re. S.N. 13,495,944, Jun. 13, 2012, Cl. 382, METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING LOOP FILTERING OR POST FILTERING IN BLOCK BASED
MOTION COMPENSATIONED VIDEO CODING, Shijun Sun, et al, Owner of Record:
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, Attorney or Agent: Michael R. Cammarata,
Ex. Gp.: 2624
7,609,221, Re. S.N.: 13/278,440, Oct. 21, 2011, Cl.: 342/025,
ANTENNA ASSEMBLY AND PORTABLE TERMINAL HAVING THE SAME, Kyung-Ho Chung,
et.al., Owner of Record: LG Electronics, Inc, Attorney or Agent:
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 31 |
David A. Bilodeau, Ex. Gp.: 3662
7,714,143, Re. S.N. 13/506,717, May 11, 2012, Cl./Sub 430/619,
METHOD OF MAKING MONOAMMONIUM SALT OF [5,5'-BIS-1H-TETRAZOLE] BIS-(1(2)H-
TETRAZOL-5YL)-AMINE, Deborah L. Hordos, et al., Owner of Record: TK
Holdings, Inc., Armada, MI, Attorney or Agent: Laurence C. Begin,
Ex. Gp: 1722
7,718,622, Re. S.N. 13,475,928, May 18, 2012, Cl. 435, COMPOSITIONS
COMPRISING STRUCTURALLY STABLE CONJUGATE MOLECULES, Stephen F. Tuck, et al,
Owner of Record: Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Attorney or Agent:
Christine Lekutis, Ex. Gp.: 1636
7,719,998, Re. S.N. 13/474,622, May 17, 2012, Cl./Sub 370/252,
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING RETRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION USING STATE VARIABLES
IN RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, Seung June Yi, et al., Owner of Record:
LG Electronics, Inc., Seoul, Korea, Attorney or Agent: Alexis Ann Liistro,
Ex. Gp: 2472
7,732,628, Re. S.N. 13/491,563, Jun. 07, 2012, Cl. 438/688,
FUNCTIONAL BIOPOLYMER MODIFICATION REAGENTS AND USES THEREOF, David A.
Schwartz et. al., Owner of Record: SOLULINK INCORPORATED, Attorney or
Agent: Vicki Norton, Ex. Gp.: 2812
7,736,720, Re. S.N. 13/525,252, June 15, 2012, Cl./Sub 106/735,
COMPOSITE LIGHT WEIGHT GYPSUM WALLBOARD, Qiang Yu, et al., Owner of
Record: United States Gypsum Company, Chicago, IL, Attorney or Agent:
Salim A. Hasan, Ex. Gp: 1731
7,738,562, Re. S.N. 13/524,643, Jun. 15, 2012, Cl. 438/688,
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING VIDEO FRAMES AND CORRECTING MOTION,
Greg Conklin, Owner of Record: INTEL CORPORATION, Attorney or Agent:
Adam Philipp, Ex. Gp.: 2812
7,738,778, Re. S.N. 13,523,447, Jun. 14, 2012, Cl. 386, SYSTEM AND
METHOD FOR GENERATING A MULTIMEDIA SUMMARY OF MULTIMEDIA STREAMS,
Lalitha A. Agnihotri, et al, Owner of Record: PENDRAGON WIRELESS LLC,
Kirkland, WA, Attorney or Agent: Thomas A. Mattioli, Ex. Gp.: 2621
7,738,778, Re. S.N. 13,529,768, Jun. 21, 2012, Cl. 514, METHODS AND
COMPOSITIONS FOR EVALUATING GRAFT SURVIVAL IN A SOLID ORGAN TRANSPLANT
RECIPIENT, Minnie M. Sarwal, Owner of Record: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Attorney or Agent: James S. Keddie,
Ex. Gp.: 1629
7,739,629, Re. S.N. 13,494,363, Jun. 12, 2012, Cl. 716, METHOD AND
MECHANISM FOR IMPLEMENTING ELECTRONIC DESIGNS HAVING POWER INFORMATION
SPECIFICATIONS BACKGROUND, Qi Wang, et al, Owner of Record: Cadence Design
Systems, Inc., Attorney or Agent: Stephen C. Durant, Ex. Gp.: 2825
7,744,582, Re. S.N. 13/530,974, Jun. 22, 2012, Cl. 604/068,
NEEDLE ASSISTED JET INJECTOR, Peter L. Sadowski et. al., Owner of
Record: ANTARES PHARMA INC, Attorney or Agent: Sharon B. McCullen,
Ex. Gp.: 3763
7,771,857, Re. S.N.: 13/467,514, May 09, 2012, Cl.: 600/000,
DIAGNOSIS OF P. AERUGINOSA INFECTION IN THE LUNGS OF PATIENTS, Graham
Timmins, et.al., Owner of Record: STC UNM, Attorney or Agent: Henry D.
Coleman, Ex. Gp.: 1657
7,911,311, Re. S.N. 13,533,764, Jun. 26, 2012, Cl. 336, ELECTRONIC
COMPONENT, Katsuji Matsuta, et al, Owner of Record: MURATA MANUFACTURING
CO., LTD., Kyoto-fu, Japan, Attorney or Agent: Donald R. Studebaker,
Ex. Gp.: 2832
7,953,176, Re. S.N. 13,475,810, May 18, 2012, Cl. 709, METHOD FOR
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 32 |
TRANSMITTING CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION IN MULTIPLE ANTENNA SYSTEM,
Dong Wook Roh, Anyang-si, Korea, Owner of Record: LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
Seoul, Korea, Attorney or Agent: Alexis Ann Listro, Ex. Gp.: 2447
7,984,174, Re. S.N. 13/524,912, Jun. 15, 2012, Cl. 235/494,
MULTICAST VIDEOCONFERENCING, Neil Rideout, Owner of Record: SUPRACOMM,
INC., Attorney or Agent: Brian R. Coleman, Ex. Gp.: 2876
7,986,402, Re. S.N.: 13,461,898, May 02, 2012, CL: 356/609.000,
THREE DIMENSIONAL PROFILE INSPECTING APPARATUS, Wei Cheng Wang, et.al.,
Owner of Record: Industrial Technology Research Institute, Attorney or
Agent: John S. Egbert, Ex. GP.: 2886
8,104,208, Re. S.N. 13,475,549, May 18, 2012, Cl. 040, FRAME ASSEMBLY
MOUNTABLE TO AN OBJECT, Margarete Schymura, New York, NY, Owner of Record:
Inventor, Attorney or Agent: Kent H. Cheng, Ex. Gp.: 3611
| Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
RE. 40,281, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,364, Requested Date: Jun. 18, 2012,
Cl. 375/260, Title: SIGNAL PROCESSING UTILIZING A TREE-STRUCTURED ARRAY,
Inventor: Michael A. Tzannes et al., Owners of Record: Hybrid Audio, LLC.,
Tyler, TX, Attorney or Agent: Sheridan Ross, PC., Denver, CO, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Steven A. Moore, JD., Ph.D., Goodwin Procter, LLP., Menlo
Park, CA
5,558,083, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,311, Requested Date: Jun. 27, 2012,
Cl. 128/203, Title: NITRIC OXIDE DELIVERY SYSTEM, Inventor: Duncan P. L.
Bathe et al., Owners of Record: INO Therapeutics, LLC., Hampton, NJ,
Attorney or Agent: Diehl Servilla, LLC., Iselin, NJ, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: 12th Man Technologies, Inc., Justin Allen, Riverside Law LLP.,
West Conshohocken, PA
5,629,867, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,362, Requested Date: Jun. 18, 2012,
Cl. 381/077, Title: DIGITAL AUDIO SYSTEM FOR RADIO STATIONS, Inventor:
Robert J. Goldman, Owners of Record: DigiMedia Holdings Group, LLC.,
Wilmington, DE, Attorney or Agent: McKeon Meunier Carlin & Curfman,
LLC., Atlanta, GA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: George A. Metzenthin, Cahn &
Samuels, LLP., Washington, DC
5,781,784, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,358, Requested Date: Jun. 15 2012,
Cl. 713/320, Title: DYNAMIC POWER MANAGEMENT OF SOLID STATE MEMORIES,
Inventor: David E. McKinley, Owners of Record: Acacia Patent Acquisition,
LLC., Newport Beach, CA, Attorney or Agent: Skjerven Morril MacPherson
Franklin & Friel, San Jose, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Thomas A.
Rozylowicz, Fish & Richardson, PC., Minneapolis, MN
5,786,464, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,335, Requested Date: Jun. 22, 2012,
Cl. 536/023, Title: OVEREXPRESSION OF MAMMALIAN AND VIRAL PROTEINS,
Inventor: Brian Seed, Owners of Record: General Hospital Corporation,
Boston, MA, Attorney or Agent: Clark & Elbing, LLP., Boston, MA,
Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: DNA 2.0, Inc., Brett Lovejoy, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP., San Francisco, CA
5,974,621, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,371, Requested Date: Jun. 22, 2012,
Cl. 015/261, Title: MOP WRINGER WITH MOP HANDLE SUPPORT, Inventor:
Joseph M. Wilen, Owners of Record: Wilen Products, Inc., Atlanta, GA,
Attorney or Agent: Thompson Coburn, LLP., St. Louis, MO, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: Eric T. Krischke, Schiff Hardin, LLP., Chicago, IL
6,043,760, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,367, Requested Date: Jun. 21, 2012,
Cl. 341/022, Title: LANGUAGE-DEPENDENT LETTER INPUT BY MEANS OF NUMBER
KEYS, Inventor: Kimmo Laakkonen, Owners of Record: MobileMedia Ideas, LLC,
Chevy Chase, MD, Attorney or Agent: Proskauer Rose, LLP., Boston, MA,
Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Robert M. Hansen, Esq., The Marbury Law Group,
PLLC., Reston, VA
6,195,551, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,360, Requested Date: Jun. 15 2012,
Cl. 118/726, Title: IDLE HANDOFF CONTROLLING METHOD IN CELLULAR
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, Inventor: Kyu-Nam Kim et al., Owners of Record:
SK Telecom, Co., LTD., Korea, Attorney or Agent: Banner & Witcoff, LTD.,
Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Thomas A. Rozylowicz, Fish &
Richardson, PC., Minneapolis, MN
6,200,216, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,365, Requested Date: Jun. 21, 2012,
Cl. 463/001, Title: ELECTRONIC TRADING CARD, Inventor: Tyler Peppel,
Owners of Record: Wildcat Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC., Plano, TX,
Attorney or Agent: Glenn Patent Group, Menlo Park, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Todd E. Landis, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP., Dallas, TX
6,294,953, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,363, Requested Date: Jun. 18, 2012,
Cl. 329/341, Title: HIGH SENSITIVITY DEMODULATOR FOR A RADIO TAG AND
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 34 |
METHOD, Inventor: Wayne E. Steeves, Owners of Record: Axcess International,
Inc., Carrollton, TX, Attorney or Agent: Fay Kuplun & Marcin, LLP.,
New York, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Brannon C. McKay, Finnegan
Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP., Washington, DC
6,319,543, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,338, Requested Date: Jun. 5, 2012,
Cl. 427/098, Title: PROCESS FOR SILVER PLATING IN PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD
MANUFACTURE, Inventor: Andrew McIntosh Soutar et al., Owners of Record:
Andrew McIntosh Soutar, Great Britain; Peter Thomas McGrath, Mission Viejo,
CA, Attorney or Agent: Senniger Powers, LLP., St. Louis, MO, Ex. Gp.:
3991, Requester: Arthur G. Schaier, Carmody & Torrance, LLP., Waterbury, CT
6,349,291, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,366, Requested Date: Jun. 21, 2012,
Cl. 705/035, Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ANALYSIS, DISPLAY AND
DISSEMINATION OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION USING RESAMPLED STATISTICAL METHODS,
Inventor: Samir Varma, Owners of Record: InvestPic, LLC., Dallas, TX,
Attorney or Agent: Foster Pepper, PLLC., Seattle, WA, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: SAS Institute, Inc., John V. Biernacki, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH
7,215,991, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,372, Requested Date: Jun. 22, 2012,
Cl. 600/509, Title: WIRELESS MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AND MONITORING EQUIPMENT,
Inventor: Marcus Beeson et al., Owners of Record: Body Science, LLC.,
Frisco, TX, Attorney or Agent: Dykema Gossett, PLLC., Bloomfield Hills, MI,
Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Bryon Wasserman, Mayer Brown, LLP., Washington,
DC
7,264,727, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,303, Requested Date: Jul. 5, 2012,
Cl.210/620, Title: SEPTIC SYSTEM REMEDIATION METHOD AND APPARATUS,
Inventor: Karl K. Holt, Owners of Record: Aero-Stream, LLC., Hartland, WI,
Attorney or Agent: Donald J. Ersler, SC., Brookfield, WI, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
Requester: Septicair Aid, LLC., Ralph (Rick) Martin, Patent Law Offices Of
Rick Martin, PC., Longmont, CO
7,942,467, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,348, Requested Date: Jun. 13, 2012,
Cl. 296/180, Title: AERODYNAMIC SKIRT SUPPORT MEMBER, Inventor: Mathieu
Boivin et al., Owners of Record: Transtex Composite, Inc., Canada,
Attorney or Agent: Transtex Composite, Inc., Canada, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: James J. Pingor, Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter, Cleveland, OH
8,172,612, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,300, Requested Date: Jun. 29, 2012,
Cl. 439/583, Title: ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR WITH GROUNDING MEMBER, Inventor:
Bruce D. Bence et al., Owners of Record: Corning Gilbert, Inc., Glendale,
AZ, Attorney or Agent: Corning Incorporated, Corning, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Jonathan M. Madsen, Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP., Latham, NY
| Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed
6,397,038, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,022, Requested Date: Jun. 18, 2012,
Cl.: 455/003, Title: SATELLITE BROADCAST RECEIVING AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,
Inventor: James A. Green, Sr. et al., Owners of Record: Global
Communications, Inc., Tallahassee, FL, Attorney or Agent: Nixon & Vanderhye,
PC., Arlington, VA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester:
DIRECTV, Inc.; (Att'y Is: Bruce H. Stoner, Jr., Greenblum & Bernstein, PLC.,
Reston, VA), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
6,658,418, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,018, Requested Date: Jun. 15, 2012,
Cl.: 707/003, Title: AUTHORING SYSTEM FOR COMPUTER-BASED INFORMATION
DELIVERY SYSTEM, Inventor: Kevin S. Burns, Owners of Record: Datamize,
LLC., Jackson, WY, Attorney or Agent: The Law Office of Clay McGurk,
Orange, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: MicroStrategy
Incorporated; (Att'y Is: Thomas A. Rozylowicz, Fish & Richardson, PC.,
Minneapolis, MN), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,148,359, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,019, Requested Date: Jun. 15, 2012,
Cl.: 548/204, Title: POLYMORPH OF A PHARMACEUTICAL, Inventor: Sanjay R.
Chemburkar et al., Owners of Record: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL,
Attorney or Agent: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
Requester: Third Party Requester: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co.; (Att'y Is:
Jeremy Noe, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP., Chicago, IL),
Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,364,752, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,020, Requested Date: Jun. 24, 2012,
Cl.: 514/019, Title: SOLID DISPERSION PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS,
Inventor: James J. Fort et al., Owners of Record: Abbott Laboratories,
Abbott Park, IL, Attorney or Agent: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL,
Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Third Party Requester: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co.;
(Att'y Is: Jeremy Noe, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP., Chicago,
IL), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,707,828, Reexam. C.N.: 95/002,024, Requested Date: Jun. 19, 2012,
Cl.: 060/316, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANIPULATING AND DILUTING
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE EXHAUST GASES, Inventor: Gary T. Leseman et al.,
Owners of Record: Leseman Davis, LLC., Houston, TX, Attorney or Agent:
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP., Houston, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: Third Party Requester: Twin City Fan, Co., LTD.; (Att'y Is:
Richard C. Stempkovski, Jr., Nawrocki Rooney & Sivertson, PA., Minneapolis,
MN), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
8,178,328, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,998, Requested Date: Jun. 21, 2012,
Cl.: 435/160, Title: FERMENTIVE PRODUCTION OF FOUR CARBON ALCOHOLS,
Inventor: Gail K. Donaldson et al., Owners of Record: Butamax Advanced
Biofuels, LLC., Wilmington, DE, Attorney or Agent: E.I. Du Pont De Nemours
and Company, Wilmington, DE, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Third Party
Requester: Gevo, Inc.; (Att'y Is: Fraser D. Brown, Cooley, LLP.,
Washington, DC), 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
July 13, 2012
DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date
924,934 72/366,530 12/07/1971
2,518,261 75/780,590 12/11/2001
2,516,289 75/790,477 12/11/2001
3,023,844 79/000,066 12/06/2005
3,023,845 79/000,097 12/06/2005
3,023,846 79/000,098 12/06/2005
3,023,848 79/000,735 12/06/2005
3,023,850 79/000,850 12/06/2005
3,023,851 79/000,942 12/06/2005
3,023,853 79/000,989 12/06/2005
3,023,854 79/001,225 12/06/2005
3,008,979 79/001,237 10/25/2005
3,002,046 79/001,240 09/27/2005
3,011,533 79/001,241 11/01/2005
1,181,148 73/296,394 12/08/1981
1,667,596 74/100,087 12/10/1991
2,517,608 74/643,289 12/11/2001
2,517,613 74/736,684 12/11/2001
2,517,618 75/100,215 12/11/2001
2,517,619 75/100,216 12/11/2001
2,517,620 75/106,903 12/11/2001
2,517,629 75/165,002 12/11/2001
2,517,633 75/167,945 12/11/2001
2,517,635 75/182,508 12/11/2001
2,515,980 75/188,461 12/11/2001
2,515,987 75/216,270 12/11/2001
2,515,990 75/222,036 12/11/2001
2,515,993 75/241,025 12/11/2001
2,517,649 75/243,544 12/11/2001
2,517,656 75/254,433 12/11/2001
2,517,666 75/275,917 12/11/2001
2,516,003 75/307,540 12/11/2001
2,517,682 75/314,975 12/11/2001
2,517,708 75/360,272 12/11/2001
2,517,709 75/363,805 12/11/2001
2,516,014 75/370,894 12/11/2001
2,517,713 75/372,107 12/11/2001
2,517,725 75/393,571 12/11/2001
2,516,020 75/393,671 12/11/2001
2,516,025 75/402,283 12/11/2001
2,517,740 75/408,335 12/11/2001
2,517,744 75/419,319 12/11/2001
2,517,758 75/439,013 12/11/2001
2,517,763 75/451,742 12/11/2001
2,516,042 75/455,658 12/11/2001
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 37 |
2,516,045 75/458,502 12/11/2001
2,516,049 75/464,417 12/11/2001
2,517,785 75/475,639 12/11/2001
2,516,055 75/481,314 12/11/2001
2,517,796 75/485,442 12/11/2001
2,516,058 75/487,227 12/11/2001
2,516,060 75/487,343 12/11/2001
2,517,805 75/504,822 12/11/2001
2,517,808 75/507,469 12/11/2001
2,516,074 75/510,909 12/11/2001
2,516,075 75/510,913 12/11/2001
2,517,813 75/516,337 12/11/2001
2,516,079 75/517,255 12/11/2001
2,517,823 75/522,754 12/11/2001
2,517,826 75/523,739 12/11/2001
2,517,830 75/526,479 12/11/2001
2,516,087 75/536,528 12/11/2001
2,516,088 75/536,532 12/11/2001
2,517,847 75/540,416 12/11/2001
2,517,851 75/545,206 12/11/2001
2,516,093 75/549,642 12/11/2001
2,517,864 75/551,907 12/11/2001
2,517,867 75/553,147 12/11/2001
2,517,869 75/554,454 12/11/2001
2,517,884 75/567,189 12/11/2001
2,517,889 75/569,919 12/11/2001
2,517,890 75/569,962 12/11/2001
2,517,893 75/570,784 12/11/2001
2,516,106 75/574,490 12/11/2001
2,517,898 75/575,502 12/11/2001
2,517,899 75/577,164 12/11/2001
2,516,111 75/580,882 12/11/2001
2,516,114 75/585,633 12/11/2001
2,517,913 75/587,005 12/11/2001
2,517,927 75/598,256 12/11/2001
2,517,941 75/602,355 12/11/2001
2,516,125 75/607,566 12/11/2001
2,517,958 75/610,839 12/11/2001
2,516,133 75/613,727 12/11/2001
2,517,965 75/614,520 12/11/2001
2,518,807 75/618,797 12/11/2001
2,517,976 75/622,537 12/11/2001
2,517,981 75/624,148 12/11/2001
2,517,983 75/624,385 12/11/2001
2,517,984 75/624,445 12/11/2001
2,517,991 75/630,362 12/11/2001
2,516,153 75/635,564 12/11/2001
2,518,002 75/638,075 12/11/2001
2,518,008 75/645,259 12/11/2001
2,518,810 75/645,274 12/11/2001
2,516,160 75/645,369 12/11/2001
2,518,009 75/645,990 12/11/2001
2,516,162 75/649,073 12/11/2001
2,516,164 75/650,670 12/11/2001
2,518,022 75/654,533 12/11/2001
2,518,030 75/660,112 12/11/2001
2,518,031 75/661,269 12/11/2001
2,518,040 75/668,761 12/11/2001
2,518,041 75/668,763 12/11/2001
2,518,042 75/668,773 12/11/2001
2,518,043 75/669,200 12/11/2001
2,516,182 75/673,698 12/11/2001
2,518,058 75/676,522 12/11/2001
2,516,186 75/676,671 12/11/2001
2,516,194 75/684,263 12/11/2001
2,518,078 75/689,901 12/11/2001
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 38 |
2,518,079 75/690,115 12/11/2001
2,518,084 75/694,996 12/11/2001
2,518,091 75/699,680 12/11/2001
2,516,206 75/700,321 12/11/2001
2,518,101 75/704,483 12/11/2001
2,518,111 75/712,776 12/11/2001
2,516,214 75/714,395 12/11/2001
2,518,122 75/720,638 12/11/2001
2,518,125 75/720,791 12/11/2001
2,518,128 75/722,751 12/11/2001
2,518,130 75/723,491 12/11/2001
2,516,225 75/723,718 12/11/2001
2,518,133 75/726,628 12/11/2001
2,518,135 75/729,098 12/11/2001
2,518,136 75/729,282 12/11/2001
2,516,231 75/733,214 12/11/2001
2,518,148 75/733,610 12/11/2001
2,518,179 75/746,501 12/11/2001
2,516,242 75/748,426 12/11/2001
2,518,185 75/749,394 12/11/2001
2,518,190 75/754,106 12/11/2001
2,516,250 75/756,083 12/11/2001
2,516,251 75/757,093 12/11/2001
2,518,197 75/758,317 12/11/2001
2,516,254 75/758,364 12/11/2001
2,518,207 75/762,114 12/11/2001
2,516,261 75/763,858 12/11/2001
2,518,219 75/766,167 12/11/2001
2,518,224 75/767,540 12/11/2001
2,518,225 75/767,766 12/11/2001
2,518,227 75/768,902 12/11/2001
2,518,819 75/769,022 12/11/2001
2,516,268 75/769,158 12/11/2001
2,516,269 75/769,182 12/11/2001
2,518,231 75/771,765 12/11/2001
2,518,234 75/772,861 12/11/2001
2,516,276 75/775,804 12/11/2001
2,518,821 75/776,364 12/11/2001
2,518,250 75/777,124 12/11/2001
2,518,260 75/779,112 12/11/2001
2,518,271 75/783,027 12/11/2001
2,516,281 75/784,576 12/11/2001
2,518,277 75/786,610 12/11/2001
2,518,282 75/787,522 12/11/2001
2,518,286 75/789,940 12/11/2001
2,518,289 75/790,696 12/11/2001
2,518,290 75/791,231 12/11/2001
2,516,290 75/792,684 12/11/2001
2,518,302 75/794,606 12/11/2001
2,518,305 75/795,440 12/11/2001
2,518,322 75/802,633 12/11/2001
2,518,328 75/805,591 12/11/2001
2,518,826 75/806,648 12/11/2001
2,518,332 75/808,092 12/11/2001
2,518,333 75/808,441 12/11/2001
2,518,336 75/808,951 12/11/2001
2,518,338 75/809,098 12/11/2001
2,516,304 75/811,520 12/11/2001
2,518,830 75/812,194 12/11/2001
2,518,351 75/812,675 12/11/2001
2,518,353 75/812,850 12/11/2001
2,518,363 75/821,233 12/11/2001
2,518,364 75/822,193 12/11/2001
2,518,369 75/823,593 12/11/2001
2,518,833 75/823,940 12/11/2001
2,518,370 75/824,483 12/11/2001
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 39 |
2,518,372 75/824,952 12/11/2001
2,518,373 75/824,960 12/11/2001
2,518,375 75/826,862 12/11/2001
2,516,329 75/827,421 12/11/2001
2,518,384 75/830,502 12/11/2001
2,516,339 75/832,933 12/11/2001
2,516,342 75/833,384 12/11/2001
2,518,391 75/834,364 12/11/2001
2,518,392 75/834,456 12/11/2001
2,518,394 75/835,816 12/11/2001
2,516,343 75/835,936 12/11/2001
2,516,347 75/837,532 12/11/2001
2,516,354 75/842,012 12/11/2001
2,516,358 75/844,277 12/11/2001
2,518,406 75/845,404 12/11/2001
2,518,407 75/845,642 12/11/2001
2,518,408 75/846,125 12/11/2001
2,518,413 75/847,362 12/11/2001
2,516,364 75/847,415 12/11/2001
2,518,415 75/847,806 12/11/2001
2,518,419 75/848,327 12/11/2001
2,516,369 75/849,646 12/11/2001
2,518,422 75/850,577 12/11/2001
2,516,376 75/854,753 12/11/2001
2,518,438 75/859,688 12/11/2001
2,516,385 75/865,735 12/11/2001
2,518,454 75/870,231 12/11/2001
2,516,391 75/872,303 12/11/2001
2,518,458 75/872,308 12/11/2001
2,516,395 75/873,557 12/11/2001
2,518,462 75/873,956 12/11/2001
2,518,463 75/874,261 12/11/2001
2,518,468 75/875,820 12/11/2001
2,518,470 75/875,985 12/11/2001
2,516,408 75/879,768 12/11/2001
2,518,478 75/879,879 12/11/2001
2,516,419 75/886,059 12/11/2001
2,516,420 75/886,074 12/11/2001
2,516,425 75/886,909 12/11/2001
2,516,428 75/888,265 12/11/2001
2,518,498 75/894,790 12/11/2001
2,516,445 75/896,071 12/11/2001
2,518,502 75/897,291 12/11/2001
2,518,839 75/897,905 12/11/2001
2,516,449 75/898,280 12/11/2001
2,518,519 75/901,109 12/11/2001
2,518,522 75/901,739 12/11/2001
2,516,456 75/902,413 12/11/2001
2,518,527 75/904,554 12/11/2001
2,518,531 75/907,411 12/11/2001
2,516,472 75/908,301 12/11/2001
2,516,473 75/908,342 12/11/2001
2,518,535 75/908,624 12/11/2001
2,518,537 75/909,083 12/11/2001
2,516,477 75/911,104 12/11/2001
2,518,544 75/913,823 12/11/2001
2,516,485 75/914,414 12/11/2001
2,516,486 75/914,615 12/11/2001
2,518,547 75/915,150 12/11/2001
2,516,488 75/915,726 12/11/2001
2,516,493 75/918,981 12/11/2001
2,518,563 75/919,577 12/11/2001
2,516,494 75/921,058 12/11/2001
2,516,498 75/922,460 12/11/2001
2,516,503 75/923,664 12/11/2001
2,516,505 75/924,511 12/11/2001
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 40 |
2,516,521 75/930,724 12/11/2001
2,516,522 75/930,849 12/11/2001
2,516,525 75/931,312 12/11/2001
2,518,592 75/931,547 12/11/2001
2,516,526 75/931,701 12/11/2001
2,516,533 75/933,561 12/11/2001
2,516,534 75/933,947 12/11/2001
2,516,536 75/934,630 12/11/2001
2,518,600 75/935,608 12/11/2001
2,518,605 75/936,748 12/11/2001
2,518,613 75/939,892 12/11/2001
2,518,620 75/941,620 12/11/2001
2,518,625 75/943,253 12/11/2001
2,518,641 75/980,790 12/11/2001
2,518,651 75/981,020 12/11/2001
2,516,564 76/000,019 12/11/2001
2,516,569 76/000,639 12/11/2001
2,518,681 76/001,619 12/11/2001
2,516,579 76/003,794 12/11/2001
2,516,596 76/008,794 12/11/2001
2,516,600 76/010,228 12/11/2001
2,518,697 76/010,337 12/11/2001
2,516,610 76/013,146 12/11/2001
2,518,706 76/014,742 12/11/2001
2,516,623 76/015,986 12/11/2001
2,516,624 76/015,987 12/11/2001
2,516,625 76/015,988 12/11/2001
2,518,714 76/019,167 12/11/2001
2,518,716 76/020,530 12/11/2001
2,516,642 76/020,652 12/11/2001
2,518,722 76/021,727 12/11/2001
2,516,650 76/022,197 12/11/2001
2,516,652 76/022,482 12/11/2001
2,516,656 76/022,989 12/11/2001
2,516,673 76/027,008 12/11/2001
2,518,731 76/027,764 12/11/2001
2,518,860 76/030,120 12/11/2001
2,516,680 76/030,581 12/11/2001
2,516,691 76/033,668 12/11/2001
2,518,737 76/036,108 12/11/2001
2,518,739 76/037,165 12/11/2001
2,516,700 76/037,198 12/11/2001
2,516,701 76/037,285 12/11/2001
2,516,707 76/039,169 12/11/2001
2,516,710 76/039,756 12/11/2001
2,516,717 76/040,666 12/11/2001
2,516,722 76/041,942 12/11/2001
2,516,730 76/043,725 12/11/2001
2,516,731 76/043,743 12/11/2001
2,516,740 76/046,571 12/11/2001
2,516,746 76/049,437 12/11/2001
2,518,749 76/049,871 12/11/2001
2,516,786 76/064,679 12/11/2001
2,516,788 76/065,241 12/11/2001
2,516,790 76/065,450 12/11/2001
2,518,775 76/071,365 12/11/2001
2,518,777 76/075,741 12/11/2001
2,516,828 76/078,752 12/11/2001
2,516,832 76/079,487 12/11/2001
2,516,847 76/082,911 12/11/2001
2,516,853 76/087,094 12/11/2001
2,516,854 76/087,301 12/11/2001
2,516,856 76/087,404 12/11/2001
2,516,871 76/096,394 12/11/2001
2,516,872 76/096,691 12/11/2001
2,516,874 76/097,137 12/11/2001
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 41 |
2,516,876 76/097,887 12/11/2001
2,516,888 76/100,864 12/11/2001
2,516,889 76/100,865 12/11/2001
2,516,890 76/101,185 12/11/2001
2,516,893 76/102,233 12/11/2001
2,516,896 76/105,300 12/11/2001
2,516,898 76/105,769 12/11/2001
2,516,902 76/106,950 12/11/2001
2,516,905 76/108,157 12/11/2001
2,518,878 76/111,533 12/11/2001
2,516,917 76/112,831 12/11/2001
2,516,920 76/113,749 12/11/2001
2,516,921 76/113,856 12/11/2001
2,516,924 76/114,879 12/11/2001
2,516,929 76/117,621 12/11/2001
2,516,930 76/117,868 12/11/2001
2,516,931 76/117,994 12/11/2001
2,516,940 76/120,685 12/11/2001
2,516,942 76/122,142 12/11/2001
2,516,949 76/125,385 12/11/2001
2,516,950 76/125,387 12/11/2001
2,516,951 76/125,684 12/11/2001
2,516,953 76/127,075 12/11/2001
2,516,960 76/129,912 12/11/2001
2,516,967 76/133,154 12/11/2001
2,516,977 76/137,303 12/11/2001
2,516,999 76/145,671 12/11/2001
2,517,014 76/149,954 12/11/2001
2,517,016 76/150,549 12/11/2001
2,517,018 76/150,847 12/11/2001
2,517,022 76/152,398 12/11/2001
2,517,024 76/152,987 12/11/2001
2,517,032 76/155,300 12/11/2001
2,517,033 76/155,327 12/11/2001
2,517,036 76/156,089 12/11/2001
2,517,037 76/156,532 12/11/2001
2,517,047 76/160,736 12/11/2001
2,517,049 76/160,795 12/11/2001
2,517,087 76/173,469 12/11/2001
2,517,093 76/174,896 12/11/2001
2,517,098 76/177,399 12/11/2001
2,517,105 76/179,999 12/11/2001
2,517,126 76/187,095 12/11/2001
2,517,133 76/189,543 12/11/2001
2,517,134 76/189,545 12/11/2001
2,517,142 76/193,070 12/11/2001
2,517,145 76/194,398 12/11/2001
2,517,157 76/197,297 12/11/2001
2,517,160 76/198,407 12/11/2001
2,517,184 76/202,385 12/11/2001
2,517,187 76/202,989 12/11/2001
2,517,195 76/205,246 12/11/2001
2,517,205 76/208,218 12/11/2001
2,517,207 76/208,734 12/11/2001
2,517,208 76/208,783 12/11/2001
2,517,228 76/216,853 12/11/2001
2,517,247 76/224,502 12/11/2001
2,517,255 76/227,518 12/11/2001
2,517,281 76/232,445 12/11/2001
2,517,283 76/232,680 12/11/2001
2,517,290 76/233,760 12/11/2001
2,517,293 76/234,128 12/11/2001
2,517,301 76/236,107 12/11/2001
2,517,302 76/236,108 12/11/2001
2,517,303 76/236,109 12/11/2001
2,517,304 76/236,112 12/11/2001
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 42 |
2,517,309 76/236,430 12/11/2001
2,517,321 76/239,424 12/11/2001
2,517,329 76/241,279 12/11/2001
2,517,331 76/241,437 12/11/2001
2,517,334 76/241,690 12/11/2001
2,517,359 76/245,081 12/11/2001
2,517,364 76/245,883 12/11/2001
2,517,366 76/245,979 12/11/2001
2,517,373 76/247,444 12/11/2001
2,518,887 76/248,407 12/11/2001
2,517,393 76/256,412 12/11/2001
2,517,395 76/257,423 12/11/2001
2,517,396 76/259,020 12/11/2001
2,517,405 76/261,567 12/11/2001
2,517,415 76/264,827 12/11/2001
2,517,420 76/265,855 12/11/2001
2,518,784 78/005,018 12/11/2001
2,517,458 78/007,750 12/11/2001
2,517,465 78/009,155 12/11/2001
2,518,790 78/011,671 12/11/2001
2,517,475 78/012,628 12/11/2001
2,517,476 78/013,957 12/11/2001
2,517,477 78/014,204 12/11/2001
2,517,480 78/014,685 12/11/2001
2,517,481 78/014,736 12/11/2001
2,517,482 78/014,738 12/11/2001
2,517,494 78/018,084 12/11/2001
2,517,497 78/019,334 12/11/2001
2,517,498 78/020,214 12/11/2001
2,518,794 78/020,977 12/11/2001
2,517,505 78/022,857 12/11/2001
2,518,796 78/023,451 12/11/2001
2,518,797 78/023,453 12/11/2001
2,517,514 78/027,985 12/11/2001
2,517,524 78/031,729 12/11/2001
2,517,529 78/033,501 12/11/2001
2,517,542 78/041,900 12/11/2001
2,517,566 78/053,650 12/11/2001
2,517,570 78/054,385 12/11/2001
2,517,579 78/055,367 12/11/2001
2,517,580 78/055,430 12/11/2001
2,517,583 78/055,907 12/11/2001
2,517,590 78/060,904 12/11/2001
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.
Team USA Moving, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL, Registration No. 3243542 for
the mark "TEAM USA", Cancellation No. 92055019.
JANICE D. HYMAN
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.
Entrees Made Easy Intellectual Property LLC, Mesa, AZ, Registration No.
3344895 for the mark "TAKE BACK DINNER", Cancellation No. 92055133.
Sterling Resorts LLC, East Destin, FL, Registration No. 3318201 for the
mark "C A BEACH RESORT BY STERLING", Cancellation No. 92055332.
KARL KOCHERSPERGER
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.
Aaron Chang Lifestyle Brands, LLC, Carlsbad, CA, Registration No. 2797237
for the mark "AARON CHANG", Cancellation No. 92055148.
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
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 44 |
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.
Designer Skin, L.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, Registration No. 3240168 for the mark
"GLAM", Cancellation No. 92055591.
Constellation Hospitality Management Group, LLC, San Diego, CA, Registration
No. 3322605 for the mark "LUMINA", Cancellation No. 92055753.
TYRONE CRAVEN
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.
Tanergy LLC, Parkland, Florida, Registration No. 3191520 for the mark
"TANERGY", Cancellation No. 92055389.
NICOLE M. THIER
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.
Creative Enterprises Unlimited, LLC, Chesterfield, Michigan, Registration
No. 4135769 for the mark "BLOOMIN' TUCKERS", Cancellation No. 92055695.
MILLICENT CANADY
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.
Vertical Partners West, LLC, Hayden, Idaho, Registration No. 3248777 for
the mark "VENOM RACING", Cancellation No. 92055724.
VIONETTE BAEZ
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 an 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 (Bernard Kamenicky) 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/EP09/002874
and was filed on 20 April 2009 in the name of Alois SANGER and Bernard
KAMENICKY for the invention entitled CONVEYOR SAFETY CONTROL. The national
stage application number is 13/264,431.
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 (JinHyun Ryu) 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/KR10/02893
and was filed on 07 May 2010 in the names of JuHwan Baek, Sangkwon Nam,
TaeWook Kim and JinHyun Ryu entitled SECONDARY BATTERY PACK HAVING A NOVEL
STRUCTURE. The national stage application is assigned number 13/318,453 and
has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 11 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 of the inventors. The petition has been
granted. A notice has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing
inventor, Loic Faulon. 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/EP2009/063046 and was filed on 07 October 2009 in the names of Loic
Faulon and Geof Radley for the invention entitled Flexible Packaging
Container Having a Bag Insert. The national stage application is assigned
number 13/124,755 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(4) date of
02 November 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 addresses of the
non-signing inventors, Jorge Vicente Blasco Claret and Oscar Gomez Vila.
The inventors whose signature are 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/ES2009/070231 and was
filed on 16 June 2009 in the names of Jorge Vicente Blasco Claret, Luis
Manuel Torres Canton and Oscar Gomez Vila for the invention entitled Method
for Selectively Sharing a Communication Channel Between Coordination and
Interference. The national stage application is assigned number 13/001,345
and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(4) date of 29 November 2011.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 46 |
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, William Thomas Vaughan. 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/CA2010/000969 and was filed on 16 June 2010 in
the names of William Thomas Vaughan and Eric Dean Lingquist for the
invention District Energy Sharing System. The national stage application
is assigned number 13/378,035 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2) and
(c)(4) date of 28 June 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 August 26, 2012 at
the following address: Mail Stop OED United States Patent and Trademark
Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22314
Ahmed, Mohammed Mushtaq, 22 Widewaters Lane, Pittsford, NY 14534
Amodio, Lucas Manlio, 745 East Alpine Trail, Bloomington, IN 47401
Aragona, Robert Richard, 2A Bluebird Lane, Huntington, NY 11743
Beener, David Charles, Law Office of David C Beener, 2 Norris Drive, Burr
Ridge, IL 60527-5124
Bick, Jonathan David, Brach Eichler, 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland,
NJ 07068
Blizzard, Christopher James, 979 Alta Mar Terrace, San Jose, CA 95126
Bruns, Michael Benjamin, 3122 South Boston Place, Apartment A, Tulsa,
OK 74105
Chen, Guozhou, Vitae Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 18 Sherbrooke Drive, Princeton
Junction, NJ 08550
Drayton, Caeden Curtis, Arbour Ponds, 2901 North Dale Mabry Highway,
Apartment 1005, Tampa, FL 33607
Esposito, Alicia Joanne, 15 Tavern Circle, Middletown, CT 06457
Han, Christopher Jinhyun, Ropes & Gray LLP, 800 Boylston Street, Boston,
MA 02199
Hrischuk, Bethany Karen, 104 Branchside Lane, Holly Springs, NC 27540
Jiang, Ying, 440 Dixon Landing Road, G 306, Milpitas, CA 95035
Kim, Philip Yong-Ho, 3328 Braemar Lane, Corona, CA 92882
Lee-Dutra, Alice, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 12235 El Camino Real,
Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92130
Luzzi, Robert, 5759 Athenour Court, Pleasanton, CA 94588
Marvin, Shoshana Gail, Kramer & Amado, P.C., 1725 Duke Street, Suite 240,
Alexandria, VA 22314
McKay, Daniel Lawrence, Cognition LLP, 263 Adelaide Street West, Room 503,
Toronto, ON M5H 1Y2, Canada
Morabito, Andrew Gagnier, 1100 Main Street, East Rochester, NY 14445
Odell, Jodie Ja, 1500 La Place Point Court, Apartment 103, Sewickley,
PA 15143
Rogers, Eric Jason, 575 W Madison Street, Apartment 1704, Chicago, IL 60661
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 48 |
Shin, Yong Hyun, 2 White Street, Concord, NH 03301
Smith, Bonnie Michelle, 28519 Heatherbrook Court, Farmington Hills, MI 48331
Stokes, Stacia Marie, US Bankruptcy Court - N.D. Ga., Room 1471-US
Courthouse, 75 Spring Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
Subramanian, Narayan, General Electric Company, 1 River Road, Buildint 2/66,
Schenectady, NY 12345
Tumati, Suneeta, 1817 Federal Avenue, Apartment #7, Los Angelea, CA 90025
Ward, Robert Daryl, 4635 North Braeswood Blouevard, #204, Houston, TX 77096
Wilson, Bryan Eugene, Actuated Medical, Inc., 310 Rolling Ridge Drive,
Bellefonte, PA 16823
Woodhouse, Kyle Mark, 854 Wymount Terrace, Provo, UT 84604
Wray, Caroline Kell, United States Courts, 611 Broad Street, Suite 328,
Lake Charles, LA 70605
Young, Trevor Matthew, 61 Corey Road, Aromas, CA 95004
July 12, 2012 WILLIAM R. COVEY
Deputy General Counsel for Enrollment and Discipline and
Director of Enrollment and Discipline
| Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act; Final Rule |
Department of Commerce
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Parts 1 and 41
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2011-0073]
RIN 0651-AC67
Changes To Implement the Preissuance Submissions by
Third Parties Provision of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act;
Final Rule
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is
revising the rules of patent practice to implement the preissuance
submissions by third parties provision of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act (AIA). This provision provides a mechanism for third
parties to contribute to the quality of issued patents by submitting to
the Office, for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent
application, any patents, published patent applications, or other
printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of the
application. A preissuance submission may be made in any non-
provisional utility, design, and plant application, as well as in any
continuing application. A third-party preissuance submission must
include a concise description of the asserted relevance of each
document submitted, and must be submitted within a certain statutorily
specified time period. The third party must submit a fee as prescribed
by the Director, and a statement that the submission complies with the
statutory provision. The Office has also revised the rules of patent
practice to make related aspects of the existing protest rule more
consistent with the new rule implementing the preissuance submissions
by third parties provision. Further, the Office is eliminating the
provision providing for public use proceedings.
DATES: Effective Date: The changes in this final rule take effect on
September 16, 2012.
Applicability Date: The changes in this final rule apply to any
application filed before, on, or after September 16, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Dretar Haines, Legal Advisor
((571) 272-7717), Brian E. Hanlon, Director ((571) 272-5047), or Hiram
H. Bernstein, Senior Legal Advisor ((571) 272-7707), Office of Patent
Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent
Examination Policy.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary: Purpose: Section 8 of the AIA amends the patent
laws to provide a mechanism for third parties to submit to the Office,
for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application,
any patents, published patent applications, or other printed
publications of potential relevance to the examination of the
application. The changes in section 8 of the AIA take effect on
September 16, 2012. This final rule revises the rules of practice to
implement the provision of section 8 of the AIA.
Summary of Major Provisions: This final rule specifies the
requirements for third parties to file a preissuance submission of
patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications
of potential relevance to the examination of an application. A
preissuance submission must be timely filed, in writing, and contain:
(1) A list identifying the items being submitted; (2) a concise
description of the relevance of each item listed; (3) a legible copy of
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 50 |
each non-U.S. patent document listed; (4) an English language
translation of any non-English language item listed; (5) a statement by
the party making the submission that the submission complies with the
statute and the rule; and (6) the required fee.
The Office is revising the rules of practice to harmonize, where
appropriate, the practice regarding protests with the practice
regarding preissuance submissions. The Office is also revising the
rules of practice to eliminate the former practice for making third-
party submissions in published patent applications and to eliminate the
practice regarding public use proceedings.
Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant
as that term is defined in Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
Background: The AIA was enacted into law on September 16, 2011. See
Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). This final rule changes the
rules of practice to implement section 8 of the AIA, which provides a
mechanism for third parties to submit to the Office, for consideration
and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patents,
published patent applications, or other printed publications of
potential relevance to the examination of the application.
Section 8 of the AIA amends 35 U.S.C. 122 by adding 35 U.S.C.
122(e), which enumerates certain conditions that apply to a third-party
preissuance submission to the Office in a patent application. Pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. 122(e), preissuance submissions of patents, published
patent applications, or other printed publications must be made in
patent applications before the earlier of: (a) The date a notice of
allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 is given or mailed in the application; or
(b) the later of (i) six months after the date on which the application
is first published under 35 U.S.C. 122 by the Office, or (ii) the date
of the first rejection under 35 U.S.C. 132 of any claim by the examiner
during the examination of the application. 35 U.S.C. 122(e) also
requires a concise description of the asserted relevance of each
document submitted, a fee as prescribed by the Director, and a
statement by the person making the third-party preissuance submission
that the submission was made in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 122(e).
The preissuance submissions by third parties provision of the AIA
takes effect on September 16, 2012. This provision applies to any
patent application filed before, on, or after September 16, 2012.
This final rule implements 35 U.S.C. 122(e) in a new rule, 37 CFR
1.290, and revises the rules of practice in title 37 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) concerning other related third-party
practices. This final rule eliminates 37 CFR 1.99, which provided for
third-party submissions of patents, published patent applications, or
printed publications in published patent applications, but did not
permit an accompanying concise description of the relevance of each
submitted document and limited the time period for such submissions to
up to two months after the date of the patent application publication
or the mailing of a notice of allowance, whichever is earlier. By
contrast, new 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and 37 CFR 1.290 permit third parties to
submit the same types of documents, but with an accompanying concise
description of relevance of each document submitted, and provide third
parties with the same or more time to file preissuance submissions with
the Office when compared with former 37 CFR 1.99. Third-party
submissions under 37 CFR 1.290 provide an enhanced opportunity for
third parties to identify and describe potentially relevant
publications to the Office.
This final rule also eliminates the public use proceeding provisions
of 37 CFR 1.292. Because section 6 of the AIA makes available a post-
grant review proceeding in which prior public use may be raised, the
pre-grant public use proceeding previously set forth in 37 CFR 1.292 is
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 51 |
no longer necessary. Additionally, information on prior public use may
continue to be submitted by third parties via a protest in a pending
application when the requirements of 37 CFR 1.291 have been met, and
utilization of 37 CFR 1.291 will promote Office efficiency with respect to
treatment of these issues. Such requests for a public use proceeding under
37 CFR 1.292 were very rare, and the few public use proceedings conducted
each year were a source of considerable delay in the involved applications
and seldom led to the rejection of claims on the basis of public use.
In view of the elimination of 37 CFR 1.99 and 37 CFR 1.292, this
final rule amends 37 CFR 1.17 to eliminate the document submission fees
pertaining to 37 CFR 1.292 and to add the document submission fee
pertaining to new 37 CFR 1.290. This final rule also amends 37 CFR 41.202
to remove a reference to 37 CFR 1.99.
Additionally, this final rule amends 37 CFR 1.8 to add, among other
items, third-party submissions filed under 37 CFR 1.290 to the list of
items to which no benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission
will be given, and amends 37 CFR 1.6 to provide that facsimile
transmissions are not permitted for third-party submissions, to which
no benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission will be given
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.8.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Office proposed to permit
third-party submissions directed to reissue applications. See Changes
to Implement the Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties Provision of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 448, 449 and 451 (Jan. 5,
2012). After reviewing the public comments received and revisiting this
proposal, the Office has decided not to adopt its previously proposed
position. Instead, the Office will continue to maintain its position
that a reissue application is a post-issuance proceeding, as set forth
in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1441.01 (8th
ed. 2001) (Rev. 8, July 2010) ("a reissue application is a post-
issuance proceeding"). Accordingly, a preissuance submission under 35
U.S.C. 122(e) is not permitted to be filed in a reissue application
since 35 U.S.C. 122(e) is limited to preissuance submissions by third
parties in patent applications. Third parties who have a need to submit
information in a reissue application are advised to avail themselves of
the protest provisions of 37 CFR 1.291. See MPEP § 1441.01
(providing that "the prohibition against the filing of a protest after
publication of an application under 35 U.S.C. 122(c) is not applicable
to a reissue application").
Third-party submissions also are not permitted in reexamination
proceedings because reexamination proceedings are post-issuance
proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. 302 and 35 U.S.C. 311.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Office proposed
amendments to 37 CFR 1.291 to make the requirements for submitting
protests against pending patent applications clearer and, where
appropriate, more consistent with the requirements of new 37 CFR 1.290.
See Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submission by Third Parties
Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 451. While this
final rule amends some aspects of 37 CFR 1.291 to streamline the
requirements for submitting protests, as proposed, this final rule
retains some of the original language of 37 CFR 1.291 because, in view
of comments submitted by the public, the Office recognizes that its
proposed attempt to harmonize the language of 37 CFR 1.291 with new 37
CFR 1.290 may have resulted in some confusion.
Comments questioned the necessity for maintaining 37 CFR 1.291 in
view of new 37 CFR 1.290 if both provided for the same type of third-
party submissions. For example, if the concise explanation requirement
of 37 CFR 1.291(c)(2) is no different than the concise description of
relevance required by 35 U.S.C. 122(e)(2)(A), then a question is raised
as to whether it is necessary to maintain 37 CFR 1.291. See Changes to
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 52 |
Implement the Preissuance Submission by Third Parties Provision of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 454.
Protests pursuant to 37 CFR 1.291 are supported by a separate
statutory provision, 35 U.S.C. 122(c), which implies the availability
of submitting a protest in an application prior to publication, absent
the applicant's consent. Further, 37 CFR 1.291 is not deemed
duplicative or unnecessary because it permits the submission of
information that is not permitted in a third-party submission under 37
CFR 1.290. Specifically, 37 CFR 1.291 provides for the submission of
information other than publications, including any facts or information
adverse to patentability, and arguments to that effect. See MPEP
§§ 1901, 1901.02 and 1901.06(VII). That Congress provided for
35 U.S.C. 122(e), which permits concise descriptions of relevance to be
submitted after publication, without rescinding 35 U.S.C. 122(c)
evidences Congressional intent to supplement, not eviscerate, protests
under 35 U.S.C. 122(c).
To eliminate any confusion, this final rule retains the language of
37 CFR 1.291(c)(2) requiring a protest to include a "concise
explanation of the relevance" of each item of information submitted as
opposed to the proposed "concise description of the asserted
relevance" and highlights a distinction between the concise
explanation required under 37 CFR 1.291 for protests and the concise
description required by 35 U.S.C. 122(e) for preissuance submissions.
Unlike the concise description of relevance required by 35 U.S.C.
122(e) for a preissuance submission, which is limited to a description
of a document's relevance, the concise explanation for a protest under
37 CFR 1.291 allows for arguments against patentability.
Additionally, the proposed addition of a reference to 35 U.S.C.
122(b) in the 37 CFR 1.291(b) requirement that a protest be filed prior
to the date the application was published under 37 CFR 1.211 has not
been retained in this final rule in view of comments regarding whether
the inclusion of 35 U.S.C. 122(b) suggested that an earlier publication
by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of an
international application designating the U.S. could trigger the end of
the 37 CFR 1.291(b) time period for an application which entered the
national stage from the international application after compliance with
35 U.S.C. 371. Because there has been no change in Office policy that a
publication by the Office under 37 CFR 1.211 triggers the end of the
time period under 37 CFR 1.291(b) for filing a protest, absent an
earlier notice of allowance, the proposed reference to 35 U.S.C. 122(b)
has not been retained, thereby confirming and clarifying current Office
practice that an earlier publication of the application by WIPO would
not prevent a protest from being filed in accordance with 37 CFR
1.291(b).
General Discussion of Implementation: A third-party submission
under 37 CFR 1.290 may be made in any non-provisional utility, design,
or plant application, as well as in any continuing application. These
submissions may not be made in reissue applications or reexamination
proceedings.
The Office has developed a dedicated Web-based interface to permit
third-party submissions under new 37 CFR 1.290 to be filed
electronically. Third parties can access the preissuance submissions
Web-based interface by selecting the preissuance submissions filing
option in the Office's electronic filing system - Web (EFS-Web).
Additionally, third-party submissions may be filed in paper via first-
class mail, United States Postal Service (USPS) Express Mail service
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.10, or delivery by hand. Facsimile transmission of
third-party submissions is not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3).
When filing a third-party submission electronically, a third party
will receive immediate, electronic acknowledgment of the Office's
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 53 |
receipt of the submission. When filing a third-party submission in
paper, a third party may include a self-addressed postcard with the
submission to receive an acknowledgment by return receipt postcard that
a third-party submission has been received. In either case, the
electronic acknowledgment or return receipt postcard is not an
indication that the third-party submission is compliant or has been
entered; rather, it merely shows Office receipt of the submission.
Third-party submissions, whether submitted in paper or
electronically via the dedicated Web-based interface, will not be
automatically entered into the electronic image file wrapper (IFW) of
an application, i.e., will not be made of record in the application.
Instead, third-party submissions submitted by third parties will be
reviewed by the Office to determine compliance with 35 U.S.C. 122(e)
and 37 CFR 1.290 before being entered into the IFW. Third parties are
encouraged to file third-party submissions electronically via the
dedicated Web-based interface because the Office plans to automatically
verify the timeliness of a submission, as well as some of the content
of a submission (e.g., U.S. patent and published patent application
data). Electronic filing via the dedicated Web-based interface will be
the most efficient means of making compliant third-party submissions
available to an examiner for consideration, as compliant third-party
submissions filed in paper will experience a delay in entry due to the
additional processing required for scanning and indexing of paper
submissions into electronic form. Additionally, third parties filing
third-party submissions electronically via the dedicated Web-based
interface will receive immediate, electronic acknowledgment of the
Office's receipt of the submission, instead of waiting for the Office
to mail a return receipt postcard when provided with a paper submission.
The EFS-Web Legal Framework previously prohibited third-party
submissions under 37 CFR 1.99 from being filed electronically in patent
applications because documents filed electronically via EFS-Web were
instantly loaded into the IFW. See Legal Framework for Electronic
Filing System - Web (EFS-Web), 74 FR 55200, 55202, 55206-7 (October 27,
2009). Because third-party submissions filed electronically in EFS&-Web
via the dedicated Web-based interface for preissuance submissions will
be screened for compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122(e)
and 37 CFR 1.290 before being entered into the IFW of an application,
the EFS-Web Legal Framework will be revised to permit such submissions.
Third parties are cautioned that electronically filing a third-party
submission other than via the dedicated Web-based interface for
preissuance submissions is prohibited (i.e., a third party must select
the "Third-Party Preissuance Submission under 37 CFR 1.290" option in
EFS-Web). Additionally, the EFS-Web Legal Framework continues to
prohibit protests under 37 CFR 1.291 from being filed electronically in
patent applications.
The Office has established procedures to complete its compliance
determination, for both paper and electronic submissions, promptly
following receipt of the submission so that compliant third-party
submissions will be quickly entered into the IFW and made available to
the examiner for consideration. Third-party submissions filed in paper,
however, will incur more processing delay than submissions filed
electronically via the dedicated Web-based interface for preissuance
submissions due to the scanning and indexing process.
Third-party submissions that are not compliant with the statute
will not be entered into the IFW of an application or considered, and
will be discarded. Also, the Office will not refund the required fees
in the event a third-party submission is determined to be non-
compliant. The statutory time period for making a third-party
submission will not be tolled by an initial non-compliant submission.
The Office will not set a time period for a third party to file a
corrected third-party submission. Additionally, the Office will not
accept amendments to a non-compliant submission that was previously
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 54 |
filed. Instead, a third party who previously filed a non-compliant
submission may file another complete submission, provided the statutory
time period for filing a submission has not closed.
If the third party provides an electronic mail message (email)
address with a third-party submission, whether filed electronically or
in paper, the Office intends to notify the third-party submitter of
such non-compliance at the email address provided and to include the
reason(s) for non-compliance (e.g., a document was listed improperly, a
copy of a document was not submitted, a concise description was not
provided for a document, etc.). No notification will be issued where a
third party does not provide an email address with the submission.
Neither the notification nor the non-compliant third-party submission
will be made of record in the application. The Office intends to
provide such notification as a result of numerous comments the Office
received regarding the Office's proposal to not notify a third party of
a non-compliant third-party submission.
Third parties are not required to serve the applicant with a copy
of the third party submission. However, the Office intends to notify
the applicant upon entry of a compliant third-party submission in their
application file where the applicant participates in the Office's e-
Office Action program. Such notification is being provided as a result
of numerous comments the Office received regarding the Office's
proposal to not directly notify applicants of the entry of a third-
party submission in an application. In order to receive such
notification, the applicant must participate in the Office's e-Office
Action program, as such notification will only be provided via email to
program participants. The contents of a compliant third-party
submission will be made available to the applicant via its entry in the
IFW of the application. An applicant may view non-patent documents
identified in a third-party submission document list via the Office's
private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. By not
requiring service of third-party submissions on the applicant, the
Office is underscoring that such third-party submissions will not
create a requirement on the part of the applicant to independently file
the submitted documents with the Office in an information disclosure
statement (IDS). Additionally, the Office is seeking to prevent
challenges regarding whether service of a third-party submission was
proper from negatively impacting the pendency of the application.
35 U.S.C. 122(e) does not limit third-party preissuance submissions
to pending applications. A third-party submission made within the
statutory time period, and otherwise compliant, will be entered even if
the application to which the submission is directed has been abandoned.
An examiner will not consider such third-party submission unless the
application resumes a pending status (e.g., the application is revived,
the notice of abandonment is withdrawn, etc.). The abandonment of an
application will not, however, toll the statutory time period for making
a third-party submission. For example, if prior to publication an
application goes abandoned because the applicant fails to timely
respond to a first rejection of any claim, and the application is later
revived, the time period for making a third-party submission will run
until the earlier of the date of a notice of allowance or the date that
is six months after the application's publication date. Additionally, a
third-party submission made within the statutory time period, and
otherwise compliant, will be entered even if the application to which
the submission is directed has not been published, for example, due to
a non-publication request filed under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i) and
§ 1.213.
Compliant third-party submissions will be considered by the
examiner when the examiner next takes up the application for action
following the entry of the third-party submission into the IFW. An
examiner will consider the documents and concise descriptions submitted
in a compliant third-party submission in the same manner that the
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 55 |
examiner considers information and concise explanations of relevance
submitted as part of an IDS. Similarly, examiner consideration of a
document and its accompanying concise description of relevance in a
third-party submission does not mean that the examiner agrees with the
third party's position regarding the document, only that the examiner
considered the publication and its accompanying description. Generally
with the next Office action, a copy of the third party's listing of
documents with an indication of the examiner's consideration (e.g., an
initialed form PTO/SB/429) will be provided to the applicant. Documents
from a third-party submission that were considered by the examiner will
be printed on the patent, similar to the way documents from an IDS that
were considered by the examiner are printed on the patent. Accordingly,
an applicant need not file an IDS to have the same documents that were
previously submitted by a third party as part of a compliant third-
party submission considered by the examiner in the application. The
Office is updating its existing information technology (IT) systems to
distinguish considered third-party submission documents on an issued
patent from documents cited by the applicant and by the examiner.
Examiners will acknowledge in the record of the patent application
the examiner's consideration of the documents submitted. This
acknowledgment will be made in a manner similar to that of the
examiner's consideration of applicant-submitted documents filed as part
of an IDS. For example, the examiner may indicate at the bottom of each
page of a third-party submission "All documents considered except
where lined through," along with the examiner's electronic initials
and the examiner's electronic signature on the final page of the
submission. See, e.g., MPEP § 609.05(b). Such indication by the
examiner placed at the bottom of each page of a third-party submission
will mean that the examiner has considered the listed documents and
their accompanying concise descriptions. While every effort will be
made to ensure that only compliant third-party submissions are entered
for an examiner's consideration, in the unlikely event an examiner
cannot consider a listed document, the examiner will strike through the
document to indicate that the examiner did not consider either the
document or its accompanying concise description. If the examiner does
not cite the stricken document on a form PTO-892, the applicant may
file an IDS to have the document considered, if deemed necessary.
Because the prosecution of a patent application is an ex parte
proceeding, no response from a third party with respect to an
examiner's treatment of the third-party submission will be permitted or
considered.
Since it would be advantageous for examiners to have the best art
before them prior to issuing the first Office action on the merits, and
because a first action allowance in the application could close the
time period for making a preissuance submission under 35 U.S.C. 122(e),
third parties should consider providing any third-party submission at
the earliest opportunity. Additionally, because highly relevant
documents can be obfuscated by voluminous submissions, third parties
should limit any third-party submission to the most relevant documents
and should avoid submitting documents that are cumulative in nature.
Third parties need not submit documents that are cumulative of each
other or that are cumulative of information already under consideration
by the Office. Nonetheless, in some instances, third parties may deem
it necessary to submit a document in an application that was previously
made of record in the application, where the third party has additional
information regarding a document that was not previously considered.
Third parties are reminded that 35 U.S.C. 122(e) requires that the
documents submitted be "of potential relevance to the examination of
the application" and that the relevance of each document submitted
must be provided in an accompanying concise description.
The Director has set the fees for third-party submissions to
recover costs to the Office for third-party submissions to the Office.
35 U.S.C. 122(e) expressly provides for "such fee as the Director may
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 56 |
prescribe." The Office is setting fees for third-party submissions in
this final rule pursuant to its authority under 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2),
which provides that fees for all processing, services, or materials
relating to patents not specified in 35 U.S.C. 41 are to be set at
amounts to recover the estimated average cost to the Office of such
processing, services, or materials. See 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2). The prior
practice (37 CFR 1.99) provided for a third-party submission of up to
ten documents for the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) (currently
$180.00). The Office expects the processing costs to the Office for
third-party submissions under new 37 CFR 1.290 to be equivalent to the
processing costs to the Office for submissions under former 37 CFR
1.99. Accordingly, the Office has determined that the fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(p) will also be applicable to third-party submissions under
37 CFR 1.290 such that the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) will be
required for every ten documents, or fraction thereof, listed in each
third-party submission.
The Office is providing an exemption from this fee requirement
where a third-party submission lists three or fewer total documents and
is the first third-party submission by a third party or a party in
privity with the third party, in a given application. The Office is
providing this fee exemption for the first third-party submission in an
application by a third party containing three or fewer total documents
because the submission of a limited number of documents is more likely
to assist in the examination process and thus offset the cost of
processing the submission. Moreover, keeping the size of the fee
exempted submission to three or fewer total documents will help to
focus the attention of third parties on finding and submitting only the
most relevant art to the claims at hand. Where one third party takes
advantage of the fee exemption in an application, another third party
is not precluded from also taking advantage of the fee exemption in the
same application provided that the third parties are not in privity
with each other.
The fees set or adjusted in this notice will subsequently be
revisited and may be proposed to be set or adjusted in a notice of
proposed rulemaking under section 10 of the AIA.
Discussion of Specific Rules
The following is a discussion of the amendments to Title 37 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 1, that are implemented in this final
rule:
Section 1.6: Section 1.6(d)(3) is amended to provide that facsimile
transmissions are not permitted for third-party submissions under § 1.290,
to which no benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission will be
given pursuant to § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(I).
Section 1.8: Section 1.8(a)(2)(i)(C) is amended to replace the
reference to the "Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences" with
"Patent Trial and Appeal Board." Sections 1.8(a)(2)(i)(B) and
§§ 1.8(a)(2)(i)(G) through 1.8(a)(2)(i)(J) are added to
identify additional situations where the procedure of § 1.8(a) does
not apply. For instance, the procedure of § 1.8(a) does not apply
to papers filed in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
governed by § 42.6(b); the filing of a written declaration of
abandonment under § 1.138; the filing of any of the papers required
for a submission under § 1.217 for publication of a redacted copy
of an application; the filing of the papers required for making a
third-party submission under § 1.290; and the calculation of any
period of adjustment, as specified in § 1.703(f).
Section 1.17: Section 1.17(j) is removed to eliminate the document
submission fee pertaining to § 1.292 and is reserved. Section
1.17(p) is amended to replace the reference in the document submission
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 57 |
fee to former § 1.99 with a reference to new § 1.290.
Section 1.99: Section 1.99 is removed and reserved. Section 1.99 is
unnecessary because § 1.290 provides for third-party submissions of
patents, published patent applications, and other printed publications
to the Office for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent
application, with a concise description of the relevance of each
document being submitted and within time periods that are the same or
greater than those permitted under former § 1.99.
Section 1.290: Section 1.290(a) provides that a third party may
submit, for consideration and entry in the record of a patent
application, any patents, published patent applications, or other
printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of the
application if the submission is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
122(e) and § 1.290. Any member of the public, including private
persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a third-
party submission under § 1.290. A third-party submission may also
be filed by an attorney or other representative on behalf of an unnamed
real party in interest, because § 1.290 does not require that the
real party in interest be identified as such identification might
discourage some third parties from making a third-party submission or
invite challenges based on allegations of misidentification that could
delay the prosecution of an application. The submitter of a third-party
submission, however, will be identified in view of the signature
requirement in § 1.4 for papers filed in a patent application,
which require a person's signature. Third-party submissions are
required to be signed because §§ 1.290(d)(5) and (g) require
statements by the party making the submission.
Because § 1.290(a) requires that third-party submissions be
directed to patent applications, the Office will not accept third-party
submissions directed to issued patents. Such submissions should be
filed in accordance with § 1.501. Third-party submissions under
§ 1.290 may be directed to non-provisional utility, design, and
plant applications, as well as to continuing applications. Because 35
U.S.C. 122(e) is limited to preissuance submissions, a third party may
not file a submission under § 1.290 in post-issuance proceedings,
such as reexamination proceedings and reissue applications. Where a
submission is filed under § 1.290 in a reissue application, the
Office will process the submission as a protest under § 1.291
because, while a concise explanation of relevance under § 1.291
allows for arguments against patentability, such as proposed rejections
of the claims, it does not require that such arguments be raised.
Therefore, a third-party submission that would otherwise be compliant
under § 1.290 will be entered into the record of a reissue
application as a protest under § 1.291.
35 U.S.C. 122(e) provides for preissuance submissions to be made
for consideration and inclusion "in the record of a patent
application" and does not preclude third parties from making
preissuance submissions in unpublished applications. Therefore,
§ 1.290(a) does not require that the application to which a submission
is directed be published. For example, the Office will enter a
compliant third-party submission directed to an application in which
a nonpublication request has been filed pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
122(b)(2)(B)(i) and § 1.213. Further, because 35 U.S.C. 122(e) does
not preclude third parties from making submissions in abandoned
applications, § 1.290(a) does not require that the application be
pending and, therefore, permits third-party submissions to be filed in
an abandoned application.
Section 1.290(a) limits the type of information that may be
submitted to patents, published patent applications, and other printed
publications of potential relevance to the examination of a patent
application. For example, a submission under § 1.290 could include
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 58 |
litigation papers and court documents not subject to a court-imposed
protective or secrecy order, if they qualify as publications, but must
not include documents that are subject to a court-imposed protective or
secrecy order or include trade secret information, unpublished internal
documents, or other non-patent documents which do not qualify as
"printed publications." See MPEP § 2128.
Because 35 U.S.C. 122(e) does not limit the type of information
that may be submitted to only that which is prior art, there is no
requirement in § 1.290(a) that the information submitted be prior
art documents in order to be considered by the examiner. Further,
§ 1.290(a) does not require a third party to indicate whether a listed
document is or is not asserted to be prior art. For those documents
where the date of publication is not apparent from a review of the
document, the third party may provide information regarding the
publication date of the document in its accompanying concise
description of relevance.
Similarly, 35 U.S.C. 122(e) does not limit submissions to
publications that are not already of record in a patent application.
As a result, § 1.290(a) does not prohibit third-party submissions
including patents, published patent applications, or other printed
publications that are already of record in an application where the
submission is otherwise compliant.
Further, while it would be a best practice for third parties not to
submit documents that are cumulative of each other or that are
cumulative of information already under consideration by the Office,
§ 1.290(a) does not explicitly prohibit cumulative submissions
because it has been the Office's experience that identifying purely
cumulative submissions is difficult where a submission includes both a
publication and a description of the publication's relevance. For
example, a document submitted may appear on its face to be cumulative
of information already of record, but the description of relevance may
provide additional information with respect to the document such that
the submission of the document, together with the concise description
of relevance, is not cumulative of information already of record.
The standard under § 1.290(a) for the documents submitted to be
of "potential relevance to the examination of the application" is
imposed by 35 U.S.C. 122(e)(1). This standard requires the submitter to
believe the documents being submitted are relevant to the extent that
the submitter can provide the concise description of the asserted
relevance of each document submitted as required by 35 U.S.C. 122(e).
Section 1.290(a) also provides that a third-party submission may
not be entered or considered by the Office if any part of the
submission is not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and § 1.290.
The Office will enter a third-party submission that is compliant with
both 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and § 1.290; however, any part of a third-
party submission that is non-compliant with respect to the requirements
of 35 U.S.C. 122(e), whether or not the third-party submission is
otherwise compliant with § 1.290, will prevent entry of the entire
third-party submission into the record. By contrast, a third-party
submission that is compliant with 35 U.S.C. 122(e), but non-compliant
with some requirement of § 1.290, may be entered into the record if
the error is of such a minor character that, in the opinion of the
Office, it does not raise an ambiguity as to the content of the
submission. In any event, the Office will either enter or not enter the
entire submission and will not attempt to enter portions of partially
compliant submissions. The determination of whether to enter or not to
enter a submission that partially complies with respect to a
requirement of § 1.290 will be at the sole discretion of the
Office. The Office will not set a time period for a third party to file
a corrected third-party submission. Additionally, the Office will not
accept amendments to non-compliant submissions that were previously
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 59 |
filed. Instead, a third party who previously filed a non-compliant
submission may file another complete submission, provided the statutory
time period for filing a submission has not closed.
Section 1.290(b) sets forth the time periods in which a third party
may file a third-party submission. Under § 1.290(b), any third-
party submission must be filed prior to the earlier of: (1) The date a
notice of allowance under § 1.311 is given or mailed in the
application; or (2) the later of: (i) Six months after the date on
which the application is first published by the Office under 35 U.S.C.
122(b) and § 1.211, or (ii) the date the first rejection under
§ 1.104 of any claim by the examiner is given or mailed during the
examination of the application.
The time periods provided for in § 1.290(b) are statutory and
cannot be waived. Thus, the Office cannot grant any request for
extension of the § 1.290(b) time periods. Also, third-party
submissions must be filed prior to, not on, the dates identified in
§§ 1.290(b)(1) and (b)(2). A third-party submission under § 1.290
is filed on its date of receipt in the Office as set forth in
§ 1.6. Pursuant to § 1.290(i), the certificate of mailing or
transmission provisions of § 1.8 do not apply to a third-party
submission under § 1.290; however, the USPS Express Mail service
provisions of § 1.10 do apply to a third-party submission under
§ 1.290. Additionally, facsimile transmission of third-party
submissions is not permitted. See § 1.6(d)(3). Third-party
submissions that are not timely filed will not be entered or considered
and will be discarded.
The § 1.290(b)(2)(i) time period will be initiated only by
publications "by the Office" under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) and § 1.211,
and will not be initiated by a publication by WIPO. Thus, an earlier
publication by WIPO of an international application designating the
U.S. will not be considered a publication that will initiate the
§ 1.290(b)(2)(i) time period for an application which entered the
national stage from the international application after compliance with
35 U.S.C. 371.
The § 1.290(b)(2)(ii) time period will be initiated by the date
the first rejection under § 1.104 of any claim by the examiner is
given or mailed during the examination of the application. "Given"
refers to the electronic notification of an Office action that replaces
postal mailing of an Office action for applicants participating in the
Electronic Office Action Notification (e-Office Action) program. The
§ 1.290(b)(2)(ii) time period will not be initiated, for example,
by a first Office action that only contains a restriction requirement
or where the first Office action is an action under Ex parte Quayle,
1935 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 11 (1935). The filing of a request for continued
examination (RCE) does not preclude a third-party submission from being
filed, if the filing of the third-party submission would otherwise be
within the time periods set forth in § 1.290(b)(2). Nor does the
filing of an RCE reset the § 1.290(b)(2)(ii) time period for filing
a third-party submission.
Section 1.290(c) requires a third-party submission to be made in
writing. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Office proposed to
require under § 1.290(c) that each page of a third-party submission
identify the application to which the third-party submission is
directed by application number, except for the copies of the documents
being submitted. See Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submission by
Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR
452. In view of comments submitted by the public expressing concern
that such a requirement would be overly burdensome, § 1.290(e) of
this final rule relaxes the requirement for identifying the application
number of the application to which the submission is directed by only
requiring the identification on each page of the document list, as
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 60 |
opposed to every page of the submission.
Section 1.290(d) identifies the required content of a third-party
submission. Section 1.290(d)(1) provides that any third-party
submission under § 1.290 must include a document list identifying
the documents, or portions of documents, being submitted in accordance
with § 1.290(e). Section 1.290(e) sets forth the requirements on
how to identify the items in the § 1.290(d)(1) document list.
Because § 1.290(d)(1) provides for an item identified in the
document list to be either an entire document or a portion of a
document, in the case where a lengthy document contains both
information of potential relevance to the examination of the
application and other information that is not of potential relevance, a
third party may choose to identify only the relevant portion of the
document (e.g., one chapter of a textbook) in lieu of the entire
document where it is practical to do so. Otherwise, the third party
should identify the entire document.
The Office is providing a form PTO/SB/429 that is similar to forms
PTO/SB/08A and 08B to assist third parties in preparing the document
list in accordance with §§ 1.290(d)(1) and (e). Use of this
form is recommended for paper submissions. Use of this form will not be
necessary for third-party submissions filed electronically via the
Office's dedicated Web-based interface for preissuance submissions, as
this interface will prompt the third party to complete the fields that
are provided on the form and will automatically format the entered
information into an electronic version of the form PTO/SB/429.
Section 1.290(d)(2) requires a concise description of the asserted
relevance of each item identified in the document list in view of the
statutory requirement of 35 U.S.C. 122(e)(2)(A) that each third-party
preissuance submission be accompanied by a "concise description of the
asserted relevance of each submitted document." A concise description
of relevance for an item is a statement of facts regarding the submitted
evidence (i.e., the patent, published patent application, or other
publication) and will not, itself, be treated as evidence. The concise
description should set forth facts, explaining how an item listed is of
potential relevance to the examination of the application in which the
third-party submission has been filed.
The third party should present the concise description in a format
that would best explain to the examiner the relevance of the
accompanying document, such as in a narrative description or a claim
chart. The statutory requirement for a concise description of relevance
should not be interpreted as permitting a third party to participate in
the prosecution of an application, as 35 U.S.C. 122(c) prohibits the
initiation of a protest or other form of pre-issuance opposition for
published applications without the consent of the applicant. Therefore,
while a concise description of relevance may include claim charts
(i.e., mapping various portions of a submitted document to different
claim elements), the concise description of relevance is not an
invitation to a third party to propose rejections of the claims or set
forth arguments relating to an Office action in the application or to
an applicant's reply to an Office action in the application.
The Office is interpreting the requirement for a concise
description of relevance liberally because the Office anticipates that
third parties will be motivated to provide complete concise
descriptions of relevance so as to effectively draw the examiner's
attention to the potential relevance of a submitted document to the
examination of an application. At a minimum, a concise description of
relevance must be more than a bare statement that the document is
relevant as such a statement does not amount to a meaningful concise
description. As a best practice, each concise description should point
out the relevant pages or lines of the respective document,
particularly where the document is lengthy and complex and the third
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 61 |
party can identify a highly relevant section, such as a particular
figure or paragraph. Third parties should refrain from submitting a
verbose description of relevance, not only because the statute calls
for a "concise" description, but also because a focused description
is more effective in drawing the examiner's attention to the relevant
issues.
For example, a description that includes an introductory paragraph
describing the field of technology of a document and a claim chart that
maps portions of the document to different claim elements would likely
be considered "concise." On the other hand, descriptions that merely
repeat in narrative format the same information that is also depicted
in a claim chart or that approach the length of the documents
themselves will not likely be considered "concise.
A third party using the Office's dedicated Web-based interface to
electronically file a third-party submission may fill in the concise
description of relevance field for an item or upload a separate paper
with the concise description for the item in lieu of entering the
concise description in the field. When filing in paper, a third party
should provide the concise description of relevance for an item as a
separate paper (as opposed to combining the concise descriptions of
relevance for all items into a single paper). Providing, for each
concise description of relevance, a separate paper that prominently
identifies the item in the document list to which the concise
description pertains will help ensure that the screener and the
examiner can readily identify it.
Section 1.290(d)(3) requires submission of a legible copy of each
item identified in the document list, other than U.S. patents and U.S.
patent application publications. See § 1.98(a)(2) and MPEP § 609.04(a).
Where only a portion of a document is listed as an item in
the document list, the third party must only submit a copy of that
portion and not a copy of the entire document (e.g., where a particular
chapter of a book is listed and not the entire book). Further, when a
copy of only a portion of a document is submitted, the third party
should also submit copies of pages of the document that provide
identifying information (e.g., a copy of the cover, the title page, the
copyright information page, etc.). Under § 1.290(d)(3), a third
party need not submit copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent
application publications because such documents are readily accessible
to examiners. The proposed language "unless required by the Office"
has not been retained in this final rule as the Office will not be
communicating with third parties other than where a return receipt
self-addressed postcard is mailed, acknowledging receipt of a third-
party submission, and/or an email notification is given to a third
party indicating that a third-party submission was found to be non-
compliant.
Section 1.290(d)(4) requires an English language translation of any
non-English language item identified in the document list. A
translation submitted pursuant to § 1.290(d)(4) may be a reliable
machine translation and need not be certified. Section 1.290(d)(4) has
been clarified in this final rule in view of comments submitted by the
public expressing concern regarding a situation where a third party
cites and provides a translation for only a portion of a non-English
language document but submits a copy of the entire non-English language
document. The comments questioned whether an applicant would have a
duty to cite and translate the remaining portions of the non-English
language document in this situation. Section 1.290(d)(1) provides for
the listing of either entire documents or portions of documents, and
§§ 1.290(d)(3) and (4) require a copy and translation,
respectively, of each item listed pursuant to § 1.290(d)(1). Thus,
where only a portion of a non-English language document is listed, a
third party must not submit a copy of the entire non-English language
document. Rather, the third party must submit a copy of the listed
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 62 |
portion of the non-English language document and a translation of only
this portion.
Whether filing a third-party submission under § 1.290 in paper
or electronically, it would be a best practice for third parties to
include an identifying label for each item in the document list and
place the identifying label on the accompanying concise description of
relevance for the item, on the copy of the item (if submitted), and on
the translation of the item (if submitted) so that screeners and
examiners can more quickly identify the descriptions of relevance,
copies, and translations that correspond to each item in the document
list.
Section 1.290(d)(5)(i) requires a statement by the party making the
submission that the party is not an individual who has a duty to
disclose information with respect to the application (i.e., each
individual associated with the filing and prosecution of the patent
application) under § 1.56. Such statement is intended to avoid
potential misuse of third-party submissions by applicants (e.g., by
employing a third-party "straw man") to attempt to circumvent the IDS
rules.
Section 1.290(d)(5)(ii) requires a statement by the party making
the submission that the submission complies with the requirements of 35
U.S.C. 122(e) and § 1.290. To facilitate compliance by third parties, the
form PTO/SB/429 and the dedicated Web-based interface for preissuance
submissions include the statements required by §§ 1.290(d)(5)(i) and (ii).
Section 1.290(e) sets forth the requirements for identifying the
items in the document list pursuant to § 1.290(d)(1). Section
1.290(e) requires the document list include a heading that identifies
the list as a third-party submission under § 1.290. The dedicated
Web-based interface for electronically filing preissuance submissions
will automatically generate a document list that complies with these
two requirements of § 1.290(e).
Section 1.290(e) also requires that the document list required by
§ 1.290(d)(1) identify on each page of the list, the application
number (i.e., the series code and serial number) of the application in
which the submission is being filed. This requirement is consistent
with the requirement set forth in § 1.98(a)(1)(i) for applicant IDS
listings. In view of public comments received, this requirement
modifies the previously proposed requirement of § 1.290(c) to be
less burdensome to the submitter, while achieving the same goals. See
Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submission by Third Parties
Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 452.
Section 1.290(e) further requires that U.S. patents and U.S. patent
application publications be listed in a separate section from other
items in the document list. Separating the listing of U.S. patents and
U.S. patent application publications from the listing of other items in
the document list will facilitate printing the U.S. patents and U.S.
patent application publications considered by the examiner in a third-
party submission on the face of the patent.
Sections 1.290(e)(1) through (e)(4) set forth the requirements for
identifying the items in the § 1.290(d)(1) document list. Section
1.290(e)(1) requires that each U.S. patent be identified by patent
number, first named inventor, and issue date. Section 1.290(e)(2)
requires that each U.S. patent application publication be identified by
patent application publication number, first named inventor, and
publication date. Section 1.290(e)(3) requires that each foreign patent
or published foreign patent application be identified by the country or
patent office that issued the patent or published the application; the
applicant, patentee, or first named inventor; an appropriate document
number; and the publication date indicated on the patent or published
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 63 |
application. The requirement for U.S. patents and patent application
publications to be identified by first named inventor, and for foreign
patents and published patent applications to be identified by the
applicant, patentee, or first named inventor, is intended to aid in
identifying the items in the document list in the event the application
number, publication number, or other appropriate document number data
is in error, for example, inadvertently transposed. In view of comments
submitted by the public expressing concern that the identity of the
first named inventor of a foreign patent/published patent application
may not be known in some instances, § 1.290(e)(3) of this final
rule offers more flexibility in permitting identification of foreign
patents and published patent applications by expanding the
identification to also include the applicant or patentee, in addition
to the first named inventor. See Changes to Implement the Preissuance
Submission by Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, 77 FR 452.
Section 1.290(e)(4) requires that each non-patent publication be
identified by author (if any), title, pages being submitted,
publication date, and where available, publisher and place of
publication. Section 1.290(e)(4) does not preclude a third party from
providing additional information not specified in § 1.290(e)(4)
(e.g., journal title and volume/issue information for a journal
article). In view of comments submitted by the public expressing
concern that publisher and place of publication information may not be
available in some instances, § 1.290(e)(4) of this final rule
emphasizes that such information need only be provided where it is
available.
Further, in view of comments submitted by the public that the
Office should be more critical as to whether a document submitted is
actually a publication, the qualifier "where available" no longer
applies to each item of information specified in § 1.290(e)(4) in
this final rule. See Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submission by
Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR
452-53. In order for a submission to be compliant under 35 U.S.C.
122(e) and § 1.290, each item submitted for consideration and
inclusion into the file of a patent application must be a publication.
Thus, § 1.290(e)(4) requires that, if no publication date is known,
the third party must provide evidence of publication. As a result, a
third-party submission must either include items that are prima facie
publications, or evidence that establishes that they are publications.
Where the actual publication date of a non-patent document is not
known, a third party must, at a minimum, provide a date of retrieval or
a time frame (e.g., a year, a month and year, a certain period of time)
when the document was available as a publication for purposes of
identifying the document by publication date pursuant to
§ 1.290(e)(4), in addition to including evidence that establishes the
document as a publication. In such situations, the third party may
submit evidence in the form of affidavits, declarations, or any other
appropriate format. For example, a third party might submit as evidence
of publication a printout from a Web site showing that the content of
the Web site was publicly available at least as of the date retrieved
shown on the printout, or screenshots from a Web site that establish
the content of the Web site on a particular date. In another example, a
third party might submit a company's undated marketing brochure with a
declaration from an employee of the company stating that the brochure
was publicly distributed at a trade show on a particular date. Such
evidence will not be counted toward the item count for fee purposes,
unless the evidence is in the form of a patent document or other
printed publication and the evidence, itself, is listed and submitted
for consideration by the examiner. In some instances, the copy of the
document provided pursuant to § 1.290(d)(3) may itself be the
evidence, such as where a printout from the Web site showing the date
the document was retrieved is provided to satisfy the copy requirement.
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 64 |
Further, if the patent applicant has evidence that a document filed by
a third party is, in fact, not a publication, the applicant can
challenge the determination by the Office that a document is a
publication in a response to a rejection applying the document in
question.
Section 1.290(f) requires payment of the fee set forth in § 1.17(p)
for every ten items or fraction thereof listed in the document
list, except where the submission is accompanied by the statement set
forth in proposed § 1.290(g). The Office will determine the item
count based on the § 1.290(d)(1) document list. Thus, if a U.S.
patent or a U.S. patent application publication is identified in the
document list, but a copy of the item is not submitted (i.e., because a
copy is not required), the listed U.S. patent or U.S. patent
application publication will be counted toward the document count. If a
copy of an item is submitted but the item is not identified in the
document list, the item will not be counted or considered and
will be discarded. Additionally, if a third party identifies an item in
the § 1.290(d)(1) document list that is only a portion of a
publication, the portion of the publication will be counted as one
item. Further, while a third party is permitted to cite different
publications that are all available from the same electronic source,
such as a Web site, each such publication listed will be counted as a
separate item.
Section 1.290(g) provides an exemption from the § 1.290(f) fee
requirement where a third-party submission listing three or fewer total
items is the first third-party submission by a third party, or a party
in privity with the third party, in a given application. Where one
third party takes advantage of the fee exemption in an application,
another third party is not precluded from also taking advantage of the
fee exemption in the same application as long as the third parties are
not in privity with each other. For example, applying the current 37
CFR 1.17(p) fee of $180.00 in accordance with §§ 1.290(f) and
(g): (1) No fee would be required for the first third-party submission
by a third party containing three or fewer total items; (2) a $180.00
fee would be required for the first third-party submission by a third
party containing more than three, but ten or fewer total items; and (3)
a $360.00 fee would be required for the first third-party submission by
a third party containing more than ten, but twenty or fewer total
items. For a second or subsequent third-party submission by the same
third party: (1) A $180.00 fee would be required where the second or
subsequent third-party submission by the third party contains ten or
fewer total items; and (2) a $360.00 fee would be required where the
second or subsequent third-party submission by the same third party
contains more than ten, but twenty or fewer total items. Note that fees
set or adjusted in this notice will subsequently be revisited and may
be proposed to be set or adjusted in a notice of proposed rulemaking
under section 10 of the AIA.
To implement the fee exemption in § 1.290(g) and avoid
potential misuse of such exemption, exemption-eligible third-party
submissions must be accompanied by a statement of the third party that,
to the knowledge of the person signing the statement after making
reasonable inquiry, the submission is the first and only third-party
submission in the application by the third party or a party in privity
with the third party. To preclude a third party from making multiple
third-party submissions in the same application on the same day and
asserting that each such submission is the first third-party submission
in the application by the third party, the § 1.290(g) statement
requires that the submission be the "first and only" third-party
submission. This statement will not, however, preclude the third party
from making more than one third-party submission in an application,
where the need for the subsequent submissions was not known at the time
the earlier submission, including the § 1.290(g) statement, was
filed with the Office. Such additional submissions would not be exempt
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 65 |
from the § 1.290(f) fee requirement.
The Office will not entertain challenges to the accuracy of such
third-party statements because, pursuant to § 11.18(b), whoever
knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statements or representations to the Office shall be subject to the
penalties set forth under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Section 11.18(b) applies to
any paper presented to the Office, whether by a practitioner or non-
practitioner.
Section 1.290(h) provides that in the absence of a request by the
Office, an applicant need not reply to a third-party submission under
§ 1.290. Where the Office believes information from applicant is
needed, the Office may issue a requirement for information pursuant to
§ 1.105. In view of public comments received regarding
misinterpretations of the Office's use of the term "duty" in the
proposed requirement, § 1.290(h) has been revised in this final
rule to delete its use. While the comments interpreted the use of the
term "duty" in the proposed requirement as an intent to incorporate a
statement relative to the duty of disclosure under § 1.56, the use
of the term "duty" was in keeping with the general concept that
applicants need not comment on third-party submissions based solely on
the presence of such submissions.
Section 1.290(i) provides that the provisions of § 1.8 do not
apply to the time periods set forth in § 1.290. Third parties may
not use a certificate of mailing or transmission in filing a third-
party submission under § 1.290. By not according a third-party
submission filed by first class mail the benefit of its date of deposit
with the USPS pursuant to a § 1.8 certificate of mailing, the
Office reduces the potential for papers crossing in the mail. That is,
the requirement of § 1.290(h) reduces the risk that a third-party
submission, if it was permitted to rely on a certificate of mailing to
be timely, would not be identified and entered until after an Office
action is mailed. The requirement of § 1.290(h) also encourages
third parties to file third-party submissions at their earliest
opportunity. Additionally, because facsimile transmission of third-
party submissions under § 1.290 is not permitted, the use of a
certificate of transmission pursuant to § 1.8 is not applicable.
Facsimile transmissions, although not subject to the delay associated
with first class mail, are often received in poor quality, which may
result in illegible content and cause the submission to be found non-
compliant. The use of USPS Express Mail service pursuant to § 1.10
is permitted for third-party submissions under § 1.290 as it
carries with it the risk of little, if any, delay. Nonetheless, the
fastest and most legible means for transmitting a third-party
submission is electronically via the dedicated Web-based interface the
Office has developed for these submissions.
Section 1.291: This final rule amends portions of § 1.291 for
clarity and also for consistency with new 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and
§ 1.290, where appropriate.
The proposed addition of a reference to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) in the
§ 1.291(b) requirement that a protest be filed prior to the date
the application was published under § 1.211 has not been retained
in this final rule in view of public comments received. See Changes to
Implement the Preissuance Submission by Third Parties Provision of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 451. The comments questioned
whether the inclusion of 35 U.S.C. 122(b) suggested that an earlier
publication by WIPO of an international application designating the
U.S. could trigger the end of the § 1.291(b) time period for an
application which entered the national stage from the international
application after compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371. Because there has been
no change in Office policy that a publication by the Office under
§ 1.211 triggers the end of the time period under § 1.291(b) for
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 66 |
filing a protest, absent an earlier notice of allowance, the proposed
reference to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) has not been retained, thereby clarifying
that an earlier publication of the application by WIPO would not
prevent a protest from being filed in accordance with § 1.291(b).
Section 1.291(b) is amended by including "given or" before
"mailed" to provide for electronic notification of the notice of
allowance (i.e., via the e-Office action program).
Section 1.291(b)(1) is amended to more clearly define the time
period for submitting protests under § 1.291 that are accompanied
by applicant consent. Specifically, § 1.291(b)(1) is amended to
provide that, if a protest is accompanied by the written consent of the
applicant, the protest will be considered if the
protest is filed prior to the date a notice of allowance under
§ 1.311 is being given or mailed in the application. This amendment
provides a definite standard for both the Office and third parties and
gives more certainty as to when a protest under § 1.291 that is
accompanied by applicant consent would or would not be accepted by the
Office. Moreover, it is reasonable that the time period for submission
ends when a notice of allowance is given or mailed in the application
in view of the current publication process. Under the current
publication process, final electronic capture of information to be
printed in a patent will begin as soon as an allowed application is
received in the Office of Data Management, which occurs immediately
after the notice of allowance has been given or mailed. See MPEP § 1309.
Section 1.291(c) identifies required content of a protest. Section
1.291(c)(1) is amended to provide that any protest under § 1.291
must include an information list identifying the documents, portions of
documents, or other information being submitted. Unlike § 1.290(d)(1),
which refers to a "document list" because a third-party submission under
§ 1.290 is limited to publications, § 1.291(c)(1) now refers to an
"information list" because § 1.291 provides for the submission of
information other than publications, including any facts or information
adverse to patentability. See MPEP §§ 1901 and 1901.02. Like § 1.290(d)(1),
§ 1.291(c)(1) provides for the listing of either entire documents or
portions of documents, as deemed appropriate by the protestor.
Additionally, § 1.291(c)(1) also provides for the listing of other
information.
Sections 1.291(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(v) are added to set forth
the requirements on how to identify the items in the § 1.291(c)(1)
information list, consistent with the requirements set forth in
§§ 1.290(e)(1) through (e)(4), where appropriate. Section
1.291(c)(1)(i) requires that each U.S. patent be identified by patent
number, first named inventor, and issue date. Section 1.291(c)(1)(ii)
requires that each U.S. patent application publication be identified by
patent application publication number, first named inventor, and
publication date. Section 1.291(c)(1)(iii) requires that each foreign
patent or published foreign patent application be identified by the
country or patent office that issued the patent or published the
application; the applicant, patentee, or first named inventor; an
appropriate document number; and the publication date indicated on the
patent or published application. The requirement for U.S. patents and
patent application publications to be identified by first named
inventor, and for foreign patents and published patent applications to
be identified by the applicant, patentee, or first named inventor, is
intended to aid in identifying the items in the information list in the
event the application number, publication number, or other appropriate
document number data is, for example, inadvertently transposed.
In view of comments submitted by the public expressing concern that
the identity of the first named inventor of a foreign patent/published
patent application may not be known in some instances,
§ 1.291(c)(1)(iii) of this final rule offers more flexibility in
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 67 |
permitting identification of foreign patents and published patent
applications by the applicant, patentee, or first named inventor. See
Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submission by Third Parties
Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 454.
Section 1.291(c)(1)(iv) requires that each non-patent publication
be identified by author (if any), title, pages being submitted,
publication date, and where available, publisher and place of
publication. Section 1.291(c)(1)(iv) does not preclude a protestor from
providing additional information not specified in § 1.291(c)(1)(iv)
(e.g., journal title and volume/issue information for a journal
article). In view of comments submitted by the public expressing
concern that publisher and place of publication information may not be
available in some instances, § 1.291(c)(1)(iv) of this final rule
emphasizes that such information need only be provided where it is
available. The qualifier "where such information is available" no
longer applies to each item of information specified in
§ 1.291(c)(1)(iv), as proposed, because at least a minimum amount of
identifying information must be provided to establish the listed item
as a non-patent publication.
Section 1.291(c)(1)(v) requires that each item of "other
information" be identified by date, if known. This requirement
accounts for the submission of information other than patents and
publications, including any facts or information adverse to
patentability. See MPEP §§ 1901 and 1901.02. For example, if a
publication date for a document is not known and the document is not
being relied upon as a publication, the protestor may list such
document as "other information" pursuant to 1.291(c)(1)(v).
Section 1.291(c)(2) requires a concise explanation of the relevance
of each item identified in the information list. Comments questioned
the necessity for maintaining § 1.291 in view of new § 1.290 if
both require the third party to comment on the relevance of the items
being submitted. For example, if the concise explanation requirement of
§ 1.291(c)(2) is no different than the concise description of
relevance required by 35 U.S.C. 122(e)(2)(A) and § 1.290(d)(2),
then a question is raised as to whether it is necessary to maintain
§ 1.291. See Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submission by
Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR
454. Unlike the concise description of relevance required by 35 U.S.C.
122(e)(2)(A) and § 1.290(d)(2) for a preissuance submission, the
concise explanation for a protest under § 1.291(c)(2) allows for
arguments against patentability. To eliminate any confusion, this final
rule retains the language of § 1.291(c)(2) in requiring that a
protest must include a "concise explanation of the relevance" of each
item of information submitted as opposed to the proposed "concise
description of the asserted relevance," and highlights a distinction
between the concise explanation required under § 1.291(c)(2) for
protests and the concise description required by 35 U.S.C. 122(e)(2)(A)
and § 1.290(d)(2) for preissuance submissions.
Section 1.291(c)(3) requires a legible copy of each item identified
in the information list, other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent
application publications. Section 1.291(c)(3) is amended to clarify
that copies of information submitted must be legible. See
§ 1.98(a)(2) and MPEP § 609.04(a). Section 1.291(c)(3) is also
amended to provide that copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent
application publications need not be submitted because such documents
are readily accessible to examiners. The proposed language "unless
required by the Office" has not been retained in this final rule as
the Office will not be communicating with protestors other than where a
return receipt self-addressed postcard acknowledging receipt of a
protest is mailed. Where only a portion of a document is listed as an
item in the information list, the protestor must only submit a copy of
that portion and not a copy of the entire document (e.g., where a
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 68 |
particular chapter of a book is listed and not the entire book).
Further, when a copy of only a portion of a document is submitted, the
protestor should also submit copies of pages of the document that
provide identifying information (e.g., a copy of the cover, the title
page, the copyright information page, etc.).
Section 1.291(c)(4) requires an English language translation of any
non-English language item identified in the information list. A
translation submitted pursuant to § 1.291(c)(4) may be a reliable
machine translation and need not be certified. Section 1.291(c)(4) has
been clarified in this final rule in view of comments submitted by the
public expressing concern regarding a situation where a protestor cites
and provides a translation for only a portion of a non-English language
document but submits a copy of the entire non-English language
document. The comments questioned whether an applicant would have a
duty to cite and translate the remaining portions of the non-English
language document in this situation. Section 1.291(c)(1) provides for
the listing of entire documents or portions of documents, and
§§ 1.291(c)(3) and (4) require a copy and translation,
respectively, of each item listed pursuant to § 1.291(c)(1). Thus,
where only a portion of a non-English language document is listed, a
protestor must not submit a copy of the entire non-English language
document. Rather, the protestor must submit a copy of the listed
portion of the non-English language document and a translation of only
this portion.
Section 1.291(f) is amended to provide that in the absence of a
request by the Office, an applicant need not reply to a protest under
§ 1.291. In view of public comments received regarding
misinterpretations of the Office's use of the term "duty" in the
proposed requirement for § 1.290(h), both § 1.290(h) and
§ 1.291(f) have been revised in this final rule to delete its use. While
the comments interpreted the use of the term "duty" in the proposed
requirement for § 1.290(h) as an intent to incorporate a statement
relative to the duty of disclosure under § 1.56, the use of the
term "duty" in § 1.291(f) was in keeping with the general concept
that applicants need not comment on a protest solely because one has
been entered into the application.
Section 1.292: Section 1.292 is removed and reserved. The practice
of providing a pre-grant public use proceeding as set forth in
§ 1.292 is no longer considered necessary, and is inefficient as compared
to alternative mechanisms available to third parties for raising prior
public use, for example, as provided for by § 1.291 protests, where
appropriate, and also by section 6 of the AIA which makes available a
post-grant review proceeding. Petitions to institute public use
proceedings filed under former § 1.292 on or after the effective
date of this final rule will not be entered or otherwise treated by the
Office. Instead, they will be discarded.
Section 41.202: Section 41.202 is amended to remove a reference to
§ 1.99 for consistency in view of the removal of § 1.99.
Comments and Response to Comments: As discussed previously, the
Office published a notice on January 6, 2012, proposing to change the
rules of practice to implement the preissuance submissions by third
parties provisions of section 8 of the AIA. See Changes to Implement
the Preissuance Submission by Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-
Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 448-457. The Office received thirty-
six written comments (from intellectual property organizations,
academia, industry, law firms, individual patent practitioners, and the
general public) in response to this notice. The comments and the
Office's responses to the comments follow:
A. Submission Requirements
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 69 |
1. Identification of Documents
Comment 1: A number of comments suggested revising some of the
requirements for identifying documents set forth in proposed
§§ 1.290(e) and 1.291(c)(1). These suggestions are detailed with the
Office's response to this comment.
Response: In response to the comments, the proposed requirements
for identifying foreign patents or published foreign patent
applications pursuant to §§ 1.290(e)(3) and 1.291(c)(1)(iii)
and for identifying non-patent publications pursuant to
§§ 1.290(e)(4) and 1.291(c)(1)(iv) have been modified in this final rule.
For example, when identifying foreign patents or published foreign
patent applications pursuant to §§ 1.290(e)(3) and
1.291(c)(1)(iii), at least one of the applicant, patentee, or first
named inventor must be identified. This requirement offers flexibility
in identification, such as where a foreign jurisdiction does not
require inventors be named or allows inventors to remain anonymous.
Additionally, § 1.290(e)(4) and 1.291(c)(1)(iv) require
identification of non-patent publications by publisher and place of
publication only where such information is available. With the
increasing use of the Internet for publication, many non-patent
publications do not identify a publisher or place of publication, so
such information need only be provided where it is available. Sections
1.290(e)(4) and 1.291(c)(1)(iv) do not, however, preclude additional
identifying information, not specified in the rules, from being
provided (e.g., journal title and volume/issue information for a
journal article). Section 1.290(e)(4) also requires evidence
establishing publication if the date of publication is not available.
For example, such evidence might establish a date the document was
publicly available.
2. English language translation of listed non-English language
documents:
Comment 2: A number of comments suggested revising the requirements
set forth in proposed §§ 1.290(d)(4) and 1.291(c)(4) requiring
a translation of "all relevant portions" and "all the necessary and
pertinent parts," respectively, of any non-English language document.
One comment suggested a third party be required to provide a
translation of all portions, or to redact any non-translated portions.
The comment stated that if a third party submits a copy of an entire
non-English language document and only translates and cites a portion
of the document, the applicant may have a duty to translate and cite
the remaining portions. Other comments suggested that a full
translation of any non-English language document be required so the
examiner can determine if the document as a whole stands for the
proposition for which it is cited. Alternatively, it was suggested a
third party be required to submit any translation in its possession.
Response: Sections 1.290(d)(4) and 1.291(c)(4) have been modified
from the proposed rule to clarify that an English language translation
of any non-English language item identified in the document or
information list, respectively, is required. Sections 1.290(d)(1) and
1.291(c)(1) provide for the listing of entire documents or portions of
documents. Sections 1.290(d)(3) and (4) require a copy and translation,
respectively, of each item listed pursuant to § 1.290(d)(1), and
§§ 1.291(c)(3) and (4) require a copy and translation,
respectively, of each item listed pursuant to § 1.291(c)(1). Thus,
where only a portion of a non-English language document is listed, a
third party or protestor must not submit a copy of the entire non-
English language document. Rather, the third party or protestor must
submit only a copy of the listed portion of the non-English language
document and only a translation of this portion. Where an entire non-
English language document is listed, a third party or protestor should
submit a copy and a translation of the entire non-English language
document.
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 70 |
Any translations submitted pursuant to §§ 1.290(d)(4) and
1.291(c)(4) may be a reliable machine translation and need
not be certified. The requirements of §§ 1.290(d)(4) and
1.291(c)(4) are different from the requirement of § 1.98(a)(3)(ii),
which requires a copy of any translation of a non-English language
document cited in an IDS that is "within the possession, custody, or
control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in
§ 1.56(c)."
3. Application Number
Comment 3: A number of comments asserted that the requirement of
proposed § 1.290(c) to identify the application number on each page
of the submission (except for the copies of documents) is unnecessary
and burdensome. Several comments stated that the application number
should appear on at least the first page of the submission and that,
while it may be a best practice to include the application number on
each page of the submission, it should not be required.
Response: Based on the comments, the Office understands that the
requirement in proposed § 1.290(c) that the application number of
the application to which the submission is directed be identified on
every page of the submission was overly burdensome. Accordingly, the
final rule does not include this requirement. Instead, § 1.290(e)
only requires that the document list set forth in § 1.290(d)(1)
identify on each page of the list, the application number of the
application in which the submission is being filed. This requirement
is consistent with the requirement set forth in § 1.98(a)(1)(i) for
applicant IDS listings.
B. Documents
1. Corroboration of Documents
Comment 4: One comment suggested the examiner should objectively
corroborate submitted documents and be permitted to ignore any
documents that cannot be corroborated (e.g., as a publication). The
comment suggested the Office should not blindly accept submissions as
true and accurate and should entertain challenges to the accuracy of
third-party statements that are not objectively verifiable (e.g., a
journal article might be verifiable, whereas a marketing pamphlet
might be less so).
Response: Submissions filed pursuant to § 1.290 will be
reviewed before being forwarded to an examiner for consideration.
During this review, the Office will determine if the documents
submitted for consideration appear on their faces to be publications.
If any of the submitted documents are found not to be a publication,
the entire submission will be found not to comply. In such a situation,
the submission will not be entered into the patent application file or
considered by the examiner and will be discarded. If the submission is
determined to be compliant, the publications will be considered by the
examiner and entered into the file, as required by 35 U.S.C. 122(e). If
the patent applicant, however, has evidence that a document filed by a
third party is, in fact, not a publication, then the applicant can
challenge the determination by the Office that the document is a
publication in response to a rejection applying the document in
question.
Comment 5: One comment questioned whether an examiner can request
additional information from a third party under § 1.105. The
comment suggested it should be at the option of the third party to
respond to any such request and that there should be no effect on the
original submission if the third party does not comply with the
request.
Response: Section 1.105 provides an examiner or other Office
employee with the authority to require the submission, from individuals
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 71 |
identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as
may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat a matter.
Section 1.290(d)(5)(i) does not permit a third party to be a
§ 1.56(c) party. An examiner cannot therefore request additional
information from a party who makes a third-party submission. The Office
does not believe there is a need for a similar mechanism to require
further information from third-party submitters as the third parties
will be motivated to provide complete submissions that would not likely
require further information.
Comment 6: A number of comments suggested evidence should be
required to establish the relevant date of documents not in print, such
as documents only published electronically on the Internet. One comment
suggested the rules explicitly provide for the submission of
screenshots from Web sites, such as "www.archive.org," that evidence
the content of Web pages at specified dates in the past because such
screenshots are relevant to novelty considerations under 35 U.S.C. 102
and can be readily verified.
Response: Section 1.290(e)(4) requires non-patent publications be
identified by author (if any), title, pages being submitted,
publication date, and where available, publisher and place of
publication. Section 1.290(e)(4) further requires that, if no
publication date is known, the third party must provide evidence of
publication. This requirement recognizes that some documents, such as
the content of a Web site, may not indicate a date of publication. See
MPEP 2128. Section 1.290(e)(4) does not require the evidence of
publication be submitted in a particular format. For example, the third
party might submit as evidence of publication a printout from the Web
site showing that the content of the Web site was publicly available at
least as of the date retrieved shown on the printout, or screenshots
from a Web site that establish the content of the Web site on a
particular date (like www.archive.org). In some instances, the copy of
the document provided pursuant to § 1.290(d)(3) may itself be the
evidence, such as where a printout from the Web site showing the date
the document was retrieved is provided to satisfy the copy requirement.
Each item of evidence submitted will be evaluated with respect to both
its authenticity and its persuasiveness.
2. Prior Art Documents
Comment 7: A number of comments requested clarification as to
whether the proposed rules allow submissions of documents that are not
prior art to the patent application. These comments also suggested the
rules not permit submission of non-prior art documents. A number of
comments also proposed adding a requirement that the third party
indicate whether the documents submitted are prior art or are not prior
art.
Response: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(e), "[a]ny third party may
submit for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent
application, any patent, published patent application, or other printed
publication of potential relevance to the examination of the
application." The statute does not limit the publications that can be
submitted to prior art publications. Accordingly, § 1.290(a) does
not require that publications be prior art in order to be considered by
an examiner. Additionally, the Office is not requiring a third party to
indicate whether a listed document is or is not asserted to be prior
art because a mistake in complying with such a requirement could cause
a submission to be found not in compliance with § 1.290. The Office
believes the benefit of such a statement is outweighed by the potential
that the submission will be found not to comply should the Office
disagree with the third party.
Comment 8: A number of comments requested further clarification on
what documents would be admitted or excluded as "other printed
publications" under proposed § 1.290(a). These comments also requested
that publicly accessible documents of potential relevance to the
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 72 |
examination of the application be permitted, such as litigation papers
not subject to a protective order and otherwise available to the public.
Response: Section 1.290(a) does not limit the type of printed
publications that can be filed as part of a compliant submission.
Litigation papers and court documents not subject to a court-imposed
protective or secrecy order can be submitted for consideration and
entry under § 1.290(a) if they qualify as publications. See MPEP
§ 2128. Documents that are subject to a court-imposed protective or
secrecy order, documents that include trade secret information,
unpublished internal documents, or other non-patent documents that do
not qualify as publications should not be submitted for consideration
and entry under § 1.290(a).
Comment 9: A number of comments suggested amending proposed
§ 1.290(e)(4) to clarify what is required to establish the date of a
non-patent publication asserted to be prior art if the date is "not
apparent from the document."
Response: This final rule revises the requirement of proposed
§ 1.290(e)(4) that the third party bears the burden of establishing the
date of a non-patent publication asserted to be prior art if the date
is not apparent from the document. A compliant submission pursuant to
§ 1.290 requires that all documents for consideration and inclusion
into the file of an application be publications. Thus,
§ 1.290(e)(4) requires a third party to provide evidence of publication
where the publication date of a document is not known, regardless of
whether the document is asserted to be prior art. As a result, third
parties making such a submission must either submit documents that are
prima facie publications or evidence that establishes that they are
publications. The Office is not requiring specific types of evidence to
prove publication, but where the actual publication date of a non-
patent document is not known, a third party should, at a minimum,
provide a date of retrieval or a timeframe (e.g., a year, a month and
year, a certain period of time) when the document was available as a
publication for purposes of identifying the document by publication
date pursuant to § 1.290(e)(4), in addition to including evidence
that establishes the document as a publication. In such situations, the
evidence that may be submitted by a third party includes affidavits or
declarations, or may be present on the copy of the document itself
submitted pursuant to § 1.290(d)(3).
3. Submissions Related to Documents Already of Record
Comment 10: A number of comments requested clarification as to
whether the proposed rules allow submissions and descriptions of
relevance in connection with patents, published patent applications, or
other printed publications that are already of record in a patent
application.
Response: 35 U.S.C. 122(e) states: "Any third party may submit for
consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any
patent, published patent application, or other printed publication of
potential relevance to the examination of the application." The
statute does not limit submissions to publications that are not already
of record in a patent application. Accordingly, new § 1.290 does
not place this limitation on the publications that can be submitted. As
a result, third-party submissions pursuant to § 1.290 can include
patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications
that are already of record in an application where the submission is
otherwise compliant.
Comment 11: Some comments suggested amending proposed § 1.290
to prohibit cumulative submissions. One comment suggested that where
more than three documents are submitted, the third party should be
required to explain which documents, up to three, are most relevant and
why any other submitted documents are not merely cumulative.
Response: While it would be a best practice for third parties not
to submit documents that are cumulative of each other or that are
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 73 |
cumulative of information already under consideration by the Office,
§ 1.290 does not explicitly prohibit cumulative submissions because
it has been the Office's experience that identifying purely cumulative
submissions is difficult, such as where the submission includes both a
publication and a description of the publication's relevance. Where a
concise description of relevance is not identical to another party's
concise description of relevance, and the submission is otherwise
compliant, the submission will be entered into the file of the
application. Thus, while a document submitted may appear on its face to
be cumulative of information already of record, its accompanying
concise description of relevance may provide additional information
with respect to the document, such that the submission of the document,
together with the concise description of relevance of the document, is
not cumulative of information already of record. For example, a
submission including documents cited in the background section of an
application would not be considered cumulative if accompanied by
concise descriptions of relevance that provide additional information
regarding the documents.
4. Limits on Submissions
Comment 12: Several comments raised concerns regarding the
potential for third parties to "flood" an application with third-
party submissions. One comment suggested that, with no contemplated
limit on the number of third-party submissions that may be made in an
application, an examiner could become "buried" and, as a result,
potentially miss highly relevant art. Another comment asserted that the
fee structure alone may not go far enough to prevent harassment where
the third party is allowed to remain anonymous.
Response: Third-party submitters are subject to § 11.18(b)(2),
which provides that a party presenting a paper to the Office, whether a
practitioner or non-practitioner, is certifying that "to the best of
the party's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances, [t]he paper is not being presented
for any improper purpose, such as to harass someone or to cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding
before the Office." Accordingly, Office rules already prohibit third
parties from purposely "flooding" an application with third-party
submissions in order to cause unnecessary delay in the prosecution of
the application. Moreover, the statute does not impose any limit on the
number of third-party submissions that may be filed in an application.
The Office, in turn, has not imposed any limit on the number of third-
party submissions that may be filed in applications so as not to
preclude examiners from having all relevant information before them
when examining applications. To limit the number of third-party
submissions in an application might preclude some third parties from
filing potentially relevant information. Further, because highly
relevant documents can be obfuscated by voluminous submissions, third
parties should be motivated to limit any third-party submission to only
the most relevant documents and should not be motivated to "flood"
the Office with irrelevant submissions.
Comment 13: Some comments suggested the Office limit the number of
pages in a third-party submission thatwill be considered by an examiner.
For example, one comment suggested amending § 1.290(f) to require a third
party to identify up to 50 of the most relevant pages of the submitted
documents where the cumulative number of pages of the submitted documents,
other than patents or published patent applications, exceeds 50 pages.
Response: The Office has not imposed any limit on the total number
of pages that may be submitted in a third-party submission because, to
do so, could prevent an examiner from considering all of the relevant
information submitted. Further, if a third party deems more than 50
pages in a submission to be relevant to the examination of an
application, an examiner should not be precluded from reviewing all of
the pages of information deemed to be relevant. Nevertheless, a third
party should avoid making a submission unnecessarily voluminous as
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 74 |
voluminous submissions tend to obfuscate the most relevant information.
5. Electronic Sources
Comment 14: One comment requested clarification regarding what is
considered a separate document on a Web site. The comment questioned
whether each page of a single Web site would constitute a separate
document.
Response: What constitutes a separate document on a Web site will
vary case-by-case. For example, if a single article posted on a Web
site spans multiple Web pages, each such Web page would not constitute
a separate document. On the other hand, if a Web site includes
different articles and each appears on a different Web page, then each
such Web page would constitute a separate document, even though each
article is available from the same Web site.
6. Third Party Participation
Comment 15: One comment suggested the Office not permit third-party
submissions of documents that were prepared by the third party solely
to address patentability issues in an application. The comment
suggested the Office require a statement that the third party or its
privies did not draft the cited documents after the application was
filed to contest patentability.
Response: Third parties are cautioned that submission of documents
drafted after the application was filed solely to contest patentability
may result in non-entry of an entire third-party submission. A concise
description of relevance under § 1.290 is not an invitation for
third-party participation in the examination of an application. Thus,
the concise description of relevance of a document, which was prepared
by a third party after an application was filed solely to contest the
patentability of the application, would likely be deemed an improper
attempt by the third party to impermissibly participate in the
examination of the application because the relevance of the document
being described is its discussion of the patentability of the
application. As a result of the improper concise description, the
entire third-party submission that includes such document would not be
entered.
C. Consideration of Documents
1. Consideration by an Examiner
Comment 16: A number of comments requested clarification as to how
examiners will consider documents and concise descriptions of relevance
submitted in third-party submissions pursuant to the guidance set forth
in the MPEP at §§ 609.05(b), 904.03, 2256, and 2656.
Response: Examiners will consider documents and concise
descriptions of relevance submitted in compliant third-party
submissions in the same manner that examiners consider information and
concise explanations of relevance submitted as part of IDSs in patent
applications. Generally with the next Office action following the entry
of third-party submission, a copy of the third party's listing of
documents, with an indication of which documents were considered by the
examiner, will be provided to the applicant. The indication that a
document has been considered by the examiner will mean that the
examiner has considered both the listed document and its accompanying
concise description. The examiner will apply the information in a
compliant third-party submission as the examiner deems necessary, but
will not be expected to comment on each submitted document and concise
description of relevance.
Parties should keep in mind that examiner consideration of a
document and its accompanying concise description of relevance does not
mean that the examiner agrees with the third party's position regarding
the document, only that the examiner considered the publication and its
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 75 |
accompanying description. For example, a third party might assert that
a particular document is prior art but the examiner might determine
that the assertion is incorrect in view of the application's earliest
effective filing date. In such a situation, the examiner will still
consider the document and the concise description of relevance even
though the examiner determined that the document is not prior art.
2. Distinguish Third-Party Submitted Documents
Comment 17: Several comments suggested the Office print considered
third-party submitted documents on the patent with a font or symbol
that distinguishes them from applicant-submitted documents and
examiner-cited documents. One comment also suggested the Office
similarly distinguish references entered into the image file wrapper
(IFW) of an application.
Response: The Office is updating its existing information
technology (IT) systems to permit considered third-party submission
documents to be distinguished on an issued patent from documents cited
by the applicant and by the examiner, and also to distinguish third-
party submission papers from other papers in the IFW of an application.
The Office intends to have these updates completed prior to or shortly
after the effective date of this final rule.
D. Concise Description of Relevance
Comment 18: One comment suggested that the Office indicate that the
standard set forth in proposed § 1.290(a) for documents to be of
"potential relevance to the examination of the application" is
intended to be a low threshold so that third parties are encouraged to
submit potentially relevant documents.
Response: The standard under § 1.290(a) for the documents
submitted to be of "potential relevance to the examination of the
application" is specified by 35 U.S.C. 122(e)(1). This standard
requires the submitter to believe the documents being submitted are
relevant to the extent that the submitter can provide the statutorily
required concise description of the asserted relevance of each document
submitted. See 35 U.S.C. 122(e)(2)(A).
Comment 19: Some comments requested the Office clarify the
threshold for non-compliance for concise descriptions of relevance. One
comment suggested the Office make the concise description requirement a
low threshold that can be easily satisfied so that third parties are
encouraged to participate. A number of comments requested more guidance
and examples on concise descriptions. Several comments requested
further guidance regarding what would be considered non-compliant
(e.g., bare statements) and what would be considered "concise." One
comment further recommended the Office publish samples of third-party
submission filing documents and Office communications concerning
third-party submissions.
Response: The Office is interpreting the requirement for a concise
description of relevance liberally because the Office anticipates third
parties will be motivated to provide complete concise descriptions of
relevance to draw the examiner's attention to the potential relevance
of a submitted document to the examination of an application. At a
minimum, a concise description of relevance must be more than a bare
statement that the document is relevant. For example, the statements
"Document 1 is relevant," "See Document 1," and "Document 1
discloses/may disclose the invention" would not be considered anything
more than bare statements of relevance that do not rise to the level of
meaningful concise descriptions. Additionally, merely highlighting or
otherwise annotating the copy of the submitted document itself will not
be deemed a proper concise description of relevance. Further, concise
descriptions of relevance that appear to be mere form paragraphs/
letters in opposition to a general class of invention or technology
will not be deemed proper concise descriptions of relevance.
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 76 |
The statutory requirement for a concise description of relevance
should not be interpreted as permitting a third party to participate in
the prosecution of an application. 35 U.S.C. 122(c) prohibits the
initiation of a protest or other form of pre-issuance opposition for
published applications without the consent of the applicant. Therefore,
while a concise description of relevance may include claim charts
(i.e., mapping various portions of a submitted document to different
claim elements), the concise description of relevance is not an
invitation to a third party to propose rejections of the claims, or set
forth arguments relating to an Office action in the application or to
an applicant's reply to an Office action in the application. Further,
while third parties should refrain from submitting verbose descriptions
of relevance, not only because the statute calls for a "concise"
description but also because a focused description is more effective in
drawing the examiner's attention to the relevant issues, the Office has
not established an upper limit on the size of a concise description at
this time.
Any sample third-party submission filing documents that the Office
provides may not be appropriate in all situations; however, the Office
intends to provide additional guidance on filing third-party
submissions on its Web site, www.uspto.gov.
Comment 20: One comment suggested a third party need only explain
"how" a document is of potential relevance, and suggested that it is
unnecessary to explain both "how and why" a document is relevant, as
discussed in the proposed rule package. See Changes to Implement the
Preissuance Submission by Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act, 77 FR 452 (stating that "[t]he concise
description should explain why the document has been submitted and how
it is of potential relevance to the examination of the
application * * *.").
Response: The Office did not intend to suggest that two separate
statements are required in order to comply with § 1.290(d)(2) as
the statute only requires one statement of the asserted relevance of
each submitted document. Accordingly, the third party need only provide
for each document submitted one concise description setting forth the
asserted relevance of the document.
Comment 21: One comment recommended the Office amend the rules to
explicitly exclude declarations, such as expert declarations, as
concise descriptions of relevance because applicants would not be able
to readily contest such testimonial evidence during prosecution.
Response: 35 U.S.C. 122(e) provides for the submission of evidence
in the form of patents, published patent applications, and other
printed publications. A concise description of relevance for a
submitted document is not considered evidence but, rather, a statement
of facts regarding the submitted evidence. Accordingly, the Office will
not consider a declaration as evidence, where such declaration is
submitted as a concise description of relevance for a document. Third
parties relying on declarations as concise descriptions of relevance
should ensure the concise description of relevance does not amount to
an attempt at third-party participation in the examination of the
application.
E. Third Party
1. Anonymity
Comment 22: One comment expressed concern that preserving the
anonymity of the third party could negatively impact small entities
where large competitors seek out third parties to file excessive third-
party submissions against small start-up companies, which might not
have the funds, or be able to acquire the funds from their financial
backers, to address such submissions.
Response: Section 1.290(h) makes clear, and its related preamble
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 77 |
further explains, that the Office believes there is no need for
applicants in general to address third-party submissions. The examiner
will review the submissions, and should an issue arise where
information from the applicant is desired, the Office will frame the
issue and request information from the applicant under § 1.105.
Such requests are envisioned to be rare and limited in scope and
therefore well within the ability of any applicant to reply, including
small start-up companies.
Additionally, the Office believes that providing anonymity would
encourage small entity third parties to submit prior art. Without such
anonymity, there are situations where potential third-party small
start-ups would be hesitant to make a third-party submission, such as
where the third party would be concerned with damaging a valuable
relationship with the larger applicant. Anonymity helps small start-ups
in supplying prior art against applications submitted by large entities
(not necessarily competitors) with whom they may have a relationship.
Comment 23: A number of comments suggested making explicit in the
rules that the real party in interest need not be identified and that
the submitter may also remain anonymous where the submitter is not the
real party in interest. Several comments asserted that the identity of
the party making the submission for the real party in interest should
also be protected because the identity of the submitter (e.g., a
particular attorney or law firm) could, in some instances, implicitly
give away the identity of the real party in interest and that such
protection would likely encourage more third-party submissions. Some
comments have suggested ways for the Office to protect the identity of
a party making a third-party submission for a real party in interest.
Response: The absence of an identification requirement in § 1.290
makes clear that there is no requirement to identify a real party
in interest. The absence of such requirement is reinforced by the
explanation of such in the preamble.
The Office cannot permit a third-party submission to be presented
unsigned by the submitter in view of the signature requirement in
§ 1.4 for papers filed in a patent application, which require a person's
signature. Third-party submissions are required to be signed because
§§ 1.290(d)(5) and (g) require statements by the party making
the submission. Therefore, to permit anonymity of the submitter, the
Office would need a special procedure to hide the submitter's identity,
which would impose an unjustifiable burden in view of the ease with which
the real party in interest can be shielded notwithstanding identification
of a submitter.
Comment 24: To the extent the Office collects identifying
information regarding the submitter, some comments have suggested ways
of collecting the information and means of keeping such identifying
information confidential and preventing its entry into the IFW.
Response: The Office, at this time, does not intend to collect
identifying information from submitters who utilize § 1.290. In
view of the signature requirement in § 1.4 for all papers filed in
a patent application, which require a person's signature, only the name
of the submitter will be identified upon entry of a compliant third-
party submission into the IFW of an application.
2. Registered Practitioners
Comment 25: Some comments suggested that only registered patent
practitioners should be able to file third-party submissions. One
comment suggested that registered practitioners are presumed qualified
to have sufficient knowledge of patent law necessary to make the
concise descriptions of relevance, and distinguished ex parte
reexamination which may be filed by "[a]ny person at any time."
Another comment stated that the independent inventor community is
concerned that potential harassment could result if any third party can
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 78 |
file a third-party submission under proposed § 1.290.
Response: New 35 U.S.C. 122(e)(1) provides for "[a]ny third
party" to file a preissuance submission. Any member of the public,
including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies,
may file a third-party submission under § 1.290. An attorney or
other representative on behalf of an unnamed real party in interest
likewise may file a third-party submission since § 1.290 does not
require that the real party in interest be identified. To limit the
filing of third-party submissions to registered practitioners would be
contrary to the express language of the statute and potentially exclude
parties that may not have the resources to hire registered
practitioners to file third-party submissions for them. Further, the
Office's experience with pilot programs, such as the Peer Review Pilot
2011, has demonstrated the capabilities of non-practitioners to make
appropriate submissions to the Office. To describe the relevance of a
submitted document to an application, submitters need not be as well-
versed in the patent laws as they should be in the field or technology
described in the application and the document being submitted.
Regardless of who files a third-party submission, the Office will
screen the third-party submission for compliance before entering it
into the record so as to limit the potential for patent applicants to
be harassed by third parties filing non-compliant third-party
submissions. Moreover, third-party submitters are subject to
§ 11.18(b)(2), which provides that a party presenting a paper to the
Office, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, is certifying that
"to the best of the party's knowledge, information and belief, formed
after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, [t]he paper is not
being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass someone or
to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any
proceeding before the Office." Accordingly, Office rules already
prohibit third parties from purposely filing a third-party submission
to harass the applicant.
3. Compliance
Comment 26: One comment asserted that given the requirements of 35
U.S.C. 122(e)(2)(C) for making a statement affirming that a submission
was made in compliance with the statute, and the requirements of
§ 11.18(b), for presenting a paper to the Office after making reasonable
inquiry that the paper is not being presented for any improper purpose,
the Office should provide explicit guidance regarding what is a
"reasonable inquiry" so far as ascertaining whether a first rejection
or notice of allowance has been issued and how a third party would be
able to demonstrate such reasonable inquiry.
Response: What is reasonable will vary on a case-by-case basis.
However, at a minimum, third parties wishing to determine whether an
Office action rejecting any claim or a notice of allowance has been
issued in a published application should avail themselves of the
Office's public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system
to obtain the application's status prior to making a third-party
submission.
F. Proposed Fees
1. Proposed Fee Schedule
Comment 27: A number of comments suggested that proposed § 1.290(f)
be amended to charge a fee on a per-document basis as opposed
to in increments of ten documents.
Response: Because the Office expects the processing costs to the
Office for third-party submissions under § 1.290 to be equivalent
to the processing costs to the Office for submissions under prior
§ 1.99, the Office has determined that the fee set forth in § 1.17(p)
for submissions under prior § 1.99 is also applicable to third-
party submissions under § 1.290. Thus, § 1.290(f) provides that
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 79 |
any third-party submission filed under § 1.290 must be accompanied
by the fee set forth in § 1.17(p) for every ten documents or
fraction thereof being submitted.
2. Fee Exemption
Comment 28: Several comments suggested the fee exemption provided
for in proposed § 1.290(g) could encourage abuse, which will result
in the Office being overburdened by documents for consideration by an
examiner. These comments also favored the $180 fee and suggested that
the $180 fee set forth in proposed § 1.290(f) would not discourage
a third party from filing documents that will enhance the quality of
the application's examination. Another comment proposed an alternate
fee schedule intended to balance the needs of the Office and third
parties.
Response: Because the fee exemption provided under § 1.290(g)
only applies to a third party's first submission of three or fewer
documents in an application, the Office does not anticipate it will
become overburdened by submissions in any one application. While the
$180 fee set forth under § 1.290(f) may not be burdensome to some
third parties, the Office believes it may discourage or prevent some
third parties from making a third-party submission if even the first
document submitted incurred the $180 fee. The Office believes the fee
structure implemented in this final rule strikes a balance between
encouraging submissions so that examiners have the best documents
before them when examining applications and, at the same time,
discouraging third parties from making excessive submissions.
Comment 29: A number of comments suggested the Office not rely on
the concept of "privity" to administer the fee exemption. One comment
suggested it will be difficult for third parties with limited legal
experience and large entities, such as corporations and universities,
to determine if privity exists. This comment also suggested that a
"privity test" in the fee exemption is not necessary to avoid abuse
because the Office's experience with the Peer-to-Patent pilot program
shows that third parties did not flood applications with documents even
though the submissions were free and could be made anonymously. This
comment further asserted that the required statement regarding privity
is likely to "chill collaboration" among third-party submitters which
might be necessary for third parties to avoid making cumulative
submissions.
Response: The Office believes that the concept of "privity" is
well established since it is already employed in other contexts before
the Office, such as inter partes reexamination. See, e.g., § 1.907
(providing that "[o]nce an order to reexamine has been issued under
§ 1.931, neither the third party requester, nor its privies, may
file a subsequent request for inter partes reexamination of the patent
until an inter partes reexamination certificate is issued under
§ 1.997, unless authorized by the Director."). Additionally, third
parties who are concerned about not being able to make the "privity"
statement under § 1.290(g) to take advantage of the fee exemption
when making a submission in an application are not precluded from
making the submission because such parties have the option of simply
paying the required fee under § 1.290(f) instead of evaluating
whether it is appropriate to make the "privity" statement pursuant to
§ 1.290(g).
Comment 30: One comment questioned whether a third party who made a
first third-party submission that included the statement set forth in
proposed § 1.290(g) would need to make a similar statement in each
subsequent submission (e.g., that it was previously unaware of the
documents at the time of the first submission).
Response: Where a third party takes advantage of the fee exemption
pursuant to § 1.290(g) in a first submission, the third party is
not required to make any statement in each subsequent submission
indicating that the third party was previously unaware of the need to
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 80 |
file the subsequent submission at the time the third party made the
first submission.
Comment 31: Several comments suggested that the number of fee-
exempt documents under proposed § 1.290(g) should be changed. Some
comments suggested that the number be reduced, while others suggested
it be increased.
Response: The Office is providing a fee exemption for the first
third-party submission in an application by that third party containing
three or fewer total documents because the submission of three or fewer
documents is more likely to assist the examiner in the examination
process than no third-party submissions. Moreover, keeping the size of
the fee exempted submission to three or fewer total documents will help
to focus the attention of third parties on finding and submitting only
the most relevant art to the claims at hand. Submission of voluminous
documents costs the Office more in processing the submission and that
cost outweighs the benefit to the examiner in having access to third-
party submissions. Thus, the provision of § 1.290(g) strikes a
balance between encouraging third parties to make focused third-party
submissions of perhaps highly relevant documents to the examination of
an application and discouraging third parties from making unnecessarily
voluminous submissions.
G. Time Periods for Submission
1. Statutory Time Periods
Comment 32: One comment questioned whether the filing of a request
for continued examination (RCE) resets the time period for filing a
third-party submission under proposed § 1.290(b)(2)(ii).
Response: The filing of an RCE does not reset the time period for
filing a third-party submission under § 1.290(b)(2)(ii). However,
the filing of an RCE does not preclude a third-party submission from
being filed after the RCE, if the filing of the third-party submission
would otherwise be within the time periods set forth in §1.290(b)(2).
Comment 33: One comment asserted that the only deadline for making
a third-party submission should be the issuance date of a notice of
allowance because, among other reasons, third parties may not
immediately be aware of their competitors' patent applications.
Response: The time period for making a third-party submission is
set by statute in 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and cannot be modified by the
Office, as the Office regulations must conform to the requirements of
the statute.
Comment 34: A number of comments recommended amending proposed
§§ 1.290(b) and 1.291(b)(1) to state that the third-party
submission/protest must be filed "prior to" the specified date or
event instead of "before" because the meaning of the term "before"
can vary depending on the context.
Response: Sections 1.290(b) and 1.291(b)(1) have been modified
relative to the proposed rule to require that any third-party
submission/protest must be filed "prior to" the specified date or
event.
Comment 35: One comment requested clarification regarding whether a
third-party submission could be timely submitted after prosecution is
reopened in an application subsequent to a notice of allowance where
the publication of the application or the mailing of a first rejection
of any claim has not occurred.
Response: The time period for making a third-party submission is
set by statute in new 35 U.S.C. 122(e), which states that a third-party
submission must be made before "a notice of allowance * * * is given
or mailed in the application." Thus, the statute does not permit a
third-party submission to be filed after a notice of allowance has been
given or mailed in an application, regardless of whether that notice of
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 81 |
allowance is subsequently withdrawn.
2. "First Published"
Comment 36: One comment suggested that the republication of an
application under § 1.221(b) should not be considered the first
publication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) for purposes of proposed § 1.290(b)
as third parties will be given a windfall of time to file documents.
This comment also suggested that this additional time could result
in submissions not receiving timely consideration before a first
Office action is mailed.
Response: The republication of an application under § 1.221(b)
is not the first publication by the Office under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) for
purposes of 35 U.S.C. 122(e). Accordingly, the first publication of the
application will trigger the § 1.221(b)(2)(i) time period where
appropriate.
Comment 37: One comment suggested that publication of an
application by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
should be considered a publication of the application for purposes of
proposed § 1.290(b).
Response: The third-party submission timing requirement based on
the publication of the application is set forth in new 35 U.S.C.
122(e)(1)(B), which is expressly limited to the publication of the
application for patent "by the Office." This statutory provision does
not account for the publication of the application by organizations
other than the Office, such as WIPO. The timing requirement of
§ 1.290(b)(2)(i) conforms to that of the statute and, likewise, is not
triggered by the publication of the application by WIPO.
Comment 38: One comment questioned how a third party could make a
third-party submission before a date of first rejection that is earlier
than the date the application publishes, where the existence of the
application, and its contents, is only available to that third party
after the publication date.
Response: A third-party submission could be made before a first
rejection that is earlier than the date the application publishes where
a third party otherwise knows of the application. The time periods for
submission are set forth in new 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and cannot be modified
by the Office. The AIA included provisions for prioritization of
examination, as well as for preissuance submissions by third parties,
and the details of any individual provision, such as for preissuance
submissions, can be understood to represent a balance among the
benefits of the individual provisions of the Act.
Comment 39: Several comments requested that the Office consider
amending the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i), which permit
applicants to make non-publication requests in their applications, to
ensure that all applications publish without condition so examiners
will have the benefit of third-party submissions during examination.
Response: The statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i) are
not subject to amendment by the Office. Where the Office does not
publish an application, the date that is six months after the
publication date would not occur and, therefore, by default would be
considered later than both the date of a first rejection of any claim
and the date the notice of allowance is given or mailed in the
application. Accordingly, the date that a notice of allowance is given
or mailed in the application would control the timing of a third-party
submission in an application which has not been published, not the date
of the first rejection of any claim.
3. Certificate of Mailing/Transmission
Comment 40: Several comments suggested amending § 1.8 to
include the exception listed in proposed § 1.290(i). One comment
suggested the Office permit use of the certificate of mailing or
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 82 |
transmission under § 1.8. The comment further suggested that the
problem of papers crossing in the mail can also occur with use of
"Express Mail" service under § 1.10.
Response: Section 1.8(a)(2)(i) has been amended to include the
exception listed in § 1.290(i). Not according a third-party
submission filed by first class mail the benefit of its date of deposit
with the USPS pursuant to a § 1.8 certificate of mailing reduces
the potential for papers crossing in the mail. This requirement reduces
the risk that a third-party submission, if it was permitted to rely on
a certificate of mailing to be timely, would not be identified and
entered until after an Office action is mailed, and encourages third
parties to file a third-party submission at their earliest opportunity.
It is desirable for papers filed under § 1.290 to be included in
the record of the patent application, and considered by the Office, at
the earliest possible point in prosecution.
Additionally, the use of a certificate of transmission pursuant to
§ 1.8 is not applicable to third-party submissions under § 1.290
because facsimile transmission of third-party submissions is not
permitted. Facsimile transmissions, although not subject to delay, are
often received in poor quality. Errors in optical character
recognition, or lack of clarity of symbols or figures, present
potential issues with providing a "legible copy" as required by
§ 1.290(d)(3), and could cause a submission to be found non-compliant.
Further, because a submission under § 1.290 is made by a third
party, the Office will not have an opportunity to contact the third
party for clarification of any illegible content.
The use of United States Postal Service (USPS) Express Mail service
pursuant to § 1.10 carries with it the risk of little, if any,
delay. This risk is minimal as compared to the possible delay that
could be experienced with first class mail for which a certificate of
mailing is used. The fastest and most legible means for transmitting a
third-party submission is electronically via the dedicated Web-based
interface the Office has developed for these submissions. As a
practical matter, any third-party submission should be submitted as
soon as possible after the third party becomes aware of the existence
of the application to which the submission is to be directed. By
submitting a third-party submission early in the examination process,
i.e., before the Office acts on the application if possible, the third
party ensures that the submission will be of the most benefit to the
Office in its examination of the application and increases the
likelihood that the submission will meet the statutory timing
requirements.
H. Entry of Third-Party Submissions
1. Notification to Applicant of Entry
Comment 41: A number of comments recommended the Office directly
notify applicants of third-party submissions directed to their
applications, either when the third-party submissions are filed or when
compliant third-party submissions are entered into the applications.
Response: The Office plans to electronically message applicants
upon entry of compliant third-party submissions directed to their
applications. In order to receive notification, however, applicants
must participate in the e-Office Action program, as such notification
will only be provided via electronic mail message (email) to program
participants.
2. Service on Applicant
Comment 42: As an alternative to the Office directly notifying
applicants, several comments recommended requiring third parties to
serve third-party submissions on applicants. These comments suggested
that service would alleviate the burden on applicants to monitor their
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 83 |
application files for third-party submissions.
Response: Service on applicants will not be necessary in view of
the opportunity for applicants to receive electronic notification of
the entry of a third-party submission from the Office by participating
in the e-Office action program. Further, not requiring service of
third-party submissions should reduce the possibility that applicants
will gain knowledge of non-compliant third-party submissions and, as a
result, deem it necessary to independently file the submitted documents
with the Office in an IDS. Additionally, the Office is seeking to
prevent challenges regarding whether service of a third-party
submission was proper from negatively impacting the pendency of the
application.
3. Notification to Third Party of Non-Compliance
Comment 43: A number of comments urged the Office to notify third
parties of non-compliant third-party submissions to provide those
parties an opportunity to make a resubmission if the statutory time
period has not yet expired. Several comments suggested that such notice
include the reason(s) for non-compliance. Other comments suggested the
notice of non-compliance provide procedures for curing the defect(s)
and not be made of record in the application. One comment suggested
that such notice be provided where the third party includes a
correspondence address with the submission, while another comment
suggested the Office also notify third parties when third-party
submissions are accepted.
Response: As a courtesy, the Office intends to notify third parties
of non-compliant third-party submissions via electronic mail message
(email) where the third-party submitter includes an email address in
the third-party submission, whether the submission is filed
electronically or in paper. An issued notice of non-compliance will
indicate why the third-party submission was found to be non-compliant.
Neither the notification nor the non-compliant third-party submission
will be made of record in the application. Further, if the submission
is deemed compliant, the Office does not intend to enter the email
address provided for notification of non-compliance into the record of
the patent application.
The Office will not notify the third-party submitter of entry of a
compliant third-party submission into the record. However, for an
electronic filing, the third party will receive immediate, electronic
acknowledgment of the Office's receipt of the submission. For a paper
filing, the third party may include a self-addressed postcard with the
third-party submission to receive an acknowledgment by the Office that
a third-party submission has been received. In either case, the
electronic acknowledgment or return receipt postcard is not an
indication that the third-party submission is compliant or has been
entered. In a published application, third parties may access public
PAIR to confirm that their submission has been entered.
Where a third-party submission is filed in an unpublished
application, a returned postcard acknowledging receipt will not
indicate whether such application in fact exists or the status of any
such application because original applications are required by 35
U.S.C. 122 to be kept in confidence unless published pursuant to 35
U.S.C. 122(b) or available to the public pursuant to § 1.14(a)(1)(iv),
(v), or (vi). Thus, unless a third party has been granted access to an
original application, the third party is not entitled to obtain from
the Office any information concerning the same, including the mere fact
that such an application exists.
4. Non-Compliant Submissions
Comment 44: Some comments raised the issue of applicant's duty to
disclose any documents cited in a third-party submission that make it
through an initial review but are not considered by the examiner for
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 84 |
failure to comply with some formality. One of these comments urged the
Office to conduct a thorough initial review to ensure submitted
documents can be considered by examiners. Several comments suggested
the Office consider alternative ways of processing partially compliant
third-party submissions, such as by redacting the non-compliant parts
of the submission so that the other documents and their concise
descriptions may be entered and considered by the examiner, or by
preparing a clean or redacted list of only the documents that were
considered, and discarding any paper that references any documents that
were not considered by the examiner.
Response: The Office has established procedures to screen third-
party submissions for compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
122(e) and § 1.290 before entering the submissions into the IFW of
an application for consideration. Non-compliant and partially compliant
submissions will not be entered into the record, as the Office's intent
is that only compliant third-party submissions will be entered for
consideration by examiners. The Office does not intend to redact or
correct non-compliant portions of a third-party submission as the
third-party submitter is in the best position to make any necessary
revisions to its submission and make a resubmission if the statutory
time period has not yet expired.
Comment 45: A number of comments questioned whether minor defects
in a third-party submission would result in the entire submission not
being entered, and requested guidance regarding what types of
informalities, if any, in a third-party submission would not cause the
Office to deem the entire submission non-compliant.
Response: Section 1.290(a) provides that a third-party submission
may not be entered or considered by the Office if any part of the
submission is not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and § 1.290.
The Office will enter a third-party submission that is compliant with
both 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and § 1.290; however, any non-compliance in a
third-party submission with respect to the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
122(e), whether or not the third-party submission is otherwise
compliant with § 1.290, will prevent entry of the entire third-
party submission into the record. A third-party submission that is
compliant with 35 U.S.C. 122(e) but non-compliant with some requirement
of § 1.290 may be entered if the error is of such a minor character
that, in the opinion of the Office, it does not raise an ambiguity as
to the content of the submission. In any event, the Office will either
enter or not enter the entire submission and will not attempt to enter
portions of partially compliant submissions.
Ideally, only compliant third-party submissions will come before an
examiner for consideration. Nonetheless, the Office, in certain
circumstances, may be able to exercise some latitude in its screening
of third-party submissions for non-compliance with the requirements of
§ 1.290 so that errors of only a minor character that, in the
opinion of the Office, do not raise an ambiguity as to the content of
the submission do not prevent entry of the entire submission. For
example, if an error with respect to a requirement of § 1.290 is of
such a nature that the content of the third-party submission can still
be readily ascertained (e.g., a U.S. patent is identified by the
correct patent number and issue date but the name of the first named
inventor is clearly misspelled), the Office may have enough information
to be able to enter the third-party submission into the record despite
the error. However, the determination of whether to enter or not to
enter a partially compliant submission with respect to a requirement of
§ 1.290 will be on a case-by-case basis and at the sole discretion
of the Office (e.g., the Office may decline to enter a third-party
submission listing a U.S. patent whose patent number does not match
Office records with respect to that patent number's issue date and/or
first named inventor). The Office's dedicated Web-based interface for
filing third-party submissions electronically permits third parties to
verify the accuracy of some of the information in the submission prior
to its filing. Thus, third parties are strongly encouraged to avail
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 85 |
themselves of this feature to better ensure compliance with 35 U.S.C.
122(e) and § 1.290.
Comment 46: Several comments suggested the Office waive any
informality in a third-party submission, or give the submitter an
opportunity, such as a non-extendable one-month period, to either
explain why the submission was not defective or to correct the
submission. One comment stated that the Office has authority to
consider the statutory period to be tolled by an initial non-compliant
submission, as it does under the provisions of § 1.135(c).
Response: Where a third-party submitter is notified of a non-
compliant third-party submission, the party will have an opportunity to
make a resubmission if the statutory time period for making a third-
party submission has not yet expired. The Office will not provide the
third-party submitter a non-extendable time period in which to make a
correction as such a practice would delay the prosecution of the
application and could potentially be used by third parties as a
mechanism for delaying prosecution. Similarly, the filing of a non-
compliant third-party submission will not toll the statutory time
period for making submissions. The Office cannot toll the statutory
time period for third-party submissions that fail to comply with
statutory requirements. Further, the Office will not toll the time
period for making a third-party submission where a submission complies
with the statute but does not comply with a requirement of § 1.290
because the Office does not want to introduce a delay in the prosecution
of an application to wait for a third party who may, or may not, make
the necessary correction. Accordingly, third parties are advised not to
delay in making third-party submissions to increase the likelihood of
having sufficient time to make a resubmission should the original
submission be found non-compliant. The Office intends to notify third
parties of non-compliant submissions as soon as reasonably practicable.
Comment 47: Several comments favored eliminating the Office's
proposed "gatekeeper function" (i.e., screening third-party
submissions for compliance) and instead relying upon "self-policing"
pursuant to the statement of compliance under proposed § 1.290(d)(5)(ii),
as being subject to § 11.18(b), to discourage unauthorized filings. These
comments also asserted that overly strict screening may prevent an
examiner from considering relevant documents, and that screening will not
fully protect applicants from obtaining knowledge of non-compliant
submissions. Instead of a costly review process, one comment suggested
limiting the number of third-party submissions that a single party (or
parties in privity with the third party) may submit to promote prompt
entry of third-party submissions while preventing individual third parties
from making excessive submissions.
Response: By screening third-party submissions for compliance
before entry into the record of an application, the Office is affording
some protection to applicants against entry of non-compliant
submissions that might trigger a duty of disclosure on the part of the
applicant to independently file such information in an IDS. Such
screening is merely an extension of the screening the Office already
performs for submissions under § 1.291 (and previously performed
for submissions under § 1.99). Further, such screening should
encourage third parties to file better quality third-party submissions,
with fewer errors, than under the proposed "self-policing" approach.
5. Submissions in Abandoned Applications
Comment 48: One comment suggested the Office should give more
consideration to requests to revive applications that were abandoned
during the time period when third parties could make third-party
submissions because some applicants might abandon their applications to
discourage third-party submissions.
Response: The statute does not preclude third parties from making
submissions in abandoned applications. Third parties having documents
relevant to an abandoned application, therefore, should cite these
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 86 |
documents to the Office via a compliant third-party submission since
the application eventually may be revived and the submission considered.
Comment 49: One comment suggested the Office not permit entry of
third-party submissions into the record of abandoned applications
because it wastes Office resources to screen such submissions for
compliance and places too much burden on applicants to monitor
abandoned application records if the Office does not notify them when
compliant submissions are entered. Another comment suggested the Office
only enter third-party submissions into the record of abandoned
applications under certain circumstances, such as when the Office's
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system indicates that a
continuing application or a petition to revive has been filed, thereby
shifting the burden to third parties to monitor the application in that
regard.
Response: 35 U.S.C. 122(e) permits preissuance submissions to be
filed in an application, whether the application is pending or
abandoned. Because the Office intends to notify applicants
participating in the e-Office action program of the entry of compliant
third-party submissions into an application, whether pending or
abandoned, these applicants should not need to monitor their abandoned
application files for entry of such submissions.
Comment 50: One comment requested clarification regarding examiner
consideration of third-party submissions made in abandoned
applications. While the notice of proposed rulemaking states that an
examiner would not consider such submission until the abandoned
application resumes a pending status, the comment questioned whether,
in reviewing an abandoned parent application for pertinent prior art
with respect to a pending child application pursuant to MPEP
§ 707.05, an examiner would be required to consider any third-party
submission that was entered into the parent application after it was
abandoned.
Response: In reviewing an abandoned parent application for
pertinent prior art with respect to a pending child application
pursuant to MPEP § 707.05, an examiner should consider any third-
party submission that was entered into the parent application after it
was abandoned.
I. Duty on Applicant
1. Duty of Disclosure
Comment 51: Several comments suggested deleting any references in
proposed § 1.290(h) to an applicant's duty under § 1.56 because
such references could be interpreted as waiving the duty of disclosure
or, alternatively, revising proposed § 1.290(h) to make it clear
that applicants are not relieved of their duty under § 1.56.
Several of these comments gave examples of where non-compliant third-
party submissions may trigger an applicant's duty under § 1.56.
Another comment suggested the rule explicitly provide that a third-
party submission imposes no duty on an applicant (e.g., to correct or
otherwise review its contents). Further, to the extent proposed
§ 1.290(h) implies that applicants may be required to reply to a third-
party submission under some circumstances, several comments suggested
amending proposed § 1.290(h) to reflect that applicants are not
required to reply to a third-party submission.
Response: Section 1.290(h), as proposed, states that in the absence
of any request by the Office, an applicant has no duty to, and need
not, reply to a third-party submission under § 1.290 by a third
party. The Office's intent in utilizing the term "duty" in proposed
§ 1.290(h) was not to incorporate a statement relative to the duty
of disclosure under § 1.56. Rather, the Office's use of the term
"duty" was in keeping with the general concept that applicants need
not comment on third-party submissions based solely on the presence of
such submissions. This concept was articulated in the rule by providing
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 87 |
that there is no general requirement that applicants reply to third-
party submissions. In view of the controversy generated by the use of
the term "duty" in the proposed rule, the section has been revised in
this final rule to delete its use.
Comment 52: One comment suggested amending the statement under
proposed § 1.290(d)(5)(i) to include individuals who are in privity
with an individual who has a duty to disclose information with respect
to the application under § 1.56. Another comment recommended
providing instructions to the general public regarding the statement
under proposed § 1.290(d)(5)(i) because non-practitioners may be
unfamiliar with the duty of disclosure.
Response: Section 1.290(d)(5)(i) requires a statement by the third-
party submitter that the submitter is not a § 1.56(c) party with a duty
to disclose information with respect to the application for which the
third-party submission is intended. The requirement is present to exclude
applicants and other § 1.56(c) parties from filing information in the
application via § 1.290 rather than using the required means of an
information disclosure statement under §§ 1.97 and 1.98. The Office
declines the invitation to extend the prohibition beyond those parties
who already have a duty to disclose material information to the Office
under § 1.56.
Guidance regarding who has a duty to disclose, i.e., a § 1.56(c)
party, can be found in MPEP § 2001.01, and the use of the rule section is
itself self-defining.
J. Information Technology (IT) Issues
1. Electronic Filing
Comment 53: One comment suggested requiring that all third-party
submissions be filed electronically.
Response: While it would be most efficient for third parties to
file third-party submissions electronically, the Office is not
requiring all third-party submissions be filed electronically, as doing
so would be contrary to Article 8 of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), which
requires an Office to accept a filing in paper for purposes of
complying with a time limit.
Comment 54: One comment suggested the Office separate the listing
of documents from the copies of submitted documents so that identifying
bibliographical information in the listing of documents is visible in
the IFW even when the copies of submitted non-patent literature (NPL)
documents are not visible in the IFW.
Response: The Office will separate the § 1.290(d)(1) document
list from the copies of the documents in the IFW when entering
compliant third-party submissions under § 1.290. The Office
currently employs such a practice when entering IDS submissions under
§ 1.98.
2. Protect Applicants From Unauthorized Submissions
Comment 55: Several comments urged the Office to exercise
precautions to protect applications from unauthorized third-party
submissions in applications. Another comment asserted that third
parties should be encouraged to use EFS-Web to make third-party
submissions, but the Office should alter the EFS software to prevent
third-party submissions from being directly entered into the IFW
without first being reviewed for compliance.
Response: The Office has developed a dedicated Web-based interface
for third parties to submit third-party submissions electronically.
This dedicated electronic interface is available as an option in EFS-
Web and is designed so that third-party submissions under § 1.290
are first screened for compliance with the statute and the rule before
being entered into an application file. While this interface will
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 88 |
identify submissions for screening before the submissions are sent to
the examiner, the Office cannot guarantee that such a system will
entirely prevent parties from making unauthorized submissions. Further,
while the Office could limit third-party submissions to paper and
perform manual screening of each incoming paper to determine whether it
is a proper paper, such a system would require intensive resources, and
lack the efficiencies and benefits of electronic filing using the
Office's dedicated interface. Additionally, limiting submissions to
paper only would not entirely eliminate the risk of an unauthorized
submission being entered into an application due to inadvertent human
error in a manual screening process.
3. Reduce Untimely Third-Party Submissions
Comment 56: A number of comments suggested IT enhancements to
prevent or drastically reduce the possibility of untimely third-party
submissions. Several of these comments suggested the Office include a
feature in EFS-Web or the Office's Patent Application Information
Retrieval (PAIR) system that automatically notifies third parties when
an application is no longer eligible to receive third-party
submissions. One comment suggested providing notice to the examiner
when a third-party submission is made in the time period between the
posting of an Office action to be mailed and the actual mailing date of
the Office action.
Response: As a feature of its dedicated Web-based interface for
electronically filing preissuance submissions, the Office plans to
automatically prevent a third party from making a third-party
submission in an application after the time periods for submission have
expired for that application. With respect to providing notice to
examiners, examiners will be notified upon entry of a compliant third-
party submission in an application that they are examining. On the rare
occasion of a third-party submission being filed after preparation of
an Office action but before the mailing of the Office action,
notification of the entry of a compliant third-party submission in the
application will not necessarily delay the mailing of the Office
action. Such submissions will be handled the same way IDS submissions
are handled under similar circumstances.
4. Other Proposed System Enhancements
Comment 57: One comment suggested making available in the Office's
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system a "first action
prediction" estimate of when the first Office action is expected to be
issued, and that such estimate might be provided only after the six-
month window from publication has elapsed.
Response: The Office already provides a tool that permits third
parties and applicants to check current estimates on how long it will
take for a first Office action to issue in a patent application according
to the Group Art Unit in which the application has been docketed or by
class and subclass associated with the application. This "First Office
Action Estimator" tool is available on the Office's Web site at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/first_office_action_estimator.jsp.
Accordingly, the Office does not plan to implement an additional feature
in PAIR at this time to specifically address third-party submissions under
§ 1.290. Additionally, third parties are encouraged to file third-party
submissions as early as possible rather than delay a submission based upon
a predicted first Office action date. Any first Office action prediction
for an application would merely operate as an estimate and would not be a
binding date or otherwise provide assurance to a third party that a
submission would be accepted if an Office action was mailed before the
estimated date.
Comment 58: One comment suggested EFS-Web identify the earliest-
claimed priority date of an application so an interested third party
can identify whether a document is prior art.
Response: In general, the Office does not make a determination
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 89 |
regarding earliest effective filing date until such determination is
necessary to evaluate the patentability of the claims. Additionally,
the determination of the earliest-claimed priority date of an
application is a highly fact-specific inquiry that is not fully
amenable to performance by an automated algorithm. Furthermore, it
would not be desirable for third parties to delay submissions until the
Office would provide such a date, which is subject to change if, for
instance, applicant introduces new priority or benefit claims or amends
the claims in such a manner as to affect whether the claims are
supported by the disclosures of the claimed priority or benefit
documents. Also, determination of the earliest-claimed priority date of
an application would not be necessary where a third-party is submitting
a document that is not prior art. For these reasons, the Office has no
plans at this time to modify EFS-Web to identify the earliest-claimed
priority or benefit date of an application for third-party submission
purposes.
Comment 59: One comment suggested the Office provide an automated
means for third parties to check whether a document has been made of
record in an application, making it convenient for the third party to
review any associated descriptions of relevance so the third party can
avoid making a cumulative submission. The comment also suggested the
Office automatically flag documents in the IFW that have been submitted
more than once in an application and make the associated descriptions
of relevance for these documents easily accessible to examiners.
Response: Since an interested third party can review a published
application's file history using the Office's public Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system (e.g., to view a document list
previously submitted in a third-party submission by another third
party), the Office does not deem an automated system that would
identify whether a particular document was previously made of record in
the application to be necessary at this time. Further, third parties
may use the concise description of relevance to bring to the examiner's
attention whether a particular document being submitted was previously
made of record in the application.
L. Other Rules
1. 37 CFR 1.99
Comment 60: Some comments suggested the Office retain § 1.99 because
some third parties might still want to make a submission without providing
a concise description of relevance as required by proposed §§ 1.290(d)(2)
and 1.291(c)(2). In this regard, one of these comments recommended the time
for making a submission under § 1.99 be amended to be the same as that for
proposed § 1.290.
Response: In implementing new 35 U.S.C. 122(e), Congress provided that
preissuance submissions by third parties must set forth a concise
description of relevance of each document submitted. Thus, to maintain
§ 1.99, which does not require concise descriptions of relevance, would be
in conflict with the statute.
2. 37 CFR 1.291
Comment 61: One comment proposed removing § 1.291 along with §§ 1.99 and
1.292 on the basis that § 1.291 is unnecessary and contrary to Congressional
intent. The comment asserted that § 1.291 is ultra vires because it permits
submission of evidence concerning inequitable conduct that is not
statutorily authorized under 35 U.S.C. 122(e), which refers solely to
submission of printed publications. The comment further asserted that
§ 1.291 imposes obligations that conflict with those under § 1.290 because
35 U.S.C. 122(e) will require a concise description of relevance
regardless of whether the application has been published, yet 35 U.S.C.
122(c) still does not allow post-publication protests without the
applicant's consent.
Response: Protests pursuant to § 1.291 are supported by a
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 90 |
separate statutory provision, 35 U.S.C. 122(c), which implies the
availability of submitting a protest in an application prior to
publication, absent the applicant's consent. Further, § 1.291 is
not deemed duplicative or unnecessary because it permits the submission
of information that is not permitted in a third-party submission under
§ 1.290. For example, in addition to printed publications, under
§ 1.291, a third party can submit information other than printed
publications, as well as present arguments regarding the patentability
of the claims of the application.
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: This final rule changes the rules
of practice concerning the procedure for filing third-party
submissions. The changes in this final rule concern the patent
application process and do not change the substantive criteria of
patentability. Therefore, the changes in this final rule are merely
procedural and/or interpretive. See Bachow Communs., Inc. v. FCC, 237
F.3d 683, 690 (DC 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); Nat'l Org. of Veterans'
Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is
interpretive).
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are
not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law) and
are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (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)). The Office,
however, published proposed changes and a Regulatory Flexibility Act
certification for comment as it sought the benefit of the public's
views on the Office's proposed implementation of this provision of the
AIA. The Office received no comments on the Regulatory Flexibility Act
certification.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the reasons set forth herein,
the Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that changes in this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). This final rule changes the rules of
practice to implement section 8 of the AIA, which provides a mechanism
for third parties to submit to the Office, for consideration and
inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patents, published
patent applications, or other printed publications of potential
relevance to the examination of the application.
The changes in this final rule concern requirements for third
parties submitting patents, published patent applications, or other
printed publications in a patent application. The burden to all
entities, including small entities, imposed by these rules is a minor
addition to that of the current regulations for third-party submissions
under § 1.99. Consistent with the current regulations, the Office
will continue to require third parties filing submissions to, for
example, file a listing of the documents submitted along with a copy of
each document, with minor additional formatting requirements.
Additional requirements in this final rule are requirements of statute
(e.g., the concise explanation) and thus the sole means of
accomplishing the purpose of the statute. Because of the expanded scope
of submissions under this rulemaking and additional requirements by
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 91 |
statute, the Office believes this will take a total of 10 hours at a
cost of $3710 per submission. Furthermore, the Office estimates that no
more than 730 small entity third parties will make third-party
submissions per year. Therefore, the changes in this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
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; (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 effect 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.), the United States Patent and Trademark
Office will submit a report containing this final rule and other
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 92 |
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 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).
L. 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 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 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 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 final rule makes changes to the rules of practice that
impact existing information collection requirements previously approved
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number
0651-0062. Accordingly, the Office submitted a proposed revision to the
information collection requirements under 0651-0062 to OMB for its
review and approval when the notice of proposed rulemaking was
published. The Office also published the title, description, and
respondent description of the information collection, with an estimate
of the annual reporting burdens, in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(See Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submission by Third Parties
Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 455-56). The
Office did not receive any comments on the proposed revision to the
information collection requirements under 0651-0062. The changes
adopted in this final rule do not require any further change to the
proposed revision to the information collection requirements under
0651-0062. Accordingly, the Office has resubmitted the proposed
revision to the information collection requirements under 0651-0062 to
OMB. The proposed revision to the information collection requirements
under 0651-0062 is available at OMB's Information Collection Review Web
site (www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain).
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
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 93 |
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of information,
Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses, and Biologics.
37 CFR Part 41
Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents, Lawyers.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR parts 1 and 41
are 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 1.6 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
§ 1.6 Receipt of correspondence.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Correspondence which cannot receive the benefit of the certificate of
mailing or transmission as specified in § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(A) through (D), (F),
and (I), and § 1.8(a)(2)(iii)(A), except that a continued prosecution
application under § 1.53(d) may be transmitted to the Office by facsimile;
* * * * *
.3. Section 1.8 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), and by
adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(B) and (a)(2)(i)(G) through (a)(2)(i)(J),
to read as follows:
§ 1.8 Certificate of mailing or transmission.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Papers filed in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
which are governed by § 42.6(b) of this title;
(C) Papers filed in contested cases before the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board, which are governed by § 41.106 (f) of this title;
* * * * *
(G) The filing of a written declaration of abandonment under § 1.138;
(H) The filing of a submission under § 1.217 for publication of
a redacted copy of an application;
(I) The filing of a third-party submission under § 1.290; and
(J) The calculation of any period of adjustment, as specified in
§ 1.703(f).
* * * * *
.4. Section 1.17 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (j) and
revising paragraph (p) to read as follows:
§ 1.17 Patent application and reexamination processing fees.
* * * * *
(j) [Reserved]
* * * * *
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 94 |
(p) For an information disclosure statement under § 1.97(c) or
(d) or for the document fee for a submission under § 1.290 - $180.00
* * * * *
§ 1.99 [Removed and reserved]
.5. Section 1.99 is removed and reserved.
.6. An undesignated center heading before § 1.290 is added to read
as follows:
PREISSUANCE SUBMISSIONS AND PROTESTS BY THIRD PARTIES
.7. Section 1.290 is added to read as follows:
§ 1.290 Submissions by third parties in applications.
(a) A third party may submit, for consideration and entry in the
record of a patent application, any patents, published patent
applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to
the examination of the application if the submission is made in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and this section. A third-party
submission may not be entered or considered by the Office if any part
of the submission is not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 122(e) and this
section.
(b) Any third-party submission under this section must be filed
prior to the earlier of:
(1) The date a notice of allowance under § 1.311 is given or
mailed in the application; or
(2) The later of:
(i) Six months after the date on which the application is first
published by the Office under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) and § 1.211, or
(ii) The date the first rejection under § 1.104 of any claim by
the examiner is given or mailed during the examination of the application.
(c) Any third-party submission under this section must be made in
writing.
(d) Any third-party submission under this section must include:
(1) A document list identifying the documents, or portions of
documents, being submitted in accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section;
(2) A concise description of the asserted relevance of each item
identified in the document list;
(3) A legible copy of each item identified in the document list,
other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications;
(4) An English language translation of any non-English language
item identified in the document list; and
(5) A statement by the party making the submission that:
(i) The party is not an individual who has a duty to disclose
information with respect to the application under § 1.56; and
(ii) The submission complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
122(e) and this section.
(e) The document list required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section
must include a heading that identifies the list as a third-party
submission under § 1.290, identify on each page of the list the
application number of the application in which the submission is being
filed, list U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications in a
separate section from other items, and identify each:
(1) U.S. patent by patent number, first named inventor, and issue
date;
(2) U.S. patent application publication by patent application
publication number, first named inventor, and publication date;
(3) Foreign patent or published foreign patent application by the
country or patent office that issued the patent or published the
application; the applicant, patentee, or first named inventor; an
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 95 |
appropriate document number; and the publication date indicated on the
patent or published application; and
(4) Non-patent publication by author (if any), title, pages being
submitted, publication date, and, where available, publisher and place
of publication. If no publication date is known, the third party must
provide evidence of publication.
(f) Any third-party submission under this section must be
accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(p) for every ten items
or fraction thereof identified in the document list.
(g) The fee otherwise required by paragraph (f) of this section is
not required for a submission listing three or fewer total items that
is accompanied by a statement by the party making the submission that,
to the knowledge of the person signing the statement after making
reasonable inquiry, the submission is the first and only submission
under 35 U.S.C. 122(e) filed in the application by the party or a party
in privity with the party.
(h) In the absence of a request by the Office, an applicant need
not reply to a submission under this section.
(i) The provisions of § 1.8 do not apply to the time periods
set forth in this section.
.8. The undesignated center heading before § 1.291 is removed.
.9. Section 1.291 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory
text, (b)(1), (c)(1) through (c)(4), and (f) to read as follows:
§ 1.291 Protests by the public against pending applications.
* * * * *
(b) The protest will be entered into the record of the application
if, in addition to complying with paragraph (c) of this section, the
protest has been served upon the applicant in accordance with § 1.248,
or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is
not possible; and, except for paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the
protest was filed prior to the date the application was published under
§ 1.211, or the date a notice of allowance under § 1.311 was
given or mailed, whichever occurs first:
(1) If a protest is accompanied by the written consent of the
applicant, the protest will be considered if the protest is filed prior
to the date a notice of allowance under § 1.311 is given or mailed
in the application.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) An information list of the documents, portions of documents, or
other information being submitted, where each:
(i) U.S. patent is identified by patent number, first named
inventor, and issue date;
(ii) U.S. patent application publication is identified by patent
application publication number, first named inventor, and publication
date;
(iii) Foreign patent or published foreign patent application is
identified by the country or patent office that issued the patent or
published the application; an appropriate document number; the
applicant, patentee, or first named inventor; and the publication date
indicated on the patent or published application;
(iv) Non-patent publication is identified by author (if any),
title, pages being submitted, publication date, and, where available,
publisher and place of publication; and
(v) Item of other information is identified by date, if known.
(2) A concise explanation of the relevance of each item identified
in the information list pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
(3) A legible copy of each item identified in the information list,
other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications;
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 96 |
(4) An English language translation of any non-English language
item identified in the information list; and
* * * * *
(f) In the absence of a request by the Office, an applicant need
not reply to a protest.
* * * * *
§ 1.292 [Removed and reserved]
.10. Section 1.292 is removed and reserved.
PART 41 - PRACTICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
.11. The authority citation for 37 CFR Part 41 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 3(a)(2)(A), 21, 23, 32, 41, 132,
133, 134, 135, 306, and 315.
.12. Section 41.202 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
§ 41.202 Suggesting an interference.
* * * * *
(b) Patentee. A patentee cannot suggest an interference under this
section but may, to the extent permitted under § 1.291 of this
title, alert the examiner of an application claiming interfering
subject matter to the possibility of an interference.
* * * * *
June 21, 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. 8,214,924 to Ronnie Michael Ekelund, et al
of Monte Sereno, CA for NURSING COVER appearing in the Official Gazette of
July 103, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,214,990 to Eddie C. Denning of Alice, TX
for TIE DOWN STRAP ROLLUP DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of July
10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,214,998 to Yvonne Claire Durandet, et al
of Victoria, Australia for A METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR JOINING METAL USING
SELF-PIERCING RIVETS WITH PREHEATING appearing in the Official Gazette of
July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,215,715 to Peter P. Kujawa, et al of
Howell, MI for DEPLOYABLE/STOWABLE SEAT MOUNTED SEAT BELT WEBBING COMFORT
GUIDE appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,215,849 to Kunihiko Fujiwara, et al of
sakura-Shi, Japan for CONNECTOR HOLDER, OPTICAL-ELECTRICAL CONVERTER WITH
ATTACHED CONNECTOR HOLDER, OPTICAL CONNECTOR FIXING STRUCTURE AND CONNECTOR
HOLDER ASSEMBLY METHOD appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,216,316 to Christopher P. Roche, et al
of Gainesville, FL for MOTION INDUCING REVERSE SHOULDER ASSEMBLY appearing
in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,216,348 to Junya Ishida, et al of Saitama,
Japan for SELECTIVELY PERMEABLE MATERIAL, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SELECTIVELY
PERMEABLE MEMBRANE STRCUTURE, SELECTIVELY PERMEABLE MEMBRANE STRUCTURE, AND
AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,216,387 to Shunsuke Saitou of Kanagawa,
Japan for SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS
appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,216,538 to Alain Turenne, et al of
Kitchener, Canada for METHOD OF PURIFYING SILICON UTILIZING CASCADING
PROCESS appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,216,824 to Catherine Asleson Dundon, et
al of Englewood, CO for METHODS OF INCREASING DIHYROXY ACID DEHYDRATASE
ACTIVITY TO IMPROVE PRODUCTION OF FUELS, CHEMICALS, AND AMINO ACIDS
appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,217,250 to Rich Gossweiler, et al of
Sunnyvale, CA for SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMIC, FEATURE-BASED PLAYLIST
GENERATION appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,217,273 to Yoichi Kubota, et al of
Pleasanton, CA for METHOD OF MAKING A CONNECTION COMPONENT WITH POSTS AND
PADS appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,217,451 to Kazutoyo Takano of Chiyoda-Ku,
Japan for SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 98 |
appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,217,485 to Tetsuo Hatakeyama of Kanagawa,
Japan for SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of July
10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,217,549 to Koji Yabe, et al of Chiyoda-Ku,
Japan for INDUCTION MOTOR ROTOR CORE HAVING SHAPED SLOTS appearing in the
Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,217,765 to Takeshi Nagai of Tokorozawa-
Shi, Japan for PORTABLE ELECTRONICS AND SENSING METHOD appearing in the
Official Gazette of Julu 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,217,963 to James C. Finger, et al of
Kirkland, WA for RENDERING AND COMPOSITING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONA IN A
INTERACTIVE MEDIA ENVIRONMENT appearing in the Official Gazette of July
10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,217,971 to Fumitomo Yamasaki, et al of
Nara, Japan for OPTICAL DISC LABEL PRINTER, THERMOSENSITIVE RECORDING
PRINTER AND THERMOSENSITIVE RECORDING METHOD appearing in the Official
Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,218,231 to Setsuo Yoshida of Kawasaki,
Japan for WAVEFORM SHAPING CIRCUIT AND OPTICAL SWITCHING DEVICE appearing
in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,218,399 to Andrew K. Morozov, et al of
Falmouth, MA for GAS-FILLED BUBBLE SOUND SOURCE appearing in the Official
Gazette of July 03, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,218,556 to Xuejiang Zhang, et al of
Shenzhen, China for RELIABILITY PROCESSING METHODS AND SYSTEMS IN THE
NETWORKING OF METRO ETHERNET NETWORK PROVIDING MULTI-SERVICE appearing in
the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,218,603 to Bin Li of Shenzhen, China for
SIMPLE AND ROBUST DIGITAL CODE TRACJING LOOP FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,219,225 to Gilbert Arthur Joseph Soulodre
of Kanata, Canada for SYSTEM FOR MODIFYING AS ACOUSTIC SPACE WITH AUDIO
SOURCE CONTENT appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,219,530 to Roy P. D'Souza, et al of
Santa Clara, CA for ENTERPRISE SERVER VERSION MIGRATION THROUGH INDENTITY
PRESERVATION appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,219,735 to David G. Engelhardt, et al of
Canton, CT for COMBINATION ELECTRONIC DEVICE DOCK AND DISSINFECTOR appearing
in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All refernec to Patent No. 8,219,841 to Ludger Mimberg, et al of San
Jose, CA for METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING POWER TO A PROCESSING
UNIT appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 99 |
"All reference to Patent No. 8,219,884 to Johnathan Thatcher, et al of
Liberty Lake, WA for APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR USING MULTI-LEVEL
CELL SOLID-STATE STORAGE AS SINGLE-LEVEL CELL SOLID-STATE STORAGE appearing
in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No, 8,219,915 to Sandy Yu, et al of Sunnyvale,
CA for MEIDA TIMELINE INTERACTION appearing in the Official Gazette of
July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,219,973 to Zhen Liu, et al of Tarrytown,
NY for METHOD OF RECOVERING FROM SOFTWARE FAILURES USING REPLANNING
appearing in the Official Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,220,024 to Mark Kenneth Eyer of
Woodinville, WA for NON-REAL TIME SERVICES appearing in the Official
Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,220,025 to Mark Kenneth Eyer of
Woodinville, WA for NON-REAL TIME SERVICES appearing in the Official
Gazette of July 10, 2012 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
| Certificates of Correction |
Certificates of Correction
for July 17, 2012
6,048,472 7,962,187 8,108,484 8,156,494
6,321,984 7,964,308 8,110,509 8,156,688
6,547,133 7,966,205 8,111,438 8,158,016
6,713,446 7,966,476 8,114,804 8,160,955
6,778,515 7,966,656 8,114,904 8,161,035
6,889,579 7,969,853 8,116,485 8,161,465
6,890,357 7,970,222 8,118,768 8,161,669
6,958,319 7,971,029 8,118,836 8,161,696
7,011,075 7,977,156 8,119,210 8,161,851
7,033,752 7,982,509 8,119,919 8,162,153
7,045,322 7,986,002 8,120,730 8,162,201
7,135,437 7,988,862 8,121,626 8,162,283
7,208,646 7,991,811 8,124,292 8,162,487
7,232,094 7,993,479 8,124,390 8,163,492
7,256,029 7,998,851 8,124,541 8,163,793
7,260,917 7,999,371 8,124,608 8,165,343
7,293,098 8,005,216 8,124,980 8,165,575
7,337,138 8,008,278 8,125,721 8,165,620
7,396,822 8,008,481 8,125,989 8,165,671
7,400,289 8,010,830 8,126,075 8,165,970
7,432,048 8,013,152 8,128,243 8,166,622
7,456,928 8,014,119 8,128,562 8,167,138
7,498,040 8,015,254 8,128,779 8,170,357
7,500,027 8,018,902 8,131,234 8,170,414
7,513,015 8,019,024 8,131,432 8,170,755
7,514,399 8,022,521 8,132,643 8,170,827
7,517,744 8,023,731 8,133,178 8,171,011
7,528,282 8,024,510 8,133,203 8,171,021
7,529,868 8,031,690 8,133,404 8,171,163
7,531,174 8,032,180 8,134,254 8,171,802
7,573,375 8,032,824 8,134,554 8,172,347
7,580,715 8,036,253 8,135,241 8,172,747
7,591,467 8,038,766 8,136,483 8,173,869
7,605,747 8,041,074 8,137,380 8,174,221
7,610,077 8,041,655 8,138,157 8,174,981
7,625,519 8,043,849 8,139,363 8,176,032
7,641,254 8,044,212 8,143,365 8,176,463
7,649,532 8,044,607 8,144,064 8,177,387
7,650,241 8,044,792 8,144,543 8,177,497
7,656,956 8,045,289 8,144,995 8,177,875
7,660,453 8,045,990 8,145,184 8,178,043
7,679,724 8,046,514 8,145,243 8,178,151
7,689,064 8,046,813 8,145,341 8,179,614
7,694,651 8,046,825 8,145,372 8,181,428
7,695,924 8,046,902 8,145,641 8,181,592
7,701,937 8,047,199 8,145,642 8,181,788
7,706,337 8,048,136 8,145,680 8,183,038
7,707,407 8,048,377 8,145,714 8,183,605
7,715,356 8,048,859 8,145,806 8,183,687
7,740,849 8,049,541 8,145,859 8,183,932
7,745,097 8,050,452 8,145,940 8,184,206
7,748,960 8,051,089 8,146,074 8,184,460
7,764,541 8,051,354 8,146,348 8,185,430
7,768,370 8,051,491 8,146,530 8,187,020
7,775,763 8,052,318 8,146,714 8,187,281
7,792,097 8,053,897 8,146,762 8,188,069
7,792,392 8,056,109 8,147,012 8,188,079
7,794,719 8,057,440 8,147,550 8,188,110
7,794,747 8,060,476 8,147,614 8,188,139
7,794,986 8,062,272 8,147,852 8,188,304
7,802,653 8,062,649 8,147,871 8,188,557
7,807,842 8,065,363 8,148,114 8,188,631
| August 7, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1381 OG 101 |
7,807,973 8,067,247 8,148,334 8,190,125
7,839,800 8,067,364 8,148,510 8,190,201
7,844,557 8,068,511 8,148,631 8,190,410
7,851,108 8,069,006 8,149,024 8,191,105
7,855,358 8,069,026 8,149,080 8,191,537
7,856,779 8,069,124 8,149,208 8,191,920
7,857,219 8,071,622 8,149,581 8,192,292
7,860,764 8,076,014 8,150,078 8,192,659
7,872,158 8,077,912 8,150,499 8,200,018
7,873,596 8,083,861 8,150,824 8,200,504
7,876,868 8,084,647 8,150,969 D. 603,871
7,887,779 8,085,879 8,151,027 D. 606,964
7,898,188 8,088,736 8,151,029 D. 636,321
7,901,983 8,090,376 8,151,253 D. 649,577
7,902,234 8,090,414 8,151,279 D. 653,109
7,904,516 8,090,619 8,151,376 D. 654,167
7,916,455 8,090,783 8,151,930 D. 657,216
7,919,497 8,091,947 8,152,054 D. 657,584
7,922,658 8,095,237 8,152,513 D. 659,726
7,925,523 8,096,690 8,152,623 D. 660,007
7,935,106 8,098,453 8,152,821 D. 660,014
7,936,907 8,098,635 8,152,836 PP. 22,289
7,943,658 8,099,742 8,153,032 RE. 41,568
7,946,372 8,103,856 8,154,788 RE. 43,146
7,951,770 8,104,277 8,156,145 RE. 43,152
7,956,166 8,106,892 8,156,377 RE. 43,289
7,956,843 8,106,972 8,156,478
7,958,067 8,107,875 8,156,492
| Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
July 2 – July 6, 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 |
| 7-2 |
OPP (SJ)
|
91154103 |
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha a/k/a Sharp Corporation v. Dell Inc. |
Seeherman Bergsman Shaw [Opinion "By the Board" (Dunn)] |
2(d), 43(c), preclusion |
Opposition Dismissed (applicant’s motion granted on preclusion) |
SHARP (fourteen registrations) [various electronic goods and services, including computer monitors] |
ULTRASHARP [computer monitors] |
|
No |
| 7-2 |
CANC (R) |
92023939 |
American Computer Associates, Inc. v. Model American Computer Corporation |
Grendel Bergsman Ritchie*
|
14(3) Abandonment |
Petition to Cancel Denied (Reconsideration Denied) |
MODEL AMERICAN [computer products] |
MODEL AMERICAN [computer hardware, namely processor, keyboard, monitor and memory unit and computer utility programs] |
|
No |
| 7-2 |
EX |
76699839 |
Airborne Athletics, Inc. |
Seeherman Lykos* Kuczma |
2(d) |
Refusal Reversed |
|
DRILL WIZARD [athletic training equipment, namely, computerized controls sold as a component of ball-delivery training machines for setting up and executing machine assisted training routines for ball sports] |
SHOT WIZARD [basketball training devices, namely, devices for placing over basketball rims to aid in shot training] |
No |
| 7-5 |
EX |
85171209 |
Shurtech Brands, LLC |
Kuhlke Taylor
Shaw* |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
SHAPE [painter’s masking tapes in roll, sheet and pad form for use in painting interior building walls and woodwork] |
SHAPE [paints and lacquers] |
No |
| 7-5 |
EX |
77663407 |
Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc. |
Quinn* Bucher Wolfson
|
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
I-BID LIVE [providing real-time online auction services, namely allowing potential buyers of salvage vehicles to bid in real time over the internet along with other live and internet bidders] |
IBID MOTORS (and design) [computerized on-line retail store services in the fields of automotive collectibles, memorabilia, and apparel; organization of internet auctions] |
No |
| 7-5 |
OPP
CANC |
91184047
92054337 |
Farmaco-Logica B.V. v. The TriZetto Group, Inc.
The TriZetto Group, Inc. v. Farmaco-Logica B.V. |
Bucher Kuhlke
Taylor [Opinion "By the Board" (Pologeorgis)] |
Abandonment (of registered mark, in cancellation case) |
Petition to Cancel Denied (Respondent motion for summary judgment granted) |
|
PHACET [central processing units and data processors for reproducing, storing and archiving data in health care; computers, peripherals and software for recording patient health data] [instruction manuals and training brochures, sold with software, on the use of software and devices in health care] [computer programming in the health care field, and design and development of computer systems and software for health care] |
|
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.
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 corresponcence other
than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)).
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.
Information for addressing trademark-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 mail 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.
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, or by
facsimile, payments of maintenance fees in patents should be mailed through
the United States Postal Service.
Mailing address if paying with a check or money order:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979070
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Mailing address if paying by credit card or deposit account (or by hand-
delivery):
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Attn.: Maintenance Fees
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Information about the Maintenance Fee Branch may also be found on the
USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/cfo/finance/receipts_
division.jsp.
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
Or
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Attn.: Deposit Accounts
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
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 (952) 847-8000
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 |
12/18/2010 |
| |
1620 |
12/27/2010 |
| |
1630 |
12/21/2010 |
| |
1640 |
02/11/2011 |
| |
1650 |
11/14/2010 |
| |
1660 |
04/25/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
12/27/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 1700 |
CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND DESIGNS |
| |
1710 |
06/12/2010 |
| |
1720 |
07/07/2010 |
| |
1730 |
11/17/2010 |
| |
1740 |
11/14/2010 |
| |
1750 |
08/30/2010 |
| |
1760 |
01/20/2011 |
| |
1770 |
10/12/2010 |
| |
1780 |
09/05/2010 |
| |
1790 |
04/15/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
09/27/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 2100 |
COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOFTWARE |
| |
2110 |
06/24/2010 |
| |
2120 |
05/04/2010 |
| |
2140 |
03/25/2010 |
| |
2150 |
12/03/2010 |
| |
2160 |
01/11/2011 |
| |
2170 |
06/21/2010 |
| |
2180 |
04/28/2010 |
| |
2190 |
08/27/2009 |
| |
TOTAL |
06/12/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 2400 |
NETWORKING, MULTIPLEXING, CABLE AND SECURITY |
| |
2420 |
03/19/2010 |
| |
2430 |
05/25/2010 |
| |
2440 |
08/09/2010 |
| |
2450 |
07/13/2010 |
| |
2460 |
02/17/2010 |
| |
2470 |
02/26/2010 |
| |
2480 |
12/21/2009 |
| |
2490 |
03/01/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
04/09/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 2600 |
COMMUNICATIONS |
| |
2610 |
05/22/2010 |
| |
2620 |
02/17/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
04/03/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 2800
|
SEMICONDUCTORS/MEMORY, CIRCUITS/MEASURING AND TESTING, OPTICS/PHOTOCOPYING |
| |
2810 |
12/18/2010 |
| |
2820 |
11/11/2010 |
| |
2830 |
09/21/2010 |
| |
2850 |
07/07/2010 |
| |
2860 |
08/18/2010 |
| |
2870 |
09/05/2010 |
| |
2880 |
10/18/2010 |
| |
2890 |
01/02/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
10/09/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 2900
|
|
| |
2910 |
09/15/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
09/15/2011 |
| |
|
|
| 3600
|
TRANSPORTATION, CONSTRUCTION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LICENSE AND REVIEW
|
| |
3610 |
11/20/2010 |
| |
3620 |
10/18/2010 |
| |
3630 |
12/06/2010 |
| |
3640 |
09/27/2010 |
| |
3650 |
07/22/2010 |
| |
3660 |
05/31/2010 |
| |
3670 |
11/08/2010 |
| |
3680 |
11/11/2010 |
| |
3690 |
03/16/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
10/18/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 3700
|
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS |
| |
3710 |
10/21/2010 |
| |
3720 |
06/21/2010 |
| |
3730 |
07/10/2010 |
| |
3740 |
01/20/2010 |
| |
3750 |
06/24/2010 |
| |
3760 |
07/22/2010 |
| |
3770 |
05/31/2010 |
| |
3780 |
05/28/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
06/15/2010 |
| |
|
|
| |
1 Report last updated on 6-30-12. |
Top of Notices
Top of Notices August 7, 2012