| Prioritized Examination |
Referenced Items (249, 250, 251, 252) |
(251) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2010-0092]
RIN 0651-AC52
Changes To Implement the
Prioritized Examination Track (Track I) of the
Enhanced Examination Timing Control Procedures
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 practice in patent cases to implement a procedure under which
applicants may request prioritized examination at the time of filing of an
application upon payment of appropriate fees and compliance with certain
requirements. In June of 2010, the Office requested comments on a proposal
to provide applicants with greater control over when their utility and plant
applications are examined and to promote greater efficiency in the patent
examination process (3-Track). The Office, in addition to requesting written
comments, conducted a public meeting to collect input from the public. The
vast majority of public comments and input that the Office received were
supportive of the prioritized examination track (Track I) portion of the
3-Track proposal. While the Office is in the process of considering and
revising the other portions of the 3-Track proposal in view of the public
comments and input, the Office wishes to implement the prioritized
examination track (Track I) now to provide the procedure for prioritized
examination to applicants as quickly as possible. In February of 2011, the
Office published a notice of proposed rule making to set forth the proposed
procedure for prioritized examination and to seek public comments on the
proposed procedure. The Office considered the public comments and revised the
proposed procedure in view of the public comments. The Office, in this final
rule, is revising the rules of practice to implement the optional procedure
for prioritized examination. The aggregate goal for processing applications
under prioritized examination is to provide a final disposition within twelve
months of prioritized status being granted. The Office is initially limiting
requests for prioritized examination to a maximum of 10,000 applications
during the remainder of fiscal year 2011.
DATES: Effective Date: The changes set forth in this rule are effective
May 4, 2011. Applicability date: A request for prioritized examination may
be submitted with any original utility or plant application filed on or after
May 4, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugenia A. Jones, Kathleen Kahler Fonda, or
Michael T. Cygan, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the
Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at
(571) 272-7727, (571) 272-7754 or (571) 272-7700, or by mail addressed to:
Mail Stop Comments Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Eugenia A. Jones.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 2010, the Office requested comments from
the public on a proposal to provide applicants with greater control over when
their original utility or plant applications are examined and promote work
sharing between intellectual property offices (3-Track). See Enhanced
Examination Timing Control Initiative; Notice of Public Meeting, 75 FR 31763
(June 4, 2010), 1355 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 323 (June 29, 2010). Specifically,
the Office proposed to implement procedures under which an applicant would be
able to: (1) Request prioritized examination of an original utility or plant
nonprovisional application (Track I); (2) request a delay in docketing the
application for examination by filing a request for delay in payment of the
search fee, the examination fee, the claims fees and the surcharge (if
appropriate) for a maximum period not to exceed thirty months in an original
 Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1091 |
utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (Track III); or
(3) obtain processing under the current examination procedure (Track II) by
not requesting either Track I or Track III processing. The Office, in
addition to requesting written comments, conducted a public meeting to
collect input from the public. The vast majority of public comments and input
that the Office received was supportive of the prioritized examination track
(Track I) portion of the 3-Track proposal. While the Office is in the process
of considering and revising the Track III proposal (a request for a delay
in docketing the application for examination) in view of the public comments
and input, the Office wishes to implement the prioritized examination track
(Track I) now to provide the optional procedure for prioritized examination
to applicants as quickly as possible.
In February of 2011, the Office published a notice of proposed rule making
to set forth the proposed procedure for prioritized examination and to seek
public comments on the proposed procedure. See Changes to Implement the
Prioritized Examination Track (Track I) of the Enhanced Examination Timing
Control Procedures, 76 FR 6369 (Feb. 4, 2011), 1364 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 50
(March 1, 2011). The Office proposed, among other changes, a fee for filing a
request for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e) in the amount of
$4,000, in addition to filing fees for the application. Since the majority of
the public comments supported the optional prioritized examination procedure,
the Office is adopting the proposed procedure for prioritized examination
(Track I).
The Office, in this final rule, is revising the rules of practice to
implement the optional procedure for prioritized examination. The aggregate
goal for processing applications under prioritized examination is to provide
a final disposition within twelve months of prioritized status being granted.
The Office is limiting requests for prioritized examination under 37 CFR
1.102(e) to a maximum of 10,000 applications during fiscal year 2011. The
Office will revisit this limit at the end of fiscal year 2011 to evaluate
what the appropriate maximum should be, if any, for future years.
The fee for filing a request for prioritized examination under 37 CFR
1.102(e) is set at $4,000.00. The fees due on filing for an application for
which prioritized examination is being sought are the filing fees (including
any applicable excess claims and application size fees), the prioritized
examination fee, processing fee, and publication fee. Therefore, the fee
amount due on filing for a utility application for which prioritized
examination is being sought (not including any applicable excess claims and
application size fees) is $5,520 ($4,892 for a small entity): (1) The $1,090
($462 small entity) in filing fees which include the $330 ($82 small entity
filing by EFS-Web) basic filing fee, the $540 ($270 small entity) search fee,
and the $220 ($110 small entity) examination fee; (2) the $4,000 prioritized
examination fee; (3) the $130 processing fee; and (4) the $300 publication
fee.
Under the Office's current statutory authority, the Office is not
permitted to reduce the prioritized examination fee for small entity
applicants. The Office indicated in the notice of proposed rule making that
if legislation is passed providing a fifty percent fee reduction for providing
prioritized examination for small entities under 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1) and
providing that the prioritized examination fees be set to recover the
estimated cost of the prioritized examination program, the Office would set
the prioritized examination fee at $4800 ($2400 for small entities), since
27.8 percent of the new serialized utility and plant applications filed in
fiscal year 2010 were by small entities (based upon data from the Office's
Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) system). See Changes to
Implement the Prioritized Examination Track (Track I) of the Enhanced
Examination Timing Control Procedures, 76 FR at 6370, 1364 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office at 51. Section 9(i) of the America Invents Act provides that "[t]he
Director shall reduce fees for providing prioritized examination of utility
and plant patent applications by 50 percent for small entities that qualify
for reduced fees under section 41(h)(1) of title 35, United States Code, so
long as the fees of the prioritized examination program are set to recover
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1092 |
the estimated cost of the program," and § 9(j) of the America Invents Act
provides that this change is effective on the date of enactment of S. 23. See
S. 23, 112th Cong. (2011). S. 23 was passed by the United States Senate on
March 8, 2011. Neither S. 23 nor any other legislation, however, has been
enacted that provides fifty percent fee reduction for providing prioritized
examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e) for small entities. If S. 23 is enacted
into law, the fee for providing prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e)
will be $4,800 ($2,400 for small entities) and these fee amounts will be
applicable to any request for providing prioritized examination filed on or
or after the date of enactment of S. 23. Thus, if S. 23 or similar
legislation that provides a fifty percent fee reduction for prioritized
examination for small entities is enacted into law, the fee amount due on
filing for a utility application for which prioritized examination is being
sought (not including any applicable excess claims and application size fees)
is $6,320 ($3,292 for a small entity): (1) The $1,090 ($462 small entity) in
filing fees which include the $330 ($82 small entity filing by EFS-Web)
filing fee, the $540 ($270 small entity) search fee, and the $220 ($110 small
entity) examination fee; (2) the $4,800 ($2,400 small entity) prioritized
examination fee; (3) the $130 processing fee; and (4) the $300 publication
fee.
Under prioritized examination, an application will be accorded special
status and placed on the examiner's special docket throughout its entire
course of prosecution before the examiner until a final disposition is
reached in the application. The aggregate goal for handling applications
under prioritized examination is to provide a final disposition within twelve
months of prioritized status being granted. The final disposition for the
twelve-month goal means: (1) Mailing of a notice of allowance, (2) mailing of
a final Office action, (3) filing of a notice of appeal, (4) declaration of
an interference by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI),
(5) filing of a request for continued examination, or (6) abandonment of the
application, within twelve months from the date prioritized status has been
granted. An application under prioritized examination, however, would not be
accorded special status throughout its entire course of appeal or
interference before the BPAI, or after the filing of a request for continued
examination.
Unlike the accelerated examination program, the time periods set in
Office actions for applications in Track I would be the same as set forth in
section 710.02(b) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (8th ed.
2001) (Rev. 8, July 2010). In the event, however, an applicant files a
petition for an extension of time to file a reply, the prioritized
examination of the application will be terminated. In addition, filing a
request for a suspension of action or an amendment to the application which
results in more than four independent claims, more than thirty total claims,
or a multiple dependent claim, prioritized examination will terminate.
To maximize the benefit of prioritized examination, applicants should
consider one or more of the following: (1) Acquiring a good knowledge of the
state of the prior art to be able to file the application with a clear
specification having a complete set of claims from the broadest to which the
applicant believes he is entitled in view of the state of the prior art to
the narrowest to which the applicant is willing to accept; (2) submitting an
application in condition for examination; (3) filing replies that are
completely responsive to the prior Office action and within the shortened
statutory period for reply set in the Office action; and (4) being prepared
to conduct interviews with the examiner. A description of what it means for
an application to be in condition for examination is provided at MPEP
§ 708.02(a) (subsection VIII.C).
The requirements for requesting prioritized examination are summarized
below. A patent application may be granted prioritized examination status
under the following conditions:
(1) The application must be a new original utility or plant
nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after May
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1093 |
4, 2011, the effective date of this final rule. The procedure for
prioritized examination does not apply to international applications,
design applications, reissue applications, provisional applications,
and reexamination proceedings. Applicants may request prioritized
examination for a continuing application (e.g., a continuation or
divisional application) by filing a request and the required fees
including the $4,000 prioritized examination fee. However, a continuing
application will not automatically be given prioritized examination
status based on the request filed in the parent application. Each
continuing application must on its own meet all requirements for
prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e).
(2) The application must be complete under 37 CFR 1.51(b) including
any excess claims fees paid on filing, and the application must be
filed via the Office's electronic filing system (EFS-Web) if it is a
utility application. Thus, the application must be filed with an oath
or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, the basic filing fee, the search fee,
the examination fee, any excess claims fees, and any application size
fee.
(3) The application must contain no more than four independent
claims and no more than thirty total claims. The application must not
contain any multiple dependent claims.
(4) The request for prioritized examination must be filed with the
application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.102(e) accompanied by the
prioritized examination fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(c), the processing
fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), and the publication fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.18(d). Applicants are advised to use the certification and
request form PTO/SB/424 which is available on EFS-Web.
(5) The request for prioritized examination may be accepted if the
requirements under 37 CFR 1.102(e) are satisfied and the limit for the
number of requests for the year has not been reached. The Office is
limiting requests for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e) to
a maximum of 10,000 applications during fiscal year 2011. The Office
will revisit this limit at the end of fiscal year 2011 to evaluate what
the appropriate maximum should be, if any.
Discussion of Specific Rules
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, is proposed to
be amended as follows:
Section 1.17: The Office is implementing a procedure for prioritized
examination (Track I) upon applicant's request and payment of a fee at the
time of filing of the application, without meeting the requirements of the
accelerated examination program (e.g., examination support document). See
§ 1.102(e). Section 1.17(c) is amended to set the fee for filing a request
for prioritized examination under § 1.102(e) at $4,000.00. Section 1.17(i)
is amended to add a reference for requesting prioritized examination of an
application under § 1.102(e).
Section 1.102: Section 1.102 is revised to provide for the Track I
procedure in which applicant has the option to request prioritized
examination on the date the application is filed. Particularly, § 1.102(a)
is revised by adding a reference to paragraph (e) so that applications may
be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action upon filing a
request under § 1.102(e). Section 1.102(e) is added to set forth the
requirements for filing a request for prioritized examination, which provides
that a request for prioritized examination will not be granted unless:
(1) The application is an original utility or plant nonprovisional
application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that is complete as defined by
§ 1.51(b), with any fees due under § 1.16 (the filing fee, search fee,
examination fee, any applicable excess claims fee, and any applicable
application size fee) paid on filing; (2) the application is filed via the
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1094 |
Office's electronic filing system (EFS-Web) if it is a utility application;
(3) the request for prioritized examination, including the prioritized
examination fee set forth in § 1.17(c), the processing fee set forth in
§ 1.17(i), and the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d) are present upon
filing; and (4) the application contains or is amended to contain no more
than four independent claims, no more than thirty total claims, and no
multiple dependent claims. Because plant applications may not be filed via
EFS-Web, the Office will accept a request for prioritized examination in
paper when it accompanies the filing of a plant application.
As discussed previously, a request for prioritized examination may be
accepted if the requirements under § 1.102(e) are satisfied and the limit for
the number of requests has not been reached. The Office is limiting requests
for prioritized examination under § 1.102(e) to a maximum of 10,000
applications during the remainder of fiscal year 2011. The Office will
revisit this limit at the end of fiscal year 2011 to evaluate what the
appropriate maximum should be, if any.
Response to Comments: In February of 2011, the Office published a notice
of proposed rule making to set forth the proposed procedure for prioritized
examination and to invite the public to submit written comments on the
proposed procedure by March 7, 2011. See Changes to Implement the Prioritized
Examination Track (Track I) of the Enhanced Examination Timing Control
Procedures, 76 FR 6369 (Feb. 4, 2011), 1364 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 50 (March
1, 2011) (notice of proposed rule making). The Office received twelve written
comments from intellectual property organizations, industry, academic and
research institutions, individual patent practitioners and the general
public. The Office has considered all of the public comments that were
received by March 7, 2011. The comments germane to the changes set forth in
this notice for prioritized examination and the Office's responses to those
comments are provided below.
Comment 1: A few comments indicated that the Track I proposal has merit,
but should be implemented and maintained only if the Office is permitted to
retain all the fee income generated by applicants seeking Track 1 status.
One comment believed it is premature for the Office to be implementing a
rule making that depends on increased spending authority, given the uncertain
status of the Office's budget. The comment was concerned that all fees
collected by the Office are still not made available to the agency in the
current fiscal year and Congress has not authorized a budget that would
permit the Office to retain any fees collected under the prioritized
examination program. One comment was concerned about the ability of the
Office to offer prioritized examination under the Track I program without
delaying examination of non-prioritized applications, particularly since the
Office will not have any additional resources to conduct prioritized
examination of Track I applications at least until it is able to hire and
train additional examiners, which it may not be able to do under current
budget and hiring restrictions.
Response: Track I prioritized examination is being implemented as a
result of a discussion between the Office and its stakeholders, which has
included requests for written comments and a public meeting. The vast
majority of public input is supportive of prioritized examination, which is
designed to provide important benefits to the Office and its stakeholders,
including greater control to applicants as to when their utility and plant
applications are examined, and greater efficiency in the patent examination
process. In view of this widespread support, the Office wishes to implement
the procedure so as to provide the procedure to applicants as quickly as
possible. The President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request for the Office
includes the revenue that is expected to be generated by the prioritized
examination program. The Office appreciates that implementation of the Track
I program could have an effect on the examination of non-prioritized
applications during fiscal year 2011 due to the current budget situation and
its impact on the Office's ability to hire new examiners, but any effect
should not extend into future fiscal years.
Comment 2: One comment stated that the separate processing fee of $130
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1095 |
under § 1.17(i) should be eliminated if already covered by the $4,000 fee set
by proposed § 1.17(c). If the processing fee is not covered, then for the
sake of clarity there should be one fee of $4,130 set by proposed § 1.17(c),
and the § 1.17(i) fee should be eliminated.
Response: The processing fee is for processing the request for prioritized
examination, which is separate and apart from the prioritized examination
cost. The Office is tracking the fees separately and thus treating them as
two different fees.
Comment 3: One comment stated that the publication fee under § 1.18(d)
should not be required from an applicant as an up-front fee because the
application might never publish or issue as a patent.
Response: The publication fee under § 1.18(d) is being required as a
condition of the Track I program. If an applicant can make the certification
required by 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i) and § 1.213(a), the applicant may
request nonpublication under 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(i) in an application in
which a request for prioritized examination is also being filed. However, the
publication fee is still required to be paid on filing of the application.
Applicant may file a nonpublication request upon filing of the application
and the nonpublication request may be rescinded at any time. Submission of
the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d) at the time of filing will save
time and reduce costs for the Office. If the application is not published as
a patent application publication and the application issues as a patent, the
applicant may request a refund of the publication fee in accordance with MPEP
§ 1126.
Comment 4: One comment requested clarification regarding whether the
publication fee under § 1.18(d) and the processing fee under § 1.17(i) were
required to be paid on filing to participate in the Track I program, or
whether the fees are only required if they are applicable. The comment
requested clarification regarding the nature of the processing fee and
questioned whether the processing fee was required only if early publication
was requested.
Response: Both the publication fee under § 1.18(d) and the processing fee
under § 1.17(i) are required to be paid at the time of filing by any
applicant requesting prioritized examination under § 1.102(e). The processing
fee is for processing the request for prioritized examination. It is not a
fee for requesting early publication.
Comment 5: A few comments indicated that the fee for prioritized
examination is too high. One comment stated that the fee should not exceed
patent application fees and thus should be less than one thousand dollars.
If the fee does significantly exceed patent application fees, then a greater
benefit should be given such as a three-month time period from the request
until the final examination result. One comment stated that the Office has
not explained whether it would cost $4,000 more to examine a prioritized
application than a regular application, or whether the fee is for the purpose
of supporting more examiners to examine all applications.
Response: As stated in the notice of proposed rule making, the prioritized
examination fee is set based on the estimated average cost to the Office of
performing the service, per 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2). A prioritized examination fee
that is less than one thousand dollars would not recover the full cost of the
necessary resources to increase the work output of the Office without
delaying non-prioritized applications. Based on the Office's experience with
other accelerated examination programs, the Office would not be able to
provide a final examination result within the suggested three-month time
period.
Comment 6: Some comments appreciated the statutory limitation on applying
fee discounts for small entities, and the fact that such fees are used to
hire new examiners, but hoped that such discounts can be implemented in order
to make the use of Track I examination more achievable for academic, small
business, and other small entity applicants. One comment urged the Office to
continue seeking authority to apply small and micro entity fees to the
prioritized examination procedure.
Response: The Office appreciates the benefits of the fee reductions
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1096 |
currently available to small entities under 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1), and will
continue to seek additional fee setting authority that will permit extension
of fee reduction to the prioritized examination fee. As noted in the notice
of proposed rule making, the Office has determined an alternate fee structure,
should fee reduction be extended to the Track I fee. Upon extension of fee
reduction to Track I prioritized examination, the Office would set the
prioritized examination fee at $2,400 for small entities, and $4,800 for
other entities, in accordance with cost recovery based upon fiscal year 2010
data indicating that 27.8 percent of new serialized utility and plant
applications were by small entities.
Comment 7: A few comments indicated that the Track I proposal has merit,
but should be implemented and maintained only so long as the program does not
adversely impact other patent applicants. One comment was concerned that
prioritized examination would promote even further delays in the examination
of requests for continued examination since requests for continued
examination are currently placed on the examiner's "Special New" application
docket, but not eligible for prioritized examination.
Response: The fee for prioritized examination has been calculated to
ensure recovery of the full cost of the resources necessary to handle Track I
applications without the need to divert resources from non-prioritized
applications. As discussed previously, the Office appreciates that
implementation of the Track I program could have an effect on the examination
of non-prioritized applications during fiscal year 2011 due to the current
budget situation and its impact on the Office's ability to hire new examiners,
but any effect should not extend into future fiscal years. The prioritized
examination program will not further delay the examination of requests for
continued examination. Examiners will still be responsible for acting on
requests for continued examination in the same time frame.
Comment 8: The Office received three comments regarding restriction
requirements in Track I applications. The first comment suggested that
examiners should be instructed to make restriction requirements by phone
whenever possible and to invite a discussion of the restriction requirement
at the time it is made with a view to reaching a consensus with the applicant.
The second comment stated that Track I participants should be permitted to
traverse restriction requirements. The third comment stated that petitions
from restriction requirements in Track I cases should be handled
expeditiously such that if the petition ecision results in withdrawal of the
restriction requirement, the examiner is still able to reach final disposition
of the case within the twelve-month target.
Response: Telephone restriction practice is encouraged whenever possible,
in accordance with MPEP § 812.01. An applicant who disagrees with a
requirement for restriction may traverse in accordance with § 1.143. An
applicant's decision to opt-in to prioritized examination has no bearing on
restriction practice. Although traversal of a restriction requirement will not
terminate the prioritized examination, the benefit to the applicant of a
quick examination will be enhanced if such traversals can be avoided.
Petitions from requirements for restriction are governed by § 1.144. To
ensure prompt consideration of any such petition, applicant should promptly
file the petition as soon as the restriction requirement has been made final.
Comment 9: One comment stated that the Office should provide Track I
applicants with a notice as to whether or not Track I status has been granted
and the reasons for any denial of Track I status.
Response: The Office will notify a Track I applicant of the grant or
dismissal of the request for prioritized examination of the application. If
the request is denied, the Office will state the reason.
Comment 10: One comment suggested that the language "an original or
continuing utility * * * nonprovisional application" should be used in the
proposed § 1.102(e) rather than "an original utility * * * nonprovisional
application" in order to indicate that continuing applications (continuations,
divisionals, and continuations-in-part) with appropriate filing dates are
eligible for Track I. Another comment requested clarification regarding
whether continuing applications would qualify for prioritized examination and
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1097 |
suggested a revision to proposed § 1.102(e) to exclude continuation or
divisional applications since it appeared the intent was to limit the rule to
first filed utility and plant applications.
Response: The term "original" as used in the patent statute and rules means
any application that is not a reissue application. Original applications
include first filings as well as continuing applications. See MPEP
§ 201.04(a). Thus, the suggested revision to add a reference to "continuing"
applications would introduce a redundancy into the language of the rule.
Likewise, the suggested revision to exclude continuation and divisional
applications is not being adopted since the rule is applicable to continuing
applications.
Comment 11: One comment stated that a request for prioritized examination
should be permitted when an international application enters the national
stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
Response: Because it is necessary to limit requests for prioritized
examination at least during the first year, applications entering the national
stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 are not eligible. The Office may reconsider this
decision in future years. An applicant who has filed an international
application may choose to participate in prioritized examination by filing a
by-pass continuation under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) rather than entering the national
stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
Comment 12: One comment stated that a request for prioritized examination
status should be permitted when a request for continued examination is filed
under § 1.114, regardless of whether a request for prioritized examination
was previously granted in the application. One comment stated that, in an
application already granted Track I status, upon filing a request for
continued examination the applicant should be given the opportunity to
continue the Track I status by the payment of an additional fee.
Response: A request for continued examination is not a new application. In
accordance with § 1.114, an applicant cannot request continued examination of
an application until prosecution is closed. Furthermore, an application in
which a request for continued examination has been filed is placed on an
examiner's "Special New" docket. See Notice of Change to Docketing of Requests
for Continued Examination, 1348 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 254 (November 10, 2009).
The application on this docket having the oldest effective filing date must
be taken up for action within two bi-weeks. Thus, when a proper request for
continued examination is filed, the application has already undergone
examination, and will continue to be treated in an expedited manner relative
to new non-continuing applications, but not under the provisions for
prioritized examination.
Comment 13: One comment indicated that unexamined applications with the
greatest pendency should be given preferential access to the Track I program.
Response: The Office has undertaken an initiative to address the issue of
unexamined applications that have been pending for a long time. Current
examination resources are being reallocated within and across Technology
Centers to start examination of the oldest unexamined applications, with no
requirement of additional fees by the applicant. Prioritized examination is
a separate initiative for newly filed applications in which applicants may
pay an additional fee, which is used by the Office to expand its examination
resources. Prioritized examination must be requested upon filing. If an
application is pending, the applicant may file a continuing application and
request prioritized examination for the new application. This approach ensures
equitable treatment for all applicants who seek to participate in the Track I
program in view of the limit of 10,000 applications during fiscal year 2011.
Comment 14: A few comments stated that a request for prioritized
examination should not be limited to when a patent application is filed. Some
comments stated that this would result in applicants filing continuation
applications to take advantage of Track I, which will increase the workload
of the Office and the applicants. A few comments supported permitting
applicants to request prioritized examination with respect to all pending,
unexamined applications. One comment suggested requiring a reasonably higher
fee for requesting prioritized examination after the patent application has
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1098 |
been filed. Another comment supported permitting a request for prioritized
examination to be filed at any time.
Response: In recognition of the necessity of adding additional resources
so that non-prioritized examination will not be delayed and that prioritized
examination will occur within one year, the Office is implementing prioritized
examination in a prudent and measured manner. The Office will reevaluate the
limitations on prioritized examination based on the results of its initial
implementation and after it gains experience with the Track I program. While
applicants may file continuing applications at their discretion, any Track I
continuation application filed may moot or reduce the issues remaining in the
originally filed application. This may result in abandonment of the originally
filed application; alternatively, its examination will be aided by the
substantial examination performed on the Track I continuing application.
Comment 15: One comment stated that a request for prioritized examination
should be permitted for reissue applications to apply the data-driven
performance monitoring of Track I to reissue applications.
Response: Reissue applications are already treated as special applications.
See MPEP § 1442. If the Office were to make prioritized examination available
to reissue applications, it would not have any impact on when the examiner is
expected to take the application up for action. The Office recognizes that
there is a need to better track and monitor the various types of special
applications, including reissue applications, and is working on improvements
to its tracking and monitoring system as part of its Patents End-to-End
Information Technology (IT) project.
Comment 16: One comment suggested that applicants should be permitted to
pay the appropriate fees or otherwise make the application complete after
filing of the application. The comment noted that applicants are familiar
with and rely on missing parts practice to complete applications before they
are placed in the examination queue and there appears to be no compelling
reason to deviate from this practice for prioritized examination.
Response: Applicants requesting prioritized examination are required to
file applications that are complete. If applicants requesting prioritized
examination were allowed to file applications that were not complete, it
would delay examination of the application, which is directly counter to
providing a final disposition of the application in the shortest time
possible. In addition, as the Office is initially limiting requests for
prioritized examination, the Office considers it appropriate to give priority
to applicants whose applications are complete on filing over applicants whose
applications require the delays caused by the missing parts practice.
Comment 17: One comment questioned whether the Office will set an annual
limit on the number of Track I applications a given applicant can file. One
comment questioned whether the Office will set an annual limit on the number
of Track I applications per Technology Center.
Response: The Office is not setting an annual limit on the number of
requests for prioritized examination that a given applicant can file. The
Office is also not setting an annual limit on the number of applications that
can be granted Track I prioritized examination per Technology Center. The
Office will monitor the Track I program closely. If it is determined that an
annual limit is needed per applicant and/or per Technology Center, the Office
may make such adjustments to the program in the future.
Comment 18: A few comments indicated that statistics should be published
on the number of requests received as well as the aggregate time to final
disposition at the greatest level of granularity practical (e.g., the Group
Art Unit level or the Technology Center level). One comment stated that the
Office should closely monitor which technological areas are using Track I and
minimize any imbalances in the backlog of different technology areas.
A few comments indicated that, for each statistic reported, the data should
indicate the numbers of small entity and non-small entity applicants. Such
information could potentially be used to advocate for reduced fees for small
entities.
One comment stated that in order to ensure that non-prioritized
applications and overall examination quality are not being impacted, detailed
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1099 |
metrics must be provided to the public, including metrics on
pendency, quality, and hiring measured against the Office's current stated
goals. The comment suggested that the Office could include the composition
of examiners (by GS-level) examining applications in each track to further
protect against any track bias.
Response: The Office is committed to providing meaningful statistical
reports on the Track I program with as much specificity as is practical.
The Office will closely monitor the program and make any needed adjustments.
The Office favors reduced fees for small entities and, wherever possible,
will develop statistical reports to identify the numbers of small entity and
non-small entity applicants to support any such legislation.
The ability of the Office to meet its goals for prioritized examination
will be posted on the Office's Internet Web site on a quarterly basis at the
work group level. Applications examined under Track I will be subject to the
same quality metrics applied to applications undergoing non-prioritized
examination. Data relating to prioritized examination will be made public to
the extent practicable; e.g., to the extent that such data is not linked to
any specific application and to the extent that the pertinent sample size for
a subgroup of data provides a statistically valid basis for reporting such
data for that subgroup.
Comment 19: One comment stated that a final action on an application for
which prioritized examination has been requested should be made within a
couple of months instead of twelve months.
Response: The Office is setting an aggregate goal of twelve months to final
disposition based on its perceived ability to meet the goal. Based on the
Office's experience with other accelerated examination programs, the Office
would not be able to meet an aggregate goal for handling applications under
prioritized examination of two or three months to final disposition.
Comment 20: One comment suggested that the filing of an appeal brief,
rather than the filing of a notice of appeal, should trigger the termination
of prioritized examination because sometimes a notice of appeal is filed to
maintain pendency of an application while the examiner considers an after-
final response.
Response: The final disposition for the twelve-month goal includes the
mailing of a final Office action. In the situation where an applicant files a
notice of appeal after a second non-final Office action, the final disposition
will include the filing of the notice of appeal. Thus, once a final Office
action has been mailed or a notice of appeal has been filed, whichever is
earlier, the examination of the application would no longer be prioritized
under § 1.102(e). Therefore, there is no need to make the filing of an appeal
brief the final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal, rather than
the filing of a notice of appeal, to accommodate the situation where an
applicant files a notice of appeal to maintain pendency of the application
while the examiner considers an after-final reply.
Comment 21: One comment requested a relaxation of the limits on the
number of claims so that the prioritized examination program would be
accessible to more users, although no suggestion was made as to what the
claim limit should be.
Response: In recognition of the necessity of adding additional resources
so that non-prioritized examination will not be delayed and that the twelve-
month aggregate goal for prioritized examination can be achieved, the Office
is implementing prioritized examination in a prudent and measured manner. The
Office will revisit the limitations on prioritized examination based on the
results of its initial implementation.
Comment 22: One comment stated that the limit on claims would result in an
applicant being unable to amend the claims to place them in independent form
after a final rejection where dependent claims were found allowable.
According to the comment, applicants would either have to file an appeal or
do without the full protection to which they are entitled. The comment stated
that there should not be a limit on how many claims may be placed in
independent form during prosecution. Another comment suggested permitting
addition of claims once allowable subject matter has been identified,
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1100 |
provided that the added claims do not require further search or examination.
Response: Track I is designed to provide prioritized examination of the
application; as such, it is directed towards substantive examination of claims
for which no final disposition has been reached. Accordingly, prioritized
examination accords a special status to the application until a final
disposition is reached in the application. As discussed previously, a final
disposition for the twelve-month goal means: (1) Mailing of a notice of
allowance, (2) mailing of a final Office action, (3) filing of a notice of
appeal, (4) declaration of an interference by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI), (5) filing of a request for continued examination, or
(6) abandonment of the application. The submission of an amendment resulting
in there being more than four independent claims or more than thirty total
claims is not prohibited, but simply terminates the prioritized examination.
Thus, upon mailing of a final rejection (at which point prioritized
examination is terminated), applicants may amend the claims to place them in
independent form where dependent claims were found allowable, or add new
claims, subject only to the limitations applicable to any application under
final rejection. See § 1.116. Similarly, upon mailing of a notice of
allowance, applicants may submit amendments to the claims, again subject only
to the limitations applicable to any application that has been allowed. See
§ 1.312
Comment 23: One comment noted that the limit on the number of claims is
apparently subject to a preliminary amendment and requested a clarification
regarding whether such amendments must be made at the time of filing.
Response: An application in which applicant is requesting prioritized
examination under § 1.102(e) must have no more than four independent claims
and thirty total claims, and must not have any multiple dependent claims,
when the application is filed. Otherwise, the request for prioritized
examination under § 1.102(e) will not be granted. While it is possible to
file a preliminary amendment on filing of an application to reduce the number
of claims to no more than four independent claims and thirty total claims,
and to eliminate any multiple dependent claims, the Office strongly encourages
applicants to file applications without any preliminary amendments. Applicants
should file their applications with the desired claims, rather than submitting
a preliminary amendment on filing. This will reduce the amount of processing
done by the Office, thus reducing Office costs, and will help ensure patent
application publications and patents are printed correctly. See Revised
Procedure for Preliminary Amendments Presented on Filing of a Patent
Application, 1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 69 (November 8, 2005). If an amendment
is filed in an application that has been granted a prioritized examination
that results in more than four independent claims or thirty total claims, or
a multiple dependent claim, then prioritized examination will be terminated.
Comment 24: One comment stated that an applicant's request for an
extension of time should not result in termination of prioritized examination,
particularly where the extension of time leads to early issuance of a patent.
Another comment stated that an applicant paying for better service from the
Office should not be given less time to respond to Office actions than anyone
else.
Response: The Office is being flexible by not prohibiting an applicant from
filing a request for extension of time in an application that has been granted
prioritized examination under § 1.102(e). However, filing an extension of time
would significantly impact the Office's ability to meet the twelve-month
aggregate goal to final disposition for handling applications under Track I.
Therefore, prioritized examination will be terminated if an applicant does
file a request for an extension of time in a Track I application.
Rule Making Considerations
A. 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 set forth in this notice will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1101 |
This notice sets forth changes to implement an optional prioritized
examination process. The primary impact of the change on the public is that
applicants will have the option to request prioritized examination by paying
appropriate fees, filing a complete application via the Office's electronic
filing system (EFS-Web) with any filing and excess claims fees due paid on
filing, and limiting their applications to four independent claims and
thirty total claims. No applicant is required to employ this optional
prioritized examination process to obtain examination of his
or her application under the current procedures for examination of an
application for a patent, or to obtain a patent provided that the application
meets the current conditions for the applicants to be entitled to a patent.
In addition, the availability of this prioritized examination process will
not have any significant negative impact on any applicant who elects not to
request the prioritized examination process. Therefore, the changes set forth
in this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rule making
has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866
(Sept. 30, 1993).
C. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review):
The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, the Office
has: (1) Used the best available techniques to quantify costs and benefits,
and has considered values such as equity, fairness and distributive impacts;
(2) provided the public with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the
regulatory process, including soliciting the views of those likely affected
prior to issuing a notice of proposed rule making, and provided online access
to the rule making docket; (3) attempted to promote coordination,
simplification and harmonization across government agencies and identified
goals designed to promote innovation; (4) considered approaches that reduce
burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and
(5) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and
processes, to the extent applicable.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rule making does not contain
policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
E. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rule making 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).
F. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rule making is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rule making
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).
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rule making 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).
H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rule making does
not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may dispro-
portionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rule making
will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking
implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
J. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1102 |
of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C.
801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office will submit a report containing the final rule and other
required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability
Office. The changes in this notice are not expected to result in an annual
necessary resources to increase the work output of the Office without
delaying non-prioritized 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 notice is not expected to result in a "major rule"
as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
K. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this
notice do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result
in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal
private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private
sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will
not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions
are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
L. National Environmental Policy Act: This rule making will not have any
effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
M. 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 rule making does not
contain provisions which involve the use of technical standards.
N. Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule making is proposed to implement an
optional prioritized examination process. The primary impact of the change on
the public is that applicants will have the option to request prioritized
examination by paying appropriate fees, filing a complete application via the
Office's electronic filing system (EFS-Web) with any filing and excess claims
fees due paid on filing, and limiting their applications to four independent
claims and thirty total claims.
An applicant who wishes to participate in the program must submit a
certification and request to participate in the prioritized examination
program, preferably by using Form PTO/SB/424. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has determined that, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h), Form PTO/SB/424 does
not collect "information" within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995. Therefore, this rule making does not impose additional collection
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act which are subject to further
review by OMB.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to
respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of Information,
Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended
as follows:
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1103 |
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 1.17 is amended by adding paragraph (c) and revising paragraph
(i) to read as follows:
§ 1.17 Patent application and reexamination processing fees.
* * * * *
(c) For filing a request for prioritized examination under
§ 1.102(e) .... $4,000.00.
* * * * *
(i) Processing fee for taking action under one of the following sections
which refers to this paragraph: $130.00.
§ 1.28(c)(3) - for processing a non-itemized fee deficiency based on an
error in small entity status.
§ 1.41 - for supplying the name or names of the inventor or inventors
after the filing date without an oath or declaration as prescribed by § 1.63,
except in provisional applications.
§ 1.48 - for correcting inventorship, except in provisional applications.
§ 1.52(d) - for processing a nonprovisional application filed with a
specification in a language other than English.
§ 1.53(b)(3) - to convert a provisional application filed under § 1.53(c)
into a nonprovisional application under § 1.53(b).
§ 1.55 - for entry of late priority papers.
§ 1.71(g)(2) - for processing a belated amendment under § 1.71(g).
§ 1.99(e) - for processing a belated submission under § 1.99.
§ 1.102(e) - for requesting prioritized examination of an application.
§ 1.103(b) - for requesting limited suspension of action, continued
prosecution application for a design patent (§ 1.53(d)).
§ 1.103(c) - for requesting limited suspension of action, request for
continued examination (§ 1.114).
§ 1.103(d) - for requesting deferred examination of an application.
§ 1.217 - for processing a redacted copy of a paper submitted in the file
of an application in which a redacted copy was submitted for the patent
application publication.
§ 1.221 - for requesting voluntary publication or republication of an
application.
§ 1.291(c)(5) - for processing a second or subsequent protest by the same
real party in interest.
§ 1.497(d) - for filing an oath or declaration pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
371(c)(4) naming an inventive entity different from the inventive entity
set forth in the international stage.
| Top of Notices (251) December 25, 2012 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1385 CNOG 1104 |
§ 3.81 - for a patent to issue to assignee, assignment submitted after
payment of the issue fee.
* * * * *
. 3. Section 1.102 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1.102 Advancement of examination.
(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination
or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of
the Director to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of
a request under paragraph (b) or (e) of this section or upon filing a
petition or request under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section with a
showing which, in the opinion of the Director, will justify so advancing it.
* * * * *
(e) A request for prioritized examination under this paragraph may
be filed only with an original utility or plant nonprovisional application
under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that is complete as defined by § 1.51(b), with any
fees due under § 1.16 paid on filing. If the application is a utility
application, it must be filed via the Office's electronic filing system
(EFS-Web). A request for prioritized examination under this paragraph must be
present upon filing and must be accompanied by the prioritized examination
fee set forth in § 1.17(c), the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i), and
the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d). Prioritized examination under
this paragraph will not be accorded to a design application or reissue
application, and will not be accorded to any application that contains or is
amended to contain more than four independent claims, more than thirty total
claims, or any multiple dependent claim.
March 23, 2011 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
[1365 OG 230]