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 1393 O.G. 58, on August 13, 2013.
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 decreased, effective
January 1, 2013, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1385 O.G. 176,
on December 25, 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 increased,
effective January 1, 2013, and was announced in the Official Gazette at
1385 O.G. 176, on December 25, 2012.
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 decreased, effective September 1,
2013, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1393 O.G. 170, on
August 27, 2013.
The Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents & Trademarks of
Russia as Searching and Examining Authority
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 157 |
The Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents & Trademarks of
Russia (Rospatent) may act as the ISA or the IPEA for an international
application filed with the United States Receiving Office or the
International Bureau (IB) as Receiving Office where at least one of the
applicants is either a national or resident of the United States of
America. The announcement appears in the Official Gazette at 1378 O.G. 162,
on May 8, 2012.
The search fee of Rospatent was increased, effective January 1, 2013,
and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1385 O.G. 176, on December 25,
2012.
Fees
The fee for filing a request for the restoration of the right of
priority was changed, effective March 19, 2013, and was announced in the
Federal Register on January 18, 2013. 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.
International filing fees were increased, effective January 1, 2013,
and were announced in the Official Gazette at 1385 O.G. 176, on December 25,
2012.
The schedule of PCT fees (in U.S. dollars), as of September 1, 2013, 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 or micro entity $400.00
- Small Entity $200.00
- Micro 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 $2,419.00
Korean Intellectual Property Office as ISA $1,167.00
IP Australia as ISA $2,084.00
Federal Service on Intellectual Property, Patents &
Trademarks of Russia (Rospatent) as ISA $217.00
International fees
International filing fee $1,419.00
International filing fee-filed in paper
with PCT EASY zip file or
electronically without PCT EASY zip file $1,312.00
International filing fee-filed
electronically with PCT EASY zip files $1,206.00
Supplemental fee for each page over 30 $16.00
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 158 |
Restoration of Priority
Filing a request for the restoration of the
right of priority under § 1.452
- Other than a small or micro entity $1420.00
- Small Entity $710.00
- Micro Entity $355.00
International Application (PCT Chapter II) fees associated
with filing a Demand for Preliminary Examination:
Handling fee $213.00
Handling fee-90% reduction, if applicants meet criteria
specified at:
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee_reduction.pdf $21.30
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).
October 1, 2013 ANDREW H. HIRSHFELD
Deputy Commissioner for
Patent Examination Policy
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable |
Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable
Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1.362(d) provides
that maintenance fees may be paid without surcharge for the six-month
period beginning 3, 7, and 11 years after the date of issue of patents
based on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980. An additional
six-month grace period is provided by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) and 37 CFR 1.362(e)
for payment of the maintenance fee with the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR
1.20(h), as amended effective Dec. 16, 1991. If the maintenance fee is
not paid in the patent requiring such payment the patent will expire on
the 4th, 8th, or 12th anniversary of the grant.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on November 16, 2010
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 7,832,017 through 7,836,516
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on November 14, 2006
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 7,134,146 through 7,137,145
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on November 12, 2002
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 6,477,709 through 6,481,013
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
No maintenance fees are required for design or plant patents.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents may be submitted electronically
over the Internet at www.uspto.gov. Click on the "Site Index" link at the
top of the homepage (www.uspto.gov), and then scroll down and click on the
"Maintenance Fees" link for more information.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents not submitted electronically
over the Internet should be mailed to "United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000".
Correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of
maintenance fees in patents is not to be mailed to P.O. Box 979070,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, but must be mailed to "Mail Stop M
Correspondence, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450".
Patent owners must establish small entity status according to 37 CFR
1.27 if they have not done so and if they wish to pay the small entity
amount.
The current amounts of the maintenance fees due at 3 years and six
months, 7 years and six months, and 11 years and six months are set forth
in the most recently amended provisions in 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(g). To obtain
the current maintenance fee amounts, please call the USPTO Contact Center
at (800)-786-9199 or see the current USPTO fee schedule posted on the USPTO
Internet web site. At the top of the USPTO homepage at www.uspto.gov, click
on the "Site Index" link and then scroll down and click on the "Fees,
USPTO" link to find the current USPTO fee schedule.
| Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee |
Notice of Expiration of Patents
Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.362(g) provide that if the required
maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid in a patent
requiring such payment, the patent will expire at the end of the 4th, 8th
or 12th anniversary of the grant of the patent depending on the first
maintenance fee which was not paid.
According to the records of the Office, the patents listed below have
expired due to failure to pay the required maintenance fee and any
applicable surcharge.
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 9, 2013
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,298,492 09/656,920 10/09/01
6,298,495 09/438,916 10/09/01
6,298,496 09/551,856 10/09/01
6,298,500 09/713,370 10/09/01
6,298,506 09/532,074 10/09/01
6,298,509 08/971,100 10/09/01
6,298,512 09/558,808 10/09/01
6,298,526 09/383,873 10/09/01
6,298,532 09/356,925 10/09/01
6,298,545 09/459,140 10/09/01
6,298,546 09/374,166 10/09/01
6,298,547 09/158,536 10/09/01
6,298,548 08/974,934 10/09/01
6,298,552 09/502,559 10/09/01
6,298,554 09/542,738 10/09/01
6,298,557 09/141,436 10/09/01
6,298,560 09/533,967 10/09/01
6,298,566 09/192,237 10/09/01
6,298,576 09/646,267 10/09/01
6,298,578 09/689,355 10/09/01
6,298,589 09/624,943 10/09/01
6,298,595 09/324,220 10/09/01
6,298,596 09/364,066 10/09/01
6,298,601 09/549,646 10/09/01
6,298,602 09/615,562 10/09/01
6,298,603 09/437,693 10/09/01
6,298,610 09/725,920 10/09/01
6,298,614 09/437,541 10/09/01
6,298,632 09/020,748 10/09/01
6,298,642 09/662,762 10/09/01
6,298,644 09/394,509 10/09/01
6,298,658 09/451,898 10/09/01
6,298,660 09/553,197 10/09/01
6,298,667 09/599,788 10/09/01
6,298,682 09/554,052 10/09/01
6,298,683 09/622,061 10/09/01
6,298,687 09/496,215 10/09/01
6,298,693 09/501,137 10/09/01
6,298,696 09/772,181 10/09/01
6,298,708 09/447,695 10/09/01
6,298,714 09/461,770 10/09/01
6,298,721 09/390,615 10/09/01
6,298,726 09/329,024 10/09/01
6,298,744 09/531,757 10/09/01
6,298,754 09/426,026 10/09/01
6,298,763 09/234,773 10/09/01
6,298,767 09/505,036 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 161 |
6,298,770 09/638,675 10/09/01
6,298,776 09/720,855 10/09/01
6,298,778 09/432,222 10/09/01
6,298,786 09/388,902 10/09/01
6,298,795 09/380,815 10/09/01
6,298,801 09/565,938 10/09/01
6,298,802 09/495,462 10/09/01
6,298,804 09/476,839 10/09/01
6,298,814 09/756,633 10/09/01
6,298,820 09/702,526 10/09/01
6,298,822 09/539,253 10/09/01
6,298,835 09/580,455 10/09/01
6,298,839 09/564,283 10/09/01
6,298,842 09/478,921 10/09/01
6,298,847 09/210,214 10/09/01
6,298,849 09/417,580 10/09/01
6,298,850 09/368,751 10/09/01
6,298,860 09/396,583 10/09/01
6,298,862 09/663,023 10/09/01
6,298,866 09/546,695 10/09/01
6,298,872 09/452,754 10/09/01
6,298,892 09/469,254 10/09/01
6,298,901 09/345,488 10/09/01
6,298,904 09/179,535 10/09/01
6,298,908 08/847,111 10/09/01
6,298,909 09/515,989 10/09/01
6,298,910 09/668,935 10/09/01
6,298,914 09/448,572 10/09/01
6,298,917 09/128,531 10/09/01
6,298,921 09/447,382 10/09/01
6,298,923 09/380,991 10/09/01
6,298,933 09/416,513 10/09/01
6,298,936 09/506,495 10/09/01
6,298,944 09/006,137 10/09/01
6,298,960 09/580,859 10/09/01
6,298,961 09/792,727 10/09/01
6,298,967 09/492,532 10/09/01
6,298,990 09/656,319 10/09/01
6,298,992 09/656,231 10/09/01
6,298,995 09/441,796 10/09/01
6,298,996 09/496,557 10/09/01
6,298,999 09/654,575 10/09/01
6,299,009 09/593,085 10/09/01
6,299,013 09/516,466 10/09/01
6,299,017 09/380,512 10/09/01
6,299,019 09/564,728 10/09/01
6,299,024 09/609,779 10/09/01
6,299,026 09/536,593 10/09/01
6,299,034 09/424,111 10/09/01
6,299,036 09/777,810 10/09/01
6,299,042 09/546,284 10/09/01
6,299,049 09/366,817 10/09/01
6,299,050 09/512,472 10/09/01
6,299,057 09/244,702 10/09/01
6,299,059 09/764,255 10/09/01
6,299,061 09/473,087 10/09/01
6,299,067 09/626,841 10/09/01
6,299,074 09/203,709 10/09/01
6,299,086 09/553,834 10/09/01
6,299,091 09/481,634 10/09/01
6,299,098 09/455,313 10/09/01
6,299,100 09/221,484 10/09/01
6,299,104 09/631,541 10/09/01
6,299,111 09/186,625 10/09/01
6,299,116 09/413,364 10/09/01
6,299,117 09/410,050 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 162 |
6,299,119 09/470,308 10/09/01
6,299,129 09/459,028 10/09/01
6,299,130 09/418,288 10/09/01
6,299,134 09/462,278 10/09/01
6,299,136 09/313,569 10/09/01
6,299,142 09/406,191 10/09/01
6,299,144 09/519,787 10/09/01
6,299,148 09/378,726 10/09/01
6,299,155 09/274,965 10/09/01
6,299,159 09/468,184 10/09/01
6,299,162 09/611,637 10/09/01
6,299,185 09/697,782 10/09/01
6,299,199 09/398,975 10/09/01
6,299,204 09/136,081 10/09/01
6,299,205 09/526,099 10/09/01
6,299,206 09/617,882 10/09/01
6,299,208 09/312,606 10/09/01
6,299,215 09/630,922 10/09/01
6,299,220 09/155,870 10/09/01
6,299,221 09/458,661 10/09/01
6,299,225 09/407,612 10/09/01
6,299,226 09/668,814 10/09/01
6,299,234 09/001,399 10/09/01
6,299,238 09/689,739 10/09/01
6,299,243 09/591,062 10/09/01
6,299,246 09/269,496 10/09/01
6,299,247 09/490,226 10/09/01
6,299,250 09/625,554 10/09/01
6,299,253 09/641,293 10/09/01
6,299,256 09/571,401 10/09/01
6,299,261 09/330,956 10/09/01
6,299,266 09/415,666 10/09/01
6,299,267 09/657,377 10/09/01
6,299,275 09/352,059 10/09/01
6,299,277 08/911,386 10/09/01
6,299,279 09/139,714 10/09/01
6,299,281 09/434,739 10/09/01
6,299,284 08/734,326 10/09/01
6,299,286 09/472,977 10/09/01
6,299,289 09/425,416 10/09/01
6,299,290 09/425,417 10/09/01
6,299,297 08/548,696 10/09/01
6,299,298 08/612,429 10/09/01
6,299,299 09/680,394 10/09/01
6,299,301 09/408,146 10/09/01
6,299,302 09/215,396 10/09/01
6,299,312 09/515,850 10/09/01
6,299,315 09/820,017 10/09/01
6,299,320 09/607,082 10/09/01
6,299,323 09/687,396 10/09/01
6,299,333 09/641,379 10/09/01
6,299,335 09/438,173 10/09/01
6,299,344 09/787,266 10/09/01
6,299,351 09/650,478 10/09/01
6,299,355 09/455,887 10/09/01
6,299,361 09/391,387 10/09/01
6,299,362 09/334,200 10/09/01
6,299,366 09/327,455 10/09/01
6,299,367 09/288,170 10/09/01
6,299,379 09/157,130 10/09/01
6,299,382 08/709,981 10/09/01
6,299,392 09/309,162 10/09/01
6,299,397 09/598,277 10/09/01
6,299,406 09/523,818 10/09/01
6,299,432 09/318,706 10/09/01
6,299,441 09/609,277 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 163 |
6,299,444 09/617,859 10/09/01
6,299,456 09/058,586 10/09/01
6,299,459 09/776,337 10/09/01
6,299,460 09/549,983 10/09/01
6,299,461 09/296,859 10/09/01
6,299,463 09/652,407 10/09/01
6,299,484 09/728,531 10/09/01
6,299,499 09/609,492 10/09/01
6,299,500 09/633,554 10/09/01
6,299,509 09/766,099 10/09/01
6,299,510 09/069,223 10/09/01
6,299,517 09/533,916 10/09/01
6,299,530 09/072,837 10/09/01
6,299,533 09/243,353 10/09/01
6,299,534 08/998,473 10/09/01
6,299,540 09/344,776 10/09/01
6,299,544 09/455,897 10/09/01
6,299,550 09/040,797 10/09/01
6,299,567 08/725,529 10/09/01
6,299,570 09/422,671 10/09/01
6,299,573 09/369,572 10/09/01
6,299,576 09/248,268 10/09/01
6,299,577 09/256,233 10/09/01
6,299,584 09/285,938 10/09/01
6,299,588 09/211,652 10/09/01
6,299,597 08/978,190 10/09/01
6,299,600 09/743,031 10/09/01
6,299,609 09/333,827 10/09/01
6,299,610 09/003,772 10/09/01
6,299,612 09/363,839 10/09/01
6,299,615 09/375,306 10/09/01
6,299,618 09/503,195 10/09/01
6,299,626 09/445,138 10/09/01
6,299,636 09/056,081 10/09/01
6,299,637 09/378,386 10/09/01
6,299,647 09/537,660 10/09/01
6,299,652 09/568,005 10/09/01
6,299,662 09/485,462 10/09/01
6,299,665 09/347,871 10/09/01
6,299,671 09/486,897 10/09/01
6,299,672 09/419,224 10/09/01
6,299,673 09/221,026 10/09/01
6,299,677 09/202,937 10/09/01
6,299,679 09/395,499 10/09/01
6,299,686 09/113,002 10/09/01
6,299,687 09/631,956 10/09/01
6,299,693 09/213,751 10/09/01
6,299,696 09/735,150 10/09/01
6,299,704 09/384,285 10/09/01
6,299,709 09/575,019 10/09/01
6,299,712 09/411,532 10/09/01
6,299,713 09/354,642 10/09/01
6,299,714 09/106,289 10/09/01
6,299,715 09/115,024 10/09/01
6,299,721 09/211,283 10/09/01
6,299,725 09/680,638 10/09/01
6,299,731 09/401,951 10/09/01
6,299,741 09/450,858 10/09/01
6,299,746 09/218,941 10/09/01
6,299,753 09/387,941 10/09/01
6,299,756 09/486,015 10/09/01
6,299,763 09/289,308 10/09/01
6,299,766 09/610,505 10/09/01
6,299,774 09/602,684 10/09/01
6,299,776 08/996,380 10/09/01
6,299,780 09/467,565 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 164 |
6,299,786 09/113,129 10/09/01
6,299,787 09/180,086 10/09/01
6,299,789 09/744,981 10/09/01
6,299,795 09/484,242 10/09/01
6,299,805 09/341,449 10/09/01
6,299,807 09/370,268 10/09/01
6,299,809 08/815,744 10/09/01
6,299,812 09/374,775 10/09/01
6,299,815 09/640,253 10/09/01
6,299,817 09/001,334 10/09/01
6,299,826 09/445,253 10/09/01
6,299,828 09/657,269 10/09/01
6,299,835 08/273,742 10/09/01
6,299,838 08/726,170 10/09/01
6,299,840 09/281,223 10/09/01
6,299,848 09/160,376 10/09/01
6,299,852 09/217,586 10/09/01
6,299,853 09/417,484 10/09/01
6,299,856 09/497,568 10/09/01
6,299,863 09/535,200 10/09/01
6,299,864 09/575,682 10/09/01
6,299,865 09/561,657 10/09/01
6,299,867 09/230,387 10/09/01
6,299,868 09/353,329 10/09/01
6,299,869 09/202,122 10/09/01
6,299,870 09/246,447 10/09/01
6,299,877 09/206,935 10/09/01
6,299,880 09/366,575 10/09/01
6,299,885 09/254,877 10/09/01
6,299,886 09/462,990 10/09/01
6,299,888 09/147,747 10/09/01
6,299,893 09/550,604 10/09/01
6,299,896 09/548,515 10/09/01
6,299,903 09/251,597 10/09/01
6,299,912 09/556,460 10/09/01
6,299,914 09/430,926 10/09/01
6,299,915 09/521,959 10/09/01
6,299,923 09/021,741 10/09/01
6,299,931 09/289,425 10/09/01
6,299,940 09/109,774 10/09/01
6,299,947 09/234,448 10/09/01
6,299,953 08/064,145 10/09/01
6,299,955 09/566,554 10/09/01
6,299,960 09/141,498 10/09/01
6,299,969 09/221,075 10/09/01
6,299,977 09/297,293 10/09/01
6,299,984 09/390,970 10/09/01
6,299,986 09/193,737 10/09/01
6,299,987 08/870,883 10/09/01
6,300,001 09/341,938 10/09/01
6,300,009 09/468,203 10/09/01
6,300,017 09/137,504 10/09/01
6,300,018 09/399,884 10/09/01
6,300,019 09/417,692 10/09/01
6,300,021 09/333,235 10/09/01
6,300,028 09/048,149 10/09/01
6,300,036 09/203,669 10/09/01
6,300,043 09/200,742 10/09/01
6,300,062 08/732,749 10/09/01
6,300,073 09/411,351 10/09/01
6,300,074 09/412,017 10/09/01
6,300,078 09/693,642 10/09/01
6,300,079 08/680,855 10/09/01
6,300,084 09/414,828 10/09/01
6,300,086 09/083,516 10/09/01
6,300,092 09/448,076 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 165 |
6,300,118 08/479,703 10/09/01
6,300,127 09/124,238 10/09/01
6,300,134 09/502,711 10/09/01
6,300,137 09/300,873 10/09/01
6,300,143 09/259,347 10/09/01
6,300,178 09/179,318 10/09/01
6,300,181 09/358,075 10/09/01
6,300,184 09/609,158 10/09/01
6,300,188 09/334,583 10/09/01
6,300,190 09/452,389 10/09/01
6,300,193 09/145,721 10/09/01
6,300,199 09/579,281 10/09/01
6,300,204 09/310,043 10/09/01
6,300,209 09/599,640 10/09/01
6,300,213 09/189,030 10/09/01
6,300,214 09/415,394 10/09/01
6,300,218 09/567,095 10/09/01
6,300,219 09/385,915 10/09/01
6,300,226 09/244,302 10/09/01
6,300,243 09/483,839 10/09/01
6,300,245 09/460,265 10/09/01
6,300,253 09/057,155 10/09/01
6,300,265 09/604,700 10/09/01
6,300,276 09/242,727 10/09/01
6,300,284 09/394,089 10/09/01
6,300,285 08/814,306 10/09/01
6,300,309 08/243,520 10/09/01
6,300,310 08/849,764 10/09/01
6,300,313 09/401,851 10/09/01
6,300,315 09/385,238 10/09/01
6,300,321 09/424,380 10/09/01
6,300,326 09/631,165 10/09/01
6,300,327 08/795,967 10/09/01
6,300,328 09/627,914 10/09/01
6,300,330 09/297,768 10/09/01
6,300,346 09/520,667 10/09/01
6,300,347 09/446,885 10/09/01
6,300,350 09/691,967 10/09/01
6,300,354 09/744,405 10/09/01
6,300,357 09/241,369 10/09/01
6,300,365 09/850,901 10/09/01
6,300,393 09/593,596 10/09/01
6,300,400 09/061,653 10/09/01
6,300,418 09/432,068 10/09/01
6,300,420 08/817,210 10/09/01
6,300,427 09/477,104 10/09/01
6,300,434 08/524,024 10/09/01
6,300,440 09/565,137 10/09/01
6,300,442 09/396,000 10/09/01
6,300,459 09/403,862 10/09/01
6,300,466 09/554,157 10/09/01
6,300,469 09/646,762 10/09/01
6,300,473 09/343,011 10/09/01
6,300,474 08/489,071 10/09/01
6,300,475 09/206,936 10/09/01
6,300,478 09/325,958 10/09/01
6,300,479 09/369,744 10/09/01
6,300,480 09/310,851 10/09/01
6,300,486 09/196,567 10/09/01
6,300,489 09/442,631 10/09/01
6,300,492 09/617,053 10/09/01
6,300,494 08/926,010 10/09/01
6,300,499 09/155,535 10/09/01
6,300,503 09/589,571 10/09/01
6,300,504 09/218,847 10/09/01
6,300,522 09/673,509 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 166 |
6,300,523 09/427,761 10/09/01
6,300,531 08/435,178 10/09/01
6,300,536 09/436,485 10/09/01
6,300,564 09/554,054 10/09/01
6,300,570 09/754,202 10/09/01
6,300,576 09/106,302 10/09/01
6,300,584 09/469,518 10/09/01
6,300,587 09/604,915 10/09/01
6,300,592 09/360,496 10/09/01
6,300,594 09/252,223 10/09/01
6,300,601 09/624,334 10/09/01
6,300,603 09/588,919 10/09/01
6,300,613 09/315,571 10/09/01
6,300,614 09/050,014 10/09/01
6,300,618 09/209,580 10/09/01
6,300,640 09/197,248 10/09/01
6,300,642 09/250,425 10/09/01
6,300,645 09/382,939 10/09/01
6,300,646 09/558,337 10/09/01
6,300,668 09/375,852 10/09/01
6,300,671 09/376,886 10/09/01
6,300,675 09/495,301 10/09/01
6,300,681 09/313,196 10/09/01
6,300,685 09/358,366 10/09/01
6,300,702 09/664,591 10/09/01
6,300,703 09/380,492 10/09/01
6,300,712 09/253,825 10/09/01
6,300,713 09/653,819 10/09/01
6,300,714 09/616,732 10/09/01
6,300,719 09/640,432 10/09/01
6,300,720 09/283,135 10/09/01
6,300,723 09/652,937 10/09/01
6,300,725 09/161,995 10/09/01
6,300,726 09/482,093 10/09/01
6,300,730 09/284,381 10/09/01
6,300,733 09/790,136 10/09/01
6,300,735 09/532,852 10/09/01
6,300,746 09/269,432 10/09/01
6,300,753 09/511,814 10/09/01
6,300,754 09/511,817 10/09/01
6,300,756 08/873,819 10/09/01
6,300,771 09/197,674 10/09/01
6,300,773 09/424,529 10/09/01
6,300,778 09/392,084 10/09/01
6,300,782 09/872,434 10/09/01
6,300,786 09/420,256 10/09/01
6,300,787 09/561,723 10/09/01
6,300,793 09/377,304 10/09/01
6,300,798 09/418,762 10/09/01
6,300,801 09/404,142 10/09/01
6,300,806 09/448,049 10/09/01
6,300,812 09/672,340 10/09/01
6,300,820 09/498,699 10/09/01
6,300,821 09/444,990 10/09/01
6,300,840 09/457,679 10/09/01
6,300,842 09/501,738 10/09/01
6,300,848 09/388,414 10/09/01
6,300,849 09/449,582 10/09/01
6,300,851 09/445,707 10/09/01
6,300,856 09/379,607 10/09/01
6,300,861 09/407,150 10/09/01
6,300,865 09/180,564 10/09/01
6,300,871 09/421,974 10/09/01
6,300,891 09/266,601 10/09/01
6,300,895 08/800,627 10/09/01
6,300,896 09/465,595 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 167 |
6,300,898 09/480,957 10/09/01
6,300,907 09/491,294 10/09/01
6,300,910 09/400,578 10/09/01
6,300,913 09/461,578 10/09/01
6,300,915 09/709,136 10/09/01
6,300,919 09/578,133 10/09/01
6,300,921 08/968,384 10/09/01
6,300,932 09/141,203 10/09/01
6,300,939 09/175,632 10/09/01
6,300,941 09/325,001 10/09/01
6,300,944 08/928,888 10/09/01
6,300,945 09/183,913 10/09/01
6,300,950 09/054,025 10/09/01
6,300,954 09/151,062 10/09/01
6,300,972 08/995,477 10/09/01
6,300,975 09/173,093 10/09/01
6,300,977 08/930,749 10/09/01
6,300,978 09/022,038 10/09/01
6,300,980 08/803,185 10/09/01
6,300,985 09/523,889 10/09/01
6,300,998 09/372,929 10/09/01
6,300,999 09/420,173 10/09/01
6,301,000 09/480,426 10/09/01
6,301,006 09/500,171 10/09/01
6,301,007 09/321,910 10/09/01
6,301,008 09/264,742 10/09/01
6,301,015 08/845,039 10/09/01
6,301,021 09/118,976 10/09/01
6,301,026 09/442,804 10/09/01
6,301,033 08/872,973 10/09/01
6,301,039 09/660,865 10/09/01
6,301,041 09/376,180 10/09/01
6,301,045 09/239,031 10/09/01
6,301,059 09/479,143 10/09/01
6,301,066 09/162,225 10/09/01
6,301,069 09/162,860 10/09/01
6,301,071 09/811,839 10/09/01
6,301,072 09/603,156 10/09/01
6,301,073 09/442,931 10/09/01
6,301,079 09/116,377 10/09/01
6,301,080 09/251,918 10/09/01
6,301,085 09/337,425 10/09/01
6,301,093 09/478,521 10/09/01
6,301,098 09/167,581 10/09/01
6,301,102 09/406,956 10/09/01
6,301,106 09/179,241 10/09/01
6,301,107 09/537,032 10/09/01
6,301,111 09/712,928 10/09/01
6,301,112 09/506,110 10/09/01
6,301,117 09/548,363 10/09/01
6,301,119 09/230,718 10/09/01
6,301,127 09/639,528 10/09/01
6,301,143 09/645,552 10/09/01
6,301,148 09/542,629 10/09/01
6,301,151 09/634,180 10/09/01
6,301,153 09/511,915 10/09/01
6,301,157 09/415,024 10/09/01
6,301,158 09/079,912 10/09/01
6,301,160 09/498,168 10/09/01
6,301,161 09/558,432 10/09/01
6,301,162 09/619,352 10/09/01
6,301,172 09/794,513 10/09/01
6,301,182 09/532,874 10/09/01
6,301,185 09/603,895 10/09/01
6,301,186 09/845,383 10/09/01
6,301,189 09/604,686 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 168 |
6,301,203 09/414,469 10/09/01
6,301,215 09/347,095 10/09/01
6,301,216 09/291,179 10/09/01
6,301,218 09/398,740 10/09/01
6,301,221 09/138,599 10/09/01
6,301,229 09/056,281 10/09/01
6,301,239 08/991,822 10/09/01
6,301,255 08/995,995 10/09/01
6,301,256 09/064,676 10/09/01
6,301,270 09/032,866 10/09/01
6,301,272 09/505,000 10/09/01
6,301,279 09/430,643 10/09/01
6,301,283 09/237,890 10/09/01
6,301,286 09/679,367 10/09/01
6,301,299 09/087,225 10/09/01
6,301,302 09/628,341 10/09/01
6,301,305 09/089,393 10/09/01
6,301,321 09/354,068 10/09/01
6,301,324 09/282,535 10/09/01
6,301,326 09/184,629 10/09/01
6,301,329 09/633,242 10/09/01
6,301,332 09/723,932 10/09/01
6,301,334 09/552,141 10/09/01
6,301,343 09/130,481 10/09/01
6,301,344 09/186,009 10/09/01
6,301,351 09/056,769 10/09/01
6,301,352 09/173,142 10/09/01
6,301,369 09/758,404 10/09/01
6,301,376 09/061,406 10/09/01
6,301,379 08/807,090 10/09/01
6,301,387 09/216,692 10/09/01
6,301,390 08/714,500 10/09/01
6,301,406 09/214,202 10/09/01
6,301,410 09/876,208 10/09/01
6,301,411 09/175,538 10/09/01
6,301,420 09/070,747 10/09/01
6,301,429 09/073,681 10/09/01
6,301,432 08/973,998 10/09/01
6,301,433 09/482,505 10/09/01
6,301,434 09/274,815 10/09/01
6,301,438 09/661,236 10/09/01
6,301,443 08/901,480 10/09/01
6,301,447 09/168,174 10/09/01
6,301,450 09/662,906 10/09/01
6,301,460 09/667,358 10/09/01
6,301,469 09/294,948 10/09/01
6,301,477 09/054,324 10/09/01
6,301,480 08/924,583 10/09/01
6,301,490 09/097,209 10/09/01
6,301,497 09/351,495 10/09/01
6,301,504 09/415,480 10/09/01
6,301,506 09/345,117 10/09/01
6,301,507 09/487,788 10/09/01
6,301,509 09/148,693 10/09/01
6,301,512 08/632,638 10/09/01
6,301,517 09/266,223 10/09/01
6,301,520 09/034,345 10/09/01
6,301,528 09/622,281 10/09/01
6,301,530 09/599,449 10/09/01
6,301,532 09/466,304 10/09/01
6,301,548 09/262,862 10/09/01
6,301,557 09/132,945 10/09/01
6,301,558 09/005,963 10/09/01
6,301,559 09/192,197 10/09/01
6,301,577 09/668,718 10/09/01
6,301,603 09/024,793 10/09/01
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 169 |
6,301,608 08/696,548 10/09/01
6,301,623 09/220,430 10/09/01
6,301,639 09/360,261 10/09/01
6,301,649 09/055,186 10/09/01
6,301,655 09/153,756 10/09/01
6,301,663 09/195,918 10/09/01
6,301,673 08/787,891 10/09/01
6,301,686 09/274,475 10/09/01
6,301,692 09/153,063 10/09/01
6,301,702 09/018,857 10/09/01
6,301,707 08/942,265 10/09/01
6,301,708 09/191,257 10/09/01
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 4, 2013
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,951,037 10/226,337 10/04/05
6,951,038 10/959,882 10/04/05
6,951,040 10/433,222 10/04/05
6,951,051 10/101,334 10/04/05
6,951,055 10/877,901 10/04/05
6,951,058 10/961,995 10/04/05
6,951,069 09/706,436 10/04/05
6,951,073 10/700,262 10/04/05
6,951,074 10/603,525 10/04/05
6,951,085 10/769,938 10/04/05
6,951,087 10/317,291 10/04/05
6,951,089 10/248,672 10/04/05
6,951,095 10/718,019 10/04/05
6,951,111 10/679,583 10/04/05
6,951,115 10/659,753 10/04/05
6,951,118 10/669,172 10/04/05
6,951,121 10/059,313 10/04/05
6,951,128 10/433,810 10/04/05
6,951,139 10/729,600 10/04/05
6,951,144 10/811,619 10/04/05
6,951,155 10/335,771 10/04/05
6,951,159 10/244,776 10/04/05
6,951,162 09/544,357 10/04/05
6,951,168 10/837,332 10/04/05
6,951,173 10/437,476 10/04/05
6,951,177 10/510,010 10/04/05
6,951,178 10/616,595 10/04/05
6,951,179 10/911,746 10/04/05
6,951,180 10/793,151 10/04/05
6,951,183 10/859,713 10/04/05
6,951,185 10/688,620 10/04/05
6,951,186 09/774,626 10/04/05
6,951,188 10/827,033 10/04/05
6,951,190 10/372,489 10/04/05
6,951,192 10/615,650 10/04/05
6,951,195 10/701,616 10/04/05
6,951,207 10/819,311 10/04/05
6,951,211 10/385,588 10/04/05
6,951,213 09/927,106 10/04/05
6,951,216 10/325,534 10/04/05
6,951,222 10/115,296 10/04/05
6,951,224 10/465,052 10/04/05
6,951,236 10/959,445 10/04/05
6,951,256 10/831,666 10/04/05
6,951,258 10/799,496 10/04/05
6,951,261 10/259,656 10/04/05
6,951,262 10/099,226 10/04/05
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 170 |
6,951,268 10/071,146 10/04/05
6,951,272 10/941,836 10/04/05
6,951,275 10/499,009 10/04/05
6,951,277 10/131,313 10/04/05
6,951,278 10/380,943 10/04/05
6,951,285 10/623,007 10/04/05
6,951,299 10/260,392 10/04/05
6,951,304 10/227,545 10/04/05
6,951,308 10/415,792 10/04/05
6,951,311 10/653,137 10/04/05
6,951,318 10/614,507 10/04/05
6,951,325 10/782,139 10/04/05
6,951,327 10/403,375 10/04/05
6,951,330 10/467,132 10/04/05
6,951,333 10/404,067 10/04/05
6,951,335 10/282,574 10/04/05
6,951,341 09/980,898 10/04/05
6,951,342 10/622,269 10/04/05
6,951,344 10/329,706 10/04/05
6,951,345 10/740,106 10/04/05
6,951,348 10/280,613 10/04/05
6,951,361 11/018,307 10/04/05
6,951,362 10/707,428 10/04/05
6,951,365 10/413,004 10/04/05
6,951,367 10/855,766 10/04/05
6,951,374 10/223,523 10/04/05
6,951,375 10/441,713 10/04/05
6,951,377 10/202,981 10/04/05
6,951,379 10/411,048 10/04/05
6,951,383 10/600,736 10/04/05
6,951,389 10/349,410 10/04/05
6,951,391 10/462,294 10/04/05
6,951,392 10/615,663 10/04/05
6,951,399 10/425,942 10/04/05
6,951,406 10/422,230 10/04/05
6,951,407 10/851,463 10/04/05
6,951,408 10/249,905 10/04/05
6,951,419 10/433,563 10/04/05
6,951,420 09/857,735 10/04/05
6,951,421 10/367,450 10/04/05
6,951,427 10/804,072 10/04/05
6,951,428 10/702,959 10/04/05
6,951,432 10/779,307 10/04/05
6,951,435 10/949,234 10/04/05
6,951,437 10/783,074 10/04/05
6,951,459 10/156,968 10/04/05
6,951,464 10/113,727 10/04/05
6,951,465 10/603,047 10/04/05
6,951,466 10/653,400 10/04/05
6,951,469 10/884,942 10/04/05
6,951,477 10/624,620 10/04/05
6,951,489 10/731,111 10/04/05
6,951,490 10/621,728 10/04/05
6,951,499 10/839,530 10/04/05
6,951,503 10/879,654 10/04/05
6,951,505 10/704,517 10/04/05
6,951,517 10/488,152 10/04/05
6,951,541 10/726,833 10/04/05
6,951,552 10/239,531 10/04/05
6,951,572 10/639,255 10/04/05
6,951,584 10/364,517 10/04/05
6,951,589 10/181,661 10/04/05
6,951,599 10/188,163 10/04/05
6,951,601 08/838,910 10/04/05
6,951,603 10/225,054 10/04/05
6,951,610 10/059,577 10/04/05
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 171 |
6,951,616 10/643,828 10/04/05
6,951,618 10/420,161 10/04/05
6,951,621 10/247,754 10/04/05
6,951,626 10/086,692 10/04/05
6,951,634 10/247,016 10/04/05
6,951,636 10/793,880 10/04/05
6,951,637 10/433,257 10/04/05
6,951,639 10/118,430 10/04/05
6,951,640 10/375,454 10/04/05
6,951,646 09/744,176 10/04/05
6,951,662 09/762,347 10/04/05
6,951,663 10/643,013 10/04/05
6,951,665 10/706,051 10/04/05
6,951,671 09/839,793 10/04/05
6,951,676 10/381,167 10/04/05
6,951,679 10/697,212 10/04/05
6,951,681 10/734,872 10/04/05
6,951,687 10/465,781 10/04/05
6,951,700 10/148,673 10/04/05
6,951,706 10/646,710 10/04/05
6,951,714 10/053,243 10/04/05
6,951,716 10/163,966 10/04/05
6,951,717 08/484,741 10/04/05
6,951,722 09/935,338 10/04/05
6,951,726 10/252,357 10/04/05
6,951,740 10/396,869 10/04/05
6,951,747 10/914,242 10/04/05
6,951,749 09/712,338 10/04/05
6,951,751 10/439,479 10/04/05
6,951,753 10/253,598 10/04/05
6,951,777 10/837,959 10/04/05
6,951,778 10/284,825 10/04/05
6,951,779 10/912,469 10/04/05
6,951,786 09/951,324 10/04/05
6,951,789 10/878,059 10/04/05
6,951,794 10/798,568 10/04/05
6,951,795 10/744,048 10/04/05
6,951,796 10/653,950 10/04/05
6,951,797 10/111,138 10/04/05
6,951,813 10/406,854 10/04/05
6,951,815 10/466,604 10/04/05
6,951,833 10/663,101 10/04/05
6,951,837 09/979,531 10/04/05
6,951,841 09/738,212 10/04/05
6,951,843 10/168,540 10/04/05
6,951,845 10/146,717 10/04/05
6,951,855 10/475,051 10/04/05
6,951,856 10/332,247 10/04/05
6,951,865 10/148,836 10/04/05
6,951,866 10/222,922 10/04/05
6,951,870 10/312,817 10/04/05
6,951,871 10/600,674 10/04/05
6,951,874 10/204,754 10/04/05
6,951,877 10/624,659 10/04/05
6,951,879 09/999,424 10/04/05
6,951,881 10/434,965 10/04/05
6,951,883 10/466,118 10/04/05
6,951,884 10/456,641 10/04/05
6,951,892 09/755,239 10/04/05
6,951,898 10/016,334 10/04/05
6,951,899 10/384,373 10/04/05
6,951,903 10/242,992 10/04/05
6,951,904 09/600,363 10/04/05
6,951,905 10/182,333 10/04/05
6,951,907 10/412,409 10/04/05
6,951,908 10/433,404 10/04/05
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 172 |
6,951,926 09/866,927 10/04/05
6,951,930 10/227,001 10/04/05
6,951,932 10/281,291 10/04/05
6,951,940 10/663,124 10/04/05
6,951,943 10/620,396 10/04/05
6,951,945 10/616,359 10/04/05
6,951,947 09/839,577 10/04/05
6,951,954 09/503,599 10/04/05
6,951,955 10/664,724 10/04/05
6,951,958 10/049,669 10/04/05
6,951,959 10/731,733 10/04/05
6,951,986 11/025,303 10/04/05
6,952,000 10/901,522 10/04/05
6,952,001 10/444,936 10/04/05
6,952,002 10/195,402 10/04/05
6,952,007 10/090,929 10/04/05
6,952,029 09/633,132 10/04/05
6,952,044 10/161,423 10/04/05
6,952,045 10/348,536 10/04/05
6,952,046 10/460,852 10/04/05
6,952,051 09/627,649 10/04/05
6,952,058 10/883,214 10/04/05
6,952,072 10/281,021 10/04/05
6,952,075 10/810,637 10/04/05
6,952,085 10/751,155 10/04/05
6,952,090 10/722,506 10/04/05
6,952,099 10/678,903 10/04/05
6,952,104 10/461,875 10/04/05
6,952,105 10/620,702 10/04/05
6,952,109 10/933,788 10/04/05
6,952,122 09/966,481 10/04/05
6,952,131 10/912,436 10/04/05
6,952,140 10/334,945 10/04/05
6,952,141 10/618,448 10/04/05
6,952,158 10/004,449 10/04/05
6,952,159 10/296,905 10/04/05
6,952,161 10/423,509 10/04/05
6,952,162 10/625,058 10/04/05
6,952,163 10/460,509 10/04/05
6,952,167 10/344,375 10/04/05
6,952,170 10/054,996 10/04/05
6,952,173 10/107,069 10/04/05
6,952,174 10/237,992 10/04/05
6,952,187 10/731,196 10/04/05
6,952,197 09/559,261 10/04/05
6,952,200 10/705,013 10/04/05
6,952,207 10/096,217 10/04/05
6,952,209 09/894,251 10/04/05
6,952,215 09/283,386 10/04/05
6,952,231 09/675,548 10/04/05
6,952,233 08/848,243 10/04/05
6,952,244 10/081,917 10/04/05
6,952,248 10/425,613 10/04/05
6,952,263 10/453,374 10/04/05
6,952,266 10/342,578 10/04/05
6,952,269 10/253,762 10/04/05
6,952,288 09/923,416 10/04/05
6,952,289 09/744,746 10/04/05
6,952,294 09/725,934 10/04/05
6,952,296 09/786,837 10/04/05
6,952,311 10/847,444 10/04/05
6,952,315 10/734,302 10/04/05
6,952,327 08/944,208 10/04/05
6,952,348 10/816,134 10/04/05
6,952,366 10/775,424 10/04/05
6,952,370 10/749,428 10/04/05
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 173 |
6,952,372 10/944,052 10/04/05
6,952,373 10/941,996 10/04/05
6,952,377 10/824,784 10/04/05
6,952,379 10/250,849 10/04/05
6,952,382 10/115,404 10/04/05
6,952,386 09/613,997 10/04/05
6,952,390 10/879,917 10/04/05
6,952,404 10/287,766 10/04/05
6,952,417 09/524,476 10/04/05
6,952,420 09/691,756 10/04/05
6,952,422 09/850,107 10/04/05
6,952,438 10/699,134 10/04/05
6,952,446 10/008,476 10/04/05
6,952,456 09/599,969 10/04/05
6,952,459 09/981,980 10/04/05
6,952,474 09/808,853 10/04/05
6,952,482 10/007,460 10/04/05
6,952,491 09/765,995 10/04/05
6,952,493 09/773,478 10/04/05
6,952,512 10/471,924 10/04/05
6,952,532 09/833,107 10/04/05
6,952,544 10/670,246 10/04/05
6,952,545 10/438,868 10/04/05
6,952,547 10/937,273 10/04/05
6,952,555 10/435,872 10/04/05
6,952,567 10/672,903 10/04/05
6,952,586 09/725,128 10/04/05
6,952,594 10/301,987 10/04/05
6,952,598 09/810,462 10/04/05
6,952,600 10/150,624 10/04/05
6,952,603 09/810,635 10/04/05
6,952,605 09/924,869 10/04/05
6,952,624 10/463,529 10/04/05
6,952,634 10/214,762 10/04/05
6,952,646 10/438,302 10/04/05
6,952,647 10/922,947 10/04/05
6,952,654 10/662,637 10/04/05
6,952,663 09/883,402 10/04/05
6,952,671 09/649,143 10/04/05
6,952,686 09/926,148 10/04/05
6,952,688 09/588,681 10/04/05
6,952,701 09/924,735 10/04/05
6,952,726 09/384,839 10/04/05
6,952,729 09/851,234 10/04/05
6,952,742 10/787,116 10/04/05
6,952,744 10/688,749 10/04/05
6,952,747 10/314,285 10/04/05
6,952,752 10/683,066 10/04/05
6,952,756 10/140,138 10/04/05
6,952,757 10/230,936 10/04/05
6,952,764 10/039,588 10/04/05
6,952,765 10/046,982 10/04/05
6,952,766 09/809,408 10/04/05
6,952,767 09/983,908 10/04/05
6,952,775 09/644,065 10/04/05
6,952,780 09/769,778 10/04/05
6,952,786 10/128,984 10/04/05
6,952,787 10/772,352 10/04/05
6,952,798 09/811,219 10/04/05
6,952,804 09/783,569 10/04/05
6,952,825 09/484,117 10/04/05
6,952,829 09/106,166 10/04/05
6,952,831 09/258,623 10/04/05
6,952,832 10/080,799 10/04/05
6,952,834 10/204,269 10/04/05
6,952,835 09/644,351 10/04/05
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 174 |
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 6, 2013
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
7,596,814 11/487,758 10/06/09
7,596,815 11/796,642 10/06/09
7,596,817 11/208,179 10/06/09
7,596,827 10/985,231 10/06/09
7,596,830 11/896,779 10/06/09
7,596,859 10/278,250 10/06/09
7,596,862 11/863,820 10/06/09
7,596,875 11/938,840 10/06/09
7,596,877 11/985,278 10/06/09
7,596,878 12/235,990 10/06/09
7,596,881 12/233,198 10/06/09
7,596,887 11/235,594 10/06/09
7,596,888 12/316,418 10/06/09
7,596,895 11/799,094 10/06/09
7,596,906 11/238,526 10/06/09
7,596,918 10/493,311 10/06/09
7,596,922 10/685,048 10/06/09
7,596,923 10/956,422 10/06/09
7,596,927 11/128,007 10/06/09
7,596,939 11/290,480 10/06/09
7,596,942 11/571,252 10/06/09
7,596,960 10/959,145 10/06/09
7,596,961 10/521,959 10/06/09
7,596,964 11/482,040 10/06/09
7,596,966 11/228,044 10/06/09
7,596,967 11/585,777 10/06/09
7,596,970 11/424,837 10/06/09
7,596,978 12/082,434 10/06/09
7,596,982 12/216,315 10/06/09
7,596,985 12/139,732 10/06/09
7,596,999 11/450,165 10/06/09
7,597,005 11/557,661 10/06/09
7,597,013 11/522,686 10/06/09
7,597,019 11/502,422 10/06/09
7,597,039 11/753,913 10/06/09
7,597,048 10/583,548 10/06/09
7,597,062 11/150,056 10/06/09
7,597,064 11/743,281 10/06/09
7,597,071 12/136,243 10/06/09
7,597,073 11/882,106 10/06/09
7,597,088 11/467,128 10/06/09
7,597,091 12/213,064 10/06/09
7,597,096 12/031,904 10/06/09
7,597,097 12/031,921 10/06/09
7,597,098 10/521,241 10/06/09
7,597,099 11/851,108 10/06/09
7,597,107 11/442,442 10/06/09
7,597,109 11/360,417 10/06/09
7,597,113 12/346,677 10/06/09
7,597,116 11/279,150 10/06/09
7,597,130 11/206,119 10/06/09
7,597,145 11/167,673 10/06/09
7,597,174 11/708,140 10/06/09
7,597,179 11/621,995 10/06/09
7,597,183 11/932,224 10/06/09
7,597,187 12/055,340 10/06/09
7,597,192 11/179,613 10/06/09
7,597,193 11/189,499 10/06/09
7,597,194 11/435,311 10/06/09
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 175 |
7,597,197 12/024,121 10/06/09
7,597,198 11/350,362 10/06/09
7,597,200 10/182,435 10/06/09
7,597,201 11/671,670 10/06/09
7,597,205 11/535,527 10/06/09
7,597,207 10/587,232 10/06/09
7,597,215 11/433,851 10/06/09
7,597,216 10/550,551 10/06/09
7,597,222 11/126,669 10/06/09
7,597,223 10/980,385 10/06/09
7,597,232 11/513,219 10/06/09
7,597,237 11/409,895 10/06/09
7,597,238 11/553,761 10/06/09
7,597,239 11/646,819 10/06/09
7,597,241 11/377,923 10/06/09
7,597,250 11/420,747 10/06/09
7,597,252 11/279,829 10/06/09
7,597,268 11/829,766 10/06/09
7,597,271 11/149,535 10/06/09
7,597,274 11/982,154 10/06/09
7,597,277 10/582,786 10/06/09
7,597,292 11/339,064 10/06/09
7,597,294 10/545,320 10/06/09
7,597,296 10/802,640 10/06/09
7,597,297 11/786,730 10/06/09
7,597,309 12/199,527 10/06/09
7,597,314 11/970,993 10/06/09
7,597,317 11/723,275 10/06/09
7,597,325 11/550,604 10/06/09
7,597,327 11/292,934 10/06/09
7,597,330 12/029,235 10/06/09
7,597,338 11/213,272 10/06/09
7,597,345 11/949,326 10/06/09
7,597,349 11/459,960 10/06/09
7,597,354 11/260,824 10/06/09
7,597,358 12/119,835 10/06/09
7,597,369 11/753,581 10/06/09
7,597,372 10/535,932 10/06/09
7,597,376 11/817,970 10/06/09
7,597,377 12/139,052 10/06/09
7,597,380 12/248,531 10/06/09
7,597,386 12/042,024 10/06/09
7,597,392 12/177,710 10/06/09
7,597,421 11/748,485 10/06/09
7,597,435 12/031,646 10/06/09
7,597,440 12/015,802 10/06/09
7,597,447 10/891,715 10/06/09
7,597,448 11/459,211 10/06/09
7,597,449 12/130,730 10/06/09
7,597,454 11/714,207 10/06/09
7,597,457 11/683,205 10/06/09
7,597,461 11/749,173 10/06/09
7,597,462 11/691,483 10/06/09
7,597,473 11/680,727 10/06/09
7,597,474 12/064,386 10/06/09
7,597,481 11/569,388 10/06/09
7,597,491 11/245,347 10/06/09
7,597,494 11/999,137 10/06/09
7,597,496 11/435,193 10/06/09
7,597,500 12/158,560 10/06/09
7,597,513 11/724,779 10/06/09
7,597,518 11/870,803 10/06/09
7,597,520 11/311,558 10/06/09
7,597,523 11/774,750 10/06/09
7,597,524 11/590,292 10/06/09
7,597,526 11/222,559 10/06/09
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 176 |
7,597,529 10/568,613 10/06/09
7,597,532 11/429,268 10/06/09
7,597,545 10/532,684 10/06/09
7,597,554 11/598,897 10/06/09
7,597,564 11/696,433 10/06/09
7,597,575 11/520,114 10/06/09
7,597,576 11/900,558 10/06/09
7,597,577 12/180,154 10/06/09
7,597,585 12/150,410 10/06/09
7,597,586 12/076,605 10/06/09
7,597,591 12/369,788 10/06/09
7,597,600 11/933,751 10/06/09
7,597,601 11/136,174 10/06/09
7,597,604 11/783,139 10/06/09
7,597,605 11/701,297 10/06/09
7,597,607 11/403,308 10/06/09
7,597,624 11/164,769 10/06/09
7,597,629 11/399,369 10/06/09
7,597,632 11/152,306 10/06/09
7,597,635 11/703,356 10/06/09
7,597,637 11/619,943 10/06/09
7,597,638 10/711,193 10/06/09
7,597,641 11/645,170 10/06/09
7,597,645 11/704,876 10/06/09
7,597,665 10/663,084 10/06/09
7,597,680 11/883,934 10/06/09
7,597,691 10/257,956 10/06/09
7,597,703 10/935,851 10/06/09
7,597,716 11/658,378 10/06/09
7,597,727 11/105,205 10/06/09
7,597,728 10/151,797 10/06/09
7,597,738 11/687,256 10/06/09
7,597,754 11/471,570 10/06/09
7,597,759 11/353,819 10/06/09
7,597,761 11/502,647 10/06/09
7,597,775 10/012,919 10/06/09
7,597,797 11/650,820 10/06/09
7,597,804 10/876,777 10/06/09
7,597,815 11/189,363 10/06/09
7,597,817 10/829,590 10/06/09
7,597,834 11/733,638 10/06/09
7,597,843 11/212,644 10/06/09
7,597,844 10/892,812 10/06/09
7,597,845 10/923,975 10/06/09
7,597,862 11/533,592 10/06/09
7,597,868 11/649,715 10/06/09
7,597,885 10/810,518 10/06/09
7,597,898 10/435,953 10/06/09
7,597,903 10/307,501 10/06/09
7,597,904 11/739,368 10/06/09
7,597,906 11/688,167 10/06/09
7,597,910 11/207,700 10/06/09
7,597,918 11/103,624 10/06/09
7,597,928 10/789,504 10/06/09
7,597,940 10/522,185 10/06/09
7,597,941 10/937,738 10/06/09
7,597,952 11/446,546 10/06/09
7,597,960 12/213,740 10/06/09
7,597,968 11/271,236 10/06/09
7,597,971 11/218,892 10/06/09
7,597,979 11/160,207 10/06/09
7,597,982 10/668,161 10/06/09
7,597,988 11/027,534 10/06/09
7,598,000 11/031,949 10/06/09
7,598,002 11/328,759 10/06/09
7,598,009 12/182,347 10/06/09
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 177 |
7,598,010 10/998,913 10/06/09
7,598,019 10/934,102 10/06/09
7,598,020 11/117,492 10/06/09
7,598,024 11/370,159 10/06/09
7,598,036 11/157,922 10/06/09
7,598,042 10/514,735 10/06/09
7,598,044 11/397,347 10/06/09
7,598,049 10/993,813 10/06/09
7,598,061 11/724,596 10/06/09
7,598,082 09/980,772 10/06/09
7,598,085 11/303,759 10/06/09
7,598,098 10/553,470 10/06/09
7,598,101 11/906,869 10/06/09
7,598,106 11/111,995 10/06/09
7,598,110 11/844,694 10/06/09
7,598,120 12/114,544 10/06/09
7,598,137 11/319,492 10/06/09
7,598,138 11/315,100 10/06/09
7,598,140 11/237,688 10/06/09
7,598,148 10/966,222 10/06/09
7,598,168 11/033,208 10/06/09
7,598,197 11/050,574 10/06/09
7,598,198 12/183,247 10/06/09
7,598,199 11/126,064 10/06/09
7,598,201 12/086,319 10/06/09
7,598,203 11/623,782 10/06/09
7,598,206 11/793,899 10/06/09
7,598,219 11/361,906 10/06/09
7,598,228 10/642,272 10/06/09
7,598,229 10/695,578 10/06/09
7,598,230 11/818,990 10/06/09
7,598,235 11/218,468 10/06/09
7,598,237 11/946,408 10/06/09
7,598,240 10/598,516 10/06/09
7,598,243 10/260,008 10/06/09
7,598,251 12/262,290 10/06/09
7,598,252 10/718,280 10/06/09
7,598,256 11/340,481 10/06/09
7,598,258 10/510,961 10/06/09
7,598,259 11/301,672 10/06/09
7,598,260 11/819,307 10/06/09
7,598,261 11/393,133 10/06/09
7,598,263 11/765,813 10/06/09
7,598,266 12/099,929 10/06/09
7,598,267 11/568,930 10/06/09
7,598,269 11/807,759 10/06/09
7,598,284 11/979,036 10/06/09
7,598,286 11/260,127 10/06/09
7,598,288 10/488,496 10/06/09
7,598,293 11/674,465 10/06/09
7,598,300 12/006,139 10/06/09
7,598,307 10/556,719 10/06/09
7,598,331 11/355,667 10/06/09
7,598,337 11/314,337 10/06/09
7,598,340 10/292,541 10/06/09
7,598,349 11/185,859 10/06/09
7,598,351 11/004,336 10/06/09
7,598,352 10/006,760 10/06/09
7,598,355 10/210,333 10/06/09
7,598,356 10/887,106 10/06/09
7,598,357 12/289,417 10/06/09
7,598,367 11/408,791 10/06/09
7,598,368 11/495,883 10/06/09
7,598,382 11/275,553 10/06/09
7,598,387 11/568,610 10/06/09
7,598,392 11/736,770 10/06/09
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 178 |
7,598,393 11/266,107 10/06/09
7,598,396 12/378,876 10/06/09
7,598,399 11/605,648 10/06/09
7,598,401 11/865,338 10/06/09
7,598,408 10/546,150 10/06/09
7,598,411 10/509,340 10/06/09
7,598,418 10/510,242 10/06/09
7,598,422 11/787,962 10/06/09
7,598,425 11/578,523 10/06/09
7,598,428 11/251,881 10/06/09
7,598,433 12/211,146 10/06/09
7,598,444 12/016,194 10/06/09
7,598,493 11/441,889 10/06/09
7,598,502 11/964,483 10/06/09
7,598,537 10/676,071 10/06/09
7,598,553 11/948,783 10/06/09
7,598,554 11/583,037 10/06/09
7,598,563 11/319,912 10/06/09
7,598,568 11/808,457 10/06/09
7,598,572 11/552,673 10/06/09
7,598,578 11/390,475 10/06/09
7,598,583 11/782,144 10/06/09
7,598,593 10/561,438 10/06/09
7,598,614 11/279,019 10/06/09
7,598,616 12/140,352 10/06/09
7,598,624 12/257,585 10/06/09
7,598,637 11/801,898 10/06/09
7,598,640 11/985,546 10/06/09
7,598,643 10/556,861 10/06/09
7,598,673 11/322,507 10/06/09
7,598,674 11/445,478 10/06/09
7,598,677 11/105,091 10/06/09
7,598,678 11/460,103 10/06/09
7,598,695 11/579,448 10/06/09
7,598,697 11/821,896 10/06/09
7,598,699 10/783,682 10/06/09
7,598,722 11/589,846 10/06/09
7,598,729 11/764,855 10/06/09
7,598,735 11/256,198 10/06/09
7,598,745 10/586,460 10/06/09
7,598,748 10/620,597 10/06/09
7,598,758 11/752,942 10/06/09
7,598,761 11/896,851 10/06/09
7,598,787 11/471,121 10/06/09
7,598,791 11/564,603 10/06/09
7,598,804 12/022,774 10/06/09
7,598,817 11/645,786 10/06/09
7,598,823 11/715,504 10/06/09
7,598,824 11/599,541 10/06/09
7,598,833 12/182,228 10/06/09
7,598,844 11/750,058 10/06/09
7,598,849 11/931,152 10/06/09
7,598,860 11/935,438 10/06/09
7,598,862 11/955,703 10/06/09
7,598,864 11/138,103 10/06/09
7,598,874 11/685,237 10/06/09
7,598,877 11/442,889 10/06/09
7,598,878 10/497,169 10/06/09
7,598,887 11/640,243 10/06/09
7,598,897 11/955,666 10/06/09
7,598,919 11/446,974 10/06/09
7,598,921 10/593,714 10/06/09
7,598,928 11/014,659 10/06/09
7,598,929 10/900,342 10/06/09
7,598,933 11/296,535 10/06/09
7,598,934 11/269,713 10/06/09
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 179 |
7,598,938 10/301,680 10/06/09
7,598,940 11/334,394 10/06/09
7,598,944 11/309,697 10/06/09
7,598,988 11/114,101 10/06/09
7,599,000 11/332,333 10/06/09
7,599,005 11/177,027 10/06/09
7,599,045 12/037,857 10/06/09
7,599,050 10/576,486 10/06/09
7,599,053 11/730,416 10/06/09
7,599,061 11/188,226 10/06/09
7,599,064 11/714,904 10/06/09
7,599,065 11/523,555 10/06/09
7,599,096 10/652,728 10/06/09
7,599,099 11/419,551 10/06/09
7,599,106 10/992,218 10/06/09
7,599,109 11/652,706 10/06/09
7,599,120 11/217,305 10/06/09
7,599,140 11/439,158 10/06/09
7,599,143 11/504,589 10/06/09
7,599,145 12/034,814 10/06/09
7,599,146 11/161,590 10/06/09
7,599,149 11/434,056 10/06/09
7,599,150 11/208,570 10/06/09
7,599,162 11/580,891 10/06/09
7,599,179 11/309,147 10/06/09
7,599,186 11/944,500 10/06/09
7,599,188 11/692,207 10/06/09
7,599,208 11/717,048 10/06/09
7,599,213 11/414,893 10/06/09
7,599,233 11/646,325 10/06/09
7,599,239 10/770,150 10/06/09
7,599,242 11/524,023 10/06/09
7,599,243 11/528,339 10/06/09
7,599,249 10/623,904 10/06/09
7,599,253 12/221,149 10/06/09
7,599,263 11/509,727 10/06/09
7,599,267 11/503,998 10/06/09
7,599,270 10/968,393 10/06/09
7,599,272 11/283,963 10/06/09
7,599,290 11/463,908 10/06/09
7,599,318 10/576,294 10/06/09
7,599,324 11/325,588 10/06/09
7,599,345 11/008,971 10/06/09
7,599,355 10/917,814 10/06/09
7,599,356 10/978,706 10/06/09
7,599,385 11/451,189 10/06/09
7,599,388 11/392,971 10/06/09
7,599,400 11/218,430 10/06/09
7,599,414 11/628,414 10/06/09
7,599,428 11/452,964 10/06/09
7,599,443 10/940,060 10/06/09
7,599,446 10/661,602 10/06/09
7,599,458 10/968,735 10/06/09
7,599,465 11/692,086 10/06/09
7,599,512 10/542,329 10/06/09
7,599,513 10/908,053 10/06/09
7,599,517 11/337,806 10/06/09
7,599,528 12/111,962 10/06/09
7,599,547 11/289,907 10/06/09
7,599,551 10/538,942 10/06/09
7,599,552 10/736,498 10/06/09
7,599,555 11/092,376 10/06/09
7,599,564 10/548,439 10/06/09
7,599,567 11/965,995 10/06/09
7,599,573 10/546,724 10/06/09
7,599,574 10/844,483 10/06/09
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 180 |
7,599,575 11/409,836 10/06/09
7,599,584 11/543,333 10/06/09
7,599,586 11/921,159 10/06/09
7,599,594 11/452,568 10/06/09
7,599,595 10/574,513 10/06/09
7,599,601 11/320,347 10/06/09
7,599,607 10/431,028 10/06/09
7,599,608 10/496,070 10/06/09
7,599,614 11/378,728 10/06/09
7,599,625 11/362,911 10/06/09
7,599,631 11/123,917 10/06/09
7,599,651 11/676,558 10/06/09
7,599,666 11/367,448 10/06/09
7,599,667 10/790,709 10/06/09
7,599,670 11/186,085 10/06/09
7,599,682 11/347,314 10/06/09
7,599,689 10/126,623 10/06/09
7,599,705 09/940,401 10/06/09
7,599,708 11/005,082 10/06/09
7,599,720 11/088,198 10/06/09
7,599,724 11/390,202 10/06/09
7,599,735 11/316,374 10/06/09
7,599,736 10/198,871 10/06/09
7,599,738 11/130,671 10/06/09
7,599,770 11/300,524 10/06/09
7,599,781 11/892,698 10/06/09
7,599,791 11/587,970 10/06/09
7,599,799 10/273,489 10/06/09
7,599,804 10/543,844 10/06/09
7,599,806 11/276,885 10/06/09
7,599,809 11/651,510 10/06/09
7,599,814 11/413,925 10/06/09
7,599,815 11/368,911 10/06/09
7,599,819 11/624,438 10/06/09
7,599,827 11/277,279 10/06/09
7,599,828 11/069,070 10/06/09
7,599,831 11/271,202 10/06/09
7,599,832 11/363,807 10/06/09
7,599,853 10/718,660 10/06/09
7,599,870 10/120,795 10/06/09
7,599,871 10/336,363 10/06/09
7,599,884 10/145,636 10/06/09
7,599,887 09/943,554 10/06/09
7,599,891 10/394,214 10/06/09
7,599,906 10/573,476 10/06/09
7,599,915 11/041,681 10/06/09
7,599,921 11/681,333 10/06/09
7,599,925 11/094,924 10/06/09
7,599,926 11/441,147 10/06/09
7,599,933 11/154,542 10/06/09
7,599,944 11/305,423 10/06/09
7,599,953 10/998,761 10/06/09
7,599,957 11/354,758 10/06/09
7,599,962 10/987,122 10/06/09
7,599,989 11/042,320 10/06/09
7,599,991 10/798,743 10/06/09
7,600,000 11/218,871 10/06/09
7,600,022 10/842,441 10/06/09
7,600,024 11/396,191 10/06/09
7,600,029 10/098,689 10/06/09
7,600,033 10/535,123 10/06/09
7,600,045 10/530,927 10/06/09
7,600,051 10/865,286 10/06/09
7,600,055 11/324,436 10/06/09
7,600,076 11/377,506 10/06/09
7,600,091 11/951,735 10/06/09
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 181 |
7,600,099 11/683,843 10/06/09
7,600,101 11/034,464 10/06/09
7,600,106 11/309,458 10/06/09
7,600,114 10/184,746 10/06/09
7,600,121 10/938,608 10/06/09
7,600,138 11/269,337 10/06/09
7,600,140 11/778,404 10/06/09
7,600,185 10/807,983 10/06/09
7,600,188 11/453,151 10/06/09
7,600,195 11/285,492 10/06/09
7,600,201 10/820,979 10/06/09
7,600,231 11/510,970 10/06/09
7,600,233 10/896,456 10/06/09
7,600,237 11/108,682 10/06/09
7,600,243 11/392,259 10/06/09
7,600,253 12/196,165 10/06/09
7,600,254 12/061,714 10/06/09
7,600,267 11/153,708 10/06/09
Erratum
In the notice of "PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON September 28, 2012 DUE
TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" appearing in the Official Gazette of
November 20, 2012, all reference to Patent No. 6,798,842 which issued from
Application No. 09/756,723 should be deleted since the relevant maintenance
fee was timely paid in that patent.
| Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 10/28/2013 |
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a
Late Maintenance Fee from 10/28/2013
Patent Application Filing Issue Granted
Number Number Date Date Date
6,008,446 09/095,519 06/10/1998 12/28/1999 10/28/2013
6,010,110 09/128,813 08/04/1998 01/04/2000 10/30/2013
6,026,388 08/696,702 08/14/1996 02/15/2000 10/29/2013
6,076,088 08/795,658 02/06/1997 06/13/2000 10/29/2013
6,234,788 09/433,859 11/04/1999 05/22/2001 10/29/2013
6,250,511 09/434,452 11/05/1999 06/26/2001 10/31/2013
6,258,023 09/376,538 08/18/1999 07/10/2001 11/01/2013
6,267,330 09/260,857 03/01/1999 07/31/2001 10/29/2013
6,272,431 09/067,789 04/28/1998 08/07/2001 10/29/2013
6,612,726 10/071,360 02/08/2002 09/02/2003 10/31/2013
6,648,973 10/277,843 10/22/2002 11/18/2003 10/31/2013
6,743,371 10/149,000 06/06/2002 06/01/2004 10/31/2013
6,809,450 10/729,580 12/04/2003 10/26/2004 10/31/2013
6,854,365 10/089,629 03/28/2002 02/15/2005 10/30/2013
6,869,480 10/198,668 07/17/2002 03/22/2005 10/29/2013
6,869,799 09/607,535 06/29/2000 03/22/2005 10/31/2013
7,295,311 11/000,399 12/01/2004 11/13/2007 11/01/2013
7,333,094 11/691,510 03/27/2007 02/19/2008 10/29/2013
7,382,104 11/247,393 10/11/2005 06/03/2008 10/29/2013
7,427,207 11/494,377 07/27/2006 09/23/2008 10/29/2013
7,437,976 11/515,644 09/05/2006 10/21/2008 10/29/2013
7,440,427 12/046,509 03/12/2008 10/21/2008 10/29/2013
7,496,463 11/518,874 09/12/2006 02/24/2009 11/01/2013
7,556,847 11/606,851 11/30/2006 07/07/2009 10/31/2013
7,566,876 11/513,415 08/31/2006 07/28/2009 10/29/2013
7,581,302 11/034,648 01/13/2005 09/01/2009 10/28/2013
7,590,162 11/481,475 07/06/2006 09/15/2009 10/28/2013
7,604,626 10/876,147 06/24/2004 10/20/2009 10/31/2013
| 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).
D. 671,670, Re. S.N. 29/464,296, Aug. 15, 2013, Cl. D26/000,
LIGHTING FIXTURE WITH MULTIPLE SUPPORTS, Robert Sonneman, Owner of Record:
CONTEMPORARY VISIONS, L.L.C., Attorney or Agent: Joshua R. Matthews,
Ex. Gp.: 2913
6,111,876, Re. S.N.: 13,728,846, Dec. 27, 2012, CL: 370, Vlan Frame
Format, Paul James Frantz, et. al, Owner of Record: Rockstar Consortium
LP US, Attorney or Agent: Boris A. Matvenko, Ex. GP.:2465
6,570,889, Re. S.N. 13/952,971, Jul. 29, 2013, Cl./Sub 370/479,
TRANSMITTER AND TRANSMITTING METHOD INCREASING THE FLEXIBILITY OF CODE
ASSIGNMENT, Richard Stirling-Gallacher, et al., Owner of Record: Sony
Deutschland GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany, Attorney or Agent: William S.
Frommer, Ex. Gp: 2661
6,614,771, Re. S.N. 13/406,781, Feb. 28, 2012, Cl./Sub 370/335,
APPARATUS FOR MAKING A RANDOM ACCESS TO THE REVERSE COMMON CHANNEL OF
A BASE STATION IN CDMA AND METHOD THEREFOR, Tae Joong Kim, et al.,
Owner of Record: Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute,
Daejon, Korea, Attorney or Agent: Yisun Song, Ex. Gp: 2664
7,138,756, Re. S.N. 14/417,146, Mar. 09, 2012, Cl./Sub 313/467,
PHOSPOR FOR ELECTRON BEAM EXCITATION AND COLOR DISPLAY DEVICE USING THE
SAME, Masahiro Gotoh, et al., Owner of Record: Dowa Electronics Materials
Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, Nichia Corporation, Tokushima, Japan, Attorney or
Agent: Chase J. Brill, Ex. Gp: 2879
7,394,706, Re. S.N.: 13,899,036, May 21, 2013, CL: 257, SEMICONDUCTOR
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEVICE, Masashi Horiguchi, et al, Owner of Record:
Renesas Electronic Corporation, Attorney or Agent: Gregory E. Montone,
Ex. GP.: 2811
7,440,501, Re. S.N. 13/954,817, Jul. 30, 2013, Cl. 375/240,
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.: 2483
7,529,209, Re. S.N. 13/649,856, Oct. 11, 2012, Cl./Sub 370/334,
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MITIGATING FADING OF A SIGNAL AT A RADIO RECEIVER,
Ramesh Mantha, et al., Owner of Record: Wi-Lan, Inc., Ottawa, Canada,
Attorney or Agent: Richard E. Campbell, Ex. Gp: 2617
7,614,398, Re. S.N. 13/944,960, Aug. 23, 2013, Cl. 128/000,
HUMIDIFIER WITH STRUCTURE TO PREVENT BACKFLOW OF LIQUID THROUGH THE
HUMIDIFIER INLET, Alexander Virr et. al., Owner of Record: RESMED LIMITED,
Attorney or Agent: Paul T. Browen, Ex. Gp.: 3771
7,787,179, Re. S.N. 13/932,475, Jul. 01, 2013, Cl. 359/000,
OPTICAL ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A LIGHT-SHEET, Helmut Lippert
et. al., Owner of Record: CARL ZEISS MICROSCOPY GMBH, Attorney or Agent:
Eugene LeDonne, Ex. Gp.: 2873
7,799,220, Re. S.N. 13/963,597, Aug. 09, 2013, Cl. 210/232,
HOT DISCONNECT REPLACEABLE WATER FILTER ASSEMBLY, Karl Fritze et. al,
Owner of Record: 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY, Attorney or Agent:
Karen M. Whitney, Ex. Gp.: 1778
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 185 |
7,922,341, Re. S.N. 13/973,783, Aug. 22, 2013, Cl./Sub 353/099,
PROJECTION OPTICAL SYSTEM, MAGNIFICATION PROJECTION OPTICAL SYSTEM,
MAGNIFICATION PROJECTION APPARATUS, AND IMAGE PROJECTION APPARATUS,
Atsushi Takaura, et al., Owner of Record: Ricoh Company, Ltd., Tokyo,
Japan, Attorney or Agent: James J. Kulbaski, Ex. Gp: 2878
7,933,151, Re. S.N. 14,026,844, Sep. 13, 2013, Cl. 365, NON-VOLATILE
SEMICONDUCTOR STORAGE DEVICE EFFICIENCY, Takashi Maeda, et al, Owner of
Record: Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba, Minato-ku, Japan, Attorney or Agent:
Carl E. Schlier, Ex. Gp.: 2827
7,933,560, Re. S.N.: 13,871,939, Apr. 26, 2013, CL: 341, APPARATUS AND
METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING/RECEIVING DATA IN A MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
USING MULTIPLE ANTENNAS, JIN-Kyu Han, et al., Owner of Record: Samsung
Electronics Co. Ld., Attorney or Agent: Wonki Park, Ex. GP.: 2819
8,014,777, Re. S.N.: 14,031,932, Sep. 19, 2013, CL: 455, SYSTEM AND
METHOD FOR BUDGETED ZONE HEATING AND COOLING, Lawrence Kates, Owner of
Record: Nest Labs, Inc., Attorney or Agent: Andrew Van Court,
Ex. GP.: 2617
8,016,624, Re. S.N. 13/965,494, Aug. 13, 2013, Cl. 439/000,
ELECTRIC CONTACT AND SOCKET FOR ELECTRICAL PART, Takahiro Oda et. al.,
Owner of Record: ENPLAS CORPORATION, Attorney or Agent: Paul I. Kravetz,
Ex. Gp.: 1784
8,035,320, Re. S.N. 14/051,709, Oct. 11, 2013, Cl./Sub 315/292,
ILLUMINATION CONTROL NETWORK, W. Olin Sibert, Owner of Record: Cree, Inc.,
Durham, NC, Attorney or Agent: Anthony J. Josephson, Ex. Gp: 2821
8,038,774, Re. S.N. 14/057,640, Oct. 18, 2013, Cl./Sub 095/210,
SHIP FLUE GAS DESULPHURIZATION METHOD AND EQUIPMENT, Sigan Peng, Owner of
Record: Sigan Peng, Attorney or Agent: Todd R. Tucker, Ex. Gp: 2626
8,041,195, Re. S.N. 14/049,444, Oct. 09, 2013, Cl. 386/000,
VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM FOR REMOTE SHARING AND STORAGE OF VIDEO
CONTENT, Christopher J. Vitito, Owner of Record: VOXX INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, Attorney or Agent: Eric J. Strianese, Ex. Gp.: 2421
8,108,222, Re. S.N. 14/057,478, Oct. 18, 2013, Cl./Sub 704/500,
ENCODING DEVICE AND DECODING DEVICE, Mineo Tsushima, et al., Owner of
Record: Panasonic Corporation, Osaka, Japan, Attorney or Agent:
Kenneth Fields, Ex. Gp: 2626
8,203,459, Re. S.N. 14/050,051, Oct. 09, 2013, Cl. 340/000,
SECURITY SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING THE WEIGHT OF
A CONTAINER, David H. Jones et. al., Owner of Record: MJK HOLDINGS, LLC,
Attorney or Agent: Douglas R. Peterson, Ex. Gp.: 2612
| Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
6,089,713, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,983, Requested Date: Oct. 4, 2013,
Cl. 351/169, Title: SPECTACLE LENS WITH SPHERICAL FRONT SIDE AND MULTIFOCAL
BACK SIDE AND PROCESS FOR ITS PRODUCTION, Inventor: Albrecht Hof et al.,
Owners of Record: Carl Zeiss Vision International GMBH, Germany, Attorney
or Agent: Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC., Alexandria, VA, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Alan T. Harrison, McCormick Paulding & Huber, LLP., Hartford, CT
6,517,453, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,984, Requested Date: Sep. 10, 2013,
Cl. 473/578, Title: BOWFISHING ARROW ATTACHMENT, Inventor: Jack LaSee,
Owners of Record: AMS, LLC., Stanford, WI, Attorney or Agent: Boyle
Fredrickson, SC., Milwaukee, WI, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: PATENT OWNER
6,815,670, Reexam. C.N. 90/013,012, Requested Date: Oct. 2, 2013,
Cl. 250/286, Title: MATERIALS AND APPARATUS FOR THE DETECTION OF
CONTRABAND, Inventor: Anthony Jenkins et al., Owners of Record: Morpho
Detection, Inc., Newark, CA, Attorney or Agent: Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.,
St. Louis, MO, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Smiths Detection, Inc., Zaed M.
Billah, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP., New York, NY
6,902,754, Reexam. C.N 90/020,058, Requested Date: Oct. 4, 2013,
Cl. 425/503, Title: BLUNT EDGE DOUGH CUTTER, Inventor: James R. Evans
et al., Owners of Record: General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, MN,
Attorney or Agent: General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, Ex. GP.: 3991,
Requester: FRITSCH GMBH, Germany, Kerry P. Sisselman, Lerner Greenberg
Stemer, LLP., Hollywood, FL
7,261,770, Reexam. C.N. 90/013,011, Requested Date: Oct. 1, 2013,
Cl. 106/499, Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS COMPRISING PIGMENTS AND
POLYPROTIC DISPERSING AGENTS, Inventor: Modasser El-Shoubary et al.,
Owners of Record: Cristal USA, Inc., Hunt Valley, MD, Attorney or Agent:
Greenberg Traurig, New York, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: PATENT OWNER
8,078,134, Reexam. C.N. 90/012,988, Requested Date: Sep. 25, 2013,
Cl. 455/343, Title: MOBILE TERMINAL AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING OPERATION OF
THE MOBILE TERMINAL, Inventor: Rae Hoon Kang et al., Owners of Record:
LG Electronics, Inc., Korea, Attorney or Agent: Lee Hong Degerman Kang &
Waimey, Los Angeles, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: David L. McCombs,
Haynes & Boone, LLP., Dallas, TX
| Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew |
Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations
Due to Failure to Renew
15 U.S.C. 1059 provides that each trademark registration may be
renewed for periods of ten years from the end of the expiring period
upon payment of the prescribed fee and the filing of an acceptable
application for renewal. This may be done at any time within one year
before the expiration of the period for which the registration was
issued or renewed, or it may be done within six months after such
expiration on payment of an additional fee.
According to the records of the Office, the trademark registrations
listed below are expired due to failure to renew in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 1059.
TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS WHICH EXPIRED
November 1, 2013
DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date
2,699,598 76/297,480 03/25/2003
2,700,032 76/398,501 03/25/2003
3,223,164 79/002,673 03/27/2007
3,223,172 79/006,743 03/27/2007
3,223,177 79/008,622 03/27/2007
3,223,178 79/009,870 03/27/2007
3,223,179 79/010,633 03/27/2007
3,223,180 79/010,797 03/27/2007
3,223,181 79/010,951 03/27/2007
3,223,182 79/011,230 03/27/2007
3,223,184 79/011,413 03/27/2007
3,223,186 79/011,963 03/27/2007
3,223,189 79/012,071 03/27/2007
3,223,191 79/012,239 03/27/2007
3,223,193 79/012,794 03/27/2007
3,223,195 79/013,221 03/27/2007
3,223,197 79/013,333 03/27/2007
3,223,199 79/013,592 03/27/2007
3,223,201 79/013,698 03/27/2007
3,223,203 79/013,945 03/27/2007
3,223,204 79/013,956 03/27/2007
3,223,205 79/014,128 03/27/2007
3,223,207 79/014,668 03/27/2007
3,223,208 79/014,707 03/27/2007
3,223,209 79/014,814 03/27/2007
3,223,212 79/015,545 03/27/2007
3,223,213 79/015,562 03/27/2007
3,223,214 79/015,695 03/27/2007
3,223,215 79/015,785 03/27/2007
3,223,217 79/015,956 03/27/2007
3,223,218 79/015,957 03/27/2007
3,223,219 79/015,958 03/27/2007
3,223,220 79/015,983 03/27/2007
3,223,221 79/016,040 03/27/2007
3,223,222 79/016,115 03/27/2007
3,223,224 79/016,229 03/27/2007
3,223,226 79/016,336 03/27/2007
3,223,228 79/016,496 03/27/2007
3,223,230 79/016,560 03/27/2007
3,223,231 79/016,674 03/27/2007
3,223,234 79/016,992 03/27/2007
3,223,237 79/017,150 03/27/2007
3,223,238 79/017,151 03/27/2007
3,223,242 79/017,450 03/27/2007
3,223,244 79/017,681 03/27/2007
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 188 |
3,223,247 79/017,865 03/27/2007
3,223,248 79/017,952 03/27/2007
3,223,249 79/018,002 03/27/2007
3,223,250 79/018,035 03/27/2007
3,223,251 79/018,036 03/27/2007
3,223,252 79/018,056 03/27/2007
3,223,253 79/018,122 03/27/2007
3,223,255 79/018,293 03/27/2007
3,223,257 79/018,387 03/27/2007
3,223,258 79/018,463 03/27/2007
3,223,259 79/018,466 03/27/2007
3,223,260 79/018,506 03/27/2007
3,223,261 79/018,516 03/27/2007
3,223,262 79/018,531 03/27/2007
3,223,263 79/018,571 03/27/2007
3,223,264 79/018,604 03/27/2007
3,223,265 79/018,637 03/27/2007
3,223,266 79/018,648 03/27/2007
3,223,268 79/018,794 03/27/2007
3,223,271 79/018,975 03/27/2007
3,223,274 79/019,116 03/27/2007
3,223,277 79/019,236 03/27/2007
3,194,613 79/019,322 01/02/2007
3,223,280 79/019,425 03/27/2007
3,223,283 79/019,708 03/27/2007
3,223,284 79/019,737 03/27/2007
3,223,286 79/019,739 03/27/2007
3,223,287 79/019,794 03/27/2007
3,223,292 79/020,116 03/27/2007
3,223,294 79/020,145 03/27/2007
3,223,295 79/020,183 03/27/2007
3,223,296 79/020,220 03/27/2007
3,223,301 79/020,425 03/27/2007
3,223,307 79/020,732 03/27/2007
3,223,308 79/020,744 03/27/2007
3,223,309 79/020,785 03/27/2007
3,223,313 79/020,989 03/27/2007
3,223,314 79/020,999 03/27/2007
3,223,315 79/021,111 03/27/2007
3,223,316 79/021,174 03/27/2007
3,223,319 79/021,320 03/27/2007
3,223,320 79/021,322 03/27/2007
3,223,321 79/021,371 03/27/2007
3,223,322 79/021,372 03/27/2007
3,223,324 79/021,428 03/27/2007
3,223,328 79/021,597 03/27/2007
3,223,329 79/021,650 03/27/2007
3,223,330 79/021,727 03/27/2007
3,223,331 79/021,853 03/27/2007
3,223,332 79/021,854 03/27/2007
3,223,333 79/021,920 03/27/2007
3,223,334 79/022,008 03/27/2007
3,223,335 79/022,009 03/27/2007
3,223,336 79/022,018 03/27/2007
3,223,337 79/022,218 03/27/2007
3,223,340 79/022,397 03/27/2007
3,223,342 79/022,424 03/27/2007
3,223,344 79/022,623 03/27/2007
3,223,345 79/022,987 03/27/2007
3,223,350 79/023,488 03/27/2007
3,223,351 79/023,607 03/27/2007
3,223,352 79/023,745 03/27/2007
3,223,354 79/023,767 03/27/2007
3,223,355 79/023,775 03/27/2007
3,223,358 79/024,099 03/27/2007
3,223,360 79/024,219 03/27/2007
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 189 |
3,223,361 79/024,296 03/27/2007
3,223,364 79/024,498 03/27/2007
3,223,368 79/025,016 03/27/2007
3,223,369 79/025,074 03/27/2007
3,223,372 79/025,386 03/27/2007
3,223,374 79/025,431 03/27/2007
3,223,375 79/025,461 03/27/2007
3,223,376 79/025,486 03/27/2007
3,223,386 79/027,139 03/27/2007
3,223,387 79/027,541 03/27/2007
3,223,388 79/027,566 03/27/2007
3,223,392 79/029,129 03/27/2007
3,223,393 79/029,223 03/27/2007
1,232,486 73/235,525 03/29/1983
1,232,381 73/277,359 03/29/1983
1,761,544 74/218,726 03/30/1993
1,760,858 74/225,543 03/30/1993
1,761,631 74/225,890 03/30/1993
1,761,585 74/301,062 03/30/1993
2,700,606 75/010,706 03/25/2003
2,701,514 75/103,278 03/25/2003
2,700,619 75/365,146 03/25/2003
2,700,620 75/365,147 03/25/2003
2,700,622 75/380,344 03/25/2003
2,700,627 75/414,117 03/25/2003
2,699,002 75/428,722 03/25/2003
2,701,515 75/433,917 03/25/2003
2,700,632 75/466,363 03/25/2003
2,700,639 75/510,183 03/25/2003
2,699,016 75/514,038 03/25/2003
2,700,653 75/553,012 03/25/2003
2,700,660 75/583,809 03/25/2003
2,699,030 75/591,675 03/25/2003
2,699,031 75/592,363 03/25/2003
2,700,668 75/604,879 03/25/2003
2,699,036 75/612,530 03/25/2003
2,700,677 75/622,671 03/25/2003
2,699,048 75/652,324 03/25/2003
2,699,049 75/655,385 03/25/2003
2,699,051 75/655,848 03/25/2003
2,700,689 75/679,802 03/25/2003
2,700,690 75/679,805 03/25/2003
2,700,693 75/689,126 03/25/2003
2,700,700 75/701,719 03/25/2003
2,700,702 75/709,828 03/25/2003
2,699,069 75/713,050 03/25/2003
2,700,717 75/762,453 03/25/2003
2,700,721 75/767,589 03/25/2003
2,700,723 75/769,333 03/25/2003
2,700,730 75/790,975 03/25/2003
2,700,736 75/805,990 03/25/2003
2,700,742 75/824,730 03/25/2003
2,699,103 75/826,263 03/25/2003
2,700,745 75/831,207 03/25/2003
2,699,106 75/831,456 03/25/2003
2,699,107 75/843,269 03/25/2003
2,699,108 75/843,372 03/25/2003
2,699,128 75/870,557 03/25/2003
2,699,132 75/874,262 03/25/2003
2,699,134 75/882,905 03/25/2003
2,699,137 75/889,691 03/25/2003
2,700,779 75/896,003 03/25/2003
2,700,783 75/899,465 03/25/2003
2,700,789 75/908,671 03/25/2003
2,700,794 75/913,061 03/25/2003
2,699,159 75/982,624 03/25/2003
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 190 |
2,700,827 75/983,099 03/25/2003
2,700,837 76/000,310 03/25/2003
2,700,849 76/016,911 03/25/2003
2,699,188 76/030,582 03/25/2003
2,699,191 76/032,853 03/25/2003
2,700,872 76/037,945 03/25/2003
2,699,199 76/043,053 03/25/2003
2,699,202 76/044,896 03/25/2003
2,700,881 76/047,160 03/25/2003
2,700,886 76/056,779 03/25/2003
2,700,897 76/067,169 03/25/2003
2,699,225 76/067,909 03/25/2003
2,699,230 76/070,455 03/25/2003
2,701,526 76/071,396 03/25/2003
2,699,238 76/077,208 03/25/2003
2,700,910 76/078,493 03/25/2003
2,699,243 76/079,399 03/25/2003
2,699,249 76/087,639 03/25/2003
2,700,930 76/099,144 03/25/2003
2,700,940 76/105,604 03/25/2003
2,700,945 76/107,522 03/25/2003
2,700,960 76/118,312 03/25/2003
2,699,279 76/118,339 03/25/2003
2,700,964 76/118,875 03/25/2003
2,700,968 76/121,413 03/25/2003
2,699,297 76/132,202 03/25/2003
2,699,300 76/136,563 03/25/2003
2,699,301 76/136,690 03/25/2003
2,700,989 76/136,735 03/25/2003
2,699,313 76/145,207 03/25/2003
2,699,314 76/145,374 03/25/2003
2,701,012 76/149,526 03/25/2003
2,699,318 76/150,404 03/25/2003
2,701,018 76/152,794 03/25/2003
2,701,019 76/153,663 03/25/2003
2,699,331 76/158,726 03/25/2003
2,701,024 76/158,842 03/25/2003
2,701,031 76/165,723 03/25/2003
2,701,032 76/166,280 03/25/2003
2,701,033 76/166,338 03/25/2003
2,701,034 76/166,487 03/25/2003
2,699,349 76/169,768 03/25/2003
2,699,351 76/170,507 03/25/2003
2,701,045 76/171,129 03/25/2003
2,699,353 76/171,675 03/25/2003
2,701,049 76/172,950 03/25/2003
2,699,358 76/173,931 03/25/2003
2,699,379 76/183,712 03/25/2003
2,699,381 76/184,250 03/25/2003
2,699,382 76/186,633 03/25/2003
2,701,071 76/188,665 03/25/2003
2,699,392 76/191,996 03/25/2003
2,701,079 76/192,283 03/25/2003
2,701,080 76/193,451 03/25/2003
2,701,081 76/193,481 03/25/2003
2,701,083 76/195,725 03/25/2003
2,699,399 76/195,820 03/25/2003
2,699,405 76/201,978 03/25/2003
2,701,098 76/202,292 03/25/2003
2,699,408 76/204,128 03/25/2003
2,701,105 76/208,196 03/25/2003
2,699,422 76/209,561 03/25/2003
2,701,109 76/211,553 03/25/2003
2,701,110 76/212,231 03/25/2003
2,699,426 76/212,412 03/25/2003
2,699,427 76/213,041 03/25/2003
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 191 |
2,701,126 76/217,650 03/25/2003
2,701,128 76/219,778 03/25/2003
2,699,452 76/223,412 03/25/2003
2,699,458 76/225,999 03/25/2003
2,701,141 76/226,779 03/25/2003
2,701,144 76/229,077 03/25/2003
2,701,146 76/229,429 03/25/2003
2,701,147 76/230,250 03/25/2003
2,699,464 76/232,707 03/25/2003
2,701,153 76/234,224 03/25/2003
2,701,537 76/236,652 03/25/2003
2,699,472 76/237,169 03/25/2003
2,699,474 76/237,703 03/25/2003
2,701,160 76/242,607 03/25/2003
2,701,542 76/243,631 03/25/2003
2,701,162 76/243,759 03/25/2003
2,701,166 76/247,250 03/25/2003
2,699,497 76/247,581 03/25/2003
2,699,501 76/248,729 03/25/2003
2,701,175 76/249,730 03/25/2003
2,701,176 76/250,777 03/25/2003
2,701,179 76/253,135 03/25/2003
2,699,514 76/256,302 03/25/2003
2,699,515 76/256,332 03/25/2003
2,699,523 76/260,674 03/25/2003
2,701,190 76/263,410 03/25/2003
2,699,527 76/263,990 03/25/2003
2,699,531 76/264,583 03/25/2003
2,701,193 76/267,579 03/25/2003
2,701,194 76/268,113 03/25/2003
2,701,196 76/270,411 03/25/2003
2,701,197 76/270,989 03/25/2003
2,699,542 76/272,333 03/25/2003
2,701,203 76/273,374 03/25/2003
2,699,547 76/274,596 03/25/2003
2,701,210 76/276,264 03/25/2003
2,701,212 76/277,775 03/25/2003
2,701,214 76/279,092 03/25/2003
2,701,222 76/285,658 03/25/2003
2,699,575 76/287,848 03/25/2003
2,699,583 76/290,352 03/25/2003
2,701,233 76/291,592 03/25/2003
2,701,234 76/291,667 03/25/2003
2,701,235 76/291,950 03/25/2003
2,701,237 76/292,683 03/25/2003
2,699,586 76/292,887 03/25/2003
2,701,244 76/295,352 03/25/2003
2,699,593 76/296,290 03/25/2003
2,699,594 76/296,410 03/25/2003
2,701,246 76/296,719 03/25/2003
2,701,267 76/303,281 03/25/2003
2,701,268 76/304,286 03/25/2003
2,699,617 76/306,055 03/25/2003
2,699,619 76/306,443 03/25/2003
2,699,620 76/306,651 03/25/2003
2,699,627 76/309,003 03/25/2003
2,701,279 76/311,089 03/25/2003
2,699,642 76/314,263 03/25/2003
2,699,645 76/316,276 03/25/2003
2,699,651 76/319,189 03/25/2003
2,701,304 76/319,927 03/25/2003
2,699,653 76/319,975 03/25/2003
2,701,305 76/320,880 03/25/2003
2,699,660 76/322,503 03/25/2003
2,701,555 76/322,975 03/25/2003
2,701,311 76/324,497 03/25/2003
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 192 |
2,699,673 76/325,300 03/25/2003
2,699,675 76/327,446 03/25/2003
2,699,679 76/328,109 03/25/2003
2,701,321 76/329,246 03/25/2003
2,701,322 76/329,792 03/25/2003
2,701,325 76/331,090 03/25/2003
2,699,691 76/335,640 03/25/2003
2,699,694 76/336,089 03/25/2003
2,699,696 76/336,493 03/25/2003
2,699,699 76/336,853 03/25/2003
2,701,333 76/337,337 03/25/2003
2,699,715 76/340,254 03/25/2003
2,699,744 76/343,728 03/25/2003
2,701,558 76/345,014 03/25/2003
2,701,346 76/347,455 03/25/2003
2,699,771 76/348,917 03/25/2003
2,699,772 76/348,918 03/25/2003
2,699,773 76/349,195 03/25/2003
2,699,779 76/349,992 03/25/2003
2,701,350 76/350,134 03/25/2003
2,701,351 76/350,135 03/25/2003
2,699,785 76/350,547 03/25/2003
2,699,789 76/351,142 03/25/2003
2,699,790 76/351,255 03/25/2003
2,699,793 76/351,644 03/25/2003
2,699,800 76/352,853 03/25/2003
2,699,804 76/353,082 03/25/2003
2,699,807 76/353,469 03/25/2003
2,701,353 76/354,299 03/25/2003
2,699,845 76/358,701 03/25/2003
2,699,853 76/360,319 03/25/2003
2,699,855 76/361,468 03/25/2003
2,701,359 76/362,082 03/25/2003
2,699,861 76/362,682 03/25/2003
2,699,878 76/364,031 03/25/2003
2,699,891 76/366,389 03/25/2003
2,699,898 76/368,291 03/25/2003
2,699,904 76/370,899 03/25/2003
2,699,925 76/376,693 03/25/2003
2,699,927 76/377,125 03/25/2003
2,699,928 76/377,126 03/25/2003
2,699,931 76/377,553 03/25/2003
2,699,933 76/377,736 03/25/2003
2,699,947 76/382,095 03/25/2003
2,699,953 76/383,670 03/25/2003
2,699,959 76/385,139 03/25/2003
2,699,970 76/387,137 03/25/2003
2,699,973 76/388,287 03/25/2003
2,699,975 76/388,388 03/25/2003
2,699,976 76/388,464 03/25/2003
2,699,981 76/389,931 03/25/2003
2,699,982 76/389,948 03/25/2003
2,699,992 76/391,363 03/25/2003
2,699,996 76/391,819 03/25/2003
2,700,001 76/392,794 03/25/2003
2,700,003 76/393,105 03/25/2003
2,700,004 76/393,106 03/25/2003
2,700,013 76/394,861 03/25/2003
2,700,014 76/394,957 03/25/2003
2,700,016 76/395,501 03/25/2003
2,700,029 76/398,178 03/25/2003
2,700,037 76/399,469 03/25/2003
2,700,042 76/399,850 03/25/2003
2,700,043 76/399,851 03/25/2003
2,700,050 76/401,605 03/25/2003
2,700,057 76/402,939 03/25/2003
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 193 |
2,700,060 76/403,870 03/25/2003
2,700,086 76/409,031 03/25/2003
2,700,095 76/411,727 03/25/2003
2,700,101 76/413,038 03/25/2003
2,700,105 76/413,846 03/25/2003
2,700,117 76/415,197 03/25/2003
2,700,118 76/415,347 03/25/2003
2,701,577 76/416,350 03/25/2003
2,700,129 76/417,344 03/25/2003
2,700,158 76/420,622 03/25/2003
2,700,159 76/420,654 03/25/2003
2,700,162 76/421,773 03/25/2003
2,700,165 76/422,198 03/25/2003
2,700,167 76/422,282 03/25/2003
2,700,173 76/422,759 03/25/2003
2,700,183 76/424,012 03/25/2003
2,700,192 76/424,616 03/25/2003
2,700,212 76/426,762 03/25/2003
2,700,213 76/426,839 03/25/2003
2,700,215 76/427,084 03/25/2003
2,700,222 76/429,545 03/25/2003
2,700,229 76/431,358 03/25/2003
2,700,230 76/431,359 03/25/2003
2,700,235 76/431,974 03/25/2003
2,700,244 76/434,605 03/25/2003
2,700,247 76/435,211 03/25/2003
2,700,251 76/435,370 03/25/2003
2,701,581 76/439,805 03/25/2003
2,701,365 76/975,062 03/25/2003
2,701,371 76/975,145 03/25/2003
2,701,380 78/012,990 03/25/2003
2,701,387 78/023,392 03/25/2003
2,700,284 78/028,978 03/25/2003
2,700,286 78/029,910 03/25/2003
2,701,395 78/030,272 03/25/2003
2,701,405 78/043,532 03/25/2003
2,701,406 78/043,746 03/25/2003
2,700,308 78/044,645 03/25/2003
2,700,310 78/045,395 03/25/2003
2,701,415 78/047,556 03/25/2003
2,701,583 78/048,026 03/25/2003
2,700,321 78/052,148 03/25/2003
2,700,328 78/061,041 03/25/2003
2,701,442 78/067,683 03/25/2003
2,700,345 78/070,317 03/25/2003
2,701,453 78/071,951 03/25/2003
2,701,586 78/076,398 03/25/2003
2,700,361 78/080,547 03/25/2003
2,701,471 78/082,348 03/25/2003
2,701,473 78/084,574 03/25/2003
2,701,478 78/085,440 03/25/2003
2,701,485 78/088,499 03/25/2003
2,700,381 78/092,108 03/25/2003
2,701,501 78/100,181 03/25/2003
2,700,432 78/104,092 03/25/2003
2,700,446 78/111,218 03/25/2003
2,700,450 78/113,151 03/25/2003
2,700,458 78/116,287 03/25/2003
2,700,459 78/116,297 03/25/2003
2,700,524 78/131,452 03/25/2003
2,700,543 78/135,038 03/25/2003
2,700,544 78/135,184 03/25/2003
2,700,547 78/135,424 03/25/2003
2,700,551 78/135,625 03/25/2003
2,700,554 78/135,893 03/25/2003
2,700,555 78/136,000 03/25/2003
2,700,556 78/136,001 03/25/2003
2,700,558 78/136,005 03/25/2003
2,700,565 78/137,115 03/25/2003
2,700,569 78/137,339 03/25/2003
2,700,572 78/137,411 03/25/2003
2,700,573 78/137,423 03/25/2003
2,700,592 78/138,928 03/25/2003
2,700,595 78/139,461 03/25/2003
2,700,599 78/140,790 03/25/2003
2,700,603 78/142,174 03/25/2003
| 37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication |
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application
without the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A
notice has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor.
The inventor whose signature is missing (Robert Graham HILL) may join in
the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration
complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is
PCT/EP2010/059279 was filed on 30 June 2010 in the names Matthew O'Donnell
and Robert Graham HILL for the invention entitled MULTICOMPONENT GLASSES
FOR USE IN PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS. The national stage application number is
13/381,392 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371 date of 17 August 2012.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application
without the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A
notice has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor.
The inventor whose signature is missing (Luke Andrew GIBSON) 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/US2011/047905 was filed on 16 August 2011 in the names of Luke Andrew
GIBSON, Lauren C. Jasper, and Phillip E. Frederick for the invention
entitled PATIENT-MATCHED ACETABULAR ALIGNMENT TOOL. The national stage
application number is 13/816,132 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371 date of 19
September 2013.
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 (Donatien FROT) 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/EP2011/067932
was filed on 13 October 2011 in the names Christophe PERRIN and Donatien
FROT for the invention entitled STEERING LOCK ANTITHEFT DEVICE FOR MOTOR
VEHICLE. The national stage application number is 13/876,482 and has a 35
U.S.C. 371 date of 15 October 2013.
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, Thomas A. Hoopes. 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/US2011/065722 and was filed on 19 December 2011 in the names
of Michael J. Hayes, Thomas A. Hoopes, and Mark I. Jurras III for the
invention entitled Detonator Ignition Protection and Detection Circuit.
The national stage application is assigned number 13/994,405 and has a 35
U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(4) date of 25 September 2013.
Registration to Practice
The following list contains the names of persons seeking for
registration to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. Final approval for registration is subject to establishing to the
satisfaction of the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline
that the person seeking registration is of good moral character and repute.
37 CFR § 11.7 Accordingly, any information tending to affect the
eligibility of any of the following persons on moral ethical or other
grounds should be furnished to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline on
or before December 14, 2013 at the following address: Mail Stop OED United
States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22314
Brueckner, Eric Paul, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 2555 Grand Blvd., Kansas City,
MO 64108
Carey, Michael Aaron, 159 E. 800 S., Apt. 206, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Chen, Wanli, 168 Almador, Irvine, CA 92614
Chen, Ying, 4 Arizona Terrace, Apt. 5, Arlington, MA 02474
Chu, Peter Injoon, 5720 Vassar Drive, College Park, MD 20740
Crawford, Joshua Alan, 1111 Army Navy Drive, Apt. 524, Arlington, VA 22202
Doyle, Timothy George, 2094 Cranbrook Drive NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49505
Feng, Michael Cheng, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, 2040 Main Street, Suite
1400, Irvine, CA 92614
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen Elyse, Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street,
30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
Haggerty, Kristofer Leon, 18 Juniper Drive, North Haven, CT 06473
Huguenin-Love, James Lee, 19205 SW 2nd Street, Roca, NE 68430
Joyce, Jeffrey Clayton, Perkins Olson, P.A., 32 Pleasant Street, P.O. Box
449, Portland ME 04112
Kanehira, Yusuke, IBM Corporation, Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Road,
San Jose, CA 95014-3728
Kinch, Mark Andrew, Ineos Technologies, 150 W. Warrenville Road, Building
300, Naperville, IL 60563
Man, Vincent, Dimock Stratton LLP, 20 Queen Street West, 32nd Floor,
Toronto ON M5H 3R3
Newhouse, Eric Michael, Suiter Swantz PC LLO, 14301 First National Bank
Parkway, Suite 220, Omaha, NE 68154
O'Connor, Mercedes Valeria, Howard B. Rockman P.C., 175 W. Jackson
Boulevard, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60604
She, Pengxiang, 1833 Hood Lane, Maple Glen, PA 19002
Switzer, Elise Elizabeth, 6 Valarie Lane, Napa, CA 94558
Tam, Steven Kenfite, 14098 Palomino Way, Saratoga, CA 95070
Verardi, Raffaello, 1700 Kalorama Road NW, Apt. 502, Washington, DC 20009
Waks, Eitan, Landa Corporation, 3 Pekeris Street, Tamar Science Park,
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 196 |
Rehovot, Israel 7670203
Wallace, David Ameer, Fenwick & West LLP, 801 California Avenue, Mountain
View, CA 94041
Zak, Clayton Robert, 159 North Jackson Street, Apt. 314, Milwaukee,
WI 53202
October 30, 2013 WILLIAM R. COVEY
Deputy General Counsel for Enrollment and Discipline and
Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline
| Patent Public Advisory Committee Annual Report 2013 |
PATENT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2013
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
4 November 2013
PATENT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
Voting Committee Members:
Louis J. Foreman
Chairman
Enventys / Edison Nation
Esther M. Kepplinger
Vice Chair
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Wayne P. Sobon
Inventergy
Clinton Hallman
Kraft Foods
Valerie McDevitt
University of South Florida
Marylee Jenkins
Arent Foxx LLP
Christal A. Sheppard
University of Nebraska
Peter Thurlow
Jones Day
Paul Jacobs
Jake Technology, Inc.
Non-voting Representatives:
Robert D. Budens
President
Patent Office Professional
Association (POPA)
Vernon Ako Towler
Vice President
National Treasury Employees
Union (NTEU, Local 243)
Catherine Faint
Vice President
National Treasury Employees
Union (NTEU, Local 245)
|
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 10500-0001
Dear Mr. President:
As Chairman of the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), it is my honor and privilege to present you with the PPAC Annual Report for the 2013 fiscal year. This past year has brought the final implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA), ushering in the most comprehensive overhaul to the U.S. patent system in nearly 100 years. With this, the USPTO experienced budget cuts from the Sequester, and the impact sequestration has had on patent operations. In our report, we have outlined nine areas of interest and concern.
The USPTO has done an exemplary job of maintaining the quality and productivity of the Office under the challenging circumstances that sequestration unexpectedly thrust upon them. However, if sequestration continues for the ten years that the Budget Control Act of 2011 envisions, it is PPAC’s opinion that pendency of patent applications will increase and there will be a dramatic reduction in the ability of innovators to start businesses and to create jobs.
As you stated in your September 16, 2011 statement upon signing the America Invents Act:
| |
Over the last decade, patent applications have nearly tripled. And because the Patent Office doesn’t have the resources to deal with all of them, right now there are about 700,000 applications that haven’t even been opened yet. These are jobs and businesses of the future just waiting to be created.
|
Remarks by the President at Signing of the America Invents Act, White House Press Release (September 16, 2011), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/16/remarks-president-signing-america-invents-act
The PPAC echoes this sentiment. Ultimately, it is the American public and the economy that will suffer in the long-term while innovations wait for USPTO action.
The patents granted by the USPTO drive the economic engine that has helped lift this country from the recession. The ability to prevent others from making, using, or selling an invention is the security inventors and innovators seek, and it provides the incentive to invest the capital in research, development, and to create new businesses. Therefore, it is essential that the Office receive stable and predictable funding to improve operations, support new initiatives, and to work through the backlog of patent applications that has delayed the creation of potential new jobs and breakthrough technologies.
The fee setting authority provided within the AIA accorded the Office the ability to raise fees by 15% and to address the mounting issues in Information Technology and the examining corps. Unfortunately, this was short-lived as the Sequester negated the intended impacts of these new user-generated fees. While we understand that these are the collateral damage associated with the Sequester, we respectfully ask that the Office be allowed to access the fees that it generates, or, at the very least, be provided access to these fees at some point in the very near future.
During FY 2013, the PPAC worked closely with former USPTO Director David Kappos and Deputy Director Teresa Stanek Rea. Their leadership during the past twelve months has allowed the Office to operate with a high level of efficiency while maintaining, and improving, employee morale. The current financial environment of the Sequester raises challenges which threaten to undermine the impressive improvements made by the USPTO over the last few years. Similarly, the Sequester jeopardizes the ability of the next appointed Director to continue protecting inventors’ intellectual property rights and to steer the Office through these unchartered waters.
I sincerely appreciate your time reviewing this report, and the PPAC welcomes any questions you or your staff might have.
| | Respectfully, |
| |  |
| |
Louis J. Foreman
Chairman
Patent Public Advisory Committee
United States Patent and Trademark Office
|
| | |
Enclosure: Patent Public Advisory Committee Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report
| cc: | The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, | Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee |
| | The Honorable Robert W. Goodlatte, | Chairman, House Judiciary Committee |
| | The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, | Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Judiciary Committee |
| | The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., | Ranking Minority Member, House Judiciary Committee |
| | The Honorable Howard Coble, | Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet |
| | The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, | Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet |
| | The Honorable Penny Pritzker, | Secretary of Commerce |
| | The Honorable Teresa Stanek Rea, | Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office |
| | Margaret Focarino, | Commissioner for Patents |
|
The Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) thanks the United States Patent and Trademark Office former Director David Kappos and Deputy Director Teresa Rea for providing highly positive and substantial opportunities to work productively. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or “the Office”) and its personnel uniformly provided updates, in-depth information and detailed explanations of the issues facing the Office and its stakeholders. The open, responsive attitude consistently displayed by USPTO personnel fostered a constructive relationship between the PPAC and the USPTO, enabling all members and USPTO personnel to engage in very open and complete discussion of the Office’s current operations, new initiatives, and challenges.
The dynamic leadership of Former Director Kappos and Deputy Director Rea coupled with the cooperative efforts made by the employee unions have resulted in significant progress this year. Director Kappos created a positive atmosphere, endorsed and extended by Deputy Director Rea, which encouraged increased interactions between the PPAC and the USPTO, the users and the USPTO and most significantly, the examiners and the applicants. This proactive tone fostered an atmosphere of trust and cooperation resulting in productive interactions with all of the management officials at the USPTO. We thank all of the officials of the USPTO and the union representatives with whom we have worked during the past year, and in particular, the inspirational leadership of Director Kappos and Deputy Director Rea. We are extremely grateful for the support accorded us by all individuals at the USPTO, thus assisting us in our roles on the PPAC. We look forward to our ongoing work with the USPTO.
The USPTO has done an exemplary job in FY 2013 maintaining the quality and productivity of the Office under challenging circumstances; however, the utmost concern of the PPAC is the application of the statutorily required spending reductions in the Budget Control Act of 2011 – known as sequestration – to the Office. As PPAC noted in its September 24, 2012 Fee Setting Report, we as a Committee supported additional user fee increases proposed by the Office, above and beyond the prior 15 percent across-the-board surcharge, in large part because we understood the critical need for the Office to make significant infrastructure (including information technology) and human capital improvements, to improve the quality of granted patents, and reduce the time of examination and other process improvements. PPAC approved the set of user-fee increases and changes proposed by the Office based in significant part on assurances by the relevant government stakeholders that the entirety of such user fees would remain available for use by the Office to achieve critical and widely accepted operational goals.
Because of sequestration, $148 million of collected user fees will be unavailable to the Office. The unexpected reduction in revenues as a result of sequestration had a significant impact on every part of the USPTO’s operations. These impacts are detailed throughout this report. Should the sequestration continue for the ten years that the Budget Control Act of 2011 envisions, it is PPAC’s opinion that pendency of patent applications will increase and dramatically reduce the ability of innovators to start businesses and to create jobs. Ultimately, it is the American public and the economy that will suffer in the long-term while innovations wait for USPTO action.
This report is to provide readers with a review of the activities of the PPAC during FY 2013, the challenges faced by the USPTO, and the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations for continued execution on the goals and objectives stated in the USPTO 2010-2014Strategic Plan.
The PPAC holds quarterly meetings at the USPTO to address patent-related matters. These meetings are announced in advance, are open to the public, are webcast, and have telephone call-in numbers so interested persons can provide real-time feedback and ideas. We encourage members of the public to submit comments and questions via telephone, e-mail, or via the PPAC Website. The Committee also participates in hearings, roundtables and other publically announced events to obtain input regarding matters of significance to the USPTO and the innovation communities. In the past, the Committee held hearings on the new fees associated with the Fee Setting provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Recently the PPAC participated in the roundtables and focus sessions on reducing the backlog of patent applications associated with Request for Continued Examination (RCEs).
The Committee has several standing subcommittees to address topical areas that are focused upon issues that require action over time. The subcommittees consist of up to four members. Subcommittees meet informally from time to time, either in person or via teleconferences. The topical areas discussed in detail below represent matters of ongoing interest to the USPTO and the Committee. Topical area subcommittees interact with USPTO personnel to obtain information, engage in in-depth discussions, and provide suggestions to assist the Office.
Members of the subcommittees have greatly appreciated the high level of cooperation and trust afforded by Office personnel. For this trust, the Committee sincerely thanks former Director Kappos, Deputy Director Rea and other Office personnel for helping to create a very positive effective working relationship for the benefit of the entire user community.
Brief descriptions of the PPAC’s activities and how those have furthered the Strategic Plan are below. More detailed descriptions are provided in the individual sections.
Fiscal year 2013 was an extraordinarily challenging year for the Office with an unprecedented number of potential financially-disruptive events. On March 16, 2013, the United States became a first-inventor-to-file country after two centuries of being a first-to-invent country; on March 19, 2013, a new user fee structure came into effect significantly raising certain costs to applicants that are associated with obtaining a patent.
As PPAC noted in its Fee Setting Report last year, we as a Committee accepted the additional user fee increases proposed by the Office, above and beyond the prior 15 percent across-the-board surcharge, in large part because we understood the critical need for the Office to make significant infrastructure (including information technology) and human capital improvements, to improve the quality of granted patents, and reduce pendency of patent applications and other process improvements.
Had we known that, immediately upon its effect, the increase in user fees would not be fully available for use by the Office for patent-related activities, the purposes for which the increase in user fees were intended, the PPAC might have reached a different conclusion in our 2012 Fee Setting Report. In addition, we note that it is particularly problematic that the sequestration of funding from the USPTO began almost simultaneously with the imposition of the user fee increase.
Sequestration is projected to siphon $148 million of user fees away from Office-related operations in FY2013. The application of sequestration to the Office was surprising given that the Office a 100 percent user-fee-funded organization -- no tax dollars are used to support any part of the operation -- and clear language signed into law in the AIA in 2011, was specifically intended to ensure stable funding for the Office. The USPTO only collects from users the fees necessary to cover operations and related expenses. Thus, when any of the fees collected are not available to the Office, the Office does not have the funds necessary to maintain operations.
The effects of the Sequester are many. Particularly problematic are the delays in the implementation of critical updates to the fragile and outdated information technology (IT) system, without which the USPTO cannot function; delays in hiring patent examiners with consequently result in delays in reducing patent pendency; and an inability to fully implement the satellite offices.
Recommendations: A consistent funding stream and full access to fees for this 100 percent user-fee-funded agency is essential to the operation of the Office. As such, the PPAC urges 1) the Administration to reconsider the application of the sequester to the Office; 2) the Congress to again consider removing the Office from the appropriations process; 3) the Office to be more cautious in order to avoid over-estimating revenues and delay satellite offices implementation until sufficient resources are available; and 4) all stakeholders to delay imposing additional legislative and executive burdens on the Office unless full access to user fees is restored. Moreover, the PPAC recommends that the Office strike a better balance of IT investment with hiring in order to more quickly improve the IT systems.
In 2012-2013, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) continued its efforts to carry on its mission in the face of a dramatic mid-year budget reduction that resulted from the combined effects of sequestration and other financial factors. As a “discretionary” center, the IT sector disproportionately bore the brunt of these cuts, with a particularly devastating impact on ongoing strategic technology initiatives.
The Office has undertaken a set of modernization initiatives to update aging infrastructure. These initiatives are necessary to create and sustain an up-to-date, stable, reliable and secure technology environment to support the work of employees and the increasingly “wired” user community. These modernizations will not only improve patent quality (for example, through better search capabilities) while maintaining examination efficiency, but also improve the efficiency of communications with users through a reliable IT system.
While these updates may seem to be a luxury in difficult financial times, the outdated IT systems of the USPTO are increasingly at risk of catastrophic failure. As we move to an entirely electronic Office, the work of the USPTO cannot be performed without critical maintenance and modernization of these essential IT systems.
While there were no immediate disastrous effects of the nearly $80 million in IT pullbacks – no major system failures, nor noticeable declines in patent quality or worker productivity -- the PPAC believes that the delays in IT improvements resulting from the Sequester have already put a damper on further progress in reducing pendency and improving quality.
Recommendations: The dramatic mid-year cuts in 2013 have significantly compromised mission-critical IT systems at the Office and derailed modernization efforts aimed at improving quality and reducing pendency, among other strategic objectives. The PPAC recommends that the USPTO provide increased funding for IT, protect IT from future cuts, resume and accelerate Patents End-to-End, continue to stabilize the legacy IT systems, expand support for the global IT community, and continue to upgrade and expand links with stakeholders.
The PPAC is pleased to report that progress was made during FY 2013 in reducing the backlog of RCEs and the implementation of several changes which are anticipated to provide further improvements during FY 2014.
Following the move of RCEs from the examiner’s amended docket to the special continuing docket, the backlog of RCEs ballooned from about 17,000 in October of 2009 to over 110,000 in March of 2013; however, changes to the count system and focused attention on RCEs has reduced the backlog to 78,272 at the end of September 2013. The USPTO reordered the work on examiners’ dockets to focus efforts on examining RCEs while making continued progress towards reducing the unexamined new patent application backlog. The USPTO significantly reduced the backlog of RCEs while simultaneously also reducing the backlog of unexamined applications to about 586,000. These are impressive achievements.
The USPTO had implemented two programs, the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) and Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS), which had been well received by the patent bar as innovative procedures to facilitate consideration of amendments or new references and avoid the need for the filing of an RCE. During FY 2013, the AFCP was adjusted with a follow-on program AFCP 2.0, expected to continue providing other options to applicants than filing an RCE.
Also, USPTO is working with the examiner union to implement a goal of four months on average from filing the request for an RCE to completion of a first action on RCEs.
In order to identify causes of RCE filings, the USPTO sought comments through a Federal Register Notice and held roundtable and focus sessions in Silicon Valley, Dallas, Chicago, New York City and Alexandria, Virginia. The received comments were categorized into themes for the development of actions and initiatives including education of examiners and users about available programs; possible extension of Quick Path Information Disclosure Statements (QPIDS); internal training regarding final rejections and aspects of quality examination; and possible options for prosecution flexibility. The twin goals are to reduce the backlog of RCEs and find ways to avoid the need for future RCEs.
The USPTO demonstrated flexibility and creativity in identifying initiatives to address the RCE problem. The PPAC applauds the actions taken and efforts directed to the improvement of the RCE filing and backlogs.
Recommendation: PPAC recommends exploring an avenue for resolution of issues in prosecution other than an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) such as permitting applicant participation in the pre-appeal brief conference or a new program that would permit an interview with multiple primary examiners in addition to the examiner of record. PPAC also recommends that the Office consider the appropriateness of designating as final rejections, those rejections over newly cited prior art when only minor amendments were made following a first office action.
Human capital remains a significant area of concern for the PPAC. During FY 2013, due in significant part to budget constraints as a result of sequestration, only 559 new examiners were hired instead of a planned 1,000 (which had already been reduced from the 1,500 planned in the FY 2013 President’s Budget). Furthermore, the planned hiring of new examiners in FY 2014 has also been revised to 750. The improving economy and the recent surge in new hires have also led to a higher attrition rate. In FY 2013, the preliminary attrition rate was 4.22 percent, compared to a 3.07 percent rate in FY 2012.
In FY 2012, the first Satellite Office in Detroit, Michigan, opened for business, and at the end of FY 2013 had hired and trained 101 patent examiners and brought on 10 PTAB judges. Satellite Offices in Dallas, Denver, and the Silicon Valley were also announced. While several judges for the PTAB have been hired, no patent examiners were hired for these offices in FY 2013, and hiring in FY 2014 is on hold for these offices until permanent space can be procured.
Efforts at attracting and maintaining a skilled corps of examiners is critical to effective examination of applications, reducing patent pendency, and reducing backlog.
Recommendation: The PPAC recommends that the Office have full access to its user fees as soon as possible to allow for the hiring of at least 750 new examiners in FY 2014. The PPAC recommends continuing to target experienced IP professionals for the available new examiner positions and to advance geographical expansion of the work force and telework initiatives to attract a larger pool of well-qualified candidates and further enhance retention of experienced examiners for an entire career. Finally, the PPAC recommends that the Office be given sufficient funding to permit targeted overtime and restore the previous levels of outsourcing of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) searches to allow compliance with the Treaty deadlines while enabling the Examiner Corps to focus on domestic applications.
The issuance of high quality patents with a reasonable pendency remains the most important priority for the USPTO. The Office made positive strides in addressing both patent quality and pendency during FY 2013.
Quality
Improvements were made in patent quality by focusing on after final practice and aspects of 35 U.S.C. 112. For one such initiative, the Office held a number of successful outreach visits, one in Silicon Valley and one in New York, to the patent community to gather comments regarding patent quality specifically related to software patents. Each meeting focused on establishing clear boundaries for claims that use functional language and employing certain techniques in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications. The common discussion points included Section 112, paragraph (a) requirements directed to written description, paragraph (b) requirements directed to indefiniteness, and paragraph (f) requirements directed to functional claiming. In conjunction with the meeting, a Federal Register notice requested comments from the public. The Office emphasized that any lessons learned would be applied to patent applications in every technological field and to the entire examination process. Stemming from these comments and input, the USPTO has begun implementing training of examiners on these issues.
Overall, the evaluation of quality, as represented in the Quality Composite, revealed that the quality continues on an upward trend.
Pendency
The USPTO continued to make improvements to decrease pendency to first action and total pendency during FY 2013 with achieving 29.1 months for total pendency and 18.2 months for pendency to first action. This reflects a reduction from FY 2012’s 32.4 months and 21.9 months, respectively, which are laudable improvements, showing significant progress towards the goals of 20 months total pendency and 10 months pendency to first action.
Instrumental in these gains was a focus on moving the oldest new applications, hiring new examiners, and several initiatives, including Track One, After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) and the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), implemented by the USPTO.
Recommendation: Although pendency is a very high priority for applicants, ensuring that the USPTO can accomplish its work is essential. The PPAC recommends that funding of IT be appropriately prioritized and properly balanced with hiring so as to more quickly improve the IT systems in FY 2014. Patent examiners are essential to achieving a reduction in pendency, but without IT systems, no applications will be completed.
The Committee applauds the USPTO for its ongoing efforts and achievements in the international arena. The Committee notes a few highlights for the past year - the productive global meetings of the Tegernsee Group and the Five Intellectual Property Offices (IP5) (which includes the European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, Korean Intellectual Property Office, State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China and the United States Patent and Trademark Office), the growth and continued acceptance of the PPH by the patent user community, the launch of the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) and the implementation of new online international searching tools, such as the Global Patent Search Network (GPSN).
The Committee supports the strides made by the USPTO in its international cooperation and work sharing initiatives among multiple patent offices and encourages the continued development and expansion of these efforts. The PPH and the Global Dossier are excellent examples of such strides and the continuing need and importance for an effective and user- friendly patent application platform across multiple patent offices.
The Committee cannot ignore the funding issues for the USPTO with respect to its ongoing international initiatives and programs. For example, the recent budget cuts have greatly limited the number of USPTO representatives who can attend important global meetings with other patent office officials. Not providing a complete delegation of USPTO representatives at these meetings only further complicates the USPTO’s efforts.
Recommendations: The PPAC encourages further outreach through a variety of forums to extend discussions among multiple patent offices – not just the Tegernsee Group and IP5. The Committee supports ongoing education and updates regarding the USPTO’s international initiatives and programs via roundtables, webcasts and e-mail notices to the patent user community.
As of September 23, 2013, the Board includes 177 judges. Although staffing of the satellite offices with patent examiners has been delayed as a consequence of the sequestration, each of the satellite offices does include PTAB judges. More specifically, the Dallas office has five judges, the Silicon Valley office has eight judges, the Denver office has eight judges, and the Detroit office has ten judges. The placement of these satellite offices around the country has expanded the ability of the Board to employ qualified individuals to meet its growing workload. The Board continues to review candidates and plans on hiring additional judges in FY 2014.
The backlog of ex parte appeals pending at the Board stands at 25,554 applications, down from a peak of 26,896 applications in February 2013. The growth of the backlog has been halted for now as more decisions were issued by the Board as compared to new appeals received by the Board in the last six months.
As of September 26, 2013, the Board received 579 total petitions – 522 inter partes review proceedings (IPRs), 56 covered business method review proceedings (CBMs), and one derivation proceeding. The majority of the petitions were in the electrical/computer software area. In particular, the petition filings by area of technology were: 68.7% electrical/computer software; 13.8% mechanical; 9.3% chemical; 7.3% biotechnology/pharmaceutical; and 0.9% design. With respect to IPRs and CBMs, patent owners have submitted 247 preliminary responses and waived their rights to submit a preliminary response in 61 cases
Recommendations: With the implementation of the AIA, the PTAB was statutorily required to handle significantly more work and provide entirely new services for new programs, and at about the same time, the sequestration made unavailable some of the fees provided by users to the USPTO. PPAC feels strongly that the USPTO should be accorded full access to all user fees so that they may secure the resources necessary to do the work with continued high quality and in the statutorily required time frames.
While the past few years have been focused on the passage and implementation of the AIA, the majority of legislative activity in the current year seems focused primarily on so-called patent litigation abuse. Both the White House and the Congress have proposed a number of both administrative and legislative actions to address various issues raised concerning abusive litigation tactics. While sometimes ascribed pejoratively to “patent trolls” or “non-practicing entities” (NPEs), the PPAC notes that a consensus seems to be forming that it is less the status of a particular company rather than the particular abusive actions taken that bears the most fruitful attention.
The PPAC will be working closely with the Office as it reviews and enacts any of the particular recommended administrative changes. The PPAC remains concerned that these new mandates have been placed on the Office, even as a significant amount of its funding has been taken away under sequestration. The PPAC also remains concerned that the implementation of any such administrative actions are carefully and thoughtfully tailored to attack exactly the right sorts of abuses, without unduly burdening both patent applicants as well as rightful assertions of patent rights, which after all, provide lawful rights to exclude others from practicing new, non-obvious and useful inventions.
Recommendations: The PPAC will continue to monitor and consult with the USPTO as the legislative and administrative processes continue to address abusive activities. The PPAC recommends that the USPTO ensure that any proposed administrative changes are appropriately and narrowly targeted for any such alleged abuse without unduly harming our overall patent system, the smooth operation of the examination process, the quality of patents issued, or the overall costs and burdens to applicants.
The PPAC remains concerned that the OMB has made the determination that USPTO user-fees are also subject to sequestration. The PPAC recommends that the USPTO continue to work with the Administration and Congress to ensure that the USPTO has access to all of its fees.
In addition to the robust outreach activities conducted by the other outreach teams at the USPTO, the Office of Innovation Development (OID) oversees Patent’s efforts to support American innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. Often working closely with other U.S. Government officials and agencies, OID designs and implements outreach assistance programs to a wide range of stakeholders including independent inventors, women, small business concerns, university affiliates, minorities, and other underserved communities.
OID also assists the Office’s educational outreach programs that promote intellectual property protection and the valuable role it plays as a key driver of the American economy. These programs are designed to educate the public about intellectual property in general, as well as about the specifics of the patent application process, including the intricacies of patent prosecution and post grant patent issues. Post patent grant education includes the importance of patents, and other forms of IP, in starting, building, and growing a business.
In addition, OID and the office’s other outreach teams work collaboratively on the development of educational materials, activities, and programs to promote intellectual property for students, educators, and young inventors and innovators of all ages, including a particular focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM).
It is noteworthy that the USPTO creatively maintained a full portfolio of education and outreach throughout FY 2013 even when challenged with budget constraints. Though these constraints necessitated a nearly complete reduction in travel, OID staff maintained exemplary levels of service to stakeholders through web cast opportunities, use of on-the-ground resources or other Federal colleagues where possible and efforts to move distant events to the USPTO main campus where possible.
Recommendations: The PPAC commends the Office on the significant outreach efforts to the entire user community from women entrepreneurs and independent inventors, to bar associations and national organizations. Nonetheless, sequestration has negatively impacted the amount and form of outreach that was possible. The PPAC recommends that the Office continue to make itself available to all aspects of the user community and continue to be creative in finding ways to provide outreach even under sequester.
Fiscal year 2013 was an extraordinarily challenging year for the Office with an unprecedented number of potentially financially disruptive events. March 16, 2013, the United States became a first-inventor-to-file country after two centuries of being a first-to-invent country; March 19, 2013, a new user fee structure came into effect significantly raising certain costs associated with obtaining a patent. Both events were predicted to be disruptive to user filing behavior. We applaud the Office for taking into account, at the time of the development of the budget, the compound problem of the uncertainty of the effect on user behavior of the fee increase and the conversion from a first-to-invent to first-inventor-to-file system. Specifically, the Office’s models considered the elasticity of an increase in revenue in the short-term early in the year with precipitous drops post implementation. However, the siphoning of 8.6 percent of the user fees as a result of sequestration, starting on March 1, 2013, was completely unanticipated.
The Office planned for, and the users would have paid for, approximately $227 million ($202 million for patents) more in revenue in FY 2013 than FY 2012. This increase in revenue due to the increase in fees was slated to go toward implementing a sustainable funding model, reducing the current patent application backlog, decreasing patent pendency, improving patent quality and upgrading the Office’s patent business information technology capabilities and infrastructure.
Sequestration is projected to siphon $148 million (approximately $135 million for patents) of user fees away from Office-related operations. Thus, instead of the originally projected $227 million increase in revenue, which was adjusted to $207 million based on the downward revision of the fee increases, the Office will only receive roughly $80 million ($68 million for patents and $12 million for trademarks). Taking into account the most recent adjustment in spending undertaken by the Office in response to the implementation of the sequestration and other factors, the Office will endure a $267 million (9.5%) reduction in planned spending from the Office’s requirements in the FY 2013 President’s Budget.
|
The application of sequestration to the Office was surprising given that the Office is fully funded by user fees and clear language signed into law in the AIA in 2011 that was specifically intended to ensure stable funding for the Office. The sequestration is a reversion to the old days of user-fee diversion.
To most observers, user-fee-funded agencies fall into an exemption from sequestration provided for in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.1 The exemption excludes from sequestration “[a]ctivities financed by voluntary payments to the Government for goods or services to be provided for such payments.”2 Fees paid by users of the patent systems are such fees.
1 2 U.S.C. § 905
2 2 U.S.C. 905(g)(1)(a)
Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Report on the sequestration specifically stated that the sequestration would apply to the appropriated level, $2.95 billion.3 Since the Office was projected to, and did, collect less in user-fees than the appropriated levels, it was thought that no funds would be sequestered, as the Office’s user fee collections would never reach the level of the agency’s appropriated spending authority less sequestration.
Despite both of these rational potential implementations, and considerable confusion for months as to how the sequestration would be applied to user-fee-funded agencies, the OMB made clear that the sequestration would apply to the Office and subsequently clarified that it would be taken from actual fees collected.
| |
1. Impact of Sequestration on Pendency
|
| |
At the start of FY 2013, the Office was on target to meet its patent application pendency goal of 10 months to first action by 2016 and 20 months total patent application pendency by 2017. The Office was also on track to draw down the patent application backlog and reach the optimal inventory level in FY 2016. As a result of the unanticipated decrease in funding in FY 2013, the Office had to revise these timelines. The pendency goal of 10 months to first action has been delayed until FY 2019.three years. The pendency goal of 20 months for total patent pendency has been delayed until FY 2018.
|
| |
2. Impact of Sequestration on Personnel
|
| |
All non-critical hiring was placed on an indefinite hold including the hiring of patent examiners that were necessary to manage the predicted 5 percent annual increase in patent filings. The Office intended to hire 1000 examiners in FY 2013. The sequestration resulted in a significant reduction in hiring. Additionally, travel and training were scaled back to only include mission critical activities.
|
| |
3. Impact of Sequestration on Information Technology
|
| |
Although information technology support and modernization is a mission critical activity, it is the largest source of discretionary funding within the Office. To ameliorate the effects, the information technology budget was severely reduced. The Office’s modernization efforts, including PE2E and Fee Processing Next Generation were delayed indefinitely. Contracts with expertise in the Office’s systems and operations were terminated.
|
| |
4. Impact of Sequestration on Satellite Offices
|
| |
The hiring of employees for the existing and planned satellite offices was eliminated from the budget. Contract awards for existing and planned satellite offices and the planned transition to permanent space for the offices in Denver, Dallas and Silicon Valley were delayed indefinitely, with the exception of funds needed to sustain previously negotiated commitments with other Federal agencies and industry suppliers.
|
This situation is of utmost concern to the PPAC. In the PPAC’s opinion, this is the resurgence of a crisis in funding that will significantly and adversely impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the Office.
The USPTO only collects from users the fees necessary to cover operations and related expenses. Thus, when any of the fees collected are not available to the Office, the Office does not have the funds necessary to maintain operations. Bluntly, this means that sequestration resulted in insufficient funds for the Office to do the job for which the user paid. That is the situation in which the Office yet again finds itself. According to the Office’s audited financial statements from FY 1992 to FY 2012, over one billion dollars of the user fee collections were not available to the Office. This, combined with a steady increase of application filings, led to a significant backlog of applications awaiting examination and an information technology deficit.
Traveling down that path again, whether by Congressional or Administration (as is the case now) action, erodes the progress made toward improving patent quality, reducing pendency, and toward achieving the goal of 10 months to first action and 20 months total patent pendency. The United States faces many challenges in the increasingly competitive global economy. Now is not the time to hinder the Office that provides the fuel to the engine of this Nation’s creativity.
In its review of the fee-setting process, the PPAC endorsed the set of user-fee increases and changes proposed by the Office based in significant part on statements of assurance by the relevant government stakeholders that the entirety of such user fees would remain available for use by the Office to achieve critical and widely accepted operational goals. Had the PPAC known that, immediately upon its effect, all such new voluntarily paid user fees would not be available for the Office for patent related activities, for which the increase in user fees were intended, the PPAC might have reached a different conclusion in the report. It is particularly problematic that the sequestration of funding from the USPTO began almost simultaneously with the imposition of the user fee increase.
This reversion eviscerates a compromise agreement that was made to the users regarding the increase in fees and undermines user confidence in the system. The users accepted the additional user-fee increases proposed by the Office, above and beyond the prior 15 percent across-the-board surcharge, in large part because of the critical need for the Office to make significant infrastructure (including IT) and human capital improvements, to improve the quality of granted patents, and reduce time to examination and other systemic losses.
Quite simply, the PPAC believes should the sequester continue for the statutory ten years and the Office continue to be subject to it, not only will the gains made in quality and pendency be erased, long-term damage to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Office will occur that will take even longer to overcome. As President Obama stated in his September 16th 2011 statement upon signing the AIA (the Act that enabled the user-fee increases):
| |
“Over the last decade, patent applications have nearly tripled. And because the Patent Office doesn’t have the resources to deal with all of them, right now there are about 700,000 applications that haven’t even been opened yet. These are jobs and businesses of the future just waiting to be created.”
|
Ultimately, it is the American public and the economy that will suffer in the long-term while innovations wait for USPTO action.
Fortunately, the Office did benefit from other events. Filing and the associated revenue were better than expected (with a filing rate currently trending at 6.5 percent patent filing growth level compared to the estimated 5.0 percent planning assumption). Post fee increase revenue recovered more quickly than planned and the Office worked as a unit to minimize the near-term operational impacts of the sequestration. Nevertheless, the Office will end FY 2013 with $148 million less than users paid (approximately $135 million for patents) solely attributable to sequestration. This action brought the total monetary amount of user fees paid, which were unavailable to the Office to $1.2 Billion since FY 1992.
| |
1. PPAC urges the Administration to reconsider the Application of the Sequester to the Office
|
| |
The USPTO is a 100 percent user-fee funded organization. No tax dollars are used to support any part of the operation. The users of the systems pay for salaries and benefits including retirement, equipment, infrastructure, contracts, and every other aspect of the operation. These users who pay patent application, issuance, maintenance and other fees entirely support the system. One result of such a user fee funded agency is that fluctuations in the economy and user behavior, which are difficult to predict, can have an immediate impact on operations. Predicting accurately the revenues of the Office in advance on a year-to-year basis is thus a challenging, if not impossible task because it includes within the analysis a guessing game on the behavior of multiple players in the process and the strength of the economy.
|
| |
Congress recognized that 1) fluctuation in user behavior, and 2) the inability for the Office to respond to these fluctuations, was increasingly a stress on the efficient operation of the Office4. In response, in the AIA, the Congress responded by temporarily granting the Office the statutory authority to set its fees and concurrently established within the Treasury of the United States a reserve fund, the United States Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund, where all funds collected in excess of the annual appropriation would be deposited in the account and would be available to the Office without further legislative action, to the extent and in the amount provided in the Office’s annual appropriations language, which enables the Office to access these funds during the fiscal year through a reprogramming action.
|
4 See United States House of Representatives Report accompanying H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, Rept. 112-98 Part 1 pg. 49.
| |
The Fund was established because the drafters of the legislation believed that the Office could operate more effectively if it had full access to all of its user fee-generated revenue such that the Office could keep all of the user fees until expended. The drafters also noted that since the early 1990’s more than $1 billion in user-fees paid to the Office for services were instead “diverted from the agency and spent on non-USPTO initiatives.”5
|
5 Id. pg. 55
| |
Having been assured that the result would be a more stable funding environment and thereby the Office would be able to better plan for the future, PPAC was supportive of the enacting legislation.6 However, PPAC specifically noted concern over the possibility of the resurgence of fee diversion.7 Such resurgence, in the form of sequestration, has come to pass.
|
6 See Public Patent Advisory Committee Annual Report 2012, November 2, 2012. Pg. 15.; Public Patent Advisory Committee Annual Report 2012, September 24, 2012 Pg. 11-12 and http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Patent%20Reform%20PDFS/CRPT-112hrpt98-pt1.pdf
7 Id. Public Patent Advisory Committee Annual Report 2012, September 24, 2012 Pg. 11-12.
| |
2. PPAC urges the Congress to Remove the Office from the Appropriations Process
|
| |
A consistent funding stream and full access to user fees is essential to the operation of the Office. Given the failure of anti-fee diversion language to assure the Office full access to all user-fees, the PPAC (again) recommends that Congress develop an alternative funding and budget process for the Office. In the PPAC’s view, removing the Office from the appropriations process or creating a revolving fund are essential steps to permit the Office to develop multi-year planning and maintain Fee Reserve.8 While some events, such as the current implementation of sequestration, would still present a challenge to the agency, removing the office from the appropriations process or creation of a revolving fund as previously passed by the Senate would decrease the likelihood of this reoccurring problem of the unavailability of user fees.
|
8 PPAC understands the importance of the current Title 5 provisions. We think that these protections should remain intact.
| |
3. PPAC urges the Office to be More Cautious in Revenue Projection9
|
| |
The Office is estimating a 6.0 percent patent filing growth level for FY 2015 and a 15.4 percent growth from FY 2013 to FY 2017.10 We encourage the Office to be more cautious in their predictions for growth in filing rates and utilization of new programs. Given activity in the courts11 and several proposed pieces of legislation that may have a downward force on filing, it is the PPAC’s opinion that projecting the growth in filing rates more conservatively will decrease the likelihood that mid-year adjustments are necessitated or that long-term goals require adjustment. Unlike concerns in the past, where any collections in excess of budget authority were lost to the Office without Congressional intervention, because of the AIA’s Fee Reserve Fund, revenue above the projected budget will remain available to the Office until expended and without fiscal year limitation. The Fee Reserve Fund is not a complete solution to fee diversion because it still requires Congress to appropriate USPTO access to the Fund. The current appropriations language permits reprogramming, however, it involves a year-to-year determination and could change in the future. The challenges of accurately forecasting user behavior over extended periods of time could be eliminated by Congress removing the USPTO from the appropriations process.
|
9 PPAC is not suggesting that the Office underestimate revenue projections. Currently the Office creates projections that articulate a range of projected revenue. PPAC is recommending that the Office spending plan consistently comport with the lower range of that spectrum.
10 http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/budget/fy13pbr.pdf pg. 12
11 See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296, 182 L. Ed. 2d 321 (2012); Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2114, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124 (2013); Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011) cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 2431, 182 L. Ed. 2d 1059 (U.S. 2012); and CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 685 F.3d 1341, 1356 reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 484 F. App'x 559 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The court's attention to patentable subject matter may decrease the incentives to file and/or decrease the allowance rate.
12 See proposals to address abusive patent litigation: H.R. 845, H.R. 2024, H.R. 2639, H.R. 2766, S. 866 and S. 1013. Reducing the ability to enforce and/or providing additional mechanisms to invalidate existing patents may reduce incentives to file.
| |
4. PPAC urges the Office to Prioritize Information Technology in 2014
|
| |
The PPAC recognizes that the cuts to IT in 2013 were necessitated by the unanticipated sequestration requirement that the Office cut $148 million dollars from its FY 2013 budget. The PPAC does not dispute that the cuts to information technology were a reasonable action to minimize disruption in the face of sudden budget cuts. However, despite its appearance on the discretionary side of the balance sheet, fully functioning and up-to-date information technology systems are not a luxury in the 21st Century. Rather, it is a requirement for continuous improvement in reducing pendency, improving patent quality and empowering a growing and more technologically capable workforce.
|
| |
The PPAC strongly believes that the information technology needs of the Office should be prioritized in the FY 2014 and FY 2015 budget. Quite simply, hiring more examiners is insufficient if the examiners’ productivity is hamstrung by antiquated information technology. Stabilization and enhancement of information technology is a mission critical activity that for the foreseeable future should be prioritized.
|
| |
5. PPAC urges the Office to Delay Satellite Offices until Sufficient Resources are Available
|
| |
The PPAC believes that satellite offices are an essential component of an efficient and effective USPTO that serves the needs of its users. The PPAC supported this initiative by the Office. However, the realities of the sequestration clearly necessitate that core functions must be prioritized and the stresses of additional burdens should be deferred. While satellite offices will reap substantial benefits in the long term, we recognize that initial -start-up costs for creating these offices could be difficult to manage in the current fiscal environment. Therefore, we support the Administration and the USPTO working to routinely monitor fee collections, assess a new timetable that would help bring these projects online at a later date without undercutting core operations, and in interim, engaging in sustained outreach and stakeholder engagement in each community to the extent possible. The PPAC is in complete agreement with the Administration that until there are sufficient funds and a stable funding source, the Office should indefinitely delay all further expenditure of funds for the satellite offices that divert funds from mission critical core activities.
|
| |
6. PPAC urges all Stakeholders to Delay Additional Legislative and Executive Burdens on the Office Unless Full Access to User Fees is Restored
|
| |
On June 4, 2013, the White House issued five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations to improve future innovation in high-tech patents, a key driver of economic growth and jobs. These initiatives were designed to protect inventors from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents. Both are laudable goals with which PPAC and nearly all interested parties agree. However, so long as the sequestration is siphoning funds from the Office, the additional burdens articulated by the White House Task Force are of great concern. The five executive actions each require resources that are in short supply given the realities of the sequestration. Executive actions one, three and four (making “Real Party-in-Interest” the new default, empowering downstream users, and expanding dedicated outreached study) are information technology heavy activities. Mandating additional information technology activities concurrent with a reduction of nearly a quarter of the information technology budget is incompatible with maintenance of critical existing core activities.13 Changes that result in a decrease in revenue further compound the challenges under which the Office currently labors. PPAC recommends that the Administration restore the Office to full funding so that the Office can implement these important executive actions and proposed legislative actions.
|
13 $80 million was cut from the information technology budget representing a 23% reduction in the annual budget. However, due to the timing of the sequestration mid-year, the $80 million reduction applied to only six months of activities, not the full year. Thus the cuts were even more severe than the yearly percentage indicates.
In this section of the Report, the PPAC describes the Information Technology (IT) initiatives undertaken by the USPTO and the continued progress made this year in supporting the Office’s overall objectives and strategic goals. Under the direction of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (“OCIO”), the USPTO selects, integrates, implements and maintains information technology in support of improving patent quality, reducing pendency and backlog, advancing intellectual property leadership in the United States and internationally, and building and maintaining a 21st century work environment.
In 2012-2013, the OCIO continued its efforts to carry on this mission in the face of a dramatic mid-year budget reduction resulting from the combined effects of sequestration and financial factors described elsewhere in this report. As a “discretionary” center, the IT sector disproportionately bore the brunt of these cuts, with a particularly devastating impact on ongoing strategic technology initiatives. This section discusses the effects of the budget cuts as well as highlighting the OCIO’s accomplishments during the year.
In alignment with the USPTO’s overall strategic goals of improving patent quality and reducing pendency, the OCIO is responsible for deploying and maintaining modern IT systems and infrastructure that improve quality and efficiency; for example, by helping examiners to work productively and effectively and by supporting communication and coordination with the user community and international stakeholders.
As the PPAC has reported in previous years, the Office has undertaken a set of modernization initiatives to drive these objectives, with a portfolio known as “Patents End to End” (PE2E) as its mainstay. PE2E, as its name indicates, is a set of IT systems aimed at streamlining the processing of patent documents and actions from their inception to their downstream archiving.
At its core, PE2E implements an advanced data architecture based on open, text-based industry standards such as the Extensible Markup Language (XML), moving away from proprietary, image-based approaches that are behind some of the USPTO’s legacy data-handling systems. In addition to offering opportunities for enhancements to patent quality (for example, through better search capabilities and consistency in office actions), the PE2E portfolio comprises part of the Office’s need to upgrade an aging IT infrastructure, a challenge faced by all large-scale organizations.
While many of the initiatives discussed here are aimed at IT modernization and improvement, and particularly focused on improving patent quality while maintaining efficiency, it is important to note that much of the IT budget must be devoted to creating and sustaining an up-to-date, stable, reliable and secure technology environment to support the work of employees and of the user community. The Office’s IT systems must, for example, quickly and efficiently process an increasing number of filings and other transactions, support examiner and user searches, and handle the workload of an increasingly “wired” and diverse community of stakeholders.
In 2013, the OCIO continued to support USPTO’s overall mission by modernizing technology and processes, stabilizing legacy technology systems, supporting the growth of the workforce as well as the geographic and global reach of the organization, and responding to changes driven by international agreements as well as to policy changes such as those implemented by the AIA. As a result, the Office had numerous continuing modernization initiatives as well as new internal and external requirements, which it had to conduct in the face of budget uncertainty. An independent verification and validation (IV&V) consultant retained by the USPTO concluded in 2013 that, while the Office has made significant progress, IT at USPTO must shift its emphasis from monitoring and reacting to continuous improvement. The PPAC agrees with this assessment, and notes that it may become increasingly difficult for OCIO to improve service and efficiency in the face of these changing and increasing demands without adequate budget growth and clarity of direction.
As discussed elsewhere in this Report, the USPTO underwent a series of budget setbacks in March and April of 2013. This resulted in a reduction of nearly $80 million in planned expenditures for IT for the remainder of the fiscal year. OCIO’s project portfolios bore a disproportionate burden from the cuts because a significant portion of the projects are deemed “discretionary” in that they are not linked to payroll expenditures or staffing, but rather rely heavily on outside contractors, and for this reason funds are not already committed and reductions can take effect quickly. Certainly, the Office did not have good options, and worked hard (and successfully) to avoid cuts that might have had a catastrophic impact on examiner productivity, retention and future revenue, for example.
However sound the rationale might be for eviscerating technology programs under the circumstances, the effect of the March and April reductions was a derailment of many technology improvements deemed essential for USPTO’s future. Eleven million dollars was cut from PE2E alone, representing over 60 percent of the planned activities for the remainder of the year in a portfolio that commands top billing in the Office’s strategic plan and is featured in the FY 2013 President’s Budget. Virtually all contractors were told to stop work. Most of the projects in the portfolio, including Text2PTO (see below), were put on hold indefinitely. Resources had to be shifted in order to deploy projects that were nearing completion.
The sheer dollars and percentages, while dramatic, actually understate the impact of the sudden reductions on IT. Some of the projects that were cut involved upgrades to aging systems, notably Patent Application Location and Monitoring (PALM), the backbone enterprise data system that handles all of the Office’s critical processes. Delaying upgrades not only increases the risk that legacy systems or their integrated components will fail, but also wastes resources by requiring suboptimal solutions to ongoing reliability issues. Furthermore, while the cuts could be implemented quickly, they cannot be reversed so easily. Most of the contractors involved in the strategic work had special knowledge and skills gained from development to date, and many will not be available if and when projects resume. This compounds the inevitable delays with procurements aimed at getting new contracts in place. The OCIO estimates a minimum of 18 months’ delay (probably more) due to the cutbacks.
While there were no immediate disastrous effects of the nearly $80 million in pullbacks – no major system failures, nor noticeable declines in patent quality or worker productivity, the PPAC believes that the delays in IT improvements resulting from the sequester have already put a damper on further progress in reducing pendency and improving quality, and that this may have been a contributing factor to the current plateau in the quality metric. The OCIO and other parts of USPTO should be recognized for continuing, in general, the improving trends in pendency and quality in the face of AIA, a rise in applications, and a volatile and uncertain budget environment. Yet the PPAC has no doubt that this situation will impede further gains and urges that work should resume on PE2E and other strategic IT initiatives.
Since our last Report, the PPAC has noted that substantial progress has been made in the following areas.
| |
1. Patent Examination Tools and Infrastructure
|
| |
The Patent Examination Tools and Infrastructure projects include a set of integrated workflow, case management, viewing and search tools to help examiners work productively and effectively. Some examples of the new functionality included in these tools are advanced claims management (including claims tree and claims analysis), reference management, and the ability to search within a pending patent application. During 2012-2013, the tools were released in three stages to pilot groups representing all the technology centers in USPTO. Ongoing work includes further deployment, and enhancements including the integration with evolving PE2E tools (see below).
|
| |
2. Patents End-To-End (PE2E)
|
| |
Patents End-To-End represents an extensive, multi-year portfolio of tools for improved processing of patent applications, based on a user-centered, agile-development methodology. The projects have included examiners and other stakeholders at all stages, resulting in a targeted set of features for managing and enhancing examination. The tools under development focus on core improvements, such as the migration from an image-centered to structured text-centered environment (allowing for better application integration and improved analytical and search capabilities), optimization to streamline and eliminate repetitive tasks, and architectural improvements to allow for improved scalability and reliability in the face of an ever-increasing workload.
|
| |
In December 2012, an initial version of the PE2E tools was demonstrated for the USPTO at large and the public was invited, with a continued positive response from the examiner corps and public. As discussed above, the work was significantly slowed in March due to budget constraints. Portions of the PE2E work have continued, including, for example, the adaptation of the PE2E search tools for Chinese (SIPO) data, now deployed in the GPSN project discussed below.
|
| |
3. Patent Application Text Initiative (PATI)
|
| |
During the PATI program, claims, specification, and abstracts of all active patent applications have been converted to structured text. This currently accounts for approximately 21 million pages of documents, for which patent examiners have access from Office legacy IT tools. PATI will be the key source of data for PE2E’s new tools suite. The ongoing data capture conducted in PATI is in addition to the previously reported conversion of claims, specifications and abstracts of all active backfiles (63 million + documents), from image data to full XML4IP standard text. The Office has successfully completed all the hardware upgrades as part of the Infrastructure programs enabling corps-wide deployment of PATI data.
|
| |
4. Text to PTO (Text2PTO)
|
| |
The Text2PTO program aims to allow and promote text submissions of patent applications from applicants. It will provide applicants with a suite of pre-submission tools to analyze and validate applications. Planning for Text2PTO began in 2012, and outreach to the intellectual property community has been conducted to vet different approaches, understand applicant needs, and communicate the advantages of text-based submission. Text2PTO was suspended this year as part of budget reductions.
|
| |
5. Global IT Systems
|
| |
a. Global Patent Search Network (GPSN)
|
| |
As the first major step in allowing examiners to search a broad range of international patent data, the OCIO deployed functionality in 2013 to enable searching of Chinese patents provided by the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) in XML format from 2008-2011. In addition to providing a framework for broader international patent search capabilities, the project provided a test bed for deployment of the new PE2E patent search system, which has been delayed as discussed above.
|
| |
b. One Portal Dossier
|
| |
In 2013, the OCIO deployed functionality to transmit USPTO patent data to all IP5 offices (EPO, SIPO, KIPO, and JPO representing, Europe, China, Korea, and Japan). This facilitates work-sharing among patent offices internationally, with the aim of improving the quality of examined applications that are members of the same patent family and reducing duplication of effort.
|
| |
c. Cooperative Patent Classification
|
| |
Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) is a partnership between the USPTO and the European Patent Office (EPO) to harmonize patent classification between offices under a single standard. Supporting this classification system required adaptations to legacy systems and data within the USPTO, which were made and deployed in 2013. Recently KIPO and SIPO announced their intentions to classify their respective patent documents using the CPC. The CPC will thus ultimately contain the patent document collections from four of the five offices of the IP5.
|
The PPAC believes that IT development and modernization efforts at OCIO have produced valuable results in support of USPTO’s mission. The budget process this year blocked much of the progress toward continuous improvement and significantly threatened the ability of the Office to work efficiently and to support the expansion of the workforce and the application pool while improving quality and reducing pendency. The process for IT planning and budgeting must be improved in order for the Office to succeed, and the PPAC encourages the OCIO and USPTO to focus on the following areas:
| |
1. Provide increased funding
|
| |
As discussed above, the dramatic mid-year cuts in 2013 have significantly compromised mission-critical IT systems at the Office and derailed modernization efforts aimed at improving quality and reducing pendency, among other strategic objectives. In order to reverse this and have a chance at catching up, significant increases in the IT budget are required for 2014.
|
| |
2. Protect IT from Future Cuts
|
| |
The PPAC recognizes that many of the problems the OCIO faced in 2013 were the result of “trickle down” from legislative and administrative action. The PPAC recommends that the USPTO should adjust its planning so that adequate reserves are available for critical IT projects. Making long-term commitments to workforce and physical expansion can reduce these reserves and creates an imbalance between non-discretionary and discretionary spending. This is inefficient because it keeps the OCIO in a reactive position where it is unable to undertake and extend projects that improve quality and efficiency. Therefore, the Office must be cautious in the future about funding commitments that reduce flexibility when budget problems arise, particularly in the growth of the workforce and physical plant (e.g., field offices). The PPAC believes that IT modernization can create a more efficient, productive, and effective Office, and this is what is needed to meet the current and future objectives in the face of budget uncertainty.
|
| |
3. Resume and Accelerate Patents End-to-End
|
| |
The PPAC believes that the PE2E portfolio has shown some good results and that the Office’s and Administration’s emphasis on this project is well-founded. PE2E is the centerpiece of OCIO’s effort to support the effectiveness of a modern examiner workforce, in synergy with the overall goals of reducing pendency and improving quality. The portfolio was brought to a virtual standstill in 2013 and must be resurrected, if not accelerated.
|
| |
4. Continue to Upgrade Legacy IT systems
|
| |
While OCIO has made great progress in stabilizing IT systems, some of the systems, particularly PALM, continue to be threatened with obsolescence, resulting in threats to the organization as every system failure leads to productivity losses from a growing workforce. The Office must resume its efforts to modernize these systems.
|
| |
5. Expand support for the global IT community
|
| |
Technology support for globalization, such as GPSN, One Portal Dossier, and CPC, were bright spots for OCIO in 2013. These projects must continue, as the USPTO moves forward with its vision of leading the world in intellectual property protection and policy.
|
| |
6. Continue to upgrade and expand links with stakeholders
|
| |
While much of this report has focused on the role of IT in support of workforce productivity and effectiveness, the OCIO also plays a significant part in stakeholder service and in expanding links with the nation’s and world’s intellectual property community. Certain efforts, such as Text2PTO and enhancements to USPTO’s Website, were scaled back in 2013 and must be picked up again in the future.
|
Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs), in both number and time to examination, continue to be a problem adversely affecting overall pendency and represent a source of frustration for both the Office and applicants. The number of RCEs awaiting action reached over 110,000 at mid-FY 2013. However, during FY 2013, Deputy Under Secretary, Teresa Rea; Commissioner for Patents, Peggy Focarino; and Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, Andrew Faile, dedicated significant attention to addressing the issues surrounding RCEs in an attempt to reduce this backlog and reduce the need for future filings.
Following the move of RCEs from the Examiner’s amended docket to the special continuing docket, the backlog of RCEs ballooned from about 17,000 in October of 2009 to over 110,000 in March of 2013 as can be seen in the chart below. As a result, the time between filing of the RCEs and the first office action rose from about two to three months to one to two years, representing a truly significant gap in the prosecution of “continued examination,” leading to increased applicant frustration and dissatisfaction.
|
RCEs raise a number of concerns for the PPAC: 1) The current hiatus between filing and start (or resumption) of examination is not efficient for either the USPTO or applicant; 2) Many practitioners believe the examiners force the filing of RCEs to obtain more credit instead of handling issues after final rejection. 3) The pendency of the first application ends with the filing of the RCE and subsequent prosecution time of the RCE is not captured in the Traditional Total Pendency statistic typically reported by the Office as pendency. This time is captured only in the Traditional Total Pendency Including RCEs statistic located on the USPTO dashboard when the RCE is finally acted upon. Therefore, the pendency numbers are misleading because RCEs comprise a significant proportion of the applications and their pendency is missing from the Traditional Total Pendency numbers. 4) Because RCEs are amended applications and not continuing applications, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) begins 4 months after filing as compared to 14 months from filing for continuing applications and thus RCEs are accumulating significant PTA, which is not in the public interest. 5) RCEs are counted as new applications for inventory and placement on the examiner’s docket but treated as an amended case in other instances, which has contributed to the increasing backlog.
For the past few years, the USPTO has been working cooperatively with the PPAC to find initiatives which could alleviate some of the problems and reduce the need for filing RCEs. Two such programs implemented in FY 2012 are the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) and Quick Path IDS (QPIDS). The AFCP provides additional time for examiners to consider responses filed after a final rejection to determine whether the application can be put into condition for allowance and thus may avoid the need for an RCE or appeal. QPIDS provides an avenue for the consideration of newly discovered prior art after the payment of the issue fee, if certain conditions can be met. Both programs represent a step forward in creating options for applicants to avoid the need for filing an RCE. They were greeted with enthusiasm by practitioners as a very good start. The significant backlog of RCEs indicates that more efforts are necessary.
An early initiative implemented for reducing the need for RCEs is the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0, which accords the examiner time for an interview and consideration of after final amendments following a request to take part in the program. At least 5,000 completed requests by applicants to participate in this program have already resulted in 1,534 allowances (as of mid-August 2013). This is a very encouraging outcome and the initiative is endorsed by the PPAC.
Responding to growing concerns voiced by the bar and the PPAC, the USPTO management emphasized the examination of RCEs and granted a temporary increase in the credit Examiners receive for the completion of an RCE from 1.75 counts to 2.0 counts, making it identical to other applications and continuations. Consequently, increases were reported in the numbers of RCEs being examined. The backlog of RCEs awaiting action dropped to about 96,000 by Mid-August of 2013, and was reduced to 78,272 by the end of September 2013.
In an effort to further stimulate action on the backlog of RCEs, USPTO and the Examiner’s union, Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), agreed to changes reordering work on the Examiner’s dockets, changes which will be implemented on October 1, 2013. These modifications simplify docket categories and time frames for completion of applications within each docket category. RCEs, regular new, Continuations, Continuations-in part (CIPs), and Divisionals will all be placed into a single docket called “New,” from which applications regularly will be identified for action based on the effective filing date. Examiners with higher RCE inventories will have more limited inventories of regular new applications available for action until their RCE inventories are reduced below a predetermined threshold. The first four RCEs done each quarter of the FY will receive 1.75 counts but subsequent RCEs completed during a quarter will then receive 2.0 counts. The PPAC is encouraged that these changes will spur further movement of RCEs and reduce the backlog.
Also, in alignment with the PTA goals of 14-4-4-4, the PPAC suggested setting a goal of taking up RCEs for action within 4 months of filing, which would reduce the PTA earned by an RCE compared to the currently reported delays. The USPTO is working with POPA to implement initiatives to achieve the goal of an average of 4 months to first action for RCEs. The PPAC appreciates the efforts by POPA and management to find ways to increase and speed the actions in RCEs. These actions, particularly the adoption of a goal to first action, will provide increased certainty on timing to first action, a goal that is certain to receive widespread enthusiasm and endorsement from the bar.
To their credit, instead of relying on their own internal impressions and opinions or anecdotal concerns voiced by the PPAC and other individuals, the USPTO undertook an effort to capture feedback from a larger swath of the public and users. In conjunction with the PPAC, the USPTO sought comments through a Federal Register Notice and held a roundtable and focus session in Silicon Valley, Dallas, Chicago, New York City and Alexandria, Virginia, with one PPAC member attending each of these events. At these sessions, the USPTO RCE team demonstrated genuine openness and interest in understanding ideas and concerns raised by the public. The team collected over 1100 comments and suggestions from all sources, including IdeaScale®, comments to the Federal Register notice and the five roundtable/focus sessions. These comments were categorized into themes for the development of actions and initiatives and the USPTO Group Directors began developing actions to address each theme.
| |
THEME 1: RCE Education
|
| |
Theme 1 for reducing the need for future RCE filings involves education of both the public and Examiners about the types and details of the currently available programs, which might be utilized to obtain consideration by the Examiner instead of just filing an RCE. A surprising statistic highlighted the need for more advertising of the current options because about 60% of RCEs had not had an amendment after final rejection. The USPTO has developed a timeline clearly showing the available options for each point in prosecution with links to the details of each program. This new feature has been made available on the Website. The PPAC was very pleased with the demonstrated features of this central information hub, including several ways to view the materials.
|
| |
THEME 2: Expansion of QPIDS Program
|
| |
The action for Theme 2 involves a possible expansion of the QPIDS program to permit the certification under 37 CFR § 1.97(e) for information from a domestic filing. The current QPIDS program has received over 2,400 requests and avoided the need for an RCE in almost 1,700 cases. This is a significant improvement with clear benefits to both applicants and the Office. This potential expansion of the QPIDS program could increase the saving in reduced RCE filings. The PPAC applauds the USPTO for QPIDS and the possible expansion.
|
| |
THEME 3: Internal Training
|
| |
Concepts consolidated into Theme 3 focused on training for supervisors and Examiners, stemming from received comments related to a need for more supervisory involvement and concerns about examination quality. The training proposed by the USPTO will focus on after final practice, compact prosecution, how to effectively review a case, how to better identify allowable subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of claims and one-on-one training for Examiners with high numbers of RCEs. Such training is valuable and hopefully will help reduce the numbers of RCEs by improving quality and providing a better avenue for supervisory intervention. However, the PPAC suggests some analysis following the training to judge whether or not the training has made any impact on the RCEs and public perceptions of patent quality.
|
| |
THEME 4: Prosecution Flexibility
|
| |
An outcome for Theme 4 involves possible prosecution flexibility allowing more opportunities for applicant’s attorney and the Examiner to interact and communicate providing for better synchronization between the attorney and Examiner. These ideas include such items as providing additional opportunities and juncture points for interviews with examiners or the possibility of another action after a final rejection, The PPAC believes this is a positive approach which could reduce the numbers of actions in applications and reduce the need for RCEs stemming from a better understanding by applicant of the potential deficiencies or lack of clarity in the claims and a more complete understanding of the invention by the Examiner. This would represent a win-win situation for both parties, helping to resolve issues in applications sooner and reducing the filing of RCEs and appeals.
|
The PPAC recommends exploring an avenue for resolution of issues in prosecution other than an appeal to the PTAB. One possible idea is permitting applicant participation in the pre-appeal brief conference or a new program which permits an interview with multiple primary examiners in addition to the examiner of record. Allowing applicants a voice in such initiatives would permit applicants to better present arguments and the Office to articulate underlying concerns perhaps not clear in the position taken by the Examiner. The presence of the Examiner and two other Examiners (a SPE, Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) or a knowledgeable Primary Examiner) could clarify whether the application can be allowed or an appeal needs to be filed. In any case, it is believed that this could reduce the need for both RCEs and appeals to the PTAB.
The PPAC also recommends that the Office consider designating as final rejections, rejections over newly cited prior art when only minor amendments were made following a first office action. Compact prosecution and a complete search and first office action including all rejections that could have been made should be the goal of the Office. This, also, would likely reduce the necessity of filing some RCEs.
The identification of actions to address the problem of RCEs is an impressive first step and the PPAC recommends that USPTO continue to implement programs, training and actions to tackle this issue, but also monitor the outcomes of these actions to assess their effectiveness.
Although RCEs continue to represent a concern for the PPAC, the impressive efforts by Deputy Under Secretary, Teresa Rea; Commissioner for Patents, Peggy Focarino; Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, Andrew Faile, and the RCE team are concentrated on flexible, creative initiatives to address the RCE problem. USPTO management is applauded for outstanding self-evaluation and identification of possible solutions. The cooperative work with the PPAC and the public on this issue demonstrates leadership and dedication to performance improvements by the USPTO management.
The PPAC endorses the actions taken to date on the RCE issue, which have translated to RCE backlog reductions and based on the progress witnessed in FY 2013, additional reductions are expected in FY 2014 stemming from these efforts. Given the magnitude of the RCE backlog, it will take some time to reach an acceptable backlog level and the goal of four months on average to a first action. Similarly, it will take some efforts by both examiners and practitioners to reduce the number of RCEs being filed. However, the PPAC applauds the significant actions taken this year by USPTO in gathering and beginning to address concerns raised by users. The PPAC is pleased to continue working with the USPTO addressing these issues.
Human capital remains a significant area of concern for the PPAC this year. During FY 2013, due in significant part to budget constraints, only 559 new examiners were hired instead of a planned 1000, representing a significant decrease from the 1507 new examiners hired during FY 2012. Furthermore, the planned hiring of 750 examiners in FY 2014 has been reduced in the President’s Budget to 250. The improving economy and the recent surge in new hires have also led to a higher attrition rate. In FY 2013, the preliminary attrition rate was 4.22 percent, compared to a 3.07 percent rate in FY 2012.
In light of the current hiring situation, the Office focused on hiring examiners with previous patent experience. The Office anticipated that such experienced patent professionals would require less training and thus would have the ability to start examining patent applications sooner. Of the 559 new examiners hired, 51 are IP experienced patent professionals and 21 design examiners. This compares to the 148 experienced examiners hired in 2012.
In 2012, the first Satellite Office in Detroit, Michigan opened for business, and by the end of FY 2013, 101 patent examiners and PTAB judges were hired and trained at the new facility. Satellite Offices in Dallas, Denver, and the Silicon Valley were also announced, however, there was no patent examiner hiring of examiners for these offices in FY 2013, and hiring in 2014 is on hold.
As a result, the PPAC strongly recommends that the Office be given full access to the user fees it generates to allow for the hiring of at least 750 new examiners in FY 2014, and look to hire the appropriate number of examiners in FY 2015 necessary to continue to reduce pendency. Further, the PPAC recommends continuing to target experienced patent professionals for the available new examiner positions and to advance distributed work force initiatives to attract a larger pool of well-qualified candidates and further enhance retention of experienced examiners for an entire career.
The Office set an initial goal of hiring 1000 new examiners in 2013. Due in significant part to budget constraints, only 559 new examiners were hired, of which 51 were experienced hires. The attrition rate increased from 3.07% to 3.94%; however, this is still significantly lower than the attrition rates; experienced in 2009 and 2010. By comparison, the attrition rate for FY 2009 was 6.3% (5.6% excluding transfers and retirees). While the Office continues to focus on a number of initiatives to increase retention and employee satisfaction, it is also important to note that the attrition rate is historically lower during more challenging economic conditions. Accordingly, the PPAC recommends that the Office continue to focus on initiatives to further reduce attrition and keep experienced, productive examiners.
Fiscal Year |
New Hire Goal |
Actual New
Hires
|
Examiner
Attrition
|
Total Number of
Examiners
|
Net Change
(Year-Over-Year)
|
2013 |
500 |
559 |
373 |
7,958 |
127 |
2012 |
1500 |
1,496 |
280 |
7,831 |
1,146 |
2011 |
1200 |
836 |
223 |
6,685 |
557 |
2010 |
350 |
276 |
277 |
6,128 |
-17 |
The PPAC believes that it is imperative to increase the number of examiners hired and to continue to maintain the low attrition rates to allow the examiner ranks to grow to appropriate levels. The Office has set a revised goal of hiring 750 examiners in FY 2014, if sufficient funding is available.
Attracting and maintaining a skilled corps of examiners is critical to effective examination of applications and reducing backlog. The PPAC strongly recommends that the Office be provided sufficient funding to hire enough examiners to maintain appropriate levels in FY 2014.
Funding, and specifically the Sequester, has had a substantial impact in hiring during FY 2013.
Roughly 80% of the Office’s budget is non-discretionary (payroll and overhead), and the Office’s ability to react to the Sequester was therefore limited. As a result, during FY 2013, the Office needed to significantly reduce its hiring goals. Only 559 new examiners were hired in FY 2013, falling far short of the original goal of hiring 1000 new examiners.
Illustrated below is the projected impact of the hiring uncertainty on pendency to first action, measured in months:
In light of the recent budget constraints, the Office has instituted and furthered a number of initiatives to make the most of its current Examiner Corps. Several of these initiatives are described below:
| |
1. Develop Hiring of Experienced Patent Professionals
|
| |
During FY 2010, the Office initiated a new hiring model to encourage individuals with previous patent experience to apply for a position as a patent examiner. This model was intended to place more emphasis on recruiting candidates with significant patent experience while previous hiring focused more on technical background/experience. The hope is that experienced patent professionals would require less training and thus would have the ability to start examining patent applications sooner.
|
| |
Since 2010, the Office has consistently been able to hire experienced patent professionals. In FY 2013, the Office added 51 on top of the 148 it hired in 2012. Since this program began, the Office has added 355 new examiners with previous patent experience. The PPAC encourages the Office to continue with this program.
|
| |
2. Target Overtime and Backlog Areas
|
| |
The Office has used overtime as an efficient way to manage its workload and reduce the backlog of applications in the absence of additional examiner hires. During FY 2013, the Office prioritized the use of overtime to targeted areas with the highest backlogs. The Office expects 125 hours of overtime per examiner, per year. This is obviously dependent on the budget, however, the PPAC believes that judicious use of overtime and incentives can be helpful in reducing the backlog of applications.
|
| |
3. Nationwide Workforce
|
| |
The Office has been successful in developing a nationwide workforce. The USPTO’s workforce consists of employees that work at locations other than the Alexandria headquarters, thus allowing employees to choose where they desire to live. This segment of USPTO employees either participate in the patents hoteling program (PHP) or work from the USPTO satellite office in Detroit.
|
| |
There are currently 3573 examiners that participate in PHP. This is comprised of two segments -- employees whose worksite is within 50 miles from the Alexandria campus and those with a worksite greater than 50 miles from the Alexandria campus. 63% of eligible examiners and 45% of all examiners work remotely in the hoteling program.
|
| |
The PPAC recommends that the Office continue to support, promote, and expand the Patents Hoteling Program (PHP), which permits examiners to work from remote locations.
|
| |
Further, the PPAC supports the Telework Enhancement Act Pilot Program (TEAPP) that provides more flexibility regarding employee travel requirements. In 2010, the USPTO received authorization to conduct the TEAPP program and gather data on its effectiveness. Participation slots were limited. In 2012, the first USPTO hoteling employees enrolled in TEAPP. Management recently reached agreement with the bargaining units to expanded participation in the pilot program (TEAPP), and there are 1455 participation slots allotted for POPA bargaining unit members and 91 participation slots for NTEU 243. Currently, 1212 Patent examiners and 13 TSS employees participate in the pilot program.
|
| |
As the USPTO transitions to a more virtual work environment, the Patent organization established a permanent hoteling program for its Supervisory Patent Examiners (SPEs) and Management QAS (MQAS) In July 2013; approximately 110 managers began working from home full-time. The program is continually monitored and adjusted as necessary in order to meet the program objectives of retaining skilled managers while also ensuring they remain an effective part of the Office’s engaged workforce.
|
| |
In addition, the Office has expanded the Patents Telework Program (PTP) to allow workers at the Alexandria campus to work up to 32 hours per pay period at an approved alternate worksite.
|
| |
The PPAC commends the Office’s use of these progressive initiatives. The flexibility of these teleworking programs has improved job satisfaction and morale and lessened the impact of attrition on the workforce.
|
| |
4. On-Hold Programs
|
| |
The Sequester has had an impact on a number of promising programs at the Office. A few of these include the after-hours technical and legal studies programs, the examiner site visit program (SEE), and technical and legal training. These programs allow employees to take law school courses and technical courses to enhance their legal and technical knowledge, allow examiner opportunities to visit companies to gain technical knowledge in their areas of expertise which enhances their patent examination duties, and provides for ongoing technical and legal development for examiners. These programs have all been reduced.
|
The PPAC recommends that the Office be given sufficient funding as soon as possible to allow for the hiring of at least 1000 new examiners in FY 2014. The PPAC believes that the current trend of insufficient hiring due to funding will have a significant and lasting impact on the Office if not remedied immediately. Additionally, the PPAC recommends continuing to target experienced IP professionals for the available new examiner positions and to advance geographical expansion of the work force and telework initiatives to attract a larger pool of well qualified candidates and further enhance retention of experienced examiners for an entire career.
The issuance of high quality patents with a reasonable pendency remains the most important priority for the USPTO. Stakeholders must be able to rely on the validity of issued patents with a high degree of certainty, and applicants benefit from timely decisions and from obtaining patent rights while the invention is commercially viable in the marketplace.
The USPTO made positive strides in patent quality during FY 2013. Significantly, the Office held a number of well-attended outreach meetings with stakeholders to discuss issues related to the quality of software patents. The Office continued to review, and where appropriate, streamlined the patent process to advance patent prosecution on the merits. In particular, the Office focused significantly on after-final practice and revamped its after-final consideration pilot program. The Office continued to focus on expanding the use of the Track One program to expedite the review of applications deemed important by applicants to, e.g., obtain a patent to help finance a new business or to stave off competition. The Office also focused on several “clarity of record” initiatives to ensure applicants clearly define the aspects of their inventions and examiner’s use, e.g., of Section 112 rejections to clarify the meaning of certain claim recitations. These initiatives are ongoing and offer significant promise. The USPTO’s Office of Patent Quality Assurance continued its role as the internal arbiter of patent quality, by measuring patent quality throughout the examination process. These efforts are described in more detail below.
There are still a number of areas in need of improvement but the Office has shown a willingness to embrace change. The PPAC is certain the Office will continue to focus on ways to improve patent quality and decrease pendency.
The Office held two software patent quality meetings in February 2013, one in Silicon Valley and one in New York. The Silicon Valley meeting included 12 speakers and approximately 250 attendees in total (150 live, 100 via webcast). The New York meeting included 14 speakers and approximately 200 attendees (120 live, 80 via webcast). The speakers were from a diverse background and included law professors, patent practitioners, in-house attorneys, independent software developers, and software coalitions. The meetings provided a forum for the public to offer input on enhancing the quality of software-related patents through implementing best practices in patent application preparation and utilizing existing statutory framework to improve examination. Although the meetings focused on the quality of software patents, the Office emphasized that any lessons learned would be applied to patent applications in every technological field and to the entire examination process.
Each meeting focused on establishing clear boundaries for claims that use functional language and employing certain techniques in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications. The common discussion points included Section 112, paragraph (a) requirements directed to written description and enablement, paragraph (b) requirements directed to indefiniteness, and paragraph (f) requirements directed to functional claiming. In conjunction with these meetings, the Office published a Federal Register notice in early January 2013 that requested written comments based on this initiative and patent quality meetings; 98 comments were received by the Office in response to questions posed in the Federal Register notice. The Office has reviewed these comments and has started implementing examiner training to identify claim limitations that invoke Section 112 (f) and to make the patent examination record clear. In addition, the Office has scheduled follow-up meetings with stakeholders in October 2013, one on October 17, 2013, at the University of California Berkeley School of Law in Berkeley, California, and a second meeting at the USPTO to continue the dialogue on ways to improve patent quality.
The PPAC commends the Office for having these meetings. The feedback that PPAC members received from the meetings was overwhelmingly positive and demonstrated how useful face-to-face USPTO communications are with stakeholders. The PPAC urges the Office to continue these outreach efforts. However, the PPAC is concerned that sequestration will limit the Office’s ability to provide funding for these important meetings.
As a quality measure, the USPTO has implemented a “Patent Quality Composite,” as shown in the table below. The quality composite is composed of seven individual factors, including internal USPTO measures of the quality of actions setting forth the final disposition, the quality of actions during the course of examination and perceived quality of the patent process from both an external and an internal perspective. Including more items in the quality measurement is an important step in the right direction.
|
However, the PPAC believes that more concrete, objective statistics should be considered for inclusion in the composite. Additionally, reporting a percentage of achievement of a goal renders the number difficult to evaluate. Anecdotally, the PPAC believes that users continue to be uncertain about the quality measurements being reported by the USPTO in this composite. As noted in the RCE roundtables and focus sessions, there were a number of concerns raised about the quality of the examination. Exactly how this comports with internal measures is not clear, but these comments from stakeholders flag a need for improvement in patent quality. The PPAC continues to be willing to work with the USPTO to refine quality metrics.
The PPAC commends the Office for expanding data collection capabilities in its quality review program to permit collection of data on application characteristics and examination behaviors with a greater degree of granularity. According to the Office, data collected includes: the occurrence of functional claims in computer-related inventions; occurrence of claims that invoke 112 (f), and documentation of such claims by examiner and/or applicants; analysis of the basis for Section 101 non-statutory subject matter rejections (e.g. abstract idea, natural phenomenon, law of nature, signal, software per se, etc.); as well as other items. In addition, the PPAC commends the Office for updating the uspto.gov website to include content that will increase transparency with respect to the quality metrics and how they are generated, and will increase stakeholder understanding of the Patent Quality Composite. The content includes a computer-based training module that provides an explanation of the Patent Quality Composite and each of the component metrics. The Office has emphasized the inclusion of patent examination quality as a factor for consideration in various program evaluations. In FY 2013, data collection and measurement protocols were constructed to identify and monitor potential quality impacts resulting from programs/initiatives such as SPE hoteling, third-party submissions, and examiner-initiated interviews.
The PPAC recommends that the quality composite include more items which are objective to provide a quality evaluation which might be deemed more transparent by some individuals. Also, providing examples of how a patent application is scored for errors in the quality evaluation would be helpful.
The USPTO continued to decrease pendency to first action and total pendency during FY 2013 with achieving 29.1 months for total pendency and 18.2 months for pendency to first action. This reflects a reduction from FY 2012’s 32.4 months and 21.9 months, respectively, which are laudable improvements, showing significant progress towards the goals of 10 months pendency to first action and 20 months total pendency.
Instrumental in these gains were a focus on moving the oldest new applications, hiring of new examiners, and several programs, including Track One, and the Patent Prosecution Highway, implemented by the USPTO.
One significant implication of the sequestration is a negative impact on pendency. The USPTO, while an appropriated agency, does not receive tax-payer money; it is a fee-based organization. When applicants submit patent applications, they provide fees for the services they expect to be rendered. To encourage filing of applications, the fees are back-end loaded but the costs to perform the activities of examination fall more heavily on the front-end of prosecution. Consequently, the USPTO has the applications requiring work to be done, but with sequestration does not have the money to actually perform the work. The pendency of patent applications achieved by the USPTO is dependent upon the number of patent examiners at the agency able examine the filed patent applications. Decisions must be made on how to allocate less money than was generated by the fees and often the hiring of new patent examiners is cut because in reality very little of the USPTO budget is discretionary. Because of sequestration, the USPTO reduced the number of patent examiners hired in FY 2013 and projects a reduction in hires for FY 2014. Having fewer examiners translates into increased pendency, resulting in significant increases in pendency for years. Note the significant impact the number of hired patent examiners during FY 2013 has had on pendency to first action in the chart below.
Projected Effects of Numbers of Examiner Hires on Pendency to First Action, Measured in Months
Based on the 1500 examiners expected to be hired in FY 2013, the model showed a reduction of pendency to first action of 8.0 months. However, with only 559 actual hires in FY 2013, the model shows first action pendency at 11 months in FY 2020. One year of sequestration has a negative impact on pendency but multiple years of sequestration for the fee-based USPTO would have serious consequences. Sequestering fees paid to the agency for work that must be completed creates examination delays and undermines the substantial progress achieved to date, inhibiting the ability of entrepreneurs to leverage their granted patents and create jobs.
It is vitally important to hire patent examiners, at least at a replacement level, in order to continue reducing the pendency of patent applications. Without hiring enough examiners, the total number of examiners in the USPTO will decrease due to attrition, slowing the reduction of the pendency and eventually allowing pendency to begin to increase again.
In FY 2013, the Office received input from stakeholders and examiners obtained through the RCE outreach initiative and revamped its after final consideration pilot (AFCP). The Office launched version 2.0 of the AFCP on May 19, 2013. The purpose of AFCP 2.0 is to increase efforts towards compact prosecution and increased collaboration between examiners and stakeholders. As with the original AFCP pilot, the new AFCP 2.0 pilot allows additional flexibility for applicants when they receive an “after-final” rejection in an Office Action. AFCP 2.0 authorizes additional time (approximately 3 hours) for examiners to search and consider responses filed by applicants after final rejection. The examiners use the additional time to review the after-final response and conduct an updated prior art search. The version 2.0 of the AFCP requires that an applicant include an amendment to at least one independent claim that does not broaden its scope.
The PPAC applauds the Office’s willingness to review existing programs like the original AFCP and to make changes to them to improve the program’s performance. The PPAC urges the Office to explore additional ways to get the word out about the AFCP 2.0 program to both stakeholders and examiners.
Implementation of Track One, an AIA-mandated expedited examination program, began on September 26, 2011. Although the Office designed the program to accept just 10,000 requests, as of August 12, 2013, the Office has received only 5,838 requests. The additional cost of $4,800 (for large entities) was considered too high. The PPAC credits the Office for recognizing this and reducing the fee to $4,000. For an applicant needing quick examination, the program offers significant advantages. The Office takes the goal of completion of examination in twelve months seriously and as a result examination proceeds at a very rapid pace. It appears that the Office works more closely with an applicant to identify allowable subject matter and is open to meaningful interviews and productive discussions to advance prosecution. Based on recent statistics, the average amount of days from petition grant to allowance is only 148 days, significantly faster than regular prosecution. Forty-seven percent of all Track One filings are made by small entities, i.e., likely startups that need patents to get the critical financial funding they need to grow their business.
The PPAC is concerned that the Track One program is not used more often by applicants. In an effort to expand the Track One program, the PPAC urges the Office to consider some changes that may enhance applicant participation. The PPAC recommends that Track One request be allowed one year after filing the application thereby negating the current requirement that the request be submitted with the original filing. The PPAC requests that the Office review when an application in Track One remains in special status and consider ways to allow these applications to stay in special status for a longer period of time. By “special status,” the PPAC recommends that the Office act promptly on any applicant responses (e.g., one month) to advance prosecution. In addition, the PPAC recommends that the USPTO fee for requesting Track One after receiving an RCE, whose parent was already in Track One, be made lower than the full cost of a Track One request.
The various versions of the PPH (i.e. original PPH, PCT-PPH and Mottanai PPH) offered by the USPTO have assisted in reducing the pendency for individual applications, reduced costs for applicant and improved quality. These programs are a model of international cooperation providing benefits to both applicants and the participating patent offices. As a consequence of the work-sharing among patent offices, the applications have a higher allowance rate and fewer actions compared to non-PPH applications. PPAC is pleased that the USPTO is working towards a plurilateral unitary program which will simplify the existing program into one single program.
Any effort by the USPTO, stakeholders, or the PPAC to enhance patent quality and reduce pendency has to include a training platform. The Office is committed to training examiners and providing information to stakeholders on its Website, via roundtable meetings and webcasts to educate applicants on the USPTO programs to enhance patent quality and reduce pendency.
The PPAC applauds the USPTO for the guidelines it continues to provide for examiners and by extension, to the users regarding new case law developments. These guidelines are extremely helpful for stakeholders to understand how the changing law should be applied, and especially, by providing examples in which examiner rejections should not be made.
The PPAC commends the Office for implementing eSTATS which is a centralized reporting system that gives examiners the ability to view their key quality-related data points relative to art unit and technology center averages. In addition, the QIR/eSTATS training for SPEs has been enhanced to assist the SPEs in monitoring the quality of the examiner’s work product. Moreover, the Office continues to provide examiner training with respect to conducting interviews, the myriad of changes under the AIA, training to identify claims that invoke 112 (f), and initiatives to make the patent examination record clear. The PPAC urges the Office to continue these efforts and after the training, evaluate its effectiveness. It is not the training, per se, which should be the objective but the results and improvements in examiner’s application of the lessons learned during the training.
In addition to the recommendations discussed above for each program, the PPAC recommends that the USPTO perform evaluations of two programs to identify compliance: 1) restriction requirements and 2) finality of rejections. The PPAC recommends that the Office do an evaluation of restriction requirements to determine what percentage of the restrictions comply with the MPEP. For example, during one pay period, all mailed restriction requirements could be reviewed for compliance with the MPEP. Also, the RCE Focus Sessions and Roundtables highlighted a concern about final rejections being premature. Compliance with the rules could be evaluated on a random sample of finals. The PPAC also urges the USPTO to measure how many final office actions are made with rejections based on prior art newly cited by the examiner with particular attention being given to those applications in which relatively minor amendments were made to the claims. Although pendency is a very high priority for applicants, ensuring that the USPTO can accomplish their work is essential. Because the Office is reliant on electronic systems to complete the examination and maintain the file wrapper, loss of those systems would be catastrophic because little to no work could be done without the essential IT systems. It is not only the Office that relies on these systems, Applicants file 98% of applications electronically and rely on Private/Public PAIR to access and view file wrappers. Over the past few years, the IT budget has borne the brunt of budget cuts and the fragile, outdated system has been repaired, maintained and coaxed to continue functioning far past its expected lifetime. Should the budget not permit full funding of all programs at the USPTO, the PPAC recommends that the patent examiner hiring be implemented at least at a replacement level in order to avoid increases in pendency. The PPAC further recommends that funding the IT system be prioritized over the hiring of any additional patent examiners beyond replacement levels in FY 2014.
The AIA established the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) on September 16, 2012. The Chief Judge of the PTAB is James Donald Smith.
The Board's responsibilities include: reviewing adverse decisions from Examiners upon applications for patents pursuant to section 134(a); reviewing reexamination appeals pursuant to section 134(b); conducting derivation proceedings pursuant to section 135; and conducting covered business method (“CBM”) patent and inter partes reviews (“IPR”) pursuant to chapters 18 and 31 of the AIA.
The Board also continues to decide patent interferences pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135.
As of September 23, 2013, the Board includes 177 judges. Although staffing of the satellite offices with patent examiners has been delayed as a consequence of the sequestration, each of the satellite offices does include PTAB judges. More specifically, the Dallas office has five judges, the Silicon Valley office has eight judges, the Denver office has eight judges, and the Detroit office has ten judges. The placement of these satellite offices around the country has expanded the ability of the Board to employ qualified individuals to meet the growing workload faced by the PTAB. The Board continues to review candidates and plans on hiring additional judges in FY 2014.
The backlog of ex parte appeals pending at the Board stands at 25,554 applications, down from a peak of 26,896 applications in February 2013. The growth of the backlog has been halted for now as more decisions were issued by the Board as compared to new appeals received by the Board in the last six months. That trend is encouraging for now, but the Board will need to remain vigilant to ensure the backlog does not increase if the ex parte appeal and AIA intake grow faster than new judge hires.
The Board continues to implement a per curiam process, whereby certain appeals can be decided based on arguments by the Examiners or Appellants in the written record. These per curiam decisions are shorter and generally disposed faster than other appellate decisions. In fiscal year 2012, the PTAB issued 142 per curiam decisions; in fiscal year 2013, the PTAB issued 136 per curiam decisions; and in fiscal year 2014, through early October 2013, the PTAB issued 6 per curiam decisions. PPAC recommends continued use of per curiam decisions but emphasizes that the written record must sufficiently explain the facts and law in the case.
The Board has affirmed or affirmed-in-part 68%, reversed 29%, and remanded or dismissed about 3% of the Examiner’s decisions. These statistics are consistent with the affirmance, reversal, and remand/dismissal rates of previous years and demonstrate the Board’s willingness, at least in about 1/3 of the cases before the Board, to reverse the Examiner’s decision when appropriate to do so. In addition, the PPAC is encouraged by the low numbers of remands and dismissals, which indicates that the Patent Examining Corps provides complete Examiner’s Answers to the PTAB.
As of September 26, 2013, the Board received 580 total petitions – 522 inter partes review proceedings (IPRs), 56 covered business method proceedings (CBMs), one post grant review proceeding (PGR) (filed in error), and one derivation proceeding. The majority of the petitions were in the electrical/computer software area. In particular, the petition filings by area of technology were: 68.7% electrical/computer software; 13.8% mechanical; 9.3% chemical; 7.3% biotechnology/pharmaceutical; and 0.9% design. With respect to IPRs and CBMs, patent owners have submitted 247 preliminary responses and waived their rights to submit a preliminary response in 61 cases. The PPAC is pleased with the patent owner’s usage of preliminary responses and waivers as these options were not available in ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings. In addition, of the 247 cases in which an IPR or CBM has been instituted, 61 settlements have been reached. The PPAC also finds the use of settlements encouraging as this option also was not available in ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings. Lastly, the AIA proceedings are still in their infancy so the PTAB has only rendered one final written opinion in a CBM proceeding, none yet in an IPR proceeding.
PTAB has been very busy since it started formally accepting petitions in September 2012. A comparison of the number of PTAB petitions to district court filings involving patent litigations in 2012 highlights this point. PTAB received 564 petitions from September 2012 to September 30, 2013; in all of 2012, 1,266 complaints were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, 995 in the District of Delaware, 514 in the Central District of California, and 260 in the northern District of California. As expected, the number of filings in FY 2013 was 564, thereby putting PTAB behind only two Federal district courts in terms of patent disputes that they are handling.
With the implementation of the AIA, the PTAB was statutorily required to handle significantly more work and provide entirely new services for new programs, and at about the same time, the sequestration made unavailable some of the fees paid by users to the USPTO. PPAC has concerns with the resources provided to PTAB especially in light of sequestration and its continuing adverse impact on the Office. In particular, the PTAB’s pipeline is continuing to grow, with new petition filings coming into the Office at an increased rate, and PTAB’s need to provide initial determinations to grant or deny these petitions within a statutory deadline. In addition, starting in October and November of 2013, the PTAB will have to review the trials, final hearings, and final dispositions from the IPR and CBM petitions filed at the end of 2012. Moreover, the appeals from the Central Reexamination Unit involving existing ex parte and inter partes reexaminations are expected to be robust for the remainder of 2013 and in 2014, requiring additional PTAB resources. Furthermore, although the PPAC and stakeholders continue to focus on the new AIA proceedings, PTAB needs to continue to be vigilant at lowering the ex parte appeal backlog, now around 26,000. Lastly, there is legislation pending in Congress that would expand CBM proceedings by eliminating the financial product restriction and eight-year sunset provision, each of which would require additional PTAB resources. PPAC feels strongly that the USPTO should be accorded full access to all user fees so that they may do the work with high quality and in the statutorily required time frames.
The PPAC commends the PTAB’s efforts to provide information on its Website with respect to the new AIA proceedings. In particular, the PTAB has established a Published Cases Committee to review decisions to determine which ones are representative, informative, or precedential, and to post them on the PTAB Website. In addition, the PTAB has been providing regular updates at PPAC meetings and other USPTO events to provide the latest statistics and developments involving the new AIA proceedings. The PPAC urges the PTAB to continue this dissemination of information because the AIA proceedings are new, and consequently, there are plenty of open questions involving, e.g., the extent of discovery, estoppel, settlements, and related matters.
After the tumultuous and highly productive period of the last several years, during the passage and implementation of the America Invents Act, and the advent of USPTO-led fee setting (for which, the PPAC played a significant role), patent-related legislation considered in Congress over the last year has focused on addressing so-called abusive patent infringement litigation. The Administration, including the Department of Commerce and the USPTO, and key members of Congress contend that frivolous patent infringement litigation and threats of litigation by certain patent-holding companies, certain of which may have a business model that only involves litigating their patents, is a significant threat to American innovators and start-ups. Various terms have been used for such companies: non-practicing entities (NPEs), patent monetization entities (PMEs), patent assertion entities (PAEs), or patent licensing entities (PLEs)---we’ll use the non-pejorative PLE throughout the remainder of this discussion.
Some have argued that the potential high costs of litigation are sometimes used by PLEs as a hammer to force settlements with small businesses and start-ups which do not have the financial resources to effectively respond. Others argue that PLEs provide a useful and innovative market solution, serving as intermediaries between those who create valuable intellectual property and others who use or build upon patented IP.
A variety of administrative and legislative actions have been proposed to limit abusive litigation and threats of litigation. These various efforts appear now to be focusing on particular abusive behaviors and not the status of a particular company as “practicing” or “non-practicing”, since significant companies have noted that they and their competitors may at particular times, with particular patents in their portfolio, be considered “practicing” or “non-practicing” entities.
The White House announced in June a number of targeted executive actions and legislative priorities. The executive actions include ensuring transparency as to patent ownership, tightening patent examiner review standards, helping small entities cope with settlement demands and litigation threats, and expanding educational outreach. The USPTO has been charged with the lead responsibility for implementing these actions. As noted below, and elsewhere, the PPAC remains deeply concerned that a significant amount of voluntarily paid user fees are being syphoned away from the Office, reducing hiring, terminating IT contracts, and reducing the ability of the Office to actually do its current job. Adding further USPTO requirements, studies and implementation of new regulations (such as proposed by the White House) at a time when sequestration is in effect, is a cause of significant concern to PPAC.
The White House also expressed support for legislation to improve the efficiency of patent litigation. The legislative measures recommended include requiring applicants to fully disclose ownership of patents, promoting a “loser pays” approach (to shift the costs of litigation to the losing party) in frivolous litigation, expanding the types of patents subject to USPTO’s current covered business method review, and protecting downstream users from initial infringement claims.
We understand that USPTO has been engaging stakeholders to provide updates on the implementation of the executive actions and facilitating further discussion of the nature of particular problems and appropriate ways of addressing it, whether through legislative or administrative means.
Congressional efforts have included targeted hearings and an array of proposed legislation.
Congressional hearings conducted include:
| ● | “Abusive Patent Litigation: The Impact on American Innovation & Jobs, and Potential Solutions” - March 14, 2013, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet |
| ● | “Abusive Patent Litigation: The Issues Impacting American Competitiveness and Job Creation at the International Trade Commission and Beyond” – April 16, 2013, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet |
| ● | “Patent Reform implementation and New Challenges for Small Businesses” – May 15, 2013, House Committee on Small Business |
| ● | “Standard Essential Patent Disputes and Antitrust Law” – July 30, 2013, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights |
| ● | H.R. __, DISCUSSION DRAFT (Rep. Goodlatte, R-VA-6) – circulated as amended on 9/6/2013 – Which includes a wide range of litigation-related and other provisions, e.g., fee shifting, RPI, expand CBM , now replaced by H.R. 3309. |
| ● | H.R. 845, “Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes” (SHIELD) Act of 2013 (Rep. DeFazio, D-OR-4) – introduced: 2/27/2013 – Fee shifting |
| ● | H.R. 2024, “End Anonymous Patents Act” (Rep. Deutch, D-FL-21) – introduced: 5/16/2013 - Patent owner disclosure and RPI |
| ● | H.R. 2639, “Patent Litigation and Innovation Act” (Reps. Jefferies, D-NY-8, Farenthold, R-TX-27) – introduced: 7/10/2013 - Heighten pleading standards, joinder, stays, discovery, Rule 11 sanctions |
| ● | H.R. 2766, “Stopping the Offensive Use of Patents (STOP) Act” (Reps. Issa, R-CA-49, Chu, D-CA-27) - introduced 7/22/2013 – Expand CBM and pro bono efforts |
| ● | S.866, “Patent Quality Improvement Act of 2013” (Sen. Schumer, D-NY) – introduced: 5/6/2013 – Expand CBM |
| ● | S. 1013, “Patent Abuse Reduction Act of 2013” (Sen. Cornyn, R-TX) – introduced: 5/21/2013 – Litigation-related provisions, loser pays, RPI, discovery, joinder |
The PPAC will continue to monitor and consult with the USPTO as the legislative and administrative processes continue to address abusive activities. The PPAC recommends that the USPTO ensure that any proposed administrative changes are appropriately and narrowly targeted for any such alleged abuse without unduly harming our overall patent system, the smooth operation of the examination process, the quality of patents issued, or the overall costs and burdens to applicants.
The PPAC remains concerned that the OMB has made the determination that USPTO user-fees are also subject to sequestration. The PPAC recommends that the USPTO continue to work with the Administration and Congress to ensure that the USPTO has access to all of its fees.
The PPAC is interested in monitoring whether any legislative options will be proposed to address what the PPAC believes is a very serious undermining of the purpose and effect of granting fee- setting authority to the USPTO under the AIA in the first place. Added further burdens and requests to address the alleged issues of abuse, during sequestration, will only further burden the Office and hamper the ability of the USPTO to improve its core operations of high-quality patent examination.
| |
1. Tegernsee Group
|
| |
Progress continues in the study of substantive patent law harmonization topics by the so-called “Tegernsee Group.” Formed in July 2011 during a meeting held in Tegernsee, Germany, the Tegernsee Group is comprised of the Heads of the patent offices of Denmark, the European Union, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Tegernsee Group agreed to undertake a fact finding study of four topics: 1) grace period; 2) 18-month publication; 3) the prior art effect of secret prior art; and 4) prior user rights, so as to identify areas of difference and convergence between the various patent offices. A common questionnaire was developed and distributed for public comment on these four topics to patent system users in the respective countries. In addition to distributing this questionnaire, the patent offices also held public roundtable discussions on the four topics. The collected questionnaire responses and comments from the roundtable discussions are currently being compiled and studied by the participating offices.
|
| |
2. FIRST INVENTOR AND GRACE PERIOD DISCUSSION INTERNATIONALLY
|
| |
With the full implementation of AIA now complete, a concentrated effort is under way to continue to engage the international patent community in discussions regarding harmonization. This conversation was difficult in previous years due to the absence of a first inventor to file system in the United States. The immediate task is to explain to a broad audience of patent system users, the provisions of AIA and why the new U.S. patent system is a true first to file system with a one-year inventor’s own prior art grace period rather than the pre-AIA one- year priority date grace period. Based on meetings and teleconferences with other patent office representatives during the past year, positive momentum continues to build as we enter fall 2013 as countries around the world recognize the benefit of a uniform grace period among first to file countries and how such a grace period supports large and small patent user interests in a pro-innovation and pro-economic growth environment worldwide.
|
| |
1. IP5 Evolution and the Global Dossier
|
| |
Recognizing the continuing evolution and growth of initiatives, a forum of the five largest IP Patent Offices (i.e., EPO, JPO, KIPO, SIPO, USPTO (“IP5”)) agreed to a new program management model proposed by the USPTO. The model formalizes basic project management principles across the program which, until this agreement, were inconsistently applied. A key element of the model requires stakeholder benefits to be clearly defined for each of the projects and calls for periodic assessment to ensure those benefits are being achieved. The assessment will be done by the Program Managers who represent the executive leadership of the IP5. This seemingly simple change will ensure that resources dedicated to the program are commensurate with the value they deliver.
|
| |
The plan and development of the Global Dossier initiative (“Global Dossier”) continue to advance at a rapid pace and IP5 has achieved several milestones. The Global Dossier Task Force held its first meeting in January 2013, which was hosted by the EPO in conjunction with the IP5 Working Group 2 meeting. Significant progress was made on defining and prioritizing business requirements with regard to the Global Dossier. A very basic form of one high-priority requirement, automatic cross-filing, is currently being reviewed between the USPTO and EPO.
|
| |
After IP5 collaboration and agreement on exchange specifications and services, the IP5 Offices agreed to deploy services that enable patent information for related patent cases to be made available to examiners in the five different patent offices. Each office has its own schedule for developing the user interface and access to that information. The USPTO’s current plan is to provide examiner access in 2014. The USPTO is also investigating ways to expand the scope of the information available in the Global Dossier to patent system users and is engaged in discussions with other IP offices concerning such scope and details.
|
| |
The USPTO continues to work very closely with the Global Dossier Task Force on outreach to further refine business requirements and structure regarding the Global Dossier and understand the priorities and needs of the broader stakeholder community.
|
| |
2. Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
|
| |
a. Overview
|
| |
The Patent Prosecution Highway program (PPH) continues to be a major success for the concept of a global patent work sharing regime by delivering benefits to both patent system users and IP offices. A reduction in the number of office actions, lower costs, higher issuance rates and faster examination and prosecution are several of the advantages realized by users and are the factors that drive the growth of PPH. As of September 30, 2013, the number of PPH entries approached 20,000 and the USPTO is receiving approximately 550 requests per month, a 22% increase over the previous fiscal year. Particularly, the chart below shows new PPH requests by month since January 2010, and demonstrates the program’s continuing growth and acceptance by the patent user community.
|
|
| |
The USPTO currently has bilateral PPH agreements with 26 other IP offices and that number continues to grow. All participating offices work together to streamline and improve PPH. Most recently, the USPTO and 12 other offices agreed to a new PPH pilot program which would simplify the PPH for users by adhering to a common set of guidelines and a single request form for requesting entry into the PPH. This change would create a single agreement among the offices permitting an applicant to leverage the allowance from one office to all other offices, regardless of where the application was first filed. This pilot program is a major achievement for USPTO and its partners as the 13 offices account for approximately 90% of global PPH usage. Further details of the PPH pilot program are under negotiation among the offices and the pilot program will launch in January 2014.
|
| |
As with the harmonization efforts, significant patent user outreach efforts by the USPTO continue both domestically and internationally.
|
| |
b. Patent Cooperation Treaty – Work Sharing (PCT-PPH)
|
| |
Since its inception in FY 2011, PCT-PPH has become a contributing force to the increased growth of the overall PPH program. For over one year, the majority of new PPH requests at the USPTO have been filed via the PCT-PPH work sharing route. The USPTO continues on its expansion strategy and in FY 2013 formed agreements with four new offices and made the program permanent with two existing offices.
|
| |
The USPTO has recently concluded the second phase of a Collaborative Search and Examination Pilot Program with KIPO and EPO. In this pilot program, examiners from the three Offices worked together to create a single, high quality PCT search report and written opinion. The pilot program was also used to test the feasibility of establishing such a system on a permanent basis.
|
| |
It was the opinion of the participating USPTO examiners that the quality of the final International Search Reports and the Written Opinions of the International Searching Authority in 67% of the patent applications reviewed was greatly improved by making the final work product more complete and by providing confidence in the work product to the first examiner. Feedback directly received from these examiners in administering the pilot program supports the conclusion that collaboration across patent offices helps to increase the confidence in the final work product across offices.
|
| |
3. Outsourcing PCT Searches
|
| |
Over the last several years, outsourcing of PCT searches to third party vendors has enabled the USPTO to become a world leader in overall PCT timeliness. The USPTO is attempting to maintain the progress made over the last several years, notwithstanding funding cuts dictated by the overall budget situation during FY 2013. Particularly, these budgetary cuts have resulted in an immediate impact on the USPTO’s ability to outsource its searching to these third party vendors. These cuts in outsourcing will in turn have a long-term and ongoing effect on the number of international applications waiting to be searched. As a result, the USPTO’s Chapter I timeliness for the searching of international applications filed with the USPTO will be affected until funding is restored to the USPTO.
|
| |
4. Patent Cooperation Treaty – Systemic Improvement
|
| |
The USPTO, in conjunction with the United Kingdom IP Office (UKIPO), has continued to develop the “PCT 20/20” plan to improve the PCT process. After discussions at the PCT Union- - Meeting of International Authorities under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) – Twentieth Session in February 2013 in Munich, Germany, it was determined that five of the proposals contained in the “PCT 20/20” plan (i.e., Making The Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority Available to the Public After International Publication; Integration of the National/International Phases by Requiring Response to Negative Comments at the National Phase; Mandatory Recordation of Search Strategies; Mandatory Top-Up Searches In Chapter II; and Formal Integration of the Patent Prosecution Highway Into The PCT) were appropriate to be forwarded to the PCT Working Group for detailed consideration. A sixth proposal contained in the “PCT 20/20” plan (i.e., Self-Service Changes (92bis/Priority Claims)) was referred to the International Bureau for possible future incorporation in the ePCT system. The five proposals specifically discussed at the Working Group meeting received widespread support and it was agreed that changes to the PCT Regulations should be adopted to implement the proposals of “Mandatory Top-Up Searches In Chapter II” and “Making The Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority Available to the Public After International Publication.” It was also agreed that the USPTO and UKIPO would continue to develop the other proposals contained in the “PCT 20/20” plan for further consideration and future meetings of the Working Group.
|
| |
5. Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
|
| |
The Cooperative Patent Classification system (“CPC”) is a new classification system developed jointly by the USPTO and EPO using EPO’s IPC-based European Classification System (ECLA) as a starting point. The CPC was launched in January 2013 after fourteen months of bilateral development. The CPC is based on the International Patent Classification system (IPC), which is used by the IP5. The CPC is now publicly available for use by external users and other patent offices via the link at http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org. The USPTO and EPO also jointly developed over 625 CPC Definitions to help users understand the CPC schemes. The CPC also contains the backfile patent documents of the USPTO, EPO and EPO member states. The USPTO has begun classifying into the CPC for newly filed utility patent applications as of January 1, 2013. Eventually after a transition period, the CPC will replace the United States Patent Classification (USPC) system at the USPTO.
|
| |
The CPC promotes international harmonization efforts. Since the CPC is an IPC-based system, harmonization efforts with other patent offices and the IPC will be improved. Recently, the KIPO and SIPO announced their intentions to classify their respective patent documents using the CPC. The CPC will ultimately contain the patent document collections from four of the five patent offices of the IP5.
|
| |
The CPC will also promote IP5 cooperation efforts. As agreed during the IP5 meeting in June 2013 in Cupertino, California, the IP5 Global Classification Initiative Foundation Project will be aimed at harmonizing and improving the IPC using the CPC and the JPO’s File Index (FI) and F-terms classification system as its basis.
|
| |
6. Global Patent Search Network (GPSN)
|
| |
As a result of cooperative effort between the USPTO and SIPO, Chinese patent documentation is now available for search and retrieval from the USPTO website via the Global Patent Search Network database (GPSN) located at http://gpsn.uspto.gov. Launched in June 2013, this searching tool enables examiners and the public to search Chinese patent documents in English or Chinese languages. The data available includes full-text native language Chinese patent documents and their corresponding English machine translations. Also available are full document images of Chinese patent documents. Users can search documents, including published applications, granted patents and utility models from 1985 to 2012 in the GPSN. There are plans to add additional international patent collections in the future.
|
| |
7. Overall USPTO PCT Statistics
|
| |
Table 3 below shows the data for PCT procedures through July 2013.
|
| |
Table 3: PCT Timeliness |
| |
FY 2010 |
FY 2011 |
FY 2012 |
FY 2013 (thru July) |
RO/US
Receipt to record copy mailing |
13 days |
10 days |
10.67 days |
13.2 days |
DO/EO/US
Receipt to release |
251 days |
159 days |
95 days |
88 days |
ISA/US
Mailing of ISR/WO within 16 months from priority |
82% |
81% |
55% |
79% |
Mailing of ISR/WO within 18 months of priority |
91% |
92% |
88% |
90% |
IPEA/US
Mailing of IPER within 28 months from priority |
14% |
21% |
29% |
57% |
Mailing of IPER within 30 months of priority |
19.5% |
27% |
36% |
65% |
|
| |
Note that the ISR mailing times for FY 2013 show an improvement over the previous year, despite a reduction in funding to this third party contracted work. The USPTO anticipates the impact to timeliness will follow a pattern similar to that of the reduction in FY2011, which was comparable in scale and timing to the current case. Based on that experience, it is anticipated that timeliness of ISR mailings will be impacted mid to late FY 2014.
|
The PPAC cannot ignore the funding issues for the USPTO with respect to its ongoing international initiatives and programs. For example, the recent budget cuts have greatly limited the number of USPTO representatives who can attend important global meetings with other patent office officials. Not providing a complete delegation of USPTO representatives at these meetings only further complicates the USPTO’s efforts. Budget cuts with regard to third party contractors for international application searching will hinder the USPTO’s ability to maintain timeliness in its international application processes. Coupled with extensive budget cuts to the USPTO’s IT structure for implementing and maintaining these initiatives, programs and processes, the PPAC is concerned that such will ultimately impact the USPTO in its global leadership position.
Despite such setbacks, the PPAC applauds the USPTO for its ongoing efforts and achievements in the international arena. The PPAC notes just a few highlights for the past year -- the productive global meetings of the Tegernsee Group and IP5, the growth and continued acceptance of the PPH by the patent user community, the launch of CPC and the implementation of new online international searching tools, such as GPSN.
The PPAC supports the strides made by the USPTO in its international cooperation and work sharing initiatives among multiple patent offices and encourages the continued development and expansion of these efforts. The PPH and the Global Dossier are excellent examples of such strides and the continuing need and importance for an effective and user friendly patent application platform across multiple patent offices. The PPAC continues to recommend that the USPTO repeatedly review these efforts to ensure that the initiatives promote the overall objectives of harmonization, international work sharing, reduce duplication of efforts by offices, and promote best practices to improve timeliness and quality.
To support such initiatives, the PPAC encourages further outreach through a variety of forums to extend discussions among multiple patent offices – not just the Tengesee Group and IP5. The PPAC supports ongoing education and updates regarding the USPTO’s international initiatives and programs via roundtables, webcasts and e-mail notices to the patent user community. The PPAC also believes that continued outreach to a variety of different entities and groups from the patent user community will provide additional insight regarding international initiatives as well as increased acceptance for such initiatives in the future.
The PPAC commends the USPTO with regard to its international initiatives and programs during the past year and stands ready to offer its encouragement, support, guidance and assistance for FY 2014.
In addition to the outreach activities conducted by the other offices of the USPTO (highlighted earlier in this report related to issues such as AIA implementation), RCEs, and substantive examination, the Office of Innovation Development (OID) oversees Patent’s efforts to support American innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. Often working closely with other U.S. Government officials and agencies, OID designs and implements outreach assistance programs to a wide range of stakeholders including independent inventors, women, small business concerns, university affiliates, minorities, and other underserved communities.
OID also assists the agency’s educational outreach programs that promote intellectual property protection and the valuable role it plays as a key driver of the American economy. These programs are designed to educate the public about intellectual property in general, as well as about the specifics of the patent application process, including the intricacies of patent prosecution and post grant patent issues. Post patent grant education includes the importance of patents, and other forms of IP, in starting, building, and growing a business.
In addition, OID and the office’s other outreach teams work collaboratively on the development of educational materials, activities, and programs to promote intellectual property for students, educators, and young inventors and innovators of all ages, including a particular focus on IP and STEM.
It is noteworthy that the USPTO creatively maintained a full portfolio of education and outreach throughout FY 2013 even when challenged with budget constraints. Though these constraints necessitated a nearly complete reduction in travel, OID staff maintained exemplary levels of service to stakeholders through web cast opportunities, a use of on-the-ground resources or other Federal colleagues where possible, and efforts to move distant events to the USPTO main campus where possible.
The USPTO sponsors regional and national events to educate small business concerns and independent inventors on the patent and trademark processes and on IP business strategies, recent events listed at www.uspto.gov/inventors/events. For these events, the USPTO makes available IP expertise to the participants, including supervisory patent examiners to conduct breakout sessions and one-on-one assistance, and trademark presenters to provide education on the trademark process. Symposiums dedicated to fostering women entrepreneurs are also offered.
In FY 2013, the USPTO was able to conduct a regional independent inventors’ conference in Wichita, Kansas, at Wichita State University in April 2013. Other independent inventors’ events were planned for Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Seattle, Washington. These events and the anticipated FY 2013 Women’s Entrepreneurship Symposium, to be held in Denver, Colorado, were postponed indefinitely due to budget constraints as a result of sequestration. Historically these events are very well attended by the independent inventor community and viewed as providing significant educational benefit. The inability to hold them regionally due to the sequester makes it difficult for many independent inventors to benefit.
Saturday Seminars, serving as a direct link for inventor’s questions, were offered quarterly at the Elijah J. McCoy Detroit Satellite Office. The final Saturday Seminar for FY 2013 was held on Saturday, September 7th, and Office staff joined by web cast, in combination with on-the-ground Detroit staff, to offer a full day of educational programming for attendees. Planning for outreach support to the Silicon Valley Regional Director Michele Lee has begun, and the Office is prepared to provide similar assistance as appropriate to both Denver and Dallas as needed and feasible.
The USPTO also participates in outreach initiatives with inventor organizations throughout the United States. These are typically non-profit inventor organizations that assist inventors and innovators getting started in the patent process and who may have a desire to start a business based on their inventions.
In FY 2013, the USPTO supported inventor organizations by providing speakers and resources for organizational events as appropriate. Office staff joined the United Inventors Association (UIA) at the International Home and Housewares Show in Chicago, Illinois, to provide direct outreach and education to show attendees, particularly independent inventors located in the “Inventor’s Corner” area of the show. The show itself is attended by over 40,000 visitors and includes a student design competition. Office representatives provided direct assistance and mentoring to those students selected as top finalists in the student design competition.
In an effort to expand its assistance to minority and underserved communities, the Office is currently working to build and strengthen partnerships with organizations, such as the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) within the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE), the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), national professional organizations, and national and local educational institutions. In FY 2013, Office staff participated at national and local events hosted by a majority of those organizations identified above. Participation with these organizations was often conducted in combination with the USPTO Office of Education and Outreach or the USPTO Global Intellectual Property Academy.
With the endorsement of Congress through the America Invents Act, the Office established the Pro Bono program, designed to assist financially under-resourced independent inventors and small businesses. In June 2011, the first pro bono pilot started in Minnesota and now serves as a model for other IP law associations across the country in the establishment of additional IP pro bono programs. The ultimate goal is to have regional pro bono programs cover the entire country and to have a single entity, The Federal Circuit Bar Association, serve as an intake and referral center for all inventors and small businesses interested in pro bono services. The Pro Bono Task Force, which includes members from the major IP law associations, the USPTO, the Minnesota pilot, and the Federal Circuit Judiciary, works to determine the best way to coordinate the growth of future programs.
The pro bono program is operational in Minnesota, Colorado, California, and the Washington, DC metropolitan regions. These programs currently cover 16 states. With the addition of Texas, Boston and PA/DE that coverage will include parts or all of 27 states. By early 2014, it is estimated that an additional 10 states will have all or part coverage by a regional program.
On October 25, 2013, the AIA pro bono Task Force will no longer exist. In its place will be a chartered AIA pro bono Advisory Council. The Charter is scheduled to be signed by more than 50 individuals from major law associations, regional programs and Government officials from all three branches of the Federal Government. The Advisory Council will be charged with the continued growth/expansion of pro bono programs as well as making sure programs are operated in a relatively consistent manner from region to region.
There was increased participation with bar associations, particularly through the establishment of pro bono programs described above. The USPTO has also increased collaboration with the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), primarily with the AIPLA Public Education Committee as well as increasing presentations and interactions with Bar Associations by Office personnel including PTAB, legislative affairs representatives, and the AIA implementation team. The greater interaction with the user community has been very well received and the PPAC applauds the Office’s efforts.
The USPTO has several Websites available to assist independent inventors and pro se applicants such as: (www.uspto.gov/inventors/proseprobono) for those inventors that are either filing on their own behalf (pro se) or are seeking free or greatly reduced services from patent professionals, (www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip) which provides “plain language” information about the patent and trademark processes and resources available through the USPTO, and (www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/informational_videos.jsp which provides a series of videos located on the USPTO’s AIA micro-site to provide straightforward education to independent inventors and entrepreneurs explaining important changes resulting from the recently enacted America Invents Act. The Office is continuing to develop these pages to make them actively dynamic as rules change and to develop additional training material content. The Office also provides a dedicated email address for inventors and small businesses to submit questions IndependentInventor@USPTO.GOV and distributes an email monthly newsletter - The Inventors Eye (www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent).
In collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology – Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NIST/MEP), the Office has created a tool for use by small businesses that will allow them to self-assess their intellectual property (IP) assets. The tool is a web-based questionnaire that asks small business pertinent questions about products and/or services offered, created or sold by their business providing a semi-custom report according to the specific responses to the questions answered. In FY 2013, OID continued to refine the IP Assessment Tool and develop background materials for use in combination with the tool. Additionally, Office staff continues to strengthen ties with the Small Business Administration (SBA). One example is participation of the OID staff in local activities and events providing education to entrepreneurs as a part of “National Small Business Week”.
The Office has long played a role in IP educational outreach to universities; initial efforts were directed where the USPTO had a well-established recruiting effort with nearby universities. In conducting university outreach, lectures target engineering students, business and entrepreneurship students, student organizations, and the university’s technology transfer office. At many universities, the USPTO also provides lectures to faculty and staff about the state of IP protection in the current environment. In addition, during FY 2013 the Office frequently collaborated with the National Academy of Inventors and InventNow in reaching out to university patent holders and collegiate inventors.
The Office frequently works with museums seeking information, assistance, education, and exhibits. Over 40 applicants drawn from major corporations, universities, Federal agencies and the independent inventor community were selected to present at the 2013 Innovation Expo; however, the event was cancelled for budgetary reasons. The USPTO has a long-term collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution and going forward in FY 2014 the Office will assist the Smithsonian in developing programs and exhibits for the Innovation Pavilion of the Arts and Industries Building, scheduled to reopen in 2014.
The USPTO continues its efforts to further expand outreach and assistance seeking opportunities to collaborate with like-minded organizations and events to share IP education and information in its efforts to support American innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. In FY 2013, the Office participated in the 2013 World IP Day Celebrations hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association and the August 2013 cross-country trip by the Millennial Trains Project.
The PPAC commends the Office on the significant outreach efforts to the entire user community from women entrepreneurs and independent inventors to bar associations and national organizations. Nonetheless, sequestration has negatively impacted the amount and form of outreach that was possible. The USPTO’s outreach efforts directly support innovators who start businesses and create jobs. The PPAC recommends that the Office continue to make itself available to all aspects of user community and continue to be creative in finding ways to provide outreach opportunities at all levels, even under sequester.
|
 Louis Foreman is founder and Chief Executive of Enventys, an integrated product design and engineering firm. He is also CEO of Edison Nation. Louis graduated from The University of Illinois with a Bachelors of Science degree in Economics. His interest in starting businesses and developing innovative products began while a sophomore with his first company founded in his fraternity room. Over the past 20 years Louis has created 9 successful start-ups and has been directly responsible for the creation of over 20 others. A prolific inventor, he is the inventor of 10 registered US Patents, and his firm is responsible for the development of well over 500 more.
The recipient of numerous awards for entrepreneurial achievement, his passion for small business extends beyond his own companies. Louis is an adjunct professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, teaching at Queens University, Johnson & Wales University and The McColl School of Business.
Louis is a frequent lecturer and radio / TV guest on the topics of innovation, intellectual property and small business creation, and is frequently invited by national trade associations to be a featured speaker on the topic of innovation.
In addition to being an inventor, Louis is also committed to inspiring others to be innovative. Louis is the creator of the Emmy® Award winning PBS TV show, Everyday Edisons, and serves as the Executive Producer and lead judge. The show is filming its fifth season and appears nationally on PBS. In 2007, Louis became the publisher of Inventors Digest, a 28 year old publication devoted to the topic of American Innovation. In 2009, his first book, The Independent Inventor’s Handbook, was published by Workman Publishing.
Louis serves on the Board of Directors of the James Dyson Foundation, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), Ventureprise, New Dominion Bank, and the Intellectual Property Owners Educational Foundation (IPOEF). Most recently, Louis was appointed by SBA Administrator, Karen Mills, to serve a three year term on the National SBDC Advisory Board.
|
|
 Esther Kepplinger is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's Chief Patent Counselor. Her responsibilities include serving as the firm's liaison to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), ensuring that all of its patent filings are conducted in the most efficient and defensible manner, and enhancing the firm's inter partes PTO practice. She also serves as an expert witness on USPTO practices and procedures. Prior to joining the firm in 2005, Esther served as deputy commissioner for patent operations in the USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia, for five years. As deputy commissioner, she oversaw the nation's patent-examination process, with all the patent examiners in the United States reporting to her. Esther managed a budget of $700 million and was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the country's seven patent technology centers, including about 4,500 people.
Esther also played a pivotal role in establishing the policies and strategic direction of the patent examining corps, helping to implement the USPTO's goals for improving quality and efficiency of service. With the USPTO since 1973, Esther has held a variety of other positions, including patent examiner and supervisor for a biotechnology art unit and group director for the chemical and materials engineering group. While at the USPTO, Esther received a number of awards, including the Presidential Rank Award in 2002 and the Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 1998 and 2004.various positions, including examiner.
|
|
 Wayne P. Sobon, Vice President and General Counsel of Inventergy, Inc. is responsible for Inventergy’s overall legal operations. Wayne was most recently Vice President and Chief IP Counsel for Rambus Inc., responsible for Rambus’ global intellectual property development program. Originally from Phoenix, Arizona, Wayne received his B.S. degree in physics and B.A. degree in German Studies from Stanford University in 1984 and his J.D. and M.B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1992. Since receiving his law and business degrees, Wayne worked at several Silicon Valley law firms, most recently Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP (now DLA Piper), where he was a partner specializing in patent prosecution, litigation and general intellectual property counseling. Wayne served as Associate General Counsel, and Director of Intellectual Property for Accenture from 2000 to 2011.
Wayne is a frequent speaker and lecturer on intellectual property issues, is President Elect of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), a member of the USPTO’s Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC), a member of the board of Invent Now.org of the National Inventor Hall of Fame, and a prior member of the board of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO).
|
|
 Valerie Landrio McDevitt is the Assistant Vice President at the University of South Florida, Office of Technology Transfer, the Division of Patents and Licensing. In 2010, USF was ranked 20th among technology transfer offices in licensing revenue and 9th among universities for US patents issued.
Prior to joining USF, Valerie served as assistant patent counsel and a research chemist for Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals. She also participated in the American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellowship program and worked as a science advisor with a House subcommittee in Washington, D.C.
Valerie received her BS in Chemistry from Siena College in Loudonville, New York, MST in Chemistry at the University of Florida, and a JD at Emory University School of Law. She is a certified licensing professional through LES, a registered technology transfer professional through ATTP, a member of the Georgia and Florida bars, and is admitted to practice before the Federal Patent and Trademark Office.
|
|
 Clinton Hallman is the Chief Patent Counsel for Kraft Foods Group, Inc. He has responsibility for patent matters at Kraft and manages a staff with counsel in the Chicago area. His time at Kraft has involved a variety of experiences including major litigation matters, business divestures, and IP strategy development. Prior to working at Kraft he was a patent counsel at the Altria Group for several years where he was responsible for patent prosecution, opinion work and significant client counseling. His responsibilities there included a stint at an Altria subsidiary that was created to market technology developed for the tobacco industry in other areas such as medical devices, fuel injector technology and alloys. Clinton has had a stint in private practice at a small IP boutique where he handled patent, trademark and copyright matters working with companies in the textiles and furniture industries.
Clinton got his start in IP at Mobil Oil Corporation where he worked as a project engineer and construction manager for several years before joining the office of patent counsel. His patent work at Mobil included support of the plastics division of Mobil Chemical.
Clinton served as an officer in the US navy having been commissioned in 1977. His service was all sea duty with most of that time assigned to the engineering departments of the ships on which he served.
Clinton is a 1977 graduate of the US Naval Academy with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. He is a 1994 graduate of the George Mason University School of Law in the Patent Track. He is admitted to practice in Illinois (Corporate), North Carolina and Virginia. He is a member of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and the American Bar Association. He sits on the board of directors of the Greater Chicago Food Depository the Intellectual Property Association of Chicago and the Loyola Academy Sailing Club.
Clinton is married and has two sons, ages 27 and 21. He lives and works in the suburbs north of Chicago, Il.
|
|
 Marylee Jenkins is a partner at Arent Fox LLP and head of the New York Office’s Intellectual Property Group. She has extensive experience in all aspects of intellectual property matters and counsels a diverse international client base that includes Fortune 500 companies, not-for profit organizations, and small businesses. She counsels clients on disputes and strategies, portfolio enforcement and management, e-commerce, and software development and protection on issues involving computers and the Internet. Throughout her career, Marylee has devised unique and innovative solutions to complex intellectual property matters for clients across the globe.
On protection and enforcement matters, Marylee has routinely prosecuted domestic and foreign patent applications in the electrical, electromechanical and computer industries, including computer hardware and software, Internet and computer-related technologies, telecommunication, and information and financial systems. In addition, she provides counseling and opinion work on trademark selection, clearance, prosecution, registration, brand management and enforcement and represents clients in intellectual property and bankruptcy litigations and in patent appeals, reexaminations and reissues and trademark oppositions and cancellations before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Marylee has been a member of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) since February 2013. She is a past Chairperson of the American Bar Association’s Section of Intellectual Property Law and is a past President of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association. She is currently serving again as a member of the ABA Standing Committee on Technology and Information Systems and is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Marylee is a member of John Marshall Law School’s Intellectual Property Law Advisory Board and was a member of Columbia Engineering School’s Engineering Council for several years.
Marylee holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science, a B.S. in physics from Centre College of Kentucky and a J.D. from New York Law School. Marylee is admitted to the bars of New York, Connecticut, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court and is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
|
|
 Assistant Professor Sheppard joined the University of Nebraska faculty in 2011, after over two decades of Science and Intellectual Property Law and Policy experience. She is an Assistant Professor and co-founded a program of Concentrated Study in Intellectual Property law at the Law College.
Dr. Sheppard began her career as a scientist earning a M.S. and Ph.D. in Cellular and Molecular Biology from the University of Michigan. After receiving a J.D. from Cornell University Law School and interning with Judge Radar at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Executive Office of the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy, she was a practicing attorney at the law firm of Foley & Lardner earning extensive experience in patent prosecution, client patent counseling and ligation. She then served in the Office of the General Counsel of the United States International Trade Commission working on Section 337 matters, arguing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 2005, Dr. Sheppard also completed Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government’s Executive Education for Senior Managers in Government program.
Her successful career in intellectual property law and policy included her tenure as Chief Counsel on Patents and Trademarks for the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary where she was integral in many endeavors including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the most comprehensive change to this nation's intellectual property laws in over 60 years.
In April of 2012, Dr. Sheppard testified before the United States Congress House Committee on the Judiciary at the hearing “International Patent Issues: Promoting a Level Playing Field for American Industry Abroad.” She has been quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones News Wire, Fox Business, the Chicago Sun Times and Politico.
|
|
 Peter Thurlow is a patent attorney and partner at Jones Day law firm in New York. He has significant experience in all aspects of domestic and international patent prosecution, including post-grant reissue, ex parte, and inter partes reexamination proceedings. As a patent prosecution attorney, his experience includes drafting, filing, and prosecuting United States patent cooperation treaties and international patent applications. Mr. Thurlow provides litigation support for patent litigation in the District Courts, the International Trade Commission, and before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Thurlow is the current chairperson of the Patent Law Committee for the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA). Mr. Thurlow has been active in the implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA), representing the NYIPLA’s views before the USPTO. Mr. Thurlow received his bachelor's degree in marine engineering from the United States Merchant Marine Academy; his master's in business administration from Pace University in New York; and his law degree from Brooklyn Law School. Mr. Thurlow is serving his first term as a PPAC member.
|
|
 Dr. Jacobs is the founder and president of Jake Technologies, Inc., a technology service company focused on strategic technology development, product evaluation, and advising corporate counsel and law firms on issues related to intellectual property. Prior to founding Jake Technologies, Inc., Dr. Jacobs held leadership positions as chief technology officer, Primus Technology Solutions; president and chief operating officer, and chief technology officer, AnswerLogic, Inc.; managing vice president, electronic commerce, director of product marketing, and director of media information technologies, SRA International, Inc.; president and chief executive officer, IsoQuest, Inc.; and as a computer scientist at General Electric. Dr. Jacobs received his bachelor's and master's degrees in applied mathematics at Harvard University; and his doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley. He currently teaches Information Architecture at the University of Maryland in College Park. Dr. Jacobs is serving his first term as a member of the PPAC.
|
| Trademark Public Advisory Committee Annual Report 2013 |
TRADEMARK PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2013
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
Trademark Public Advisory Committee
Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report
This is the fourteenth annual report of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (“TPAC”). This report reviews the Trademark organization and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the fiscal year (“FY”) ending September 30, 2013. TPAC’s mission, which is specified in enabling legislation, 35 U.S.C. § 5(b)(1) and (d)(1), is “to represent the interests of diverse users” of the USPTO and to “review the policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees” of the USPTO with respect to trademarks.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 5(d)(2), this report is submitted within 60 days following the end of the Federal fiscal year (FY) and is transmitted to the President, the Secretary of Commerce and the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives. This report is submitted for publication in the Official Gazette of the USPTO. The report will be available to the public on the USPTO Web site, www.uspto.gov.
Members of TPAC As of the end of FY 2013, the following individuals were members of TPAC:
| ● | Anne H. Chasser, Strategic Advisor, Wolfe, Sadler, Breen, Morasch & Colby, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio (term ends December 6, 2013) |
| ● | Deborah Hampton, Senior Intellectual Property Specialist, Katten Muchin Rosenmann LLP, New York, New York (term ends December 6, 2013) |
| ● | Cheryl Black, Partner, Goodman Allen & Filetti, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia (term ends December 6, 2013) |
| ● | Jody Haller Drake, Partner, Sughrue Mion, LLC, Washington, D.C. (term ends December 1, 2014) |
| ● | Ray Thomas, Jr., Owner, Law Office of Ray Thomas, Jr. PLLC, Washington, D.C. (term ends December 1, 2014) |
| ● | Linda McLeod, Partner, Kelly IP, New York, New York (term ends December 1, 2014) |
| ● | Kathryn Barrett Park (Vice Chair), Senior Counsel, General Electric Corporation, Fairfield, Connecticut (term ends December 1, 2015) |
| ● | Dee Ann Weldon-Wilson, Trademark Counsel, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Irving, Texas (term ends December 1, 2015) |
| ● | Maury M. Tepper, III (Chair), Member, Tepper & Eyster, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina (term ends December 1, 2015) |
In addition to the above voting Members, the following people are non-voting TPAC members representing the membership of USPTO unions:
| ● | Harold Ross of the National Treasury Employees Union (“NTEU”) Chapter 243. |
| ● | Howard Friedman of NTEU Chapter 245. |
| ● | Randall P. Myers of the Patent Office Professional Association. |
Report Highlights
During a year of significant external challenges and uncertainty, TPAC is pleased to report that Trademarks continued to achieve exceptional performance. Thanks to talented and dedicated leadership and to an environment of commitment and teamwork, Trademarks was able to adapt to an uncertain economic climate and to unfortunate reductions in its access to fees paid into the Office by users. Although a number of adjustments were required, Trademarks continued to deliver on its core mission of maintaining an accurate, reliable use-based register of trademark rights. Trademarks also managed to continue the development of its new IT systems which represent a significant investment of both time and resource by the trademark community, and which is beginning to deliver valuable enhancements that should pay dividends to the trademark community as this initiative moves on to completion.
TPAC wishes to commend Commissioner for Trademarks, Deborah Cohn, for her vision and leadership during a challenging year. To the external trademark community, the Trademarks organization continued to deliver a high level of service, to actively seek feedback from its customers on enhancements to its practices, to continue raising the bar on its own quality measures and to provide outreach to the business community about the value of trademarks.
The Trademarks organization enjoys a very talented group of leaders, and their experience and involvement continue to provide stability and efficiency that is unfortunately too rare in government. TPAC views the ability of Trademarks to attract, promote and retain such a talented group of leaders as one of the keys to its long-term success. TPAC is also very aware that the high level of service provided by Trademarks is the result of the combined efforts of Trademark Examining Attorneys, Trademark Specialists, technical and legal support and the entire staff, and we wish to thank all for their service.
FY 2013 marked a year of dramatic improvement at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), and TPAC commends Commissioner Cohn and Chief Judge Rogers for their cooperation in finding ways to assign the right people to the challenging job of bringing about change and improvements to a system that faced a significant backlog of cases. In particular, Group Director Meryl Hershkowitz accepted an assignment to the TTAB and worked closely with Chief Judge Rogers to achieve results in FY 2013 that mark a turnaround in trends observed over the last several years. We also want to commend the TTAB Interlocutory Attorneys and Trademark Administrative Judges for their significant contribution to these results.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) continues to make progress on the significant task of creating a new, unified architecture that will replace the existing patchwork of legacy systems and programs within Trademarks. OCIO and Trademarks are working closely and in a cooperative manner to ensure that trademark filers will receive the benefits of the significant investment made over the last several years in this project.
The Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) continues to work to maintain as much stability and predictability as is possible in a challenging economic landscape, made even more so by externalities presented by government budgeting and funding procedures and by sequestration (discussed more fully below). Further, OCFO is deploying improved models – Activity Based Information (“ABI”) – to more accurately allocate the use and spending of user fees from trademark customers.
As a whole, TPAC commends these groups for their dedicated service and performance.
| 1. |
Performance Statistics. |
| |
a. |
Increase in Applications. In FY 2013, trademark application filings increased from FY 2012 levels, to a total of 433,654 classes. This represents an increase of 4.5% from FY 2012.
|
| |
|
Balanced Disposals Met Projections. Continuing the trend shown in FY 2011 and FY 2012, Trademark Operations maintained high productivity in FY 2013. Total Examining Attorney production was 875,274 Balanced Disposals. A “Balanced Disposal” represents one of three potential actions regarding an application: a first Office Action issued, approval of an application for publication (examination is complete), or abandonment of the application. The FY 2013 total of Balanced Disposals exceeded the Trademark Operations target of 869,600 Balanced Disposals by 1.6%.
|
| |
b. |
Total Office Disposals. “Total Office Disposals” are made up of the number of applications that either result in issued registrations or are abandoned. Total Office Disposals for FY 2013 were 405,412.
|
| |
c. |
Average First-Action Pendency in Target Range. “Average First-Action Pendency” was 3.1 months for FY 2013, falling within the USPTO’s target range of 2.5 to 3.5 months. First-Action Pendency is the time between the filing of a trademark application and the substantive review of that application by the USPTO (which usually results in either an Office Action or a Notice of Publication). TPAC continues to wholeheartedly support and endorse the First-Action Pendency target range set by Trademarks, as we believe that this range represents an appropriate balance between providing a fast response to trademark applicants and maintaining a stable and sufficient inventory of work for the Examining Attorneys.
|
| |
d. |
Average Total Pendency. “Average Total Pendency” is the average time between the filing of a trademark application and final disposition of that application, whether by registration, abandonment, or issuance of a Notice of Allowance.
|
| |
|
Average Total Pendency for FY 2013 was 11.7 months when suspended and interpartes cases are included, and 10 months when those cases are excluded. An application is suspended if the outcome of another matter must be known before further action on the application can be taken, such as when there is a previously filed application for a confusingly similar trademark that has not yet either registered or been abandoned. An interpartes case is an action before the TTAB, such as an opposition to registration.
|
| |
e. |
Overall. Continuing a trend stretching back more than six years, Trademark Operations substantially met or exceeded ALL of its quantitative performance goals for FY 2013. TPAC commends Commissioner Deborah Cohn, her senior staff and all of the dedicated Examining Attorneys, paralegals, document supervisors and others in Trademarks for this outstanding performance. The continued efficiency, reliability and success of Trademarks is particularly remarkable in view of the fluctuations and challenges in the market during the recent past.
|
| 2. |
Quality and Training. TPAC is pleased to note that Trademarks continues to place an emphasis not only on meeting quantitative performance measures, but also on the quality of examination, thereby ensuring that the Trademark Register remains a useful and reliable reflection of the substantive rights of trademark owners. |
| |
a. |
Compliance Rate. Currently, examination quality is measured by evaluating applications at two different points during the examining process. The review of random samples of applications in various stages of examination results in a measurement referred to as the “compliance rate” (i.e., the percentage of actions or decisions that have been determined to have no deficiencies or errors). The first point of review and evaluation looks at initial Office Actions that reject applications for registration or that raise other issues regarding formalities that require rectification in the application. The second review occurs at the “final disposition” of applications, either by a final refusal to register or a decision to approve an application for publication. The goal in both instances is to ascertain whether the Examining Attorney’s decisions and written Office Actions comport with bases of refusal set forth in the Trademark Act of 1946.
|
| |
|
The goal for FY 2013 was 95.5 percent compliance for first Office Actions and 97 percent for final disposition. For FY 2013, Trademarks achieved 96.3 percent for first Office Action compliance, which exceeded the goal. Also for FY 2013, the Trademark Operation achieved 97.1 percent final disposition compliance.
|
| |
b. |
Exceptional Office Action. In FY 2013, Trademarks continued the standard of comprehensive quality that it instituted in 2011. Instead of simply reviewing legal decision-making and completeness of an Office Action, Trademarks also measures the percentage of first Office Actions that are excellent in all respects.
|
| |
c. |
The “Exceptional Office Action” standard includes four criteria: (i) the appropriateness of the likelihood of confusion search, (ii) the quality of the evidence provided, (iii) the clarity of the writing (i.e., clear, succinct and concise), and (iv) the quality of decision-making. The Exceptional Office Action metrics show that the Office has exceeded its goal, as 35.1 percent of all first Office Actions met the criteria for the Exceptional Office Action at the close of FY 2013.
|
| |
d. |
In FY 2013 Trademarks held advanced training on these issues for all Managing Attorneys and Examining Attorneys. TPAC applauds Trademarks for continuing to “raise the bar” on it performance measures and for focusing Examining Attorneys on appropriate metrics for communication, thoroughness and timeliness in a manner that will benefit trademark applicants.
|
| |
e. |
Training. Continuing with the collaboration with User Groups concerning Examining Attorney training, two educational programs were presented in connection with the entertainment industry and trademark matters associated with that industry, and a program was presented on the new gTLDs landscape relating to the expanding domain name registry.
|
| |
f. |
The Office provided advanced Section 2(d) training for Examining Attorneys on issues surrounding determinations of likelihood of confusion. In addition, Trademarks completed an analysis of best practices in examination and plans to publish a Best Practices document for Examining Attorneys in the beginning of FY2014.
|
| |
g. |
Looking ahead, the Office is currently working with user groups on two quality-related projects. First, Trademarks is seeking input from industry experts to update terminology in the Manual of Acceptable Goods and Services. Second, Trademarks has requested external review of a set of approximately 200 issued Office Actions to validate the USPTO’s own quality metrics and to seek information on any areas where the Office may need to focus on additional training. Trademarks expects to complete both of these projects during FY 2014.
|
| 3. |
Initiatives Completed in FY 2013 |
| |
a. |
End of Paper Official Gazette, and release of E-OG
|
| |
|
At the beginning of the fiscal year, Trademarks announced that the Government Printing Office (GPO) would discontinue publishing the Trademark Official Gazette (TMOG). On December 25, 2012, GPO published the last print edition of the TMOG.
|
| |
|
Subscriptions to the paper edition of the TMOG had dwindled in recent years, and at the conclusion of paper circulation on December 24, 2012, there were fewer than 150 paper subscriptions remaining. The elimination of the need to format OG information for paper publication has allowed the USPTO to enhance the format and features of electronic TMOG (e-TMOG) to improve user experiences.
|
| |
|
The USPTO solicited stakeholder input on e-TMOG enhancements at two focus group meetings in early October.
|
| |
|
Feedback collected from external users and from bulk users was shared with the team of Trademarks and Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) staff responsible for developing the new web-based version of the e-TMOG. In June of 2013, the USPTO released a beta version of the new enhanced e-TMOG and invited user input. The USPTO presented a live demonstration of the beta version at the TPAC Public Meeting held on July 9, 2013. A final version of the new e-TMOG was released at the end of FY 2013.
|
| |
|
TPAC applauds Trademarks and OCIO for their collaboration in the architectural engineering of the new e-TMOG and for the expediency and efficiency with which this project was handled. Based on our review of the e-TMOG, TPAC believes that this release will provide significant benefits to the trademark community.
|
| |
b. |
TMEP Updates
|
| |
|
In October 2012, the USPTO issued the 8th edition of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) in a new electronic format. The new TMEP is formatted in Reference Document Management Services (RDMS) system. The new TMEP was re-formatted with enhanced search features to make it more user-friendly.
|
| |
|
With the use of RDMS, the Office has more flexibility and control over content of the TMEP, and future revisions and incorporation of user comments can be more readily incorporated. The increased control allows the USPTO to provide more frequent updates to the TMEP. The semi-annual editions will incorporate precedential decisions and previously issued examination guides, as well as user-generated feedback collected from IdeaScale. The Office published its first semi-annual edition in April 2013.
|
| |
c. |
Examination Guides
|
| |
|
In furtherance of its efforts to address training of Examining Attorneys, and in response to stakeholder questions and concerns, the Office issued a detailed Examination Guide on webpage specimens as displays associated with goods. Prior to issuing the Exam Guide, the Office released a draft version for comment by Examining Attorneys and stakeholders. Continuing initiatives in response to feedback from practitioners and other stakeholders expressing a desire to provide constructive input on examination guides, draft versions of two additional examination guides were released in FY 2013. “Geographic Certification Marks was released June 26, 2013, and open for comment to August 15, 2013. "Applications for Marks Comprised of gTLDs for Domain Name Registration or Registry Services" was released August 9, 2013, and open for comment to October 23, 2013.
|
| |
d. |
New Suspension Practice
|
| |
|
In response to feedback from practitioners, the Office developed a new suspension practice to address the issue of cited registered marks that may expire or cancel during the examination process. This was an important and welcome change to previous practice.
|
| 4. |
Ongoing Initiatives |
| |
a. |
Pilot Program to Review Post-Registration Specimens
|
| |
|
In FY 2012, Trademarks announced a pilot program, to review the extent to which identifications of goods and descriptions of services in post-registration filings are accurate. Under this program, Trademarks has selected 500 filings for review, and has, where appropriate, asked registrants to submit additional specimens where there are multiple goods or services listed in a Class.
|
| |
|
This pilot is ongoing, but Trademarks expects to gain valuable data to help better assess the degree to which the Register accurately reflects those goods and services on which a mark is actually in use. TPAC applauds this initiative and the degree to which Trademarks seeks to ensure an accurate Register that can be relied upon by the public.
|
| |
b. |
Request for Comments on Trademark Registration Renewals and Technology Changes
|
| |
|
Trademarks issued a Request for Comments regarding how best to address the maintenance of trademark registrations that include goods and services that have been impacted by changes in technology. Comments are open until December 1, 2013. TPAC applauds the effort by Trademarks to continue to seek public input and guidance when addressing potential changes to its practices.
|
| 5. |
Outreach Initiatives |
| |
a. |
Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program
|
| |
|
In 2008, the USPTO launched the Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program. The program expanded in 2010 and further expanded in 2012. Currently, 28 law schools participate in the program, which is administered by the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) in collaboration with other departments. Under this program, law students are permitted, under the supervision of a duly certified Faculty Supervisor, to assist clients on a pro bono basis, with trademark matters before the USPTO.
|
| |
|
On March 12, 2013, OED arranged for Faculty Supervisors and their Student Attorneys to visit the USPTO, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Capitol. In June 2013 and July 2013, the OED conducted 15-minute telephone conferences with each Faculty Supervisor. These calls allowed OED to answer questions, address issues or concerns and get feedback or suggestions on ways to improve the program.
|
| |
|
On July 30, 2013, the OED conducted a mandatory webinar/telephone conference. The objective of this annual training session is to educate and update Faculty Supervisors. Each year, OED also sends representatives to visit each participating law school.
|
| |
|
Since inception, approximately 1,000 Student-Attorneys have participated in the program. To date, 158 trademark applications were reportedly filed through the program.
|
| |
|
TPAC is pleased with this well-organized program for two main reasons. First, it provides the extraordinary opportunity for Student-Attorneys to gain invaluable real-world experience in intellectual property during law school. Second, the program makes quality legal representation affordable for individual entrepreneurs and small business owners desiring to protect their intellectual property rights.
|
| 6. |
International Matters |
| |
a. |
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Attaché Program
|
| |
|
TPAC’s review of the USPTO budget over the past few years raised the issue of Trademarks’ investment in the program. In order to learn more about this fairly new program, representatives of the Office of Policy and External Affairs were invited to give a presentation. During TPAC’s Public Meeting on October 12, 2012, Shira Perlmutter (Chief Policy Officer, Office of Policy and External Affairs) and Dom Keating (Director, IPR Attaché Program) gave a presentation.
|
| |
|
Generally, IPR Attachés are subject matter experts serving as diplomats in foreign countries/regions. In 1992, Japan assigned an IPR Attaché to Switzerland in order to achieve an advantage for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement negotiations. Realizing the benefits of that strategy, in 1993 the U.S. assigned to Switzerland its first IPR Attaché. Approximately a decade later, the second IPR Attaché was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in response to the increasing significance of IPR issues in China. The program was formally instituted in 2006 as a result of the successes of the first two IPR Attachés and the 2005 funding that Congress allocated to international outreach efforts.
|
| |
|
To date, IPR Attachés have been assigned to the following countries: Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Mexico, Russia, Switzerland and Thailand. The general objective of the program is to promote U.S. IP policies, which include taking the actions necessary to strengthen the protection and enforcement of IPR of U.S. businesses abroad. The IPR Attachés are supported in their efforts by country/region specific teams in the USPTO’s Office of Policy and External Affairs.
|
| |
|
In 2010, former Director David Kappos established a task force to evaluate the program and make recommendations regarding its future. The project resulted in 18 proposals, all of which were approved, including expanding the program resulting in an attaché for South Africa and developing better training (addressed within the Office of Policy and External Affairs and work-details in the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator).
|
| |
|
TPAC will continue to monitor the program to ensure that Trademark’s investment is proportionate to the percentage of time the IPR Attachés and their support are dedicating to trademark-related matters.
|
| |
b. |
Madrid Protocol Updates
|
| |
|
As of the dates listed, the following countries acceded to the Madrid Protocol: Philippines (July 25, 2012), Columbia (August 29, 2012), New Zealand (December 10, 2012), Mexico (February 19, 2013), India (July 8, 2013), and Rwanda (August 17, 2013). The USPTO has provided (or will provide) technical assistance to some of the new members, including Mexico and India.
|
| |
|
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is creating a multi-language database of identifications/recitations of goods/services. WIPO plans for each country to review the contents of the database and indicate which items are acceptable (language, specificity, etc.) to their national Trademark office. The USPTO is participating in the project.
|
| |
|
The USPTO is collaborating with WIPO to plan a seminar on advanced Madrid Protocol practice. The seminar would be offered through the USPTO’s Global Intellectual Property Academy.
|
| |
c. |
TM5 Annual Meetings
|
| |
|
By way of background, “Trilateral” references the governmental cooperation established over a decade ago by the USPTO, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Markets (OHIM) to promote harmonization of trademarks among the members’ offices. The name has been changed to “TM5”, to reflect the recent addition of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) of the People’s Republic of China to the group.
|
| |
|
The last Annual Meeting was held October 30 - 31, 2012 in Barcelona, Spain. At that time, the Partners discussed various projects including: i) developing a list of identification/recitation of goods/services that will be accepted in all five countries (ID Project); and ii) holding a bad faith filings-seminar being coordinated by the JPO and tentatively planned for late 2013 in Tokyo (Bad Faith Project).
|
| |
|
The Partners have designated the KIPO to act as the secretariat for the next Annual Meeting. The event is scheduled for December 5- 6 2013, in Seoul, Korea.
|
| 1. |
Trademarks Next Generation (“TMNG”) |
| |
In 2009, the Director of the USPTO instructed the Office of the Chief Information Officer (“OCIO”) to separate the trademark information-technology infrastructure from the rest of the USPTO IT infrastructure and implement an integrated IT system for end-to-end electronic processing of trademark applications and trademark registration maintenance. Trademarks Next Generation (“TMNG”) is intended to replace the patchwork of legacy applications and databases that operate on relatively old software.
|
| |
Moreover, TMNG is intended to give trademark owners and practitioners, as well as Examining Attorneys, all of the tools needed for end-to-end electronic trademark processing and to accommodate the dynamic information needs of trademark owners.
|
| |
Although the scope of TMNG has broadened significantly since its inception, and the transition from existing legacy systems to a new, integrated system will take years, OCIO continues to manage the TMNG project well. In particular, OCIO has improved its communication and cooperation with Trademark Operations, and this has enabled OCIO to identify a number of business priorities for Trademarks and to develop an action item list, grouped by tiers of relative importance.
|
| |
The priority items have been segregated by fiscal year and, as is typical with any project of this magnitude, priorities have at times shifted within the tier structure according to current need, budget and other factors at the USPTO.
|
| |
During FY 2013, OCIO made significant progress on several key projects.
|
| |
● |
Universal Laptop Deployment |
| |
● |
Separation and virtualization |
| |
● |
Trademark Content Management System |
| |
● |
Madrid Stabilization |
| |
● |
Business priorities and wish list |
| |
a. |
Universal Laptop Deployment (“ULP”)
|
| |
|
TPAC congratulates OCIO on the successful rollout of its deployment to Trademark employees of the new universal laptop computers to replace the personal computers and laptops previously used. The new laptops feature both standard software needed by all USPTO employees and, within particular distribution groups, customized software needed by the employees.
|
| |
|
For Examining Attorneys, there is a great dependency on FAST, X-Search and SNAG-IT. Maintaining the functionality of these legacy applications presents an ongoing challenge for the remote use of the laptops by Examining Attorneys. TPAC recognizes that both Trademarks and OCIO must continue to evaluate the correct allocation of resources between maintaining the functionality of legacy applications (such as FAST and X-SEARCH) and building the new, integrated architecture of TMNG, which will eliminate the need for these systems.
|
| |
|
During FY 2013, OCIO had to continue to address problems encountered by Examining Attorneys using these systems and to attempt to minimize disruptions to the ability of Examining Attorneys to complete their work in a timely manner. TPAC is pleased to note that, throughout the process, both Trademarks and OCIO have maintained good communication and have worked well together to address these issues while continuing with the development and implementation of TMNG.
|
| |
b. |
Separation and Virtualization
|
| |
|
Separation of the IT infrastructure for Trademarks from other businesses is intended to mitigate system dependency risks. OCIO is currently working on five legacy systems, and each of those systems are in various stages of testing. These separation projects are currently in accordance with deployment dates announced by OCIO.
|
| |
|
Virtualization of the IT infrastructure for Trademarks is intended to increase the agility and scalability of the systems, improve management of the systems, decrease power consumption, and lower maintenance costs. TPAC will focus on two aspects of this project: Trademark Content Management System (TCMS) Phase 1, and Madrid Stabilization.
|
| |
c. |
Trademark Content Management System (TCMS)
|
| |
|
The goal of TCMS is to improve an internal architectural system used by Examining Attorneys and to give them the ability to accurately review, display and store all content related to a trademark application or registration file, including status and historical information. Currently, Examining Attorneys must retrieve this information from multiple sources; there is no centralized repository for this data. The number one priority of the project is ensuring that all images are migrated into the TCMS. TCMS will accommodate information submitted by applicants as well as content created by the USPTO. There will be different types of content, such as multimedia and video files, and this system will allow for inclusion of other types of file formats that may be developed in the future. Essentially, Examining Attorneys will be able to access all information concerning a case, including multimedia files, through TCMS.
|
| |
|
TPAC applauds this effort and strongly encourages OCIO to continue making this project a priority.
|
| |
d. |
Madrid Stabilization
|
| |
|
OCIO identified a number of issues with the Madrid Processing system. The project to stabilize this system has been categorized into three major areas: 1) improve ability to add new countries as they become members of the Madrid Protocol; 2) implement processing system for transformations that can be incorporated into Trademark docketing systems; and 3) convert incoming paper international applications to XML format.
|
| |
|
A Tiger Team Task force has been created to address Madrid stabilization issues. OCIO identified eighty-seven (87) action items related to this project, sixteen of which have been deemed high priority tasks. TPAC congratulates OCIO for focusing on this very important project and for obtaining the necessary funding needed to continue working on the sixteen items.
|
| |
|
This project is of great importance to USPTO, particularly because the average cost of processing Madrid Protocol applications is significantly higher per application than traditional trademark applications. Once this project is completed, trademark owners will benefit from reduced processing costs and faster processing time.
|
| |
e. |
Business Priorities and Wish List
|
| |
|
Trademarks continues to gather input from Managers, employees, the unions that represent them, and from external users of trademark systems on their “wish lists’ for TMNG functionality. OCIO has incorporated the wish list into its business priorities. OCIO reviews the business priorities with Trademarks on a quarterly basis and reorders them accordingly. TPAC encourages the representative constituents to continue to discuss such matters as TMNG progresses towards final conclusion and implementation.
|
| |
|
TPAC is encouraged by the good communications and cooperation between Trademark Operations and OCIO. TPAC is mindful, however, that much work still needs to be done and that progress has been slower than originally anticipated on a number of projects. TPAC is encourages Trademarks and OCIO to continue with the completion and implementation of TMNG, as this system currently represents a significant investment by trademark customers, who look forward to beginning to see the benefits of that investment as TMNG systems come on line. TPAC acknowledges the hard work and partnership of OCIO staff, under the leadership of John Owens (Chief Information Officer), Rajeev Dolas (TMNG Portfolio Manager) and Marcie Lovett (Acting Director, Trademark Systems Division). These three members of OCIO met with the IT Subcommittee of TPAC throughout the year to discuss how best to implement TMNG and to keep us current on progress. TPAC is grateful for their patience with explaining highly technical systems and concepts to non-tech savvy members.√
|
| 1. |
Access to Funds - Treatment of User Fees under Sequester. |
| |
Sequestration refers to a section of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) that went into effect in March 2013 as an austerity fiscal policy with across-the-board spending cuts in all discretionary Federal budgets totaling approximately $85.4 billion. USPTO fees are not exempt from sequestration. The BCA requires these cuts to be applied to actual fee collections beginning in March 2013 at an annualized rate of 5% for FY 2013. In addition, the spending caps in the BCA continue for 10 years. Unless Congress passes legislation to change the law, it will be in effect until 2023.
|
| |
Although the USPTO is funded directly by fees paid by its customers (i.e., trademark and patent owners), the Office may not access the fees it collects unless authorized by Congress. Therefore, the USPTO will be impacted by the sequestration. In FY 2013, Trademarks incurred expenses that were less than its budget request, thanks to good financial management practices. Therefore, the sequestration did not require Trademarks to furlough employees or to reduce its level of service during FY 2013 TPAC has significant concerns, however, about the extent to which Trademarks will be able to continue to deliver on its current initiatives and to provide the level of service that trademark owners rely upon in the event sequestration continues for the foreseeable future. Our Committee will work closely with the USPTO to minimize, to the extent possible, the adverse effects of sequestration on future operations.
|
| |
In our 2012 Annual Report, TPAC applauded the USPTO for seeking comments from users on the adjustment of trademark application filing fees to incentivize complete electronic communication between trademark applicants and the USPTO. The responses from the public indicated a positive reaction to adjustment of fees. However, due to the uncertainty of the budget because of sequestration, it would not be prudent to reduce fees at this time.
|
| |
Trademarks will need its reserve to make adjustments in its budget with the continuing sequestration of Federal discretionary budgets. The TPAC supports this decision by the USPTO and we will continue to monitor the budget to ensure that the same level of service can be provided for trademark applicants.
|
| 2. |
USPTO use of Activity - Based Cost accounting and expansion to TTAB |
| |
Since 1997 the USPTO has had an Activity-Based Information System (ABI). Since 2008, Trademarks has been working to expand it to include a TTAB model. The ABI system has been introduced to various operating divisions within Trademarks. The usefulness of the resulting accounting system has fundamentally changed the operations of the USPTO.
|
| |
In FY 2012, the TTAB worked with OCFO to improve their ABI model. With the new information provided by the ABI model, the TTAB made management decisions that greatly improved its metrics for FY 2013. TPAC applauds progress in Trademarks and the TTAB for its use of ABI. The model helps to better identify the cost of specific activities. The ABI model should help leadership in Trademarks make more informed decisions related to spending, fee setting and initiatives to support the mission and goals of the USPTO. TPAC recommends that the Office of OCFO provide additional training in management practices to allow the management team in Trademarks to better utilize the extensive information available in ABI for strategic planning and optimal use of internal resources.
|
| 3. |
Maintenance of both Trademark AND Patent Fence |
| |
As stated in the 2012 Annual Report, in FY 2011, the America Invents Acts added a“patent fence,” which prohibits patent fees from being used to fund trademark operations. Historically, Title 35 of the United States Code has contained a “fence” provision that prohibits the USPTO from spending trademark user fees to fund patent operations. With the improvements made in the ABI, the ability to track activities of administrative offices, such as Office of Chief Information Officer, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Office of Administrative Officer, Office of Chief Policy Offices and Director of International Affairs, and Office of General Counsel should greatly enhance the ability of the USPTO to appropriately allocate the cost of “shared services” that are common to both Trademarks and Patents.
|
| |
With the existence of two “fences,” TPAC encourages the Office of the CFO to continue to explore methods that will ensure that an appropriate allocation between trademark and patent fees is made based on the extent of work performed or assigned to either trademarks or patents. While trademark fees account for less than 10% of the total user fees collected by the USPTO, TPAC notes that in certain administrative units, Trademarks contributes a greater percentage of the administrative unit’s expenses.
|
| |
While this may be appropriate in cases where Trademarks consume a greater share of shared resources, TPAC encourages the Office of the CFO to continue to diligently apply the best available models, including ABI, to ensure compliance with both the “trademark fence” and the “patent fence” set forth in Title 35.
|
| |
For example, the Office of Policy and International Affairs is the fastest-growing organizational unit within the USPTO. As it expands, this group is consuming an increasing share of revenue from trademark user fees. Currently, Trademarks contributes 35% of the Office of Policy’s budget while Trademark revenues are less than 10% of the total agency budget. While advising the Executive Branch on IP Policy is a mission of the USPTO, TPAC encourages the careful application of ABI to the activities of the Office of Policy and International Affairs, to ensure that trademark user fees contributed to this organization are in proportion to the amount of time spent on trademark-related matters. The ABI model is an excellent tool for tracking the specific activities of the shared-services administrative offices, TPAC applauds the development and adoption of this model within the USPTO, and we encourage the Office of the CFO to carefully apply ABI to ensure compliance with the statutory “fences” when allocating both trademark user fees and patent user fees.
|
| 1. |
Precedential Decisions |
| |
Continuing the trend of FY 2012, in which there was an increase in the number of precedential decisions (45 as opposed to 38 in FY 2011), the TTAB exceeded its target of 45 decisions for FY 2013, with a total of 49. The increase in the number of precedential decisions is a positive development because these decisions give trademark owners guidance on substantive trademark issues as well as clarifying evidentiary and procedural issues that arise in practice before the Board. During FY 2013, the TTAB released precedential decisions addressing issues that included: nontraditional marks, such as scents, sounds and flavors; functionality and the failure to function as a mark; procedural issues in inter partes cases, including those dealing with submissions and filings that were not timely; as well as likelihood of confusion, descriptiveness, adequacy of specimens, and others.
|
| 2. |
Performance Statistics |
| |
FY 2013 heralded many positive trends at the TTAB. For the first time in several years there were decreases in inventory and/or pendency in many key metrics. The inventory reduction efforts, in particular, resulted in decisions on the merits for older pending cases, and decisions on older contested motions that allowed the cases in which those motions were pending to move forward for eventual settlement or determination on the merits. The Board also developed and released important new dashboards to enable customers to view TTAB data in an understandable visual format. The third edition of the TBMP was also published in a timely fashion. As discussed below in greater detail, with assistance and support from Trademarks, Chief Judge Gerard Rogers and his team worked hard to increase productivity throughout the TTAB, and their collective effort showed.
|
| |
a. Oppositions and Cancellation Proceedings |
| |
In FY 2013, there was a slight 2.3% increase in the number of oppositions filed, from 5,160 in FY 2012 to 5,278. This continues a trend from FY 2010, where the TTAB began to see a reversal in the decline in filings that had occurred during the economic downturn.
|
| |
Cancellations rose a bit more over FY 2012 levels, increasing 3.4% to 1,513 (vs. 1463 in FY 2012).
|
| |
b. Pendency |
| |
For the first time in many years, pendency of matters before the TTAB decreased in virtually all performance measures, as discussed more fully below. Significantly, during FY 2013, the TTAB also began to publicly disclose goals on pendency and to measure its performance against those goals. These welcome improvements suggest that the TTAB is beginning a turnaround, and TPAC is confident that, if this level of performance continues, pendency will soon stabilize at target levels.
|
| |
|
● |
The pendency of issued final decisions from the ready-for-decision date (RFD) on the merits (that is, either the date the ex parte appeal or inter partes proceeding is submitted for consideration on the briefs or the date of oral hearing, if one was held), was reduced 26.3% to 17.7 weeks, down from the FY 2012 level, when it peaked at 24 weeks. Significantly, while the first two quarters of FY 2013 saw continuing elevated pendency, the significant increase in production of final decisions by the Board’s Administrative Trademark Judges (ATJs) during those quarters cleared out many older cases. This allowed the TTAB to achieve its FY 2013 goal for pendency on final decision (12-14 weeks) during both third quarter (13.9 weeks) and beat it during the fourth quarter (11.3 weeks).
|
| |
|
|
Pendency had dramatically spiked between FY 2009 (when it was at just 6.6 weeks) and FY 2012. TPAC is confident that the lower pendency number reflects a shift toward productivity and output from the TTAB consistent with the volume of cases maturing to ready for decision, as an increased staff of judges, with more assistance (see below), are now processing final decisions on the merits in a more expeditious fashion.
|
| |
|
● |
The reduction in pendency was achieved by working off cases at a monthly rate faster than the rate by which cases matured to ready for decision on the merits. The Board’s ATJs increased the number of cases decided by 26.6% from 534 decided in FY 2012 to 676 decided in FY 2013. This reduced inventory of the number of cases awaiting decision to 88 at the end of FY 2013, as compared to 256 cases at the end of FY 2012, a reduction of nearly 66%. This is a significant step in a positive direction, and TPAC is confident that the TTAB will now focus on stabilizing inventory at a level appropriate for both its staffing level and to account for the rate at which cases mature to ready for decision.
|
| |
|
● |
The average “end to end” or “commencement to completion” pendency of trial cases (i.e., inter partes cases) was reduced 6.8% to 189.5 weeks, down from 203.3 weeks in FY 2012, and a further improvement over FY 2011 levels of 213.3 weeks. The median pendency of trial cases was reduced 11.3% to 165 weeks in FY 2013, compared to the FY 2012 median of 186 weeks.
|
| |
|
● |
For appeals in FY 2013, the average “end to end” processing time was reduced 35.2% to 49.8 weeks from an unusually high average pendency in FY 2012 of 76.8 weeks. Since FY 2012 was a high water mark for average appeals pendency, TPAC is hopeful that in FY 2014 the TTAB will approach average appeal pendency levels consistent with FY 2009 and 2010, in which average pendency for appeal was 44 and 45.5 weeks respectively. Median pendency for appeals in FY 2013 was reduced 17% to 44 weeks down from 53 weeks in FY 2012; and with both the third and fourth quarters of FY 2013 below 40 weeks there is reason to believe that a return of average pendency to the 44-45 week range will be achieved.
|
| |
|
● |
Although pendency decreased in many areas, it rose with respect to disposition of contested motions, from 8.7 weeks in FY 2012 to 13.3 weeks in FY 2013; but this was an expected consequence of the Board’s concerted focus to work down the inventory of cases with older motions. The Board changed its focus from the average pendency of motions in which decisions were completed and mailed (which left out of the picture motions that were pending and undecided) to focus on reducing the average pendency of motions awaiting decision. In this regard, the Board succeeded. At the end of FY 2012, there were contested motions ready for decision that had been lingering for over one year.
|
| |
By contrast, at the end of FY 2013, the age of the oldest contested motion was just 16 weeks, meeting the TTAB’s target. And the average pendency of motions awaiting decision at the end of the year was slightly more than 6 weeks. This reduction in the age of motions awaiting decision is a very positive development, and TPAC feels confident that average pendency of motions disposed of by mailed decisions will also begin to decline as the interlocutory attorneys are able to work consistently on cases in a timely fashion.
|
| |
TPAC also applauds the interlocutory attorneys for meeting its target to reduce the inventory of contested motions ready for decisions from 199 at the end of FY 2012, to 130 at the end of FY 2013; this represents a reduction of 34.7%.
|
| |
TPAC is heartened by the improvement in the overall TTAB performance in FY 2013. After many challenging years, the TTAB for the first time since 2009 began to see substantial improvement across the board in most of its metrics. Total (“end to end”) pendency for appeals, trials and Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) cases fell, as did the inventory of cases waiting decision at the end of the year and the inventory of contested motions. Under the leadership of Chief Judge Gerard Rogers, the TTAB saw the addition of four new judges in FY 2013, bringing the total up to 22. While this was a very significant contributing factor to the improved performance of the TTAB, other factors were at play too.
|
| |
First, Trademarks assigned one of its most senior staff, Meryl Hershkowitz, Group Director, to assist Chief Judge Rogers in improving the efficiency of the TTAB. Group Director Hershkowitz provided critical guidance and leadership, and the teamwork exhibited by her and Chief Judge Rogers led to many significant accomplishments. TPAC also commends Commissioner Cohn for providing leadership to the process and for being willing to assign one of the valuable members of her leadership team to the important task of helping to set the TTAB on a positive path. TPAC believes that the cooperation and leadership demonstrated by these individuals will pay significant dividends at the TTAB.
|
| |
Second, the new Managing Attorney for the interlocutory staff, Kenneth Solomon, proved to be a very positive addition to the operation, as he worked with the interlocutory attorneys to bring down the inventory of contested motions. Cheryl Butler, Senior Attorney and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP) Editor of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, also continued to play an important role as the third edition of the TBMP was published on schedule and she contributed in many other ways to improve TTAB processes. Deborah Decker continued to support the Chief Judge and all the administrative operations of the TTAB efficiently and effectively. The development of a strong leadership team at the TTAB has proved well worth the investment as the metrics show. The public who practice before and rely on the TTAB receive the benefit of these improvements.
|
| |
As TPAC noted last year, the TTAB had just undertaken a work project with examining attorneys from the Trademark Examining Operations being dedicated to assist the judges for approximately four months, working on cases with medium or large records. Some of these attorneys worked on multiple cases consolidated for a single decision, while others worked on multiple, unrelated cases. The size of the respective case records in large part dictated how many cases each participating examining attorney was able to work on. Each participating judge was free to arrange with the detailee how the case work would be done and what tasks the detailee would complete. The arrangements varied but invariably included reviewing and reconciling Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System (TTABVUE) prosecution history entries, pleadings, evidence and briefs.
|
| |
Some cases presented legal issues that required research and briefing. Almost all cases involved evidentiary objections and disagreements of the parties that required discussion and resolution by the detailee and supervising Administrative Trademark Judge (ATJ). Digesting and summarizing evidence not stricken or excluded also was a common task for project participants. When drafting the final decisions on the merits, some participants were tasked with drafting discrete sections of decisions that were merged with work the ATJ completed. Other participants drafted entire decisions for ATJ review. And participants were available to cite check and support the writing being done by the ATJs.
|
| |
In addition, in FY 2013 the Board utilized law students as summer externs to work on large record cases in both contested and uncontested matters, and on research projects.
|
| |
While the programs have not been in effect long, and there are undoubtedly best practices and learning that will be developed and shared, it is clear that the use of detailees, and summer externs has helped the TTAB manage caseloads more efficiently. TPAC supports the TTAB as it continues to look at programs like this to help the judges with cases, particularly those cases with large evidentiary records or complicated proceedings.
|
| |
In its Annual Report for FY 2012, TPAC called upon the TTAB to establish targets, or goals for its performance, and to measure itself against them. The TTAB has done that with respect to certain key metrics, such as pendency for final decisions, inventory of contested motions ready for decision, and cases decided, and is now reporting its performance versus those goals. This is also a welcome improvement, as it allows for greater transparency and gives users of the TTAB expectations as to the time the Board itself anticipates for various types of proceedings.
|
| |
Because the TTAB is the tribunal of choice for many trademark owners or applicants, bringing a deep understanding of trademark law and also cost efficiencies in dispute resolution, it is important that the Board maintain its reputation as the place to go to resolve trademark disputes. Having greater transparency, faster processing of cases, and faster results is important to maintaining the public trust in and reliance upon the TTAB.
|
| |
c. Final Decisions |
| |
As noted above, the total number of cases decided on the merits increased 26.6% to 676 over FY 2012’s level of 534 cases. This figure is the third highest total of cases ever decided in one year by the Board.
|
| |
d. Active interpartes cases filed Under the “Old” Rules. |
| |
In November 2007, the TTAB instituted a major rules change that impacted cases filed after that time. For the last several years, the TTAB has been working on resolving all the "old rule" cases, and has made further significant progress in that regard in FY 2013. At the end of FY 2012, 166 cases were still pending under the old rules.
|
| |
As of the end of FY 2013, there are 58 cases that the TTAB is monitoring – and 30 of these are necessarily suspended because of the pendency of other civil proceedings, Board cases, or for further consideration of an application by an examining attorney.
|
| |
The TTAB's goals with respect to those “old rule” cases that have been suspended for settlement is to have the cases settle and be removed from the docket, or to move the cases on to discovery and/or trial, under a schedule that allows no further delays. With cases that are “on track”, the TTAB strategy has included having TTAB interlocutory attorneys set schedules to be adhered to, and ensure discovery is completed on schedule and involving the ATJ for a conference if a party proposes to file a motion for summary judgment between the close of discovery and trial. While TPAC recognizes that there are some cases over which the TTAB has no ability to control, such as those suspended because of a Federal court matter, it applauds the TTAB for being proactive with the parties to ensure cases suspended for settlement are not allowed to remain inactive.
|
| |
TPAC, like the TTAB, looks forward to the day when the Board will no longer have to operate under two different sets of rules.
|
| 3. |
TTAB Manual of Procedure (TBMP) |
| |
In June, FY 2013, slightly more than a year after the revised Third Edition had been published, the TTAB published the second revision of the Third Edition, which includes practice updates occurring between March 3, 2012, and March 1, 2013, and also incorporates amendments to the Trademark Act, the Trademark Rules of Practice and the Federal Rules, where appropriate and further incorporates, where applicable, the changes to the USPTO’s Code of Professional Responsibility that became effective May 3, 2013. Revising the Manual on at least an annual basis has been advocated by TPAC for some time, and TPAC happily acknowledges that the TTAB has made a strong start in keeping the TBMP up to date through three consecutive annual revisions, and thus has maintained a guidance document of higher value to the user community.
|
| |
Similar to the use of the IdeaScale® tool in Trademarks, TPAC has encouraged the TTAB to offer a version of the TBMP that will allow users to provide comments and input. This functionality was realized in FY 2013 when the Board posted revised Chapter 1200 (ex parte appeals) for public comment and discussion.
|
| 4. |
Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) |
| |
The TTAB continued in FY 2013 to advocate that parties adopt ACR, and those cases in which ACR was agreed to by parties showed that ACR does significantly improve the speed at which a matter is resolved. Because ACR can be adopted by the parties at any time during the pendency of a case, the statistics about ACR are somewhat uneven—greater efficiencies would be realized if parties agreed to ACR options earlier, rather than later in cases. Nonetheless, a close look at available information demonstrates that, even when cases involving later stipulation to use of ACR options are included in the average, ACR provides measurable time-saving benefits. In FY 2013, for example, ACR time pendency was 114.2 weeks, about 40% lower overall (“end to end”) pendency than in a trial involving standard discovery and trial methods.
|
| |
There is considerable information on the TTAB Web site on the availability of ACR, including a list of cases in which it has been used, which was updated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013. The Web site also includes “plug and play” options, including one set suggested by American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), and another set of possible approaches proposed by the TTAB. Through utilization of any of these options, as proposed or as the parties may wish to amend them, parties can determine a certain time frame for the various steps in its proceedings and tailor the case to fit within the time frame.
|
| |
The TTAB also continued, throughout the year, to publicly advocate use of ACR; and the Board’s attorneys routinely discuss the options with parties to trial cases, during phone conference, and suggest consideration of ACR in written orders on contested motions.
|
| |
ACR has been adopted in a variety of ways by parties. In some cases, the parties have stipulated that the briefs and evidence filed in conjunction with a summary judgment motion can be used as the trial record and briefs, thereby presenting the case for final decision on the merits without the need for traditional trial and briefing. This approach requires the parties to expressly stipulate that the Board can resolve any issues of material fact not stipulated to by the parties or which may have been overlooked or unforeseen by the parties. Another common approach to ACR involves the parties agreeing upon alternatives to traditional discovery, trial and briefing. Indeed, a key benefit of ACR is that it is very flexible and the parties can design an approach that meets the needs of their case. One major hurdle that precludes the adoption of ACR more broadly has been a lack of awareness on the part of practitioners as to its availability and flexibility. To that end, the TTAB has been very active over the last few years promoting ACR with information on the TTAB Web site, through the major IP organizations with articles, presentations and the like, and through public speeches.
|
| |
While the TTAB has consistently promoted ACR, its adoption is still relatively infrequent. While in FY2012 there were nine cases in which the litigants opted for ACR, in FY2013 there were again only nine cases in which the parties elected some form of ACR. TPAC applauds the efforts of the TTAB to publicize the benefits of ACR and to make ACR readily available to parties with matters pending before the Board. It is the hope of TPAC that parties to TTAB proceedings will increasingly take advantage of this valuable method to more quickly and efficiently resolve disputed trademark issues. TPAC encourages intellectual property associations, Continuing Legal Education (CLE) providers and others to assist in making practitioners more aware of the availability of ACR options in proceedings before the TTAB and in discussing the significant benefits available through the use of ACR.
|
| 5. |
TTAB Roundtable on ACR |
| |
On November 28, 2012, Chief Judge Gerard Rogers convened a TTAB Roundtable to obtain user feedback on the use of Accelerated Case Resolution in TTAB InterPartes Proceedings. TPAC was represented at the Roundtable by Kathryn Barrett Park, and TPAC Member Linda MacLeod also participated, in her capacity as a representative of AIPLA. Moderating the discussion were Chief Judge Rogers and Administrative Trademark Judge Peter Cataldo.
|
| |
During the Roundtable, the following issues were examined
|
| |
a. |
What lessons have been learned from ACR cases and other cases employing ACR style efficiencies? How have stakeholders reacted to model schedules for ACR posted on the Board’s web page? What circumstances militate in favor of adopting a model schedule, or for not adopting a model schedule?
|
| |
b. |
What impediments exist to broader use of Accelerated Case Resolution options by parties to Board interpartes proceedings? How can reluctance of parties to agree to ACR options be overcome? Are certain types of claims more suited to resolution by an ACR procedure than others? Are certain parties more amenable to ACR?
|
| |
c. |
Since a very small percentage of Board cases are processed on a full schedule of discovery, trial and briefing, should one or more ACR processing options be considered for adoption as the default approach for discovery and trial in Board trial proceedings? If so, what showing should a party have to make to obtain full discovery, trial and briefing options? Should the Board consider the default interpartes proceeding to allow full discovery but require an ACR approach to trial and briefing?
|
| |
d. |
ACR now can be pursued as an alternative to traditional discovery, trial and briefing only on consent of the parties. Should the rules be amended to allow for a Fast Track proceeding that would allow one party to move for utilization of an ACR procedure upon a particularized showing of need for rapid resolution of the case? If so, what type of showing would be required, and what should be the deadline for seeking utilization of a Fast Track option? Should plaintiffs seeking a Fast Track option have to plead and prove a more significant damage element? Should defendants seeking a Fast Track option have to plead and prove potential damage from the uncertainty created by delay of an application or a cloud on a registration?
|
| |
e. |
Open discussion of related issues and future opportunities to dialogue.
|
| |
|
Many suggestions were made by the Roundtable participants, and a transcript of the discussion in its entirety is available on the TTAB website.
|
| |
|
The TTAB also actively seeks public suggestions on ACR with its dedicated mailbox for ACR: ACRsuggestions@uspto.gov. TPAC hopes that the suggestions are further considered by the Board, and that appropriate action, such as proposed rule-making to implement ACR, are undertaken in FY 2014.
|
| |
|
TPAC also would like to see further appropriate actions undertaken that reflect comments received during the Roundtable on processing times at the TTAB. TPAC reported on that Roundtable in the Annual Report in FY 2012. As discussed above, TTAB has set some performance measures, which TPAC trusts are the first wave of a robust set of metrics against which the Board will report its performance publicly.
|
| 6. |
Creation of TTAB Dashboard |
| |
In FY 2013, the TTAB introduced a new TTAB Dashboard, to provide users with easy-to-understand visuals showing important TTAB statistics, which is now part of the USPTO Data Visualization Center.
|
| |
The TTAB dashboards which are in beta, are available to the public and open for public comment, TTABdashboards@uspto.gov.
|
| |
The dashboards report on a quarterly basis the following statistics:
|
| |
|
● |
pendency of final decisions and contested motions
|
| |
|
● |
the volume and types of new filings
|
| |
|
● |
the number of different proceedings pending
|
| |
|
● |
pending appeals maturing to Ready-for-Decision (“RFD”)
|
| |
|
● |
pending appeals in inventory
|
| |
|
● |
the age of pending appeals
|
| |
|
● |
pending oppositions and cancellations maturing to RFD
|
| |
|
● |
pending oppositions and cancellations in inventory
|
| |
|
● |
the age of pending trial cases
|
| |
|
● |
trial case contested motions(by type) that are ready for decision
|
| |
|
● |
trail case contested motions (by type) in inventory and the age of pending motions (by type)
|
| |
While still being tested, it is clear that these visuals are an enhanced service to the public as they present key metrics in a simple and easy to understand format.
|
| |
The TPAC is excited about the TTAB Dashboards, and very encouraged that further enhancements of the dashboards are contemplated that will contain additional data that users seek, as well as more historical data, which will show trends at the TTAB.
|
Errata
"All reference to Patent No. 8,567,056 to YU SOK LIM, ET AL of SEOUL
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF for METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTROPHORETIC DISPLAY
DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,567,907 to KIA SILVERBROOK of BALMAIN,
AUSTRALIA for PRINTHEAD ASSEMBLY INCORPORATING INK DISTRIBUTION ASSEMBLY
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,567,920 to HIROMU MIYAZAWA, ET AL of
AZUMINO-SHI, JAPAN for LIQUID EJECTING HEAD AND LIQUID EJECTING APPARATUS
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,567,962 to SHINICHI WAKABAYASHI of
SUWA-SHI, JAPAN for PROJECTOR appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,567,998 to JU-YOUNG YOON, ET AL of
SUWON-SI KOREA, REPUBLIC OF for LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND LENS FOR THE SAME
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,568,003 to BRIAN E. SIGEL of
PLATTSBURGH, NY for CRYSTAL MOUNTING FRAME AND LIGHT ASSEMBLY appearing in
the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,568,235 to TETSUYA SASAKI, ET AL of
KYOTO, JAPAN for COMMUNICATION GAME SYSTEM, GAME APPARATUS, SERVER, STORAGE
MEDIUM STORING A PROGRAM, AND GAME CONTROL METHOD appearing in the Official
Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,568,261 to SEJI TADA, ET AL of NARA,
JAPAN for POWER TRANSMISSION CHAIN AND POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INCLUDING
SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,568,622 to JUNJI TAKENAKA, ET AL of
SHUNAN-SHI, JAPAN for PHOTOCHROMIC CURABLE COMPOSITION appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,568,655 to C. EDWARD ECKERT of NEW
KENSINGTON, PA for THERMALLY EFFICIENT, COVER FOR METAL CONTAINMENT VESSEL,
RELATED SYSTEM AND METHODS appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29,
2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,568,885 to DAVID MYUNG, ET AL of SANTA
CLARA, CA for HYDROPHILIC INTERPENETRATING POLYMER NETWORKS DERIVED FROM
HYDROPHOBIC POLYMERS appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,009 to PING LIN, ET AL of SAN DIEGO,
CA for METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR DETECTING RARE CELLS FROM A BIOLOGICAL
SAMPLE appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,118 to CHAOYONG DENG, ET AL of
BEIJING, CHINA for THIN FILM TRANSISTOR LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY ARRAY
SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF appearing in the Official
Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 200 |
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,266 to JI-HOON SONG, ET AL of
YONGIN-CITY KOREA, REPUBLIC OF for ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE
AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,290 to AKIHIRO HORI, ET AL of OSAKA,
JAPAN for SULFUR-CONTAINING HETEROCYCLIC DERIVATIVE HAVING BETA SECRETASE
INHIBITORY ACTIVITY appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,293 to NAOTAKE KOBAYASHI, ET AL of
OSAKA-SHI, JAPAN for AMINODIHYDROTHIAZINE DERIVATIVES appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,359 to ROBERTA DIAZ BRINTON, ET AL of
RACHO PALO VERDES, CA for PHYTOESTROGENIC FORMULATIONS FOR ALLEVIATION OR
PREVENTION OF MENOPAUSAL SYMPTOMS appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,365 to PATRICK M. SCHLIEVERT, ET AL
of EDINA, MN for COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING INFECTIONS
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,475 to JOHN J. ROSSI, ET AL of ALTA
LOMA, CA for METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE SPECIFIC INHIBITION OF GENE
EXPRESSION BY DOUBLE-STRANDED RNA appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,523 to SERGEY SELIFONOV, ET AL of
PLYMOUTH, MN for METHOD OF MAKING KETALS AND ACETALS appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,563 to LINDA SHI CHENG, ET AL of
HIGHLAND PARK, IL for ADSORBENTS WITH IMPROVED MASS TRANSFER PROPERTIES AND
THEIR USE IN THE ADSORPTIVE SEPARATION OF PARA-XYLENE appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,682 to KATSUMI SHIBAYAMA, ET AL of
SHIZUOKA, JAPAN for SPECTRAL MODULE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SPECTRAL
MODULE appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,748 to KOICHIRO IIDA, ET AL of
KANAGAWA, JAPAN for CHARGE-TRANSPORTING POLYMER, COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC
ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT, ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT, ORGANIC EL
DISPLAY, AND ORGANIC EL LIGHTING appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,756 to TAKASHI KUSHIDA, ET AL of
HINO-SHI, JAPAN for ALKYLSILANE LAMINATE, PRODUCTION METHOD THEREOF AND
THIN-FILM TRANSISTOR appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,768 to SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI of SETGAYA,
JAPAN for METHOD OF FABRICATING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,788 to EIJI MIRAMOTO, ET AL of
KAWASAKI, JAPAN for SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 201 |
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,569,978 to TAKUYA TAKEUCHI of OSAKA,
JAPAN for LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT DRIVING CIRCUIT SYSTEM appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,057 to TOMMIE EDWARD BERRY, ET AL of
PLEASANTON, CA for METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TESTING DEVICES USING SERIALLY
CONTROLLED INTELLIGENT SWITCHES appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,134 to GEUN YOUNG PARK, ET AL of
SUWON KOREA, REPUBLIC OF for TRANSFORMER appearing in the Official Gazette
of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,136 to GEUN YOUNG PARK, ET AL of
SUWON KOREA, REPUBLIC OF for TRANSFORMER AND FLAT PANEL DISPLAY DEVICE
INCLUDING THE SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,215 to KUMAR ANAND, ET AL of
SHIOJIRI-SHI, JAPAN for POSITION CALCULATION METHOD AND POSITION
CALCULATION APPARATUS appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,282 to TAE YOUNG KANG, ET AL of
UIJEONGBU-SI KOREA, REPUBLIC OF for FLEXIBLE DISPLAY DEVICE AND DATA
DISPLAYING METHOD THEREOF appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29,
2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,458 to AKINORI IZAKI, ET AL of OSAKA,
JAPAN for LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE AND POLARIZING PLATE appearing in
the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,596 to DAIKI IKARI of AYASE-SHI,
JAPAN for IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS CONTROL
METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM CAPABLE OF READING AN IMAGE OF A DOCUMENT TO BE
CONVEYED AND MAKING SKEW FEED CORRECTION appearing in the Official Gazette
of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,598 to AYAKO KANEMOTO of NISSHIN-SHI,
JAPAN for IMAGE SCANNING APPARATUS, COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, AND IMAGE
STORING METHOD ADD SCANNED IMAGE DATA INTO AN IMAGE FILE STORING AN
EXISTING IMAGE DATA ASSOCIATED WITH AN ATTRIBUTE VALUE OF THE EXISTING
IMAGE DATA. appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,570,934 to JOHN M. BURGAN, ET AL of NORTH
PALM BEACH, FL for MONITORING AND CONTROL OF TRANSMIT POWER IN A
MULTI-MODEM WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette
of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,571,323 to SURANJIT ADHIKARI of
SAN DIEGO, CA for REAL TIME HAND TRACKING, POSE CLASSIFICATION AND
INTERFACE CONTROL appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,571,324 to TAKAHISA YAMAMOTO, ET AL of
KAWASAKI-SHI, JAPAN for IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND IMAGE PROCESSING
METHOD appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,571,457 to KENICHI HASEGAWA, ET AL of
ATSUGI-SHI, JAPAN for FIXING DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 202 |
INCORPORATING SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,571,516 to ACHILLEAS PAPAKOSTAS, ET AL of
RICHARDSON, TX for SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUS TO MONITOR MOBILE
INTERNET ACTIVITY appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,571,649 to PIERRE ROY of PARIS, FRANCE
for IRRITATION-REDUCING OCULAR IONTOPHORESIS DEVICE appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,571,718 to KENSUKE MURATA, ET AL of
FUKUOKA-KEN, JAPAN for CONTROL OF WATER DISCHARGE SYSTEM BY REFLECTED WAVE
DETECTION THRESHOLD(S) appearing in the Official Gazette of October 29,
2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,571,761 to TATSUYA TAKAGAKI of
NISSIN-SHI, JAPAN for VEHICULAR ILLUMINATING DEVICE appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,571,868 to PAUL W. SHIELDS, ET AL of
GLASGOW, UNITED KINGDOM for PROGRAM FOR CREATING HIDDEN MARKOV MODEL,
INFORMATION STORAGE MEDIUM, SYSTEM FOR CREATING HIDDEN MARKOV MODEL, SPEECH
RECOGNITION SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF SPEECH RECOGNITION appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,572,078 to ASHISH GOEL, ET AL of PALO
ALTO, CA for CONTENT RESONANCE appearing in the Official Gazette of October
29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,572,582 to HANAE ISHIZAKA of KAWASAKI,
JAPAN for DATA TRANSMISSION PROGRAM, DATA TRANSMISSION APPARATUS, AND
METHOD FOR EDITING OPERATION MANUAL appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 8,572,726 to JASON TYLER GRIFFIN, ET AL of
WATERLOO, CANADA for SIMPLE ALGEBRAIC AND MULTI-LAYER PASSWORDS appearing
in the Official Gazette of October 29, 2013 should be deleted since no
patent was granted."
| Certificates of Correction |
Certificates of Correction
for November 5, 2013
7,228,876 8,414,034 8,477,886 8,515,154
7,426,216 8,415,289 8,478,699 8,515,806
7,639,181 8,415,471 8,478,769 8,515,973
7,685,178 8,416,847 8,478,921 8,516,273
7,760,954 8,417,082 8,479,732 8,516,478
7,834,136 8,418,993 8,480,130 8,517,186
7,856,423 8,419,546 8,481,767 8,517,208
7,891,174 8,419,691 8,482,883 8,518,236
7,932,888 8,420,388 8,483,072 8,518,623
7,941,434 8,421,532 8,483,181 8,518,640
7,981,423 8,423,165 8,483,273 8,518,806
7,985,196 8,423,674 8,483,310 8,519,032
7,986,152 8,426,414 8,483,919 8,519,324
8,004,484 8,426,753 8,484,470 8,520,374
8,024,237 8,427,084 8,485,304 8,520,728
8,031,140 8,427,667 8,485,559 8,520,807
8,036,987 8,427,810 8,486,918 8,521,017
8,055,643 8,429,249 8,487,252 8,521,316
8,062,686 8,431,410 8,488,108 8,521,526
8,108,406 8,431,738 8,489,611 8,521,811
8,122,973 8,432,367 8,489,811 8,522,042
8,142,789 8,432,798 8,489,943 8,522,281
8,154,153 8,437,293 8,492,141 8,522,457
8,177,943 8,440,071 8,492,356 8,522,468
8,193,380 8,441,416 8,492,443 8,522,614
8,200,509 8,444,492 8,492,758 8,523,075
8,202,343 8,447,162 8,492,972 8,524,232
8,209,319 8,447,580 8,493,542 8,524,785
8,211,386 8,447,624 8,493,566 8,525,208
8,220,544 8,447,719 8,495,017 8,525,501
8,224,801 8,448,860 8,495,377 8,525,954
8,231,416 8,449,597 8,495,716 8,526,102
8,239,003 8,450,469 8,496,090 8,527,756
8,247,371 8,450,924 8,496,215 8,528,072
8,256,005 8,451,052 8,496,457 8,528,325
8,256,989 8,451,590 8,497,741 8,528,575
8,262,605 8,451,666 8,498,176 8,529,595
8,266,692 8,451,906 8,498,291 8,529,849
8,283,954 8,452,151 8,498,451 8,529,898
8,288,922 8,452,368 8,498,836 8,530,369
8,294,536 8,452,619 8,498,915 8,531,336
8,300,222 8,452,626 8,498,931 8,531,772
8,307,996 8,456,272 8,498,974 8,531,912
8,311,990 8,457,121 8,499,377 8,532,032
8,314,990 8,457,491 8,499,532 8,532,850
8,318,906 8,458,097 8,500,764 8,532,965
8,322,958 8,458,336 8,501,427 8,533,027
8,329,178 8,459,666 8,502,216 8,533,109
8,335,739 8,460,401 8,502,232 8,533,183
8,337,520 8,460,645 8,502,735 8,533,198
8,337,824 8,461,317 8,503,259 8,533,500
8,338,777 8,462,477 8,503,509 8,534,419
8,339,262 8,462,617 8,504,382 8,535,112
8,339,626 8,463,072 8,504,482 8,535,122
8,343,615 8,463,139 8,504,527 8,535,392
8,344,054 8,463,652 8,504,759 8,535,429
8,346,622 8,464,203 8,505,578 8,535,650
8,353,858 8,464,249 8,505,587 8,535,691
8,358,447 8,464,403 8,505,715 8,536,746
8,367,490 8,464,539 8,506,638 8,536,750
8,367,548 8,465,246 8,506,715 8,537,042
8,368,773 8,467,648 8,507,225 8,537,046
| November 26, 2013 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1396 OG 204 |
8,376,482 8,468,161 8,507,380 8,537,862
8,378,449 8,468,183 8,507,387 8,537,922
8,379,884 8,468,240 8,507,442 8,538,051
8,380,269 8,469,300 8,507,598 8,538,386
8,383,172 8,471,006 8,507,646 8,538,493
8,384,072 8,471,270 8,507,966 8,538,636
8,384,601 8,472,031 8,508,278 8,539,722
8,385,853 8,472,367 8,508,970 8,539,812
8,386,519 8,472,378 8,509,016 8,541,412
8,386,645 8,472,405 8,509,931 8,542,089
8,388,992 8,472,535 8,510,058 8,542,678
8,390,507 8,472,804 8,510,060 8,542,695
8,392,608 8,473,316 8,510,285 8,542,908
8,393,136 8,473,506 8,510,524 8,543,273
8,393,830 8,474,685 8,510,743 8,543,309
8,399,229 8,474,954 8,510,948 8,543,401
8,403,332 8,475,787 8,511,144 8,544,084
8,404,662 8,475,940 8,511,967 8,548,925
8,404,672 8,476,025 8,512,017 D. 673,850
8,404,741 8,476,511 8,512,261 D. 685,461
8,409,272 8,476,647 8,512,629 D. 688,014
8,409,496 8,476,885 8,512,716 D. 688,498
8,409,562 8,477,595 8,512,935 D. 688,500
8,409,708 8,477,697 8,512,942 D. 688,503
8,409,862 8,477,763 8,514,205 D. 691,066
8,410,057 8,477,765 8,514,371
8,410,150 8,477,795 8,514,645
8,413,381 8,477,803 8,514,725
| Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
October 21, 2013 - October 25, 2013
| Date Issued |
Type of Case(1) |
Proceeding or Appn. Number |
Party or Parties |
TTAB Panel (2) |
Issue(s) |
TTAB Decision |
Opposer’s or Petitioner’s mark and goods or services |
Applicant’s or Respondent’s mark and goods or services |
Mark and goods or services cited by Examining Attorney |
Issued as Precedent of TTAB |
| 10-21 |
EX |
85045141
85045149
85045153 |
Enterprise Database Corporation |
Quinn
Wolfson
Adlin* |
2(e)(1), 23(c), 2(f) |
All Refusals Affirmed in all applications |
|
ENTERPRISE DATA CORPORATION [various types of computer hardware and software, many for use with databases, data warehousing and transmission of data (Class 9)] [various business consulting services, including those relating to communication and data, e-commerce and business planning (Class 35)] [various consulting services in the design, selection and implementation of computer hardware and software, for a variety of purposes (Class 42)] |
|
No |
| 10-22 |
OPP
CANC |
91195102
92052510 |
Thomas and Linda Diak dba Dyakcraft (formerly Grafton Fibers)
v.
Crafts Americana Group, Inc. |
Quinn
Ritchie
Gorowitz* |
2(d), Fraud |
Opposition Dismissed; Petition to Cancel Granted on 2(d) claim, but denied on Fraud claim |
"Knitting needle design and crochet hook design" [knitting needles, crochet hooks]; HARMONY [looms] |
"Knitting needle design" [knitting needles]; HARMONY [knitting needles] |
|
No |
| 10-24 |
EX |
79975267 |
MarvelousAQL Inc. |
Bucher*
Bergsman
Ritchie |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
MARVELOUS AQL (and design) [production and distribution of movies] |
MARVELOUS MEDIA [production and distribution of television shows and movies; production of DVDs featuring documentaries, sporting events, music videos, dramas and comedy] |
No |
| 10-24 |
CANC (SJ) |
92057343 |
Nora Elizabeth Pineda Saca and Vanessa Faggiolly
v.
Quesos La Ricura, Ltd. |
Quinn
Taylor
Gorowitz
[Opinion "By the Board" (Linnehan)] |
Res Judicata |
Petition to Cancel Denied (motion for summary judgment granted) |
PERLA BANDERA DE EL SALVADOR [sour cream and cheeses] |
LA PERLA DE ORIENTE [cheeses] |
|
No |
| 10-25 |
OPP |
91169544 |
Allergan, Inc.
v.
KRL Group, Inc. |
Quinn*
Taylor
Adlin |
2(d) |
Opposition Sustained |
BOTOX (three registrations) [pharmaceutical preparations, namely, ophthalmic muscle relaxants] [pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of neurologic disorders] [pharmaceutical preparations for the
treatment of neurological disorders, muscle dystonia, smooth
muscle disorders, autonomic nerve disorders, headaches,
wrinkles, hyperhidrosis, sports injuries, cerebral palsy, spasms, tremors and pain] |
BOTULEX [non-medicated skin care preparations for topical application to the skin] |
|
No |
(1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss; (R)=Request for Reconsideration; (REM)=Decision on Remand (2) *=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
| Mailing and Hand Carry Addresses for Mail to the United States Patent and Trademark Office |
MAILING AND HAND CARRY ADDRESSES FOR
MAIL TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
For most correspondence (e.g., new patent applications) no mail stop
is required because the processing of the correspondence is routine.
If NO mail stop is included on the list below, no mail stop is required
for the correspondence. See the listing under "Mail to be Directed to the
Director of the Patent And Trademark Office" for additional mail stops
for patent-related correspondence. Only the specified type of document
should be placed in an envelope addressed to one of these special mail
stops. If any documents other than the specified type identified for each
special mail stop are addressed to that mail stop, they will be
significantly delayed in reaching the appropriate area for which they are
intended. The mail stop should generally appear as the first line in
the address.
Most correspondence may be submitted electronically. See the USPTO's
Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) internet page
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp for additional
information.
Please address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service
(USPS) as follows:
Mail Stop _____
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
If no Mail Stop is indicated below, the line beginning Mail Stop should
be omitted from the address.
NEW: Effective September 16, 2012, the Mail Stop description for Mail
Stop Ex Parte Reexam is being revised and a new Mail Stop for supplemental
examination requests is being added as Mail Stop Supplemental Examination.
Except correspondence for Maintenance Fee payments, Deposit Account
Replenishments (see 37 CFR 1.25(c)(4)), and Licensing and Review (see 37 CFR
5.1(c) and 5.2(c)), please address patent-related correspondence to be
delivered by other delivery services (Federal Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL,
Laser, Action, Purolator, etc.) as follows:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window, Mail Stop _____
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop
Designations Explanation
Mail Stop 12 Contributions to the Examiner Education Program.
Mail Stop 313(c) Petitions under 37 CFR 1.313(c) to withdraw a
patent application from issue after payment of
the issue fee and any papers associated with the
petition, including papers necessary for a
continuing application or a request for
continued examination (RCE).
Mail Stop AF Amendments and other responses after final
rejection (e.g., a notice of appeal (and any
request for pre-appeal brief conference)),
other than an appeal brief.
Mail Stop Amendment Information disclosure statements, drawings, and
replies to Office actions in patent applications
with or without an amendment to the application or
a terminal disclaimer. (Use Mail Stop AF for
replies after final rejection.)
Mail Stop Appeal For appeal briefs or other briefs under
Brief-Patents part 41 of title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (e.g., former 37 CFR 1.192).
Mail Stop Public comments regarding patent-related
Comments-Patent regulations and procedures.
Mail Stop Conversion Requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) to convert a
nonprovisional application to a provisional
application and requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3)
to convert a provisional application to a
nonprovisional application.
Mail Stop EBC Mail for the Electronic Business Center including:
Certificate Action Forms, Request for Customer
Number, and Requests for Customer Number Data
Change (USPTO Forms PTO-2042, PTO/SB/124A and 125A,
respectively) and Customer Number Upload
Spreadsheets and Cover Letters.
Mail Stop Expedited Only to be used for the initial filing of
Design design applications accompanied by a
request for expedited examination under
37 CFR 1.155.
Mail Stop Express Requests for abandonment of a patent
Abandonment application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.138,
including any petitions under 37 CFR
1.138(c) to expressly abandon an
application to avoid publication of the
application.
Mail Stop Applications under 35 U.S.C. 156 for patent term
Hatch-Waxman PTE extension based on regulatory review of a product
subject to pre-market review by a regulating
agency. This mail stop is also to be used for
additional correspondence regarding the
application for patent term extension under
35 U.S.C. 156. It is preferred that such initial
requests be hand-carried to:
Office of Patent Legal Administration
Room MDW 7D55
600 Dulany Street (Madison Building)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop ILS Correspondence relating to international patent
classification, exchanges and standards.
Mail Stop Issue Fee All communications following the receipt of a
PTOL-85, "Notice of Allowance and Fee(s)
Due," and prior to the issuance of a patent
should be addressed to Mail Stop Issue Fee,
unless advised to the contrary.
Assignments are the exception. Assignments
(with cover sheets) should be faxed to
571-273-0140, electronically submitted
(http://epas.uspto.gov), or submitted in a
separate envelope and sent to Mail Stop
Assignment Recordation Services,
Director - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
as shown below.
Mail Stop L&R All documents pertaining to applications subject
to secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 181, or
national-security classified and required to be
processed accordingly. Such papers, petitions for
foreign filing license pursuant to 37 CFR 5.12(b)
for which expedited handling is requested, and
petitions for retroactive license under 37 CFR
5.25 may also be hand carried to Licensing and
Review:
Technology Center 3600, Office of the Director
Room 4B41
501 Dulany Street (Knox Building)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop Missing Requests for a corrected filing receipt and
Parts replies to OPAP notices such as the Notice
of Omitted Items, Notice to File Corrected
Application Papers, Notice of Incomplete
Application, Notice to Comply with Nucleotide
Sequence Requirements, and Notice to File Missing
Parts of Application, and associated papers and
fees.
Mail Stop MPEP Submissions concerning the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure.
Mail Stop Patent Ext. Applications for patent term extension or
adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 and any
communications relating thereto. This mail stop
is limited to petitions for patent term extension
under 35 U.S.C. 154 for applications filed
between June 8, 1995 and May 29, 2000, and patent
term adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. 154 for
applications filed on or after May 29, 2000.
For applications for patent term extension under
35 U.S.C. 156, use Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE.
For applications for patent term extension or
adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 that are mailed
together with the payment of the issue fee, use
Mail Stop Issue Fee.
Mail Stop Patent Submission of comments regarding search templates.
Search Template
Comments
Mail Stop PCT Mail related to international applications filed
under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in the
international phase and in the national phase
under 35 U.S.C. 371 prior to mailing of a
Notification of Acceptance of Application Under
35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 (Form
PCT/DO/EO/903).
Mail Stop Petition Petitions to be decided by the Office of Petitions,
including petitions to revive and petitions to
accept late payment of issue fees or maintenance
fees.
Mail Stop PGPUB Correspondence regarding publication of patent
applications not otherwise provided, including:
requests for early publication made after filing,
rescission of a non-publication request, corrected
patent application publication, and refund of
publication fee.
Mail Stop Post In patented files: requests for changes of
Issue correspondence address, powers of attorney,
revocations of powers of attorney, withdrawal as
attorney or agent and submissions under 37
CFR 1.501. Designation of, or changes to, a fee
address should be addressed to Mail Stop M
Correspondence. Requests for Certificate of
Correction need no special mail stop, but
should be mailed to the attention of Certificate
of Correction Branch.
Mail Stop RCE Requests for continued examination under
37 CFR 1.114.
Mail Stop Correspondence pertaining to the reconstruction
Reconstruction of lost patent files.
Mail Stop Ex Parte Original requests for Ex Parte Reexamination
Reexam and all subsequent correspondence other
than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)). Effective
September 16, 2012, this mail stop is also to be
used for any papers to be filed in an ex parte
reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of
a supplemental examination proceeding.
Mail Stop Inter Original requests for Inter Partes Reexamination
Partes Reexam and all subsequent correspondence other than
correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)).
Mail Stop Reissue All new and continuing reissue application filings.
Mail Stop Sequence Submission of the computer readable form (CRF) for
applications with sequence listings, when the CRF
is not being filed with the patent application.
Mail Stop Supplemental (Effective September 16, 2012). Requests for
Examination Supplemental Examination, including original
request papers and any other correspondence, other
than correspondence to the Office of the
Solicitor (see 37 CFR Secs. 1.1(a)(3) AND 1.302(c)).
This mail stop is limited to original request papers
and any other papers that are to be filed in a
supplemental examination proceeding. For any papers
to be filed in an ex parte reexamination proceeding
ordered as a result of a supplemental examination
proceeding, use "Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam".
Information for addressing patent-related correspondence may also be found
on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp.
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
Please address trademark-related correspondence to be delivered by the
United States Postal Service (USPS), except documents sent to the Assignment
Services Division for recordation, requests for copies of trademark
documents, and documents directed to the Madrid Processing Unit, as follows:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be mailed to:
Madrid Processing Unit
600 Dulany Street
MDE-7B87
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Deputy Commissioner for
Trademark Policy regarding Letters of Protest must be mailed to:
Letter of Protest
ATTN: Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Policy
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Director regarding the Fastener
Quality Act (FQA) must be mailed to:
Director, USPTO
ATTN: FQA
600 Dulany Street, MDE-10A71
Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Commissioner regarding the
recordal of a Native American Tribal Insignia (NATI) must be mailed to:
Native American Tribal Insignia
ATTN: Commissioner for Trademarks
600 Dulany Street
MDE-10A71
Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
Do NOT send any of the following via USPS certified mail or with a
"signature required" option: submissions to the Madrid Processing Unit,
Letters of Protest, applications for recordal of insignia under the
Fastener Quality Act, notifications of Native American Tribal Insignia.
Trademark-related mail to be delivered by hand or other private courier
or delivery service (e.g., UPS, Federal Express) to the Trademark Operation,
the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be delivered to:
Trademark Assistance Center
Madison East, Concourse Level Room C 55
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Information for addressing trademark-related correspondence may also be found
on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/mail.jsp.
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Please address correspondence to be directed to a mail stop identified
below to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as follows
(unless otherwise instructed):
Mail Stop _____
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Mail Stop
Designations Explanation
Mail Stop 3 Mail for the Office of Personnel from NFC.
Mail Stop 6 Mail for the Office of Procurement.
Mail Stop 8 All papers for the Office of the Solicitor except
communications relating to pending litigation and
disciplinary proceedings; papers relating to pending
litigation in court cases shall be mailed only to
Office of the Solicitor, P.O. Box 15667, Arlington,
VA 22215 and papers related to pending disciplinary
proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge or
the Director shall be mailed only to the Office of
the Solicitor, P.O. Box 16116, Arlington, VA 22215.
Mail Stop 11 Mail for the Electronic Ordering Service (EOS).
Mail Stop 13 Mail for the Employee and Labor Relations Division.
Mail Stop 16 Mail related to refund requests, other than
requests for refund of a patent application
publication fee. Such requests should be directed
to Mail Stop PGPub.
Mail Stop 17 Invoices directed to the Office of Finance.
Mail Stop 24 Mail for the Inventor's Assistance Program,
including complaints about Invention Promoters.
Mail Stop 171 Vacancy Announcement Applications.
Mail Stop Assignment All assignment documents, security interests,
Recordation Services and other documents to be recorded in the
Assignment records. Note that documents with
cover sheets that are faxed to 571-273-0140 or
submitted electronically (http://epas.uspto.gov)
are processed much more quickly than those
submitted by mail.
Mail Stop Document All requests for certified or uncertified
Services copies of patent or trademark documents.
Mail Stop EEO Mail for the Office of Civil Rights.
Mail Stop External Mail for the Office of External Affairs.
Affairs
Mail Stop Interference Communications relating to interferences and
applications and patents involved in interference.
Mail Stop M Mail to designate or change a fee
Correspondence address, or other correspondence related to
maintenance fees, except payments of
maintenance fees in patents. See below for
the address for maintenance fee payments.
Mail Stop OED Mail for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
Maintenance Fee Payments
Unless submitted electronically over the Internet at www.uspto.gov,
payments of maintenance fees in patents should be mailed through the
United States Postal Service to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979070
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Alternatively, payment of maintenance fees in patents (Attn: Maintenance
Fee) using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier may be made to:
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Attn: Maintenance Fee
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Deposit Account Replenishments
To send payment to replenish deposit accounts, send the payments through
the United States Postal Service to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979065
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Alternatively, deposit account replenishments (Attn: Deposit Accounts)
using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.)
may be delivered to:
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Attn: Deposit Accounts
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
Information abount deposit account replenishments may also be found on
the USPTO's web site at
http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/cfo/finance/Deposit_Account_
Replenishments.jsp
Top of Notices
| Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent and Trademark Resource Centers |
Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for
Public Use in Patent and Trademark Resource Centers
The following libraries, designated as Patent and Trademark Resource Centers
(PTRCs), provide public access to patent and trademark information received
from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This
information includes all issued patents, all registered trademarks, the
Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, search tools such
as the Cassis CD-ROM suite of products and supplemental information in a
variety of formats including online, optical disc, microfilm and paper.
Each PTRC also offers access to USPTO resources on the Internet and to
PubWEST (Web based examiner search tool), a system used by patent examiners
that is not available on the Internet.
Staff assistance and training is provided in the use of this information.
All information is available free of charge. However, there may be charges
associated with the use of photocopying and related services. Hours of
service to the public vary, and anyone contemplating use of these
collections at a particular library is urged to contact that library in
advance about its services and hours to avoid inconvenience.
State Name of Library Telephone Contact
Alabama Auburn University Libraries (334) 844-1737
Birmingham Public Library (205) 226-3620
Alaska Fairbanks: Keith B. Mather Library,
Geophysical Institute,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks (907) 474-2636
Arizona Phoenix, Arizona
State Library of Arizona
Arizona State Library Archives
and Public Records (602) 926-3870
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) 236-5800
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
W. Frank Steely Library
Northern Kentucky University
Highland Heights, Kentucky (859) 572-5457
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
Michigan Technological
University, Van Pelt and
Opie Library, Houghton (906) 487-2500
Minnesota Hennepin County Library
Minneapolis Central Library (612) 543-8000
Mississippi Jackson: Mississippi Library
Commission (601) 961-4111
Missouri Kansas City: Linda Hall Library (816) 363-4600
Ext. 724
St. Louis Public Library (314) 352-2900
Montana Butte: Montana Tech Library of
the University of Montana (406) 496-4281
Nebraska Lincoln: Engineering Library,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (402) 472-3411
New Hampshire Concord: University of New
Hampshire School of Law (603) 513-5130
Nevada Reno: University of Nevada, Reno,
Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center (775) 784-6500
Ext. 257
New Jersey Newark Public Library (973) 733-7779
Piscataway: Library of Science and
Medicine, Rutgers University (732) 445-2895
New 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 |
11/24/2012 |
| |
1620 |
09/30/2012 |
| |
1630 |
08/03/2012 |
| |
1640 |
10/15/2012 |
| |
1650 |
10/09/2012 |
| |
1660 |
06/25/2012 |
| |
TOTAL |
09/30/2012 |
| |
|
|
| 1700 |
CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND DESIGNS |
| |
1710 |
01/28/2012 |
| |
1720 |
05/22/2012 |
| |
1730 |
07/13/2012 |
| |
1740 |
05/25/2012 |
| |
1750 |
02/24/2012 |
| |
1760 |
08/12/2012 |
| |
1770 |
03/26/2012 |
| |
1780 |
05/13/2012 |
| |
1790 |
08/15/2012 |
| |
TOTAL |
05/13/2012 |
| |
|
|
| 2100 |
COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOFTWARE |
| |
2110 |
04/04/2012 |
| |
2120 |
01/16/2012 |
| |
2140 |
01/31/2012 |
| |
2150 |
07/22/2012 |
| |
2160 |
07/10/2012 |
| |
2170 |
01/13/2012 |
| |
2180 |
03/13/2012 |
| |
2190 |
12/19/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
03/16/2012 |
| |
|
|
| 2400 |
NETWORKING, MULTIPLEXING, CABLE AND SECURITY |
| |
2410 |
04/25/2012 |
| |
2420 |
09/24/2012 |
| |
2430 |
08/06/2012 |
| |
2440 |
03/29/2012 |
| |
2450 |
04/19/2012 |
| |
2460 |
03/01/2012 |
| |
2470 |
03/01/2012 |
| |
2480 |
12/01/2011 |
| |
2490 |
06/28/2012 |
| |
TOTAL |
04/16/2012 |
| |
|
|
| 2600 |
COMMUNICATIONS |
| |
2610 |
12/10/2011 |
| |
2620 |
12/16/2011 |
| |
2630 |
05/19/2012 |
| |
2640 |
06/07/2012 |
| |
2650 |
03/22/2012 |
| |
2660 |
04/25/2012 |
| |
2670 |
02/27/2012 |
| |
2680 |
04/07/2012 |
| |
2690 |
12/22/2011 |
| |
TOTAL |
03/22/2012 |
| |
|
|
| 2800
|
SEMICONDUCTORS/MEMORY, CIRCUITS/MEASURING AND TESTING, OPTICS/PHOTOCOPYING |
| |
2810 |
08/22/2012 |
| |
2820 |
09/12/2012 |
| |
2830 |
04/07/2012 |
| |
2840 |
04/16/2012 |
| |
2850 |
04/10/2012 |
| |
2860 |
10/13/2011 |
| |
2870 |
05/07/2012 |
| |
2880 |
05/31/2012 |
| |
2890 |
08/25/2012 |
| |
TOTAL |
05/16/2012 |
| |
|
|
| 2900
|
|
| |
2910 |
12/09/2012 |
| |
TOTAL |
12/09/2012 |
| |
|
|
| 3600
|
TRANSPORTATION, CONSTRUCTION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LICENSE AND REVIEW
|
| |
3610 |
07/31/2012 |
| |
3620 |
04/19/2012 |
| |
3630 |
08/12/2012 |
| |
3640 |
03/29/2012 |
| |
3650 |
03/22/2012 |
| |
3660 |
06/03/2012 |
| |
3670 |
06/03/2012 |
| |
3680 |
05/25/2012 |
| |
3690 |
10/21/2012 |
| |
TOTAL |
06/07/2012 |
| |
|
|
| 3700
|
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS |
| |
3710 |
06/28/2012 |
| |
3720 |
02/06/2012 |
| |
3730 |
04/19/2012 |
| |
3740 |
08/29/2011 |
| |
3750 |
02/03/2012 |
| |
3760 |
06/13/2012 |
| |
3770 |
05/07/2012 |
| |
3780 |
05/25/2012 |
| |
TOTAL |
02/24/2012 |
| |
|
|
| |
1 Report last updated on 10-31-2013. |
Top of Notices
Top of Notices November 26, 2013
