Posts Tagged: "request for continued examination"

Knowing when to give up on a patent application is one of the most critical questions facing for any patent applicant… When faced with the decision regarding whether to file an RCE or file an Appeal, the desire to not give up and to hopefully obtain a patent can easily lead any application to elect to the file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). This is true for the cost reasons already stated, but also because filing an RCE you will undoubtedly get treatment much faster than going on the appeal track, and there is always hope that additional time working with the patent examiner will yield patentable claims. Of course, sometimes filing that next RCE is going almost certainly accomplish nothing.

In Novartis, this Federal Circuit panel (opinion by Judge Taranto, joined by Judges Newman and Dyk) ruled that the second exclusion from PTA in the “B period” portion (i.e., 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B)(ii)) excludes from PTA any time consumed by a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), even if that RCE is filed more than 3 years after the “actual filing date” of the patent application. Not only is this ruling a questionable interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B)(ii) for reasons I’ll discuss below, but it creates an unfortunate, and surely unintended impact on RCEs specifically, as well as continuation practice generally. And the more I dig into the PTA statute, the more problematical this ruling in Novartis becomes.

Last week the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced in the Federal Register that it would modified the After Final Consideration Pilot Program (AFCP) to create the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0). The goal of AFCP 2.0 is much the same as it was when the USPTO initially introduced the precursor AFCP. According to the USPTO, the goal of AFCP 2.0 is to reduce pendency by reducing the number of RCEs and encouraging increased collaboration between the applicant and the examiner to effectively advance the prosecution of the application. There are, however, three differences between old and new AFCP.

The problem of the RCE backlog is a function of the prosecution dynamic and lack of meaningful oversight into areas where RCEs are common and patents issue only after going on the appeal track. Still, in the press release issued by the USPTO recently discussing the RCE backlog and USPTO Outreach, Acting Director Teresa Rea said: “One of the purposes of this outreach effort is not to eliminate RCE practice, but to enable applicants to better understand the full range of alternative options we have available during the examination process.” This sounds a like the USPTO is blaming the patent community for the RCE backlog. Yes, there are ways to avoid filing RCEs but they all require patent examiners that are willing to participate in a meaningful way. What about the Art Units where examiners practically refuse to issue patents?

The backlog of unexamined patent applications was down over 15.1% in September 2012, compared with October 2010. At the same time, however, the number of unexamined RCE filings grew 95.56%, after peaking at 103.93% in August 2012. In the column above labeled “Totals,” I added the number of unexamined patent application with the number of unexamined RCE filings. When you consider all of these unexamined filings the progress of the USPTO is more modest. There is not a 15.1% dip, but rather a 8.05% dip in unexamined patent filings over this interval. It seems rather clear that the USPTO has traded an unacceptably high unexamined patent application backlog for a still unacceptably high but better unexamined patent application backlog PLUS a ridiculous RCE backlog.

On November 1, 2012, a federal district court (EDVA) issued an order that may have profound consequences for calculations of patent term adjustment (“PTA”). The district court believed that the PTA promised by 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B)(i), which relates to Requests for Continued Examination, only comes into play if a RCE is filed within the three-year period from the application’s filing date. Before discussing the court’s order, let me review the law and regulations about PTA—which can be complex. In 1994, Congress altered the calculation of U.S. patent terms. Previously, Congress set the patent term as 17 years from patent issuance. After the change, Congress set the patent term as generally 20 years from the filing of the patent application.

All and all this seems like a positive development. If you do provide a claim set that defines the invention from broad to narrow it seems extremely likely that at least some claims could be obtained in a case given that amendments can now be filed if they place the application in condition for allowance by adding one or more new limitations that require only a limited amount of further consideration or search. Assuming that the Patent Examiners do search the disclosure, like they are supposed to, and not just the initial claim set, allowable matter should be present and allowed to be added to the case. This should be quite beneficial to independent inventors, small businesses and start-ups who absolutely, positively need to get patents as quick as possible to continue to raise funds from investors.

Director Kappos was extremely gracious with his time, speaking to me on the record for nearly 90 minutes. He answered every one of my questions without dodging, and even spent time to discuss several things I did not raise. Truthfully, I could have spoken with Director Kappos for many additional hours, but I believe you will find that neither I or he shied away from any topics. We chatted about the problems with lengthy application delays, the increasing discontent within the patent bar regarding RCE filings, the America Invents Act and the challenges he faces getting 6000+ patent examiners on the same page with policy initiatives, among many other things.