Posts Tagged: "federal register"

The questions asked of the USPTO, and specifically Director Kappos, related to the USPTO interpretation of the grace period in 102(b)(1)(B). At one point, in response to a question, Direct Kappos responded: “We are reading the words just the way that Gene Quinn suggested in his comment.” I do not claim that everything below is in 100% alignment with the USPTO interpretation, but I write now to expand upon my remarks. We have a first to file system with an American flavor, not a first to publish system as so many seem to think.

For well over a year I have been explaining that under the US first to file system the inventor will still have a personal grace-period, but that the grace-period is personal and relates only to the inventor’s own disclosures, or the disclosures of others who have derived from the inventor. Disclosures of third-parties who independently arrived at the invention will be used against the inventor. Now that the USPTO has come out with examination guidelines we find out the truth. I was right all along.

It almost boggles the mind, but this Federal Register Notice explains that the USPTO is undertaking a study to determine the feasibility of requiring economically significant patents to be kept under lock and key. Yes, pursuant to a request from our brilliant members of Congress the USPTO is going to study whether economically significant patents should be placed under a secrecy order, thereby scuttling any opportunity for the innovation to be patented until such time as it is no longer economically significant.

At this time of the year many attorneys and agents are not paying all that much attention to the rules and requests for comments coming out of the Patent Office. Truthfully, with the number of changes that have taken place under the Kappos run Patent Office and the enormity of the America Invents Act many patent attorneys, including myself, are worn out! Add to that the typical end of the year matters for clients and our own businesses and it is easy to miss announcements in November and December.

The USPTO sees the establishment of satellite offices as an important component of their continued efforts to recruit and retain a highly skilled workforce, reduce patent application pendency and improve quality, and enhance communication between the USPTO and the patent applicant community. It is easy to understand why satellite offices would enhance efforts to recruit and retain patent examiners, after all there is a limited pool of technically sophisticated applicants and employees willing to locate in Northern Virginia and endure the ridiculous traffic, among other things. Thus, satellite offices should make a position as a patent examiner more attractive, at least if locations such as Denver or California are considered, as they should be.

In view of Therasense, the Patent Office is proposing to revise the materiality standard for the duty to disclose information to the Office in patent applications and reexamination proceedings. It is the belief of the Patent Office that the Therasense standard will reduce the frequency with which applicants and practitioners are being charged with inequitable conduct, thereby reducing the incentive for applicants to submit marginally relevant information to the Office. Thus, the Therasense standard should curtail the practice of filing Information Disclosure Statements that refer to boxes full of prior art that is of marginal significance, allowing patent examiners to focus on that prior art that is most relevant. The USPTO adopting the Therasense standard could, as a result, lead to improved patent quality and even a streamlining of prosecution in at least some cases.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking public comment on a proposal to streamline the procedures governing ex parte and inter partes patent reexamination proceedings. The timing of this announcement, which appeared in the Federal Register on April 25, 2011, seems curious to me. With patent reform circulating in the House of Representatives does this signal a belief that on the part of the Patent Office that patent reform is dead? The patent reform passed by the Senate and that being considered by the House has revised post-grant review proceedings, so wouldn’t it be wise to wait to revamp reexamination until after patent reform passes, that is if it seems likely to pass?

Of course, it will be most useful for patent examiners to review and truly internalize the guidelines, but there is some excellent language here that is quite practitioner and applicant friendly. There is explanation of situations where a rejection should be given, but more importantly from a practitioner standpoint will be those examples and illustrations of when a rejection is not appropriate. The discussions of what an appropriate Office Action should include will no doubt be particularly useful as well as practitioners try and hold examiners feet to the fire to provide the type of information required in order to truly appreciate any problems identified by the examiner and how to appropriately respond. Indeed, it is my guess that patent practitioners will be yelling “AMEN” from the top of their lungs as they read various portions of the Guidelines.