Posts Tagged: "patent prosecution"

As a patent practitioner and corporate strategist speaking at IPWatchdog’s Patent Prosecution & Portfolio Management Masters program next week, on a panel titled “Strategic Portfolio Acquisition and Maintenance; Ensuring Business Objectives Align with Patent Strategy,” I decided to gather some resources that help organize potential business objectives and questions that can be answered so that patent strategy, portfolio maintenance, and portfolio acquisition are able to be aligned with a business strategy. Patent strategy is only a part of an overall intellectual property strategy. The intellectual property strategy should be part of a business strategy – although it often is not.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) yesterday republished its Request for Comments (RFC) on the establishment of an additional USPTO Regional Office in the southeast region and four new community outreach offices. The original RFC included a bad link for the comments form, so the Office published a new link and also extended the deadline for comments from July 11, 2023, to July 17. The RFC is in response to provisions of the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022 (UAIA), which was introduced in September 2021 and signed into law in December 2022, and requires the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to establish another satellite office within three years of the bill’s enactment somewhere in the Southeastern region of the nation, which the bill specifically defines as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

Prioritized examination, known sometimes as “Track One,” has been in place at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for the past 12 years. The program, launched in September 2011 provides applicants with greater control over how quickly a patent application will be examined and offers a fast-track to an issued U.S. utility or plant patent that would be otherwise unattainable. For those wishing to obtain a patent quickly, prioritized examination is the answer—perhaps the only answer. Prioritized examination gives an application special status enjoyed throughout the life of the application in exchange for the payment of an additional fee due at the time of filing. This payment for special treatment as a prioritized application moves the application to the front of the examination line, regardless of whether the application is an originally filed nonprovisional patent application, a continuation application, a continuation-in-part, a divisional application or even a request for continue examination (RCE). The additional fee puts the application on fast track, guaranteeing a final decision from an examiner within one year, typically within six months or less.

There is no question that artificial intelligence (AI) has led to a monumental shift in intellectual property law and strategy. Most companies and attorneys are familiar with the current unsettled legal landscape as it relates to inventorship laws for intellectual property—namely, that inventions and works that are created through AI may or may not be eligible for patent or copyright protection, depending on the circumstances. But quietly in the background, AI has already been changing—and continues to change—how IP portfolios are created and managed. Below are five key ways that AI is changing how companies handle their IP portfolios. 

Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark (USPTO) published a pair of documents in the Federal Register regarding due dates on new document formatting requirements for patent applications filed with the Office. The USPTO’s decision to delay the implementation of new filing fees for non-DOCX patent applications highlights issues that the agency has had in complying with the terms of the Paperwork Reduction Act by failing to properly represent to the Office of Management and Budget the burden that the USPTO’s proposed rule changes will have on agency stakeholders.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Federal Register Notice today implementing the suggestions it received on expanding the patent bar following its October 18, 2022, request for public input on the topic. The USPTO last year requested public comment on two FRNs that attempted to expand opportunities to practice in front of the agency. The Office said at the time it planned to “expand the admission criteria of our patent bar to encourage broader participation and to keep up with the ever-evolving technology and related teachings that qualify someone to practice before the USPTO.”

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to the Federal Register that proposes a separate design patent practitioner bar. Design patent practitioners would only be able to participate in design patent proceedings. The USPTO is seeking public comments on the changes through August 14, 2023. Currently, there is only one patent bar that oversees those who practice in patent matters before the USPTO, including utility, plant, and design patents. Those already registered to practice in patent matters before the USPTO would not be impacted by the change.

The patent examination process is subject to the well-known issue of hindsight bias. Issues with hindsight bias come up when a patent examiner, without realizing it, uses their knowledge of the invention itself to reject a claim as being obvious. If left unchecked, these issues can lead to incorrect determinations of obviousness, which prolong prosecution, cause unnecessary ex parte appeals to be filed, and force unfair narrowing of independent claims. However, even when an examiner learns about an invention that seems straightforward, human emotions and subjectivity can make it difficult for that examiner to appreciate that the invention was not obvious based on prior art that existed before the invention.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) promises to improve information gathering and reduce costs in a myriad of economic processes. Since patent law is essentially about recording and accessing information, tools like ChatGPT are great candidates to ease the tasks of patent professionals. As of today, it is not possible to trust GAI tools with confidential information, since any prompt provided to these tools does not guarantee confidentiality and data protection, unless an entity creates its own sandbox with customized implementations that protect the data.

By now, unless you live in a total IP blackout zone, you’ve heard about the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC). Your friends in Europe, particularly, have been insistent on informing you, whether you want to know or not, with daily (if not hourly) email blasts, since January of this year. But most of what they tell you misses the forest for the trees. Here’s why. Let’s begin at the beginning. Aside from your client telling you to, why do you file a patent application? The only answer is: it is a hedge as to the future. The reason for that is that you and they have no way of knowing at the time of filing whether this will be the “next big thing” or just another “thing”. You might say or even believe that filing an application is about “protection” or potential “revenue”. But it isn’t.

U.S. companies and inventors still filed more patent applications with the European Patent Office (EPO) than any other country, according to its Patent Index 2022, which was released today. The index showed that U.S. patent applications numbered 48,088, a 2.9% increase from 2021. However, China’s filings jumped by 15.1% over 2021, keeping it in fourth place out of the top five countries of origin for applications and narrowing the gap between it and Japan, the number three filer.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) publishes the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (currently electronically, but spanning thousands of pages in printed form) to provide examiners and patent practitioners with guidance on the patent statute, USPTO regulations, and patent prosecution practices and procedures. USPTO regulations are promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires a process that includes publication of proposed rules and a public comment period and are binding on the public. The 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) strengthened the USPTO’s already-considerable policymaking powers. In a recent law review article addressing the USPTO’s post-AIA policymaking powers, William Neer recognized the USPTO’s AIA-empowered potential to engage in retroactive substantive rulemaking and determined that the USPTO promulgated more rules post-AIA than it did pre-AIA. This article discusses substantive MPEP procedural changes implemented retroactively by the USPTO.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sent out an email alert on March 16, 2023 about its transition to eGrants for patents. This change to electronic patent grants as opposed to paper patents is in accord with the USPTO’s continued changes to an all-electronic and no paper system. Prior changes have included all-electronic office actions, and of course the USPTO’s EFS-Web system, in which filings are made electronically with the USPTO. One important thing to realize is that a patent may grant very soon after payment of the issue fee, so if the Applicant desires to have a continuation, continuation-in-part (CIP), and/or divisional application filed (all such applications are referred to as “continuing applications”), they should really do so before or at the same time the issue fee is paid, in order to maintain the pendency with the to-be-issued patent.

In early March, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published the final batch of comments for its “Request for Comments on USPTO Initiatives to Ensure the Robustness and Reliability of Patent Rights.” In total, the USPTO received 227 comments, after extending the deadlines for submissions twice. There were some concerns that the repeated extensions of the submission deadline created uncertainty. When IPWatchdog reached out to the USPTO, the organization had no official comment other than to note that a number of stakeholders had asked for more time to finalize and submit comments, and the Office wanted to hear from as many parties as possible.

Standard-documentation from online sources maintained by standard setting organizations (SSOs) is usually an important source of relevant prior art. Such prior art can include technical specifications, technical reports, change requests, liasioning statements, work item descriptions, study documents, recommendations and RFCs. However, accessing this documentation available in SSO websites is often not easy.