Posts in USPTO

What if you could have a crystal ball looking inside the United States Patent and Trademark Office to easily determine an array of statistical information related to a particular Art Unit or even a specific Patent Examiner? Can you imagine the types of strategic consultations you could engage in with clients? Clients hate being surprised with additional fees and unexplained and/or unexpected delays. What if you could with a few clicks of your mouse find out all kinds of information about a Patent Examiner and/or Art Unit? The amount of cases requiring an RCE, the average number of office actions, how often appeals are successful, how long it takes on average to get a patent, among much more information? Thanks to a new system created by patent attorneys Chris Holt and Joseph Kelly — the PatentCore™ system — you can obtain actionable and immediate intelligence on any patent examiner and on any Art Unit.

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.

My list is heavily dominated by California locations, and there are probably a couple surprises, but Albuquerque, New Mexico and Syracuse, New York? I make the case for the leading candidates and a few that definitely deserve short list consideration. In addition to the 9 criteria set out by the USPTO I have added a 10th of my own. If you look at the criteria it is hard to understand why Detroit was selected. Detroit doesn’t have a reputation as a particularly livable city, so will it really help retain and recruit examiners? It seems that there were some other considerations at play, and I can’t help but notice that traditionally blue Michigan is a swing state in 2012. With this in mind, I have a hunch that politics will play a big part of the awarding of satellite patent offices. Therefore, I am going to add a tenth criteria – From a purely political standpoint does the location serve a purpose?

The USPTO always also points out that PPH agreements increase patent quality. That is likely true, but probably not as directly as you might expect. As far as I can tell the benefit to quality comes as the result of primarily three things. First, it takes less time to examine a patent application that has arrived to the Office of Second Filing (OSF) because allowable matter has already been identified somewhere else, which substantially focuses the prosecution of these applications. Second, by requiring less time on some applications there will be more time for other applications, at least in theory. Finally, there is no doubt a self-selection that goes on from the applicants side, which means better patent applications, and the overwhelming number of those using the PPH accept the claims they get and do not circle back for more claims, or broader claims, with supplemental filings.

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.

By eliminating certain briefing requirements the PTO hopes to reduce the number of non-compliant appeal briefs and the number of non-compliant examiner’s answers. Non-compliant briefs and non-compliant examiner’s answers needlessly delay consideration of an appeal by the Board, which contributes to the long delays applicants on the appeals track face. Delays due to non-compliant briefs and answers are particularly unconscionable given the average pendency for an application that must proceed to appeal, which as of October 2011 stands at 81.8 months! That is nearly 7 years from the filing of an application to resolution if action by the Board is required. When the non-compliance is minor or relates to information the Board could well obtain for itself right in the Office files it is downright nonsensical to interject delay by kicking non-compliant briefs and examiner answers. Hopefully these new rules will help at least a little bit for some applicants.

Many people situated variously within and outside of the patent system of the United States urged the adoption of first-to-file. There are, however, many questions about the scope and possible impact of the AIA. Exactly how it will all play out remains to be seen. A significant question is what will be the likely impact of the AIA upon the operations of the USPTO, an organization that has been so greatly over-burdened in recent times. Anyone interested in reading this is likely old enough to have heard the old saying “Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.” Now we have it.

Lovin has received exceptional attention in the patent law blogosphere. In short, Lovin permits an examiner to wait until an examiner’s answer to explain how and why dependent claims are rejected. What’s worse, Lovin permits the examiner to require the applicant to provide a substantive reason for patentability before the examiner explains the rejection. The Federal Circuit is considering whether to hear In re Lovin en banc, and indeed they should rehear Lovin en banc. The Federal Circuit should defend the applicant’s right to receive a meaningful explanation of claim rejections before the applicant is required to rebut the rejections.

In view of the growing need for innovator companies to obtain patent protection in multiple Patent Office around the world simultaneously, leaders of the most heavily used patent regimes continue to seek ways to streamline the process and engage in work sharing. Heads of the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – collectively known as the Trilateral Offices – pushed forward earlier this week with efforts to further harmonize global patent systems. The Trilateral Offices agreed on steps to enhance efficiency in patent-related procedures.

Consider the title of this article a very mild way of stating my frustration with the Patent Office. Yesterday, as I was trying to file a simple document using the Patent Office’s Electronic System, I kept getting an authentication error when I was trying to log on. I could not figure it out. I know that my digital certificate is up to date and I know that I had the right password. What in the world could possibly be wrong?

There has to be some patent attorneys living in the portions of Montgomery and Prince George Counties represented by Congressman Van Hollen. There has to be some patent law firms in Dallas with ties to Congressman Hensarling and/or the 5th District of Texas. I know for sure there are patent attorneys in Ohio, Arizona, Massachusetts and Washington. These are the folks who are tasked with the burden of finding $1.2 trillion to submit to Congress for a vote, and stakeholders in the patent system should reach out to them and express their views on funding for the Patent Office. Businesses, firms and individuals within the relevant Districts and States will likely have the most influence, but anyone and everyone should stand up and be heard. Who knows when, or if, there will ever be an opportunity as good as this to end fee diversion.

Effectively immediately Pappas is the new Chief of Staff and the immediate past Chief of Staff, Drew Hirschfeld, will assume the role of Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, which for a long time has been a key role within senior management at the USPTO.

As the Super Committee struggles to find nearly $1.2 trillion in revenue or savings, they should take a serious look at the proposal to give the US Patent and Trademark Office greater control over its budget and fees by creating a revolving fund. At the request of many in the patent community, Senator Jon Kyl – a member of the Super Committee – is proposing that the Super Committee include the revolving fund The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has informally indicated that it will score the Kyl provision as saving $700 million over 10 years. By taking the USPTO out of the regular appropriations process, the creation of a revolving fund will take approximately $700 million off budget and help the Super Committee reach their goal. And –besides being a budget saver – the revolving fund is good policy.

Under the Paris Route PPH pilot program, an Office of Second Filing (OSF) may utilize the search and examination results of a national application filed in the Office of First Filing (OFF) in a corresponding application filed under the Paris Convention in the OSF. The PCT-PPH pilot program will use positive international written opinions and international preliminary examination reports developed within the framework of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.