Posts Tagged: "patent office"

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced on January 10, 2012 that it has concluded a five-year lease agreement through the U.S. General Services Administration’s (GSA) Great Lakes Region for a 31,000 square foot space to be located at 300 River Place Dr. in Detroit, Michigan 48207. The building, listed on the National Historic Registry, was the former home to Parke-Davis Laboratories as well as the Stroh’s Brewery Headquarters. Anticipated opening is July 2012.

Early in my career, I encountered a series of approximately 20 patent applications that were assigned to a small number of different art units. During the time it took to bring the cases to resolution, I kept detailed notes of my experiences prosecuting each case. It eventually occurred to me that the information I’d collected might be useful to other prosecutors working with the same examiners and/or art units. I wondered whether my colleagues, by reviewing my notes and gaining insight from my experiences, might be able to accomplish resolution more effectively and efficiently. However, the subjective and anecdotal nature of my notes limited their practicality. Recognizing that fact, I began to consider strategies for facilitating ways in which practitioners could more effectively share their prosecution experiences with one another.

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.

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.

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to announce that Albert Tramposch, Administrator for Policy and External Affairs at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), willresume his former post as AIPLA Deputy Executive Director for International and Regulatory Affairs, beginning January 16, 2012.

The question, however, is whether this increased inventive activity is sustainable in light of the overwhelming backlogs faced by Patent Offices around the world. It is great to have a lot of inventive activity and interest in obtaining patents. That shows that there is increased interest in business activities because few, if any, pursue a patent for the sole purpose of obtaining a patent. There is almost universally some business goal with associated hopes, dreams and potential positive impact for the economy. Whether this increased innovative activity can and will be something that produces an associated economic boon remains to be seen and is largely, if not completely, dependent on the political machinations of those in Washington, DC and other capitals around the world. Talk about a depressing though!

The CAFC’s split panel decision this past week – In re Construction Equipment Company – extends the PTO’s authority to reexamine a patent even where its validity has already been adjudicated and confirmed by the courts. Yet the CAFC once again fails to explain how a PTO reexamination finding that a patent is invalid effects an earlier judicial determination that the same patent is valid and infringed.

Beginning January 31, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office will update the content of the patent registration examination to cover two new rules issued September 26, 2011 that relate to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. These new rules permit prioritized examination of patent applications (Track I) and revise the standard for granting inter partes reexamination requests. Additionally, the patent registration examination will also include questions concerning the November 22, 2011 rules governing practice in ex parte appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

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.