skgf_presentation_what you need to know about the proposed uspto rule changes and other reform...
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
507723_1.ppt
What You Need to Know about the What You Need to Know about the Proposed USPTO Rule Changes and Proposed USPTO Rule Changes and
Other Reform InitiativesOther Reform Initiatives
Michele A. Cimbala Ph.D., Esq.
2
USPTO Initiatives
Overview
• Backdrop at the USPTO
• Proposed Rules Changes and Practice Recommendations
• Potential Impact
• Other Reform Initiatives
3
USPTO Initiatives
Changes on the Ground Already
New campusHired 1000 new examiners in 2005Central Re-exam Unit formed July 2005Second-Layer Review – extended office-wideEnhanced search toolsPatent Academy changesExaminer re-certificationTelecommuting/HotelingWeb-based electronic filing (EFS-web) released March 16, 2006
4
USPTO Initiatives
Changes on the Ground Already
Reduced Allowance rate58.7% Allowance rate office-wide
(down from traditional 80%+ rate)11% Allowance rate in business methods
Increased PendencyBut dramatic reduction in pendency for cases on appeal
5
Problems from PTO Perspective:
• Pendency• Keeping Up with Growth• Quality• Past Solutions Failed
6
First Action Pendency by Art Areas
30.9
52.1
24.3
50.4
39.7
30.8
27.7
Pendency1 (months)
3723 – Tools & Metal Working
3612 – Land Vehicles
2833 – Electrical Connectors
2651 – Dynamic Information Storage & Retrieval
2125 – Manufacturing Control Systems and Chemical/ Mechanical/Electrical Control
1752 – Radiation Imagery
1620 – Heterocyclic Compounds and Uses
Low Pendency Art Areas
10.9
12.0
8.8
16.1
20.0
12.1
16.9
Pendency1
(months)
3731 – Surgery: Cutting, Clamping, Suturing
3628 – Finance & Banking, Accounting
2836 – Control Circuits
2617 – Interactive Video Distribution
2123 – Simulation and Modeling, Emulation of Computer Components
1743 – Analytic Chemistry & Wave Energy
1640 – Immunology, Receptor/ Ligands, Cytokines, Recombinant Hormones, and Molecular Biology
High Pendency Art Areas
1“Average 1st action pendency” is the average age from filing to first action for a newly filed application, completed during October-December 2005.
7
Inventory by Art Examples
38-47
25-130
22
111
46
34
38-51
Months of Inventory*
3742 – Thermal and Combustion Technology
3651 – Conveying
2831 – Electrical Conductors
2651, 2653 – Information Storage and Retrieval
2125 – Manufacturing Control Systems and Chemical/ Mechanical/Electrical Control
1734 – Adhesive Bonding and Coating Apparatus
1620 – Organic Chemistry
Low Inventory Art Areas
8
12
8
12
10
10
15
Months of Inventory*
3731 and 3737 – Medical Instruments, Diagnostic Equipment
3620 – Business Methods
2836 – Control Circuits
2611 – Interactive Video Distribution
2127 – Computer Task Management
1753 – Radiation Imagery
1614, 1615, and 1617 – Drugs, Bio-affecting and Body Treatment
High Inventory Art Areas
*The number of months it would take to reach a first action on the merits (e.g., an action addressing patentability issues) on a new application filed in July 2005 at today’s production rate. Today’s production rate means that there are no changes in production due to hiring, attrition, changes to examination processing or examination efficiencies, and that applications are taken up in the order of filing in the given art unit/area. Of course, USPTO is taking aggressive steps to ensure changes that will significantly lower the inventory rates in high-inventory art areas.
8
Technology Center Application Inventory
1 “New Application inventory” is the number of new applications designated or assigned to a technology center awaiting a first action. 2 “Overall Pending Application inventory” is the total number of applications designated or assigned to a technology center in an active status. Includes new applications; rejected awaiting response; amended; under appeal or interference; suspended; reexams and allowed applications awaiting grant publication.
*Total inventory includes applications not assigned to a particular TC, awaiting processing either pre- or post-examination.
27,599809,323108,039101,097137,458138,822102,440105,44795,006Overall Pending Applications2
9/30/2004
18,451508,87865,00556,73877,65197,38071,77863,92355,402New Applications1
9/30/2004
38,104932,300130,168117,045159,687167,721117,728120,767107,647
Overall Pending Applications2
9/30/2005
24,534586,58083,22570,35494,425115,58576,52972,69762,644New Applications1
9/30/2005
3700 Total* Design360028002600210017001600
9
Technology Centers Rework* Statistics
* Rework first actions are those actions that are in a Continuing (CONs and CIPs), RCE, CPA or 129(a) applications (excludes Divisionals).
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005TC
Summary% FAOM Rework
% FAOM Rework
% FAOM Rework
% FAOM Rework
1600 36.4% 39.7% 40.3% 42.4%1700 25.2% 26.9% 27.1% 28.0%2100 23.9% 24.0% 24.6% 28.2%2600 24.8% 24.2% 24.3% 25.4%2800 19.1% 22.0% 24.9% 24.1%3600 17.7% 21.2% 23.2% 28.5%3700 22.2% 25.1% 24.0% 28.1%UPR 23.2% 25.3% 26.1% 28.3%
10
USPTO Statement of the Problem
Why focus on continuing applications and RCEs?
Each continuing application or RCE:
• Requires the USPTO to delay taking up a “new” application, thus contributing to the backlog of unexamined applications
• Defeats the public notice function of the patent claims in a initial patent since it allows the possible issuance of multiple patents
11
USPTO Statement of the Problem
When applicants are allowed to generate a string of continued examination filings from an initial application, the exchange between examiners and applicants:
– becomes less beneficial and
– suffers from “diminishing returns” as each of the second and subsequent continuing applications or requests for continued examination in a series is filed
12
USPTO Initiatives
Rule Making Proposals
– Limits to Continuation Practice (comments due May 3, 2006)
– Limits to Claim Examination (comments due May 3, 2006)
13
Vision
• Proposed Rule Changes goal:– free up examiner time now spent on re-work so
that cases waiting for a first office action are examined sooner.
• Potential undesired impact:– Increased complexity of prosecution– Increased cost– Less protection
14
First Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
• (1) “Changes to Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice, and Applications containing Patentably Indistinct Claims,” 71 Fed. Reg. 48 (January 3, 2006)
15
(1) Continuing Examination
• The revised rules require that a second (or subsequent) continued examination filing be supported by a showing as to why the amendment, argument, or evidence “could not have been” previously submitted.
• The showing is in the form of a petition that the USPTO estimates would take 2 hours to prepare. (Proposed 37 C.F.R. § §1.78(d)(1)(iv) and 1.114(f))
16
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.78
• Definition: A “Continuing Application” is a continuation, divisional or continuation-in-part (CIP) application.
– Applications that claim benefit of a provisional application or priority to a foreign application are excluded from the definition.
17
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(d)(1)(i)
– A nonprovisional application that is a continuation or CIP application may claim benefit of only a single prior-filed application and even then only if:
– Benefit of the prior-filed application is not claimed in any other nonprovisional application other than a divisional application; and
– NO request for continued examination (i.e., NO RCE) had been filed in the prior application.
18
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(d)(1)(i) example
B nonprov C nonprov↑Con/CIP ↑Divisional only
________________________↑
A (nonprov/no RCE)
Both B and C can claim benefit of ANo showing needed for either B or C
19
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(d)(1)(iii) example
C↑ Con/CIPB (no RCE)↑ DivA (Restriction/Lack of Unity)
Claims in B are a non-elected group from XNo showing needed for either B or C
20
(1) Continuing Examination
37 C.F.R. § 1.78(d)(1)(i) example: two CIP’s
C (claims new matter “B”)↑ CIP
B B (new matter “B”)↑CIPA
No showing needed for C if C only claims matter new in B
21
(1) Continuing ExaminationProposed 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.78(d)(iv) and 114 example
C with “showing”↑ CIP/Con/Div/>1 RCEB
B is a nonprovisional application and either- an RCE has been filed in B or - B claims benefit of another nonprovisional application
C has new argument/evidence/amendment
22
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(f)(1) – Identification
Applicant must identify – in the “cross-reference to related applications” section –- all non-provisional applications/patents with benefit or filing dates within 2 months of each other
- that name at least one common inventor- that are owned by the same entity
23
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(f)(1) – Identification (cont.)
• Must provide ID within 4 months of filing or of entering U.S. national phase
• ID required even if the applications do not have similar subject matter.
[Question: would such identification also make those applications available to the public?]
24
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(f)(2) – Identification
If circumstances under 78(f)(1) exist
- And if multiple applications have the samefiling/benefit date
- And contain substantial overlapping disclosure
- Applicant must explain how the claims are patentablydistinct or submit terminal disclaimer.
25
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(f)(2) – Identification
If any other (nonprov) application has been identified as containing patentably indistinct claims, absent a sufficient explanation, the Office may require elimination of such claims from all but one of the applications.
26
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. 1.114(f)
• Only a single RCE may be filed per application
• No RCE may be filed in any continuing application other than a divisional unless the RCE is accompanied by a petition and fee and showing as above
27
(1) Continuing Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.114(f) example
B C↑Con/CIP ↑Div only
________________↑
A (nonprov/no RCE)
Both B and C claim benefit of AYou could not file an RCE (or CON) for B without petition and a showingYou could file an RCE in CYou could file a CON of C if there was no RCE in C
28
(1) Continuing Examination
• Proposed changes to Rule 78 apply to any application filed on or after the effective date of the final rule.
• Proposed changes to Rule 114 apply to any application in which an RCE is filed on or after the effective date of the final rule.
29
(1) Continuing Examination
Practice recommendations
(1) Review portfolios of pending applications
(2) Decide whether to file a continuing application soon - to grandfather it under the current continuing application rules
(3) Budget for possible grandfather filings in your 2006/2007 budget
30
(1) Continuing ExaminationPractice Recommendations (cont.)
(4) Actively prosecute in PCT Chapter II in front of the US/IPEAto get another round with the U.S. examiner
- interview the examiner- attempt to settle novelty/inventive step issues
(Enablement/written description will only be raised in U.S. National Stage)
(5) Do not use “bypass” § 371 by direct filing to enter U.S. National Stage; the § 111 application will be your one allowed continuation; must use 371 procedures
31
2nd Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
“Changes to Practice for the Examination of Claims in Patent Applications,” 71 Fed. Reg. 61 (January 3, 2006)
32
(2) Examination
The USPTO proposes
– to focus initial examination on claims designated by applicant as representative claims.
– to defer examination of non designated claims until the application is otherwise in condition for allowance.
33
(2) Examination
What are the “representative claims”?
- all of the independent claims; and
- certain designated dependent claims
34
(2) Examination
• If the Applicant fails to expressly designate any dependent claims for initial examination, the USPTO will initially examine only the independent claims.
• Even if there are 10 or fewer claims in the application, the Applicant must expressly designate dependent claims for initial examination.
35
(2) Examination
• The mere presentation of a dependent claim is not a designation for initial examination.
• A designated dependent claim (including a multiple dependent claim) must depend only from an independent claim or from another designated dependent claim.
36
(2) Examination
Example:
Claim set has 3 independent claims and 20 dependent claims.
– The 3 independent claims are automatically selected for initial examination.
– Applicant can designate 7 of the dependent claims.
37
(2) Examination
• A claim that refers to a different statutory class of invention will be treated as an independent claim even if written in dependent form.
38
(2) Examination
An “Examination Support Document” (ESD) under 37 C.F.R. 1.261 must be submitted if
• There are more than 10 independent claims
• Applicant desires initial examination of more than 10 claims
39
(2) Examination
If the total number of independent claims (or independent plus designated claims) exceeds 10, and no ESD has been submitted, and it appears this was inadvertent:
– Applicant will be sent a notice with a 1 month period (not extendable) to supply the ESD;
– Cancel claims/rescind designation; or
– Submit a suggested restriction accompanied by an election without traverse to an invention drawn to a group with fewer than 10 claims.
40
(2) Examination
A restriction may still be required.
• If election results in withdrawal of independent or designated claims, Applicants may designate additional representative claims for initial examination so long as the total of all claims does not exceed 10.
41
(2) Examination
Markush Claims
• The Office is soliciting comments on how to handle Markush claims under the new practice
42
(2) Examination
One Markush option:
Each alternative would be counted as a separate claim for examination purposes unless:
– The Applicant shows that each alternative includes a common core structure AND common core property or activity, in which the common core structure constitutes a structurally distinctive portion in view of the existing prior art and is essential to the common property or activity.
43
(2) Examination
“Examination Support Document” (ESD) must include:
(1) a statement that a preexamination search was conducted,
– an identification of the field of search by class and subclass
– the date of the search where applicable
– for database searches, the search logic or chemical structure or sequence used as a query, the name of the files searched, the database service and the date of the search
44
(2) Examination
The preexamination search must include:
• US patents and patent application publications• Foreign patent documents• Non-patent literature
– Unless the applicant can justify why no references more pertinent than those already identified are likely to be found in the eliminated source
45
(2) Examination
• The preexamination search must encompass all of the features of the independent claims and must cover all of the features of the designated dependent claims
• A search report from a foreign patent office will not per se suffice – it must satisfy all of the search requirements set out in Rule 261
46
(2) Examination
ESD requirements (cont.)
(2) An IDS
(3) An identification of all the limitations of the independent claims and the designated dependent claims that are disclosed by the references cited in the IDS
(4) A detailed explanation of how each of the claims are patentable over the references
47
(2) Examination
ESD requirements (cont.)
(5) A concise statement of the utility of the invention as defined in each of the independent claims
(6) A showing of where each limitation of the independent claims and the designated dependent claims finds written description support in the specification of the instant application and any benefit application
48
(2) Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.133
• Would allow the examiner to request an interview with applicants before the first office action
49
(2) Examination
Proposed 37 C.F.R. 1.704
• Failure to file an ESD when necessary is a circumstance that constitutes a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application –thus affecting patent term adjustment.
50
(2) Examination
The proposed examination rules would apply to
– any application filed on or after the effective date of the final rule; and
– to any application in which a first office action on the merits was not mailed before the effective date of the final rule.
51
(2) Examination
• Applicants who filed before the effective date of the final rule would be allowed to submit either an ESD or a new set of claims to avoid the need for an ESD.
52
(2) Examination
Strategy –new applications
(1) Consider paying for extra groups in the PCT so that all the claims are searched and use Chapter II and the US IPEA to get an extra “round” of examination – preferably interviewing the US Examiner.
(2) Consider filing multiple applications (with a terminal disclaimer); each with claims of a different scope if you have a reason why the cases should be kept separate.
53
(2) Examinations
Strategies for New Examinations (cont.)
(3) Draft claim sets now that are amenable to review under the proposed regulations.
(4) Protect members of Markush groups by also having separate dependent claims to the most important members of the Markushgroup.
54
(2) Examination
Recommendations – Pending Applications
(1) Review portfolios for applications due for a first office action on the merits this year – work with the examiner to obtain a first office action on the merits before a final rule would take effect (maybe never but, if the rules were to be finalized, probably not until late summer at the earliest).
55
(2) Examinations
Strategies – Pending Applications (cont.)
(2) Consider “mega” interview on all members of a family of cases so as to expedite first office actions in unexamined members of that family.
(3) Minimize time in OIPE by electronic filing applications likely to go to art units with little backlog (E-file using the new EFS-Web –general release date March 17th).
56
A Shooting Gallery for Patents
• Consider a world in which these rules were made final, and also post-grant oppositions were allowed.
• One could oppose an issued patent knowing that the patentee probably had no continuation application on file to act as a safety net.
• The patentee would be pressured to take only the most narrow of claims to survive opposition – much more so than if the patentee had a “safety net” continuation application on file.
57
Final Rulemaking Implementation
John Doll: Expects final rulemaking in about 4 months (around September)
There will be a 30-60 day (and maybe a 90 day) period before the final rule takes effect.
58
Possible Compromises
• Retain current divisional practice (i.e., where it is not required to file all divisionals off the application in which the restriction was made
• Retain unrestricted RCE practice and allow 2 Con/CIP before a petition is needed
• Expand ability of 3rd party submissions
• Examine all claims but increase excess claim fees
59
Other Potential USPTO Options• Examination options:
– Deferred examination (up to 3 years) – Accelerated examination (allowance in 12 months)– Suite of options for examination with varying levels of examination and
enforcement rights
• Pre-Grant Opposition Pilot Program
• Increase fees for successive continuations/RCEs
• Community Patent Review
• Permit applicant requested pre-first office action interview
60
* Credits: Several slides and statistical data are taken from presentations by John Doll and James Toupin of USPTO and made available to the public in February 2006.