MVS Filewrapper® Blog: U.S. Takes Final Steps in Joining International Industrial Design System

Post by blog staff

The Hague system for registration of industrial designs offers applicants the potential for obtaining protection in a number of member countries and intergovernmental organizations by means of a single international application.  The system offers possible increased filing efficiencies and cost savings in pursuing protection for designs.

On February 13, 2015, the USPTO announced that the United States had deposited with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) its instrument of ratification to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, representing the last step for the United States to join the Hague system. As a result, the treaty, which has already been ratified but not put into law, will go into effect in the U.S. on May 13, 2015.

As discussed in a prior blog post, the proposed rules will allow applicants to file a single international design application, potentially seeking protection of their industrial design in more than 40 countries. U.S. applicants would be able to file their applications with the USPTO as an “indirect filing” and the USPTO would then transmit the application to WIPO for review. The USPTO will continue its examination of design applications and grant patents, whether the application is filed under the Hague Agreement or as a U.S. design patent application.

Final rules will soon be published in the Federal Register and are expected be effective on May 13, 2015. U.S. design patents granted on or after this date will have a 15 year term.

More information on the Hague industrial design system is available here and here, and the USPTO press release is available here.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Federal Circuit Upholds First IPR Decision

Post by Dan Lorentzen

 

The America Invents Act (AIA) included provisions establishing new "trial" procedures at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for testing the validity of issued patents.  One such procedure, Inter Partes Review (IPR), has quickly become a common alternative or addition to traditional patent litigation since it was implemented in September of 2012. However, a number of issues relating to the operation and review of the new USPTO trial procedures have remained unresolved.

 

A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit has upheld the decision of the PTAB in the very first IPR filed.   The Federal Circuit affirmed all of the PTAB's determinations, finding that the PTAB was not in error in applying the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard to the claims in the IPR proceeding, the PTAB properly determined obviousness, and the PTAB properly denied the patent owner's motion to amend the claims. 

 

Notably, the Federal Circuit declined to review the decision by the PTAB to institute the IPR.  The patent owner argued that the PTO improperly instituted the IPR on two of the patent claims because it relied on prior art that the party seeking the IPR did not identify in its petition with respect to those two specific claims.  The pertinent portion of the AIA (encoded in 35 U.S.C. § 314) provides that “[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”  The patent owner asserted that this provision merely postpones review of the PTO’s authority until after the issuance of a final decision by the Board.  The Federal Circuit, however, concluded that § 314 prohibits review of the decision to institute IPR even after a final decision.  The court did note that mandamus may be available to challenge the institution of an IPR where the PTO has clearly any indisputably exceeded its authority. 

 

Although disagreement remains as to whether the Federal Circuit was correct in its determinations (see, e.g., Judge Newman's dissenting opinion), the decision provides some clarity as to the standards that apply during IPR proceedings at the USPTO.  The full decision is available here.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: USPTO Issues Examples of Abstract Ideas and Claim Eligibility

Post by Luke T. Mohrhauser

 

 

A threshold requirement for obtaining a patent is that the subject matter must meet eligibility requirements. Recent changes from the Supreme Court have impacted the types of patent eligible inventions as they relate to abstract ideas. In response to these changes the USPTO recently issued a set of Examples of claims including abstract ideas that both satisfy and do not satisfy the recently issued 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance.

 

            For reference, the Guidance provides a two-step approach for determining subject matter eligibility, where Step 1 determines whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Step 2 is a two-part analysis where an examiner first determines whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicial exceptions). If no, the claim is eligible and examination should continue for patentability. If yes, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B to analyze whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception. At Step 2B, an examiner is to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. This includes an analysis of the remainder of claim elements and how they add any inventive step to the claim.

 

            The Examples go through the analysis of explaining each part of the two-step approach to show how the claims all meet Step 1, but vary with regard to Step 2. There is a good presentation of the analysis of both Steps 2A and 2B, and how the various claim examples relate to Supreme Court precedent. For example, in claims where it is determined that the limitations are directed towards an abstract idea, the explanation of how any additional elements add enough of an inventive step to overcome the abstract idea can be very helpful.

 

            The Examples issued by the Patent Office include four claim sets that were deemed patent eligible, and four that were found ineligible.

 

 

Patent Eligible

 

            Examples of claims that were or would be patent eligible include the following:

 

1.      A method and computer medium for isolating and removing malicious code from electronic messages. The claims were not directed towards an abstract idea because they included a concept inextricably tied to computer technology and distinct from the types of concepts found by the courts to be abstract.

 

2.      E-Commerce Outsourcing System/Generating a Composite Web Page.  The claim was found not be directed towards an abstract idea because it does not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.

 

3.      Methods and systems for halftoning a gray scale image. In the three claims provided in the Example, it is stated that they include mathematical steps that would constitute an abstract idea. However, the additional analysis of Step 2B above leads to a finding that taking all the additional claim elements individually, and in combination, the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of generating a blue noise mask, and therefore, the claims contain patent eligible subject matter.

 

4.      A method and system for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals. The claims include calculating steps, and therefore, include mathematical equations that would make them abstract ideas. However, the additional limitations of the claim placed upon the application of the claimed mathematical operations show that the claim is not directed to performing mathematical operations on a computer alone. Rather, the combination of elements impose meaningful limits in that the mathematical operations are applied to improve an existing technology (global positioning) by improving the signal-acquisition sensitivity of the receiver to extend the usefulness of the technology into weak-signal environments and providing the location information for display on the mobile device, which indicates that the claims include patent eligible subject matter.

 

Patent Ineligible

 

            Examples of claims that were or would be patent ineligible include the following:

 

1.      Method of generating a device profile by generating first and second data and combining the same. While the claim met Step 1 of the analysis, it was found to be a mere gathering and combination that employed mathematical relationships, thus making it an abstract idea. The claim did not include any additional steps beyond the abstract generating and combining and thus, failed Step 2, making the claim ineligible.

 

2.      Computer system for electronically managing a game of Bingo. The claim included a computer and a program run on the computer. The program included steps that could be performed mentally, making the claim an abstract idea. The mere inclusion of a computer with a CPU did not add enough of an inventive step under Step 2B to overcome the abstract idea, and the claim was found to include ineligible subject matter.

 

3.      Methods for conducting reliable transactions in an e-commerce environment. The claim included steps of creating a contractual relationship, which is an abstract idea. Analyzing the claim as whole for an inventive concept, the claim limitations in addition to the abstract idea include a computer application running on a computer and the computer network. This is simply a generic recitation of a computer and a computer network performing their basic functions. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.

 

4.      A method for distribution of products over the Internet via a facilitator. The claim describes the concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency. This concept is similar to the concepts involving human activity relating to commercial practices (e.g., hedging in Bilski) that have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of using advertising as an exchange or currency (The answer in Step 2B is no). The claim is not patent eligible.

 

These Examples should help both Applicants and Examiners navigate the new patent eligibility landscape under the Supreme Court's recent holdings on 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

 

 

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Federal Circuit Emphasizes "Reasonable" in Broadest Reasonable Interpretation

Post by Dan Lorentzen

 

 

During examination, the claims of patent application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") by the patent examiner.  This USPTO standard is intentionally broad—broader than the interpretation applied in litigation—in order to reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.  A recent Federal Circuit decision, however, has indicated that the "reasonable" element of the standard is still essential.

 

In In re Imes, the application at issue was directed to a device for communicating digital camera image and video information over a network.  Independent claim 1 encompassed such a device having memory for storing digital images, a display for displaying the images, an input device for receiving a request for communication, and a housing that stores a first (wireless cellular) communication module and a second (“low power high-speed”) wireless communication module.  Two other independent claims recited communications modules operable to wirelessly communicate streaming video. 

 

During prosecution, the examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious over a reference that disclosed a first wireless communication module and second module in the form of a removable memory card.  The examiner concluded that the removable memory card met the BRI of the second wireless communication device because it had to be removed in order to communicate the information to a computer—i.e. the metal contacts between the memory card and the computer are not "wire," and therefore communication along the metal contacts to the computer are "wireless."  The examiner rejected the other independent claims as anticipated or obvious over a reference that disclosed a wireless digital camera system that transmits still images over the internet.  The examiner concluded that the BRI of "streaming video" included a continuous process of sending images. The applicant appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed the examiner's rejections.

 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit took issue with the reasonableness of the USPTO's interpretation of the claims.   The court emphasized that the interpretation must be reasonable in view of the specification.  With regards to the "wireless" element, the USPTO's interpretation was not reasonable because the specification defined the term to refer to electromagnetic waves moving through atmospheric space rather than along a wire.  Accordingly, communication through metal contacts—and not atmospheric space—cannot be reasonably interpreted to constitute "wireless" communication.

 

With respect to the "streaming video" element, the court concluded that the USPTO's interpretation was not reasonable because there was no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that sending a series of individual still images is equivalent to streaming video. 

 

The holding in this case can potentially provide some needed clarity to both applicants and examiners as to what is "reasonable" when interpreting claims during patent prosecution.  The full decision is available here. 

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Trade Secret Symposium

Post by Jill Link

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is hosting a Trade Secret Symposium on Thursday, January 8, 2015 at its headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. This symposium is the first of its kind for trade secrets. More information is available on the USPTO website. Both live and webcast attendance is available for this event.

The USPTO symposium will focus on the protection of U.S. trade secrets from misappropriation and is an administrative follow-up from the February 2013 Administration Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets. Topics to be discussed include legislative proposals regarding trade secret protection, losses due to trade secret theft and challenges to protecting trade secrets, the intersection of patent and trade secret protection, issues in civil litigation, trade secret protection in foreign jurisdictions, and proposed responses to the threat of trade secret theft in the U.S. Presenters will include representatives of academia, government, legal counsel and industry, and will include time for audience questions.

There is no registration cost for attending either the live or webcast event taking place between 9 am EST and 3 pm EST this Thursday January 8, 2015.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: USPTO Releases New Guidelines on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

Post by Dan Lorentzen

The USPTO today released new Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility.  The new guidance comes nearly 9 months after the first set of "2014 Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products"  were released in March 2014.  The March guidelines sought to implement new procedures to address changes in the laws relating to patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. However, a new set of guidelines have been expected based on the more recent Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, and based on numerous comments and criticisms of the original guidelines. 

 

The new guidance presents a number of changes in relation to the March guidelines.

The new guidance also includes a new set of examples for "Nature-Based Products."  These examples replace the set of examples that were included with the March guidelines.  Additional explanatory example sets relating to claims that do and do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception are apparently being developed to be issued at a future date.

 

A more detailed discussion of the new guidelines is forthcoming.

 

 

 

 

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: USPTO Publishes its 2014 Patent Public Advisory Committee Annual Report

By Jonathan Kennedy

The Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) for the USPTO published its Annual Report for the 2014 fiscal year.  The annual report is directed to the President of the United States and addresses many issues faced in the previous fiscal year, summaries of goals met, and recommendations for the future. 

The 2014 report expressed concerns over the effect of sequestration and the USPTO's budget.  At the end of the 2014 fiscal year, the USPTO netted $129 million in fees.  The report notes the USPTO's continued concern over high user fees and beginning in the 2015 year is conducting a biennial fee review to assess any chilling effect on innovation and disclosure due to patent office fees.  This will include an assessment of whether the fees are commensurate with the USPTO's projected needs. 

The 2014 report discussed many goals that were achieved during the 2014 fiscal year including a significant reduction in the backlog of Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs).  Between October 2009 and March 2013, the number of RCEs awaiting examination grew from approximately 17,000 to over 110,000.  As of October 2014, this number has been reduced to 46,441.  The PPAC recommends that the Office establish a goal that all RCEs be examined within four months at the latest—four months is currently the average for when an RCE is examined.  This would help to progress the examination of applications.

The 2014 report also highlights the importance of some programs instituted by the USPTO to decrease patent pendency.  During the 2014 fiscal year total patent application pendency was reduced to an average of 27.4 months.  Specifically the report highlights the use of the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0, Track One Prioritized Examination, Patent Prosecution Highway (see our recent series on ways to accelerate examination, which addresses both the Track One Prioritized Examination and Patent Prosecution Highway and other programs), and the Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS).  The report notes that QPIDS allows applicants to have new prior art considered by the USPTO without the need for an RCE after payment of the issue fee.  In the 2014 fiscal year there were 2,241 QPIDS requests filed and 1,934 continued on to issue with an RCE.  This program appears to be quite effective.

The report also addressed the opening of satellite offices in Denver, Colorado, Silicon Valley, California, and Dallas Texas, in addition to the satellite office already opened in Detroit, Michigan.  The USPTO hired an additional 137 patent examiners and 47 judges.  Further, the report notes an additional 112 examiners are expected to be hired in the 2015 fiscal year.  At the end of the 2014 fiscal year, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had 214 judges. 

The report notes that the PTAB was kept busy during the 2014 fiscal year with appeals from examination and post-grant proceedings.  The PTAB affirmed or affirmed-in-part  67%, reversed 30%, and remanded or dismissed 3% examiner decisions on appeal.  Since the inception of the America Invents Act, the PTAB has received 2,082 petitions for post-grant proceedings—1,841 inter partes review petitions, 233 covered business method petitions, 2 post-grant review petitions, and 6 derivation proceeding petitions.   The report notes the vast majority of petitions related to the electrical and computer software arts at 71.6% of petitions.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Ways to Accelerate Patent Examination Before the USPTO – Part 4, Finale

By Jill Link

As discussed in a series of prior postings, there are various options to expedite examination and/or decrease the pendency and delays associated with patent examination before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). These include: (1) the First Action Interview Pilot Program (see Part 1); (2) Track One Prioritized Examination (see Part 2); (3) Accelerated Examination (see Part 3); (4) the Patent Prosecution Highway; (5) Petitions to Make Special Based on either Enhancing Environmental Quality, Contributing to the Development or Conservation of Energy Resources, or Contributing to Countering Terrorism; and (6) Petitions to Make Special Based on Applicant’s Health and/or Age.

Patent Prosecution Highway and Petitions to Make Special are discussed in this posting.

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)

The PPH program is available to patent applicants with foreign patent applications and is a mechanism to expedite the search and examination before either the USPTO or certain participating foreign countries. The PPH program does not guarantee a final disposition within a certain period of time; instead the program allows a USPTO Examiner to rely on the work (i.e. search and examination results) from an examiner in another country which has issued the same patent application. The requirement is that the U.S. patent claims be substantially similar to claims that have been found to be either allowable or have received a favorable international search report.

To utilize the PPH program, a request must be submitted prior to initiation of U.S. examination. The request must provide the examiner with the relevant search and examination results and there are no government fees associated with the request.  When this is done it is customary to receive a first Office Action within 3-6 months. Notably, use of the PPH program does not guarantee the U.S. examiner will issue the case (as laws differ between countries); however, providing this information can improve the odds (and pace) of receiving a U.S. patent.

Further detail of the PPH and its use for fast-tracking examination is available at the USPTO website.

Petitions to Make Special

The remaining two options for patent applications to expedite examination before the USPTO are only available to select applicants. These include a subject matter based qualification and an age and/or health based qualification. The petitions include: (1) Petitions to Make Special Based on Enhancing Environmental Quality, Contributing to the Development or Conservation of Energy Resources, or Contributing to Countering Terrorism; and (2) Petitions to Make Special Based on Applicant’s Health and/or Age.

(1) Petitions to Make Special Based on Enhancing Environmental Quality, Contributing to the Development or Conservation of Energy Resources, or Contributing to Countering Terrorism

The first petition relating to the subject matter of a patent application allows the application to be advanced out of order for examination and is treated as "special" throughout the examination by virtue of the fact the invention relates to enhancing environmental quality, relates to conservation of energy resources and/or counter terrorism. There are no guaranteed time frames for a final disposition by using this form of petition; however, they are generally handled on an "expedited" basis. Such a petition is filed with the application and does not require an additional government filing fee. However, the petition must be accompanied by an Accelerated Examination (AE) Pre-Examination Search Document and an AE Examination Support Document. Further detail of the petition requirements is available at the USPTO website.

(2) Petitions to Make Special Based on Applicant’s Health and/or Age

This petition available based on the age and/or health of an inventor also advances the application out of turn and receives "special" treatment before the USPTO. Again, there is no assured timeframe for receiving a final disposition, however the goal is that they are handled in an expedited matter to ensure the patent applicant is able to participate in the examination of the patent application. To qualify, a patent applicant must show evidence they are 65 years of age or older and/or demonstrate their health is insufficient to allow their assistance in prosecution of an application pursuant to "its normal course." There are no additional government fees to file this petition, nor are there any requirements to file exanimation search and/or support documents. Those filing petitions are reminded that any information filed to show support for one's age and/or health will become public (unless filed pursuant to secrecy measures). Further detail of the requirements for Accelerated Examination is available at the USPTO website.

Patent applicants in need of promptly examined and issued patents may find value in these various programs discussed in this 4-part series. However, the decision to utilize any of the programs should be discussed with your patent attorney.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Oral Arguments Held in Appeal of First IPR

By Jonathan Kennedy

 

On November 3, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in In re Cuozzo—the appeal from the first inter partes review ("IPR") instituted by the USPTO.  As noted in our previous post, the appeal presents a number of interesting procedural and substantive issues.

 

While the oral argument did not address all of the issues on appeal, the arguments from counsel and questions from the judges featured some interesting moments.  The panel of judges included Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, Circuit Judge Raymond C. Clevenger, III, and Circuit Judge Timothy B. Dyk.  Some of the particular arguments and questions of note are discussed below.

 

One of patentee-appellant Cuozzo's primary contentions in the appeal is that the PTAB lacked authority to institute the IPR for claims 10 and 14 on grounds of unpatentability not identified in the petition.  In response the PTO argued that the decision to institute the proceeding is unreviewable by a court of appeal.  In particular, counsel for the USPTO argued that Congress "made the decision to institute the proceeding entirely unreviewable."  The judicial panel disagreed stating, "you can’t raise it by appeal, but [the statute] doesn't say that it is unreviewable."  One of the judges noted that there are other statutes that make it clear certain agency decisions are entirely unreviewable on appeal or otherwise.  However, in this instance the statute states, "The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable."  35 U.S.C. § 314(d).   Counsel for the USPTO countered arguing because it is clear the decision not to institute an IPR is not reviewable, likewise the decision to institute an IPR is not reviewable.  Again, the panel pushed back, noting the decision not to institute an IPR is within the USPTO's discretion, but if the PTAB blatantly exceeds its authority then that may provide grounds for review.

 

Another interesting argument related to patentee-appellant Cuozzo's argument that the broadest reasonable interpretation standard should not apply in an IPR.  The USPTO's position during arguments was two-fold.  First, counsel for the USPTO argued application of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is consistent with decades of case law from the Federal Circuit.  Second, the counsel for the USPTO argued that in an IPR, or other post-grant proceeding, the patentee has the ability to amend the claims without further examination, and therefore the broader standard should apply. The USPTO pointed to the discrepancy between post-grant proceedings and court proceedings in the ability to amend the claims to support its position that the Philips standard, applicable to claim interpretation in the court, should not be applied in IPR. 

 

Judge Newman responded to the characterization that this issue has been decided for decades as not wholly accurate, since the decisions of record "haven't really gotten to the question of the difference between the appropriateness before the patent issues and after."  Judge Newman went on to state the ability to amend claims in post-grant proceedings is not as easy as the counsel indicated in the argument.  Counsel for the USPTO responded that amendments in post-grant proceedings should not be so easy, because no further search follows and examination follows.  Thus, the onus is on the patentee to explain why the amended claim would be patentable.

 

This dovetailed into a discussion of the appropriate requirement standard for amending claims in an IPR—another issue on appeal.  One of the judges asked, "[I]f the[] [patentee] make[s] a motion to amend and they can show that the amended claim is patentable, then they get the amendment, that is the test?" Counsel for the USPTO responded stating, "In order to make the motion they have to demonstrate or at least explain, give us a story as to why the claim is patentable."  The panel sought clarification asking, "Yes, but is that the only thing they have to do?"  Counsel for the USPTO replied with a caveat as to the number of claims for which the patentee is seeking to amend, noting the amendment would likely be denied for 500 claims, but "that is what they have to do" at least when seeking to amend one claim.  The USPTO also noted that in this instance the claim amendment was denied because it was not supported by the written description.

 

In rebuttal, the patentee-appellant, Cuozzo, noted that in 2 years of post-grant proceedings—including covered business method patent review, post grant review, and IPR—zero opposed motions to amend have been granted and only one unopposed motion to amend has been granted.  In conclusion, counsel for the patentee-appellant argued that the difficulty to amend demonstrates there is not a per se right to amend that would justify use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.

 

Ultimately, the Federal Circuit's widely anticipated opinion should provide clarity on a number of issues, and should be expected to issue in the next several months.

 

A recording of the oral arguments is available here.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Ways to Accelerate Patent Examination Before the USPTO – Part 3

By Jill Link

 

As discussed in a two postings last week, there are a few options to patent applicants to combat the long pendency, slow processing and delays in examination before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot Program and Track One Prioritized Examination were discussed as options to expedite the pace of patent examination.

The various options and programs that be outlined in this series of blog posts include the following: (1) the First Action Interview Pilot Program (discussed last week); (2) Track One Prioritized Examination (discussed last week); (3) Accelerated Examination; (4) the Patent Prosecution Highway; (5) Petitions to Make Special Based on either Enhancing Environmental Quality, Contributing to the Development or Conservation of Energy Resources, or Contributing to Countering Terrorism; and (6) Petitions to Make Special Based on Applicant’s Health and/or Age.

Accelerated Examination is discussed today.

Accelerated Examination is another option for truly "fast tracking" a patent application from start to finish. Similar to Track One Prioritized Examination, Accelerated Examination provides a patent application with "special status" that advances the application out of turn to more quickly proceed toward a final disposition within 12 months of filing the application (i.e. issuance of a Notice of Allowance or abandonment of the application). Accelerated Examination is a permanent program implemented by the Patent Office and there are no limitations on the number of applications that may be processed under the program.

Accelerated Examination begins with a petition (i.e. a request) made with the initial patent filing requesting the accelerated treatment. Such request must be made with the initial patent filing (or a continuation application filing); the petition cannot be made with a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The government filing fee for Accelerated Examination is substantially less than the previously discussed Track One program, with a petition fee of $140 (reduced to $70 or $35 for small or micro entities, respectively).

Key components associated with using the Accelerated Examination program are the supporting documents required, including a Pre-Examination Search Document and an Examination Support Document. The Pre-Examination Search Document illustrates that a search was conducted and meets the program requirements (e.g. employs a particular search logic). The Examination Support Document explains why the claimed invention is patentable in light of the prior art identified in the search document. These steps of conducting a search and providing written distinctions of the prior art present the largest hurdles associated with the Accelerated Examination program. Further description of these supporting documents is outlined in USPTO guidance.

Additional criteria for employing the Accelerated Examination program include: a limitation on claims presented (no more than 3 independent claims and 20 total claims); a requirement that a single invention be disclosed; availability to conduct an Examiner Interview; and a shortened reply time frame of 1 month for responding to Office Actions (with an application abandoning for failure to meet this time frame for response). 

Further detail of the requirements for Accelerated Examination is available at the USPTO website.

Patent applicants in need of promptly examined and issued patents may find value in the Accelerated Examination program. However, the decision to utilize Accelerated Examination (or any other program described in these series of postings) should be discussed with your patent attorney.

 

 

 

More Entries

BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.8.001.