Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2024 / Notices 14449 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, 

Commerce Department. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03943 Filed 2–26–24; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XD738] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public hybrid meeting of 

its Risk Policy Working Group to 

consider actions affecting New England 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). This meeting will be held inperson with a webinar option. 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 9 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: This meeting will be 

held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 High 

Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; 

telephone: (603) 431–1499. 

Webinar registration URL 

information: 

https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_

W_gl369EQKmGn7iFlqOLXQ. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cate 

O’Keefe, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Risk Policy Working Group 

(RPWG) will address the terms of 

reference (TORs) approved by the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

(Council), including progress made in 

reviewing the Council’s current Risk 

Policy, and Risk Policy Road Map (TOR 

1). They will also continue the 

development of a revised risk policy 

(TOR 2). The RPWG will outline a 

possible new approach and consider the 

process of implementing the risk policy 

with ABC control rules and other 

management decisions. 

Other business will be discussed, if 

necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained on the agenda may come 

before this Council for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Council 

action will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has 

been notified of the Council’s intent to 

take final action to address the 

emergency. The public also should be 

aware that the meeting will be recorded. 

Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy 

of the recording is available upon 

request. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate 

O’Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 

465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: February 21, 2024. 

Rey Israel Marquez, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03888 Filed 2–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2023–0053] 

Updated Guidance for Making a Proper 

Determination of Obviousness 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is 

publishing this updated guidance to 

provide a review of the flexible 

approach to determining obviousness 

that is required by KSR Int’l Co. v. 

Teleflex Inc. (KSR). The focus of this 

document is on post-KSR precedential 

cases of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal 

Circuit), to provide further clarification 

for decision-makers on how the 

Supreme Court’s directives should be 

applied. While highlighting the 

requirement for a flexible approach to 

the obviousness determination, this 

updated guidance also emphasizes the 

need for a reasoned explanation when 

reaching a conclusion that a claimed 

invention would have been obvious. 

This updated guidance, together with 

the direction provided in the Manual of 

Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), 

serves as operable guidance for USPTO 

personnel when applying the law of 

obviousness. 

DATES: This guidance is effective on 

February 27, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Kahler Fonda, Senior Legal 

Advisor, Office of Patent Legal 

Administration, Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Patents, at 

Kathleen.Fonda@uspto.gov or 571–272– 

7754; or Steven J. Fulk, Legal Advisor, 

Office of Patent Legal Administration, 

Office of the Deputy Commissioner for 

Patents, at Steven.Fulk@uspto.gov or 

571–270–0072. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: More than 

15 years have passed since the Supreme 

Court’s unanimous decision regarding 

the obviousness of a claimed invention 

under 35 U.S.C. 103 rendered in KSR 

Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 

127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Since then, the 

Federal Circuit has helped to refine the 

contours of the obviousness inquiry. 

This updated guidance serves as a 

reminder for USPTO personnel of the 

flexible approach to obviousness that is 

required under KSR and Federal Circuit 

precedent. 

This guidance does not constitute 

substantive rulemaking and hence does 

not have the force and effect of law. It 

has been developed as a matter of 

internal Office management and is not 

intended to create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable 

by any party against the Office. 

Rejections will continue to be based on 

the substantive law, and it is these 

rejections that are appealable. 

Consequently, any failure by Office 

personnel to follow this guidance is 

neither appealable nor petitionable. 

The Office does not intend to 

announce any new Office practice or 

procedure by way of this updated 

guidance. This guidance is based on the 

Office’s current understanding of the 

law and is believed to comport with the 

binding precedent of the Supreme Court 

and the Federal Circuit. Furthermore, it 

is meant to be consistent with the 

Office’s present examination policy. 

However, if any earlier guidance from 

the Office, including any section of the 

current MPEP (9th Edition, Rev. 

07.2022, February 2023), is inconsistent 

with the updated guidance set forth in 

this notice, Office personnel are to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1