Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6475 

(c) Use of grants for loan repayment, 

issuance, underwriting, servicing, and 

other costs. 

* * * * * 

(g) Issuance, underwriting, servicing, 

and other costs. (1) Each public entity 

or its designated public agency and each 

State issuing debt obligations under this 

subpart must pay the issuance, 

underwriting, servicing, trust 

administration and other costs 

associated with the private sector 

financing of the debt obligations. 

(2) Each public entity or its 

designated public agency and each State 

issuing debt obligations under this 

subpart must pay any and all fees 

charged by HUD pursuant to § 570.712. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Add § 570.712 to read as follows: 

§ 570.712 Collection of fees; procedure to 

determine amount of the fee. 

This section contains additional 

procedures for guarantees of debt 

obligations under section 108 when 

HUD is required or authorized to collect 

fees to pay the credit subsidy costs of 

the loan guarantee program. 

(a) Collection of fees. HUD may 

collect fees from borrowers for the 

purpose of paying the credit subsidy 

cost of the loan guarantee. Each public 

entity or its designated public agency 

and each State issuing debt obligations 

under this subpart is responsible for the 

payment of any and all fees charged 

pursuant to this section. Such fees are 

payable from grants allocated to the 

issuer pursuant to the Act or from other 

sources, but are only payable from 

guaranteed loan funds if the fee is 

deducted from a disbursement of 

guaranteed loan funds. 

(b) Amount of fee. (1) HUD shall 

calculate the level of the fee as a 

percentage of the principal amount of 

the guaranteed loan as provided by this 

section based on a determination that 

such fees when collected will reduce 

the credit subsidy cost to the level 

established by applicable appropriation 

acts. The amount of the fee payable by 

the public entity or State shall be 

determined by applying separately the 

percentages announced by Federal 

Register notice to guaranteed loan 

disbursements as they occur or 

periodically to outstanding principal 

balances, or both. 

(2) HUD shall publish the proposed 

fees required under paragraph (a) of this 

section in the Federal Register and 

provide a 30-day public comment 

period for the purpose of inviting 

comment on the proposed fee prior to 

adoption of the fee if changes to the 

assumptions underlying the fee 

calculation or the fee structure itself 

raise new considerations for Borrowers. 

After consideration of public comments, 

HUD will publish a second Federal 

Register notice announcing the fee to be 

applied, the effective date of the fee, and 

any other necessary information 

regarding payment of the fee. 

Dated: December 17, 2014. 

Clifford Taffet, 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Community Planning and Development. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02262 Filed 2–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

37 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2014–0043] 

Request for Comments on Enhancing 

Patent Quality 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for comments; notice of 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking 

public input and guidance to direct its 

continued efforts towards enhancing 

patent quality. These efforts focus on 

improving patent operations and 

procedures to provide the best possible 

work products, to enhance the customer 

experience, and to improve existing 

quality metrics. In pursuit of these 

goals, the USPTO is launching a 

comprehensive and enhanced quality 

initiative. This initiative begins with a 

request for public comments on the set 

of proposals outlined in this document 

and will continue with a two-day 

‘‘Quality Summit’’ with the public to 

discuss the outlined proposals. The 

conversation with the public held at this 

Quality Summit, complemented by 

written comments to these proposals, is 

the first of many steps toward 

developing a new paradigm of patent 

quality at the USPTO. Through an active 

and long-term partnership with the 

public, the USPTO seeks to ensure the 

issuance of the best quality patents and 

provide the best customer service 

possible. 

DATES: Comment Deadline Date: To be 

ensured of consideration, written 

comments must be received on or before 

May 6, 2015. 

The USPTO will hold a Quality 

Summit on March 25 and 26, 2015 at 

the Madison Building, USPTO 

Headquarters, in Alexandria, Virginia. 

This Summit will be broadcast via 

webinar and recorded for later viewing. 

For webinar participants, participation 

in all Summit sessions, including the 

group brainstorming sessions, will be 

possible. See the Supplementary 

Information section for the proposed 

agenda. In order to best prepare for the 

Quality Summit, the USPTO requests 

that those interested in attending the 

Quality Summit send an email to 

WorldClassPatentQuality@uspto.gov 

indicating their planned attendance by 

March 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent by electronic mail message over 

the Internet addressed to: 

WorldClassPatentQuality@uspto.gov. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop 

Comments—Patents, Commissioner for 

Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22313–1450, marked to the 

attention of Michael Cygan, Senior Legal 

Advisor, Office of Patent Legal 

Administration, Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Patent Examination 

Policy. 

Although comments may be 

submitted by postal mail, the USPTO 

prefers to receive comments by 

electronic mail message over the 

Internet because sharing comments with 

the public is more easily accomplished. 

Electronic comments are preferred to be 

submitted in plain text, but also may be 

submitted in ADOBE® portable 

document format or MICROSOFT 

WORD® format. Comments not 

submitted electronically should be 

submitted on paper in a format that 

facilitates convenient digital scanning 

into ADOBE® portable document 

format. 

The comments will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Commissioner for Patents, currently 

located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 

600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. 

Comments also will be available for 

viewing via the USPTO’s Internet Web 

site (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_

events/Patent-Quality-Initiative.jsp). 

Because comments will be made 

available for public inspection, 

information that the submitter does not 

desire to make public, such as an 

address or phone number, should not be 

included in the comments. It would be 

helpful to the USPTO if written 

comments included information about: 

(1) the name and affiliation of the 

individual responding; and (2) an 

indication of whether comments offered 

represent views of the respondent’s 

organization or are the respondent’s 

personal views. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, 

at (571) 272–7700; Maria Nuzzolillo, 

Legal Advisor, at (571) 272–8150; or 

Jeffrey R. West, Legal Advisor, at (571) 

272–2226. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The innovation that is fostered by a 

strong patent system is a key driver of 

economic growth and job creation. 

Effectively promoting such innovation 

requires that issued patents fully 

comply with all statutory requirements 

and, of equal importance, that the patent 

examination process advance quickly, 

transparently, and accurately. The 

USPTO has taken steps to provide clear 

and consistent enforcement of its 

statutory examination mandates. For 

instance, the USPTO has released new 

training for examiners in the area of 

functional claiming, guidance on subject 

matter eligibility of claims, and an 

improved classification system for 

searching prior art. Additionally, the 

USPTO has begun to implement longrange plans to improve its operational 

capabilities, such as upgrading IT tools 

for its patent examiners through the 

Patents End-to-End program and 

expanding international work-sharing 

capabilities, all of which will help 

improve the quality of issued patents. 

Presently, the USPTO is launching a 

new, wide-ranging initiative to enhance 

the quality of patents issued by the 

USPTO. High quality patents permit 

certainty and clarity of rights, which in 

turn fuels innovation and reduces 

needless litigation. Moreover and 

importantly, for the first time in recent 

history, the USPTO has the financial 

resources to consider longer-term and 

more expensive improvements to patent 

quality by leveraging the sustainable 

funding model provided by the fee 

setting provisions in the America 

Invents Act. The USPTO also has made 

steady progress in reducing both the 

backlog of unexamined patent 

application and patent pendency. The 

current backlog of unexamined patent 

applications has dropped from a high of 

more than 764,000 in January 2009 to 

presently less than 605,000. Similarly, 

the pendency from filing to a 

disposition has dropped from a high of 

34.5 months in August 2010 to currently 

27.0 months. While the agency still has 

progress to make in further reducing 

both the backlog and pendency, the 

confluence of these events make it the 

optimal time for the USPTO to pursue 

this enhanced quality initiative. 

Herein, the USPTO presents its 

approach to partnering with the public 

in enhancing patent quality. 

Specifically, the USPTO is setting forth 

its ongoing efforts to address quality and 

is announcing a variety of proposals 

designed to further enhance patent 

quality. Additionally, the USPTO is 

announcing a Quality Summit to 

dialogue with the public about its new 

enhanced quality initiative and is 

seeking written comments about the 

same. 

The USPTO intends for this request 

for comments and the Quality Summit 

to be the first of many conversations and 

collaborations with the public as the 

USPTO continues to enhance patent 

quality. Through this document, the 

USPTO presents various questions 

about its new enhanced quality 

initiative and proposals. The purpose of 

these questions is to stimulate the 

public’s thinking on the larger topic of 

patent quality, as well as focus 

discussion at the Quality Summit on a 

limited number of concrete proposals. 

The public’s response to these questions 

will guide the agency in formulating, 

prioritizing, and implementing changes 

to enhancing patent quality. 

Accordingly, the USPTO welcomes the 

public’s views on both the specific 

questions included in the Notice and 

any other issues that the public’s 

believes to be important to patent 

quality. To communicate about events 

and actions related to the enhanced 

patent quality initiative, the USPTO is 

introducing a Web site: http://

www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/

Patent-Quality-Initiative.jsp. 

Lastly, the USPTO has held internal 

focus sessions with USPTO employees, 

including patent examiners, to engage in 

discussions on how to enhance quality 

at every step of prosecution. These 

internal discussions will continue in 

parallel with the discussions being held 

with the public through written 

comments to this document and inperson at the Quality Summit. Engaging 

in a dialogue with examiners to receive 

input from those who are responsible 

for the crucial day-to-day work of 

examining applications and issuing high 

quality patents is essential to initiating 

and sustaining the success of our quality 

enhancing efforts. 

Patent Quality Pillars 

As the USPTO commences its 

enhanced patent quality initiative, the 

USPTO is targeting three aspects of 

patent quality, termed the ‘‘patent 

quality pillars.’’ These pillars are: 

(1) Excellence in work products, in 

the form of issued patents and Office 

actions; 

(2) excellence in measuring patent 

quality, including appropriate quality 

metrics; and 

(3) excellence in customer service. 

As the first pillar, the USPTO is 

focusing on the quality of the work 

products provided at every stage of the 

patent process. This pillar includes both 

the quality of issued patents and the 

quality of all work products during the 

filing, examination, and issuance 

process. The USPTO is committed to 

issuing patents that clearly define the 

scope of the rights therein, that are 

within the bounds of the patent statutes 

as interpreted by the judiciary, and that 

provide certainty as to their validity to 

encourage investment in research, 

development, and commercialization. 

The USPTO is committed to issuing 

patents that clearly define the scope of 

the rights therein, that are within the 

bounds of the patent statues as 

interpreted by the judiciary, and that 

provide certainty as to their validity to 

encourage investment in research, 

development, and commercialization. 

The USPTO recognizes that examiners 

are the fundamental resource essential 

to building and strengthening the first 

pillar. Examiners are the key building 

block to the infrastructure and 

foundation needed to enhance and 

sustain quality. The USPTO is 

committed to taking the steps necessary 

to evaluate the needs of examiners to 

ensure that they have the tools, 

resources, and training required to 

perform their jobs optimally and to 

provide a superior work product. 

Regarding the second pillar, the 

USPTO is focusing on its measurement 

of quality to evaluate work products and 

customer interactions. The USPTO 

welcomes the public’s input on its 

measurement of patent quality and how 

it may be improved. 

Turning to the third pillar, the USPTO 

is focusing on the quality of the 

customer experience. The USPTO seeks 

feedback to ensure that customers are 

treated promptly, fairly, consistently, 

and professionally at all stages of the 

examination process. The USPTO also is 

focused on maximizing the effectiveness 

and professionalism of all customer 

interactions, be it through examiner 

interviews, official USPTO 

communications, or call center 

exchanges. 

In moving forward with the enhanced 

quality initiative framed by these three 

pillars, the USPTO seeks to deepen and 

refine its thinking about general aspects 

of quality. To that end, the USPTO 

welcomes feedback about the following 

questions that the public may wish to 

address via written comments or at the 

Quality Summit. Moreover, the USPTO 

solicits any other input outside of these 

questions that the public believes can 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6477 

lead to the issuance of higher quality 

patents. 

• Are there aspects of enhanced 

quality other than the three ‘‘pillars’’ 

previously described that should guide 

the USPTO’s enhanced quality 

initiative? 

• Are there any new or necessary 

changes to existing procedures that the 

USPTO should consider to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of the 

examination process? 

• What should be included at the 

time of application filing in order to 

enhance patent quality? 

• While specific questions have been 

provided to initiate the discussion on 

patent quality, the USPTO solicits any 

other input outside of these questions 

that the public believes can lead to the 

issuance of higher quality patents. 

Existing Quality Efforts 

The USPTO has several ongoing 

efforts to improve the quality of issued 

patents under the three patent quality 

pillars. The following non-exhaustive 

list describes some of the recent 

initiatives that the USPTO has 

undertaken to improve overall quality. 

First, the USPTO has taken steps to 

provide more robust training to 

examiners. In furtherance of a White 

House Executive Action designed to 

keep examiners’ technical knowledge 

current with the rapid advancements in 

the state of the art, the USPTO initiated 

the Patent Examiner Technical Training 

Program. Through this program, 

scientists, engineers, professors, and 

industrial designers may volunteer to 

participate as guest lecturers to 

examiners in their field of art. More 

information on this program can be 

found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/

pettp.jsp. Additionally, the USPTO has 

adopted, and trained all examiners on, 

the Cooperative Patent Classification 

(CPC) system. The CPC is a multi-office 

classification system developed by the 

USPTO and the European Patent Office 

to not only enhance the examiner’s 

ability to locate the most relevant art as 

efficiently as possible, but also to enable 

work sharing with other patent offices 

around the globe. 

Second, as part of its ongoing 

commitment to legal training, the 

USPTO has developed training modules 

on claim clarity and functional claiming 

and is in the midst of training all 

examiners on those modules. These 

modules, which have been developed in 

furtherance of a White House Executive 

Action on clarity in patent claims, focus 

on evaluating functional claiming and 

improving the clarity of the examination 

record. More information, including 

four training modules provided to 

examiners on functional claiming, may 

be found at http://www.uspto.gov/

patents/init_events/executive_

actions.jsp#heading-2. Additionally, the 

USPTO routinely provides legal training 

as the law changes due to new 

legislation and case law developments. 

For example, the USPTO has offered 

extensive training on the new 

provisions of the America Invents Acts, 

as well as on subject matter eligibility in 

view of recent judicial rulings. More 

information about these trainings may 

be found respectively at http://

www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/

index.jsp and http://www.uspto.gov/

patents/law/exam/interim_guidance_

subject_matter_eligibility.jsp. 

Third, as a further initiative to 

enhance clarity in patent claims, the 

USPTO has launched a voluntary 

glossary pilot program. This pilot 

program provides a framework for 

applicants in certain fields of art to 

include definitions of key claim terms 

within the patent specification in 

exchange for expedited examination 

through a first Office action. More 

information about this pilot may be 

found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/

init_events/glossary_initiative.jsp. 

Fourth, the USPTO is engaged in pilot 

programs such as the Quick Path IDS 

Program (QPIDS) and the After Final 

Consideration Pilot (AFCP). Each of 

these programs serve to reduce 

pendency and improve quality by more 

expeditiously identifying and resolving 

those issues preventing the grant of a 

high-quality patent. Specifically, the 

QPIDS pilot permits an examiner to 

consider an Information Disclosure 

Statement after payment of the issue fee 

without the need to reopen prosecution, 

effectively obviating the need to pursue 

a Request for Continued Examination. 

The AFCP program allows applicants to 

submit an amendment after final action 

for consideration by the examiner 

without reopening prosecution. For 

more information on these pilot 

programs, see respectively http:// 

www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/

qpids.jsp and http://www.uspto.gov/

patents/init_events/afcp.jsp. 

Fifth, the USPTO has implemented 

programs to take advantage of the search 

and examination work done in 

corresponding applications filed in 

other intellectual property offices 

through a variety of international 

cooperation efforts, for example, the 

Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) 

program and the Common Citation 

Document program (CCD). The PPH 

enables the USPTO to leverage fast-track 

examination procedures already in 

place among participating foreign patent 

offices to allow applicants to reach final 

disposition of a patent application more 

quickly and efficiently than standard 

examination processing. The CCD 

program consolidates the prior art cited 

by the five largest intellectual property 

offices of the world (i.e., USPTO, EPO, 

JPO, KIPO, and SIPO) for the family 

members of a patent application, thus 

enabling the search results for the same 

invention produced by several offices to 

be visualized on a single page. The CCD 

therefore enables USPTO examiners to 

have a single point of access to up-todate prior art information. For more 

information, see respectively http:// 

www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/

pph/index.jsp and http:// 

www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/

index.jsp?tag=infraredheaters

consumerreports-20#heading-8. 

Sixth, the USPTO has actively 

promoted interviews between 

applicants and examiners throughout 

prosecution, including through specific 

initiatives such as the First Action 

Interview Pilot Program. Under this 

particular pilot, applicants are 

permitted to conduct an interview with 

the examiner after reviewing a ‘‘PreInterview Communication’’ from the 

examiner containing the results of a 

prior art search conducted by the 

examiner. Through this interaction, the 

examiner and the applicant are in a 

position to rapidly advance prosecution 

of the application by resolving certain 

patentability issues at the beginning of 

the prosecution process with the goal of 

early allowance, when appropriate. For 

further details about the pilot, see 

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_

events/faipp_landing.jsp. 

Seventh, the USPTO continues to 

expand its assistance to independent 

inventors through educational programs 

hosted by the Office of the Innovation 

Development, as well as through the Pro 

Se Pilot Examination Unit. The Pro Se 

Pilot Examination Unit is comprised of 

experienced examiners from all 

scientific disciplines, who have 

received training specific to issues most 

often encountered by pro se applicants. 

The examiners communicate with the 

USPTO’s pro se applicants by providing 

customer support, answering general 

patent-related questions via a toll-free 

number, email, or a walk-in service, and 

spearheading the development of 

training materials on the intricacies of 

filing a patent application. For further 

details on this pilot, see http:// 

www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/

uspto_establishes_special_examination_

unit. 

Eighth, the USPTO has provided, in 

addition to its numerous call centers, 

such as the Inventors Assistance Center 

and Application Assistance Unit, a 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

dedicated customer service America 

Invents Act (AIA) Contact Center and 

HELP–AIA hotline, to assist in 

navigating the America Invents Act, 

including the new legal provisions and 

rules regarding inventor’s oath or 

declarations, supplemental 

examination, preissuance submissions, 

citation of patent owner claim scope 

statements, post grant reviews, inter 

partes reviews, and the transitional 

program for covered business methods. 

This hotline implements the concept of 

guided assistance in which the initial 

USPTO operator stays with the caller 

throughout the call until the question is 

resolved rather than employ the often 

typical paradigm where the operator 

routes the call to a call center staffer. By 

using guided assistance for the AIA 

Contact Center, the USPTO aims to give 

callers a ‘‘one-stop-shopping’’ 

experience and eliminate the frustration 

that often occurs with call centers where 

a call may be routed several times before 

the caller reaches a staffer 

knowledgeable on the subject of the 

question. 

Ninth, the USPTO is exploring the use 

of crowdsourcing under a White House 

Executive Action to leverage the 

knowledge of those in the technical and 

scientific community to uncover hardto-find prior art. The USPTO is 

currently investigating, through 

partnership with the public, the most 

effective means of employing 

crowdsourcing to obtain such art. At the 

same time, the USPTO is working to 

improve the preissuance submissions 

process through which third parties 

submit patents, published patent 

applications, or other printed 

publications of potential relevance to 

the examination of a particular 

published application. In particular, the 

agency has improved the electronic user 

interface for making a submission to 

increase the volume of these 

submissions and make it easier for an 

examiner to ascertain the relevance of 

the art contained in the submission. 

More information on crowdsourcing and 

preissuance submissions may be found 

at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_

events/executive_actions.jsp#heading-6. 

Tenth, as mentioned earlier, the 

USPTO measures and reports a Quality 

Composite Metric composed of seven 

factors: (1) the final disposition review; 

(2) the in-process review; (3) the first 

action on the merits (FAOM) search 

review; (4) the complete FAOM review; 

(5) the external quality survey; (6) the 

internal quality survey; and (7) the 

quality index report. To facilitate an 

understanding of these metrics, the 

USPTO has developed two brief videos 

and two documents explaining the 

Quality Composite Metric, along with 

the Metric scores. These videos and 

explanatory documents are available at 

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_

events/Patent-Quality-Initiative.jsp. 

Lastly, the Patents End-to-End 

Program (PE2E) sets forth a new way of 

processing patent applications by 

providing a single online environment 

to manage examination activities and 

the work done across multiple systems. 

Among other things, PE2E aims to 

reduce the number of manual tasks 

required by examiners to access and 

coordinate their systems so that their 

focus can remain on the essential task 

of performing high-quality examination. 

Further, as part of PE2E, the USPTO is 

investigating the design and 

implementation of an improved 

notification system that would provide 

additional prosecution-related alerts to 

patent applicants in real-time. 

New Quality Proposals 

Beyond the existing quality 

improvements, the USPTO seeks to 

make additional enhancements and, to 

start, has developed six proposals for 

the public’s consideration and feedback. 

We recognize that enhancing patent 

quality will require long-term and 

sustained efforts. These six proposals 

are meant to renew the conversation 

about this very important USPTO 

priority. We also intend that our 

conversation with the public will not 

end after this document or upcoming 

Quality Summit, but instead continue 

well into the future through a variety of 

fora. 

At this time, the USPTO seeks to have 

a discussion with the public about 

targeting the most desirable proposals 

and modifying and/or fine-tuning those 

proposals to maximize the benefit to the 

patent system. The USPTO also 

welcomes the public’s input on other 

programs or initiatives not reflected in 

the proposals that the public believes 

may enhance patent quality. 

Recognizing that USPTO time and 

resources are limited and must be 

balanced to support many efforts 

simultaneously, the USPTO welcomes 

input on the prioritization of these 

proposals. 

The USPTO invites the public to 

discuss these proposals and the 

information above by sending written 

comments in response to this document 

and/or by attending the USPTO Quality 

Summit. Following the Quality Summit 

and the receipt of comments to this 

document, the USPTO plans to continue 

its engagement about these proposals 

through a series of additional events 

after making refinements, as needed, to 

the proposals based upon the initial 

public feedback. The USPTO anticipates 

hosting future events in locations across 

the country to solicit input about the 

proposals and their operation before 

implementation. Through such 

continued engagement with the public, 

the USPTO can take the correct next 

steps towards improving the quality of 

patents issued. 

The USPTO’s six proposals for 

enhanced patent quality are 

summarized in the table below, 

followed by a discussion of each 

proposal for the public’s consideration 

and comment. 

Pillar Title of proposal 

1: Excellence in work products .......................................... 1. Applicant Requests for Prosecution Review of Selected Applications 

2. Automated Pre-Examination Search 

3. Clarity of the Record 

2: Excellence in measuring patent quality ......................... 4. Review of and Improvements to Quality Metrics 

3: Excellence in customer service ..................................... 5. Review of Current Compact Prosecution Model and the Effect on Quality 

6. In-Person Interview Capability with All Examiners 

Proposal 1 Under Pillar 1: Applicant 

Requests for Prosecution Review of 

Selected Applications 

The Office of Patent Quality 

Assurance (OPQA) conducts reviews of 

randomly selected Office actions from 

examiners. The USPTO proposes a 

mechanism for an applicant to request 

OPQA prosecution review of a 

particular application where the 

applicant believes that the application 

contains an issue that would benefit 

from further review. An applicant 

would identify the application by serial 

number, which would then be placed 

into a pool of applications for selection 

by OPQA for review. Through this 

process, the applicant would be able to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6479 

bring issues to the attention of OPQA so 

that the Office can analyze the data from 

the reviews to identify trends and 

challenges to better inform future 

training and improvements to 

examination process. 

Proposal 2 Under Pillar 1: Automated 

Pre-Examination Search 

The USPTO is continuously looking 

into better ways to get the best prior art 

in front of an examiner as soon as 

possible in the examination process. 

One way this might be done is by an 

automated pre-examination search. 

Currently, before an examiner begins 

substantive examination, the examiner 

may request, at his/her discretion, that 

the USPTO’s Scientific and Technical 

Information Center (STIC) perform an 

automated pre-examination search. To 

do so, STIC uses a computerized 

linguistic tool, called the Patent 

Linguistic Utility Service (PLUS), which 

includes an algorithm to analyze an 

application for the presence of 

frequently-used terms. STIC then 

searches a database of prior art limited 

to U.S. patents and U.S. patent 

application publications for references 

containing those terms to generate a list 

of possible references for the examiner’s 

consideration with the frequently-used 

terms highlighted. With these references 

in hand as a starting point, the examiner 

is positioned to begin substantive 

examination, which includes their own 

search of the prior art done based upon 

a review of the specification and actual 

claim language (as opposed to mere 

frequently-used terms). 

Given that computerized searching 

algorithms and database technologies 

have advanced significantly in recent 

years, the USPTO is seeking input on 

new tools that might be useful to 

conduct a pre-examination search. For 

instance, the new tool might utilize a 

custom extraction routine that enables 

keyword, stemming, concept-semantic, 

and relational word searching 

capabilities. The USPTO’s current preexamination search tool PLUS does not 

possess these functionalities. Likewise, 

the new tool might employ more 

modern natural language search queries, 

which PLUS also cannot do. 

Proposal 3 Under Pillar 1: Clarity of the 

Record 

The USPTO recognizes that, in order 

for the patent system to fulfill its critical 

role in promoting innovation, issued 

patents must not only fully comply with 

all statutory requirements, but also 

contain an Official record that is 

unambiguous and accurate. Such a 

complete record provides patent 

boundaries that are clearly defined to 

the benefit of the patent owner, the 

courts, third-parties, and the public at 

large, giving inventors and investors the 

confidence to take the necessary risks to 

launch products and start businesses, 

and the public the benefit of knowing 

the precise boundaries of an 

exclusionary right. The USPTO is 

actively pursuing further measures and 

initiatives for enhancing the clarity and 

completeness of all aspects of the 

Official record during prosecution of an 

application. The USPTO is seeking to 

initiate a discussion to identify 

procedures that could be made part of 

standard examination practices to 

improve the clarity of the prosecution 

record. 

As an example of the USPTO’s 

current efforts to improve the clarity of 

the Official record, examiners have 

completed five training modules on 

functional claiming under 35 U.S.C. 

112(f). This training covers identifying 

112(f) limitations, interpreting those 

limitations under the broadest 

reasonable interpretation standard, 

making the record clear as to the 

presence and treatment of 112(f) type 

claims, and evaluating 112(f) limitations 

in software-related claims for 

definiteness, plain and customary 

meaning of terms, and treating claims as 

a whole. Furthermore, the USPTO is 

providing training modules covering 

other statutory requirements under 35 

U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) and providing 

additional training to examiners on 

identifying compliance to 35 U.S.C. 112 

in continuation applications. A list of 

upcoming training modules can be 

found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/

init_events/executive_actions.jsp. 

The USPTO seeks the assistance of 

the public in identifying procedures to 

enhance the clarity and completeness of 

the Official record during prosecution of 

an application. Any and all ideas for 

such procedures are invited for 

discussion. Exemplary procedures 

under consideration include: 

• Making claim construction explicit 

in the record, including the scope of 

claim terms, claim preambles, and 

functionally defined clauses (e.g., 

wherein clauses). 

• Further detail in the recordation of 

interviews, pre-appeal conference 

decisions, and appeal conferences, 

including identifying which arguments 

presented in the interview overcome 

individual rejections of record. 

• Where a statement of the reasons for 

allowance is necessary, providing a 

more detailed summary of the reasons 

for allowing a claim; for example, 

identifying the amendment, argument, 

or evidence that overcomes a rejection 

of record, so as to clearly communicate 

to the public the examiner’s reasons 

why the claimed invention is 

patentable. 

Proposal 4 Under Pillar 2: Review of and 

Improvements to Quality Metrics 

The USPTO proposes to re-assess the 

effectiveness of the Quality Composite 

Metric and welcomes stakeholder 

guidance on the effectiveness of the 

current Metric, as well as ways to 

improve it. As noted earlier, details 

about the Quality Composite Metric are 

available at http://www.uspto.gov/

patents/init_events/Patent-QualityInitiative.jsp. By reevaluating the 

Quality Composite Metric, the USPTO 

aims to increase the effectiveness, 

transparency, clarity, and simplicity of 

USPTO review, employ a system that 

measures both errors by commission 

and errors by omission, and obtain 

examination metrics that are specifically 

tied to procedures for improving 

performance based on identified trends. 

Additionally, the USPTO proposes to reevaluate its current ways of measuring 

the impact of training provided to 

examiners to enhance the effectiveness 

of examiner training. 

Proposal 5 Under Pillar 3: Review of the 

Current Compact Prosecution Model 

and the Effect on Quality 

In an effort to resolve outstanding 

issues in an application before 

prosecution on the merits closes, the 

USPTO seeks assistance from the public 

on determining whether the current 

compact prosecution model should be 

modified. Such revisions to the compact 

model seek to enhance both the overall 

pendency and the quality of the 

prosecution. Under normal compact 

prosecution practice, an applicant 

typically receives only a single non-final 

Office action. The USPTO seeks ideas 

for proactive alternatives to Request for 

Continued Examination filings or 

appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board. The goal of such an alternative 

is to increase the quality of the 

communication between applicant and 

examiner during prosecution, thereby 

focusing the prosecution on resolution 

of patentability issues rather than on 

concluding the prosecution. Such an 

increased emphasis on the resolution of 

any and all patentability issues during 

prosecution may enhance the quality of 

the patents that issue. 

For example, the USPTO seeks 

feedback on the desirability of a 

procedure by which an applicant might 

pay for entry of an additional response 

that may or may not require an 

examiner interview to further 

prosecution in an application before a 

final rejection is issued, thereby 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

providing for at least two non-final 

Office actions in an application. An 

additional response, either with or 

without an interview, may give an 

applicant the opportunity to present 

arguments or amendments to overcome 

outstanding rejections, which may 

result in a more efficient and 

expeditious disposal of the application. 

Proposal 6 Under Pillar 3: In-Person 

Interview Capability With All Examiners 

Effective interviews between the 

examiner and the applicant lead to the 

issue of better quality patents and to 

greater customer satisfaction with the 

prosecution. Currently, in-person 

interviews are conducted at the USPTO 

Headquarters in Alexandria, VA. 

Interviews may also be conducted at the 

fully operational USPTO Satellite 

Offices (currently, Detroit and Denver) 

for those examiners stationed at those 

Offices and for those examiners hoteling 

within the local commuting areas of 

those Offices (e.g., within 50 miles). 

Although recent improvements USPTO 

collaboration tools permit applicant 

interviews via video, some applicants 

nevertheless prefer in-person 

interviews. The USPTO thus proposes 

that in-person interviews could be 

conducted at additional locations, such 

as at regional libraries across the 

country that have partnered with the 

USPTO to serve as repositories for 

patent materials, for example, the 

Boston Public Library, Chicago Public 

Library, and Los Angeles Public Library. 

Upon a request for an in-person 

interview with a specific examiner, the 

USPTO would designate an acceptable 

remote interview location nearest to that 

examiner’s official duty station and 

provide arrangements for that examiner 

to travel to the interview location and 

conduct the interview. This proposal 

would ensure the availability of inperson interviews for all applications as 

the USPTO refines its telework program 

and leverages other USPTO affiliated 

locations. This proposal would have 

cost implications on the USPTO, and 

the USPTO welcomes a discussion on 

the public’s desire and willingness to 

pay for such additional service. 

Quality Summit 

In addition to seeking written 

comments from the public and further 

input from our employees, the USPTO 

is planning to hold a two-day Quality 

Summit on March 25 and 26, 2015 in 

the Madison Building, USPTO 

Headquarters, in Alexandria, Virginia. 

The Quality Summit is an important 

opportunity for the public to voice their 

feedback and ideas about quality to 

ensure the most efficient prosecution 

processes and the issuance of the 

highest quality patents. Likewise, the 

USPTO intends to utilize significant 

portions of the Summit to work with the 

public to brainstorm additional options 

to enhance patent quality. 

The agenda for the morning session of 

the first day of the Quality Summit 

includes stakeholder presentations and 

a panel discussion on ‘‘Perspectives on 

the Importance of Quality,’’ as well as 

a discussion about ‘‘Key Aspects of 

Quality.’’ The afternoon session of the 

first day will be dedicated to the first 

pillar of quality, ‘‘Providing the Best 

Possible Work Products,’’ by focusing 

on prosecution and examination 

improvements. The agenda for the 

second day of the Quality Summit will 

be dedicated to the second and third 

pillars of quality, with the morning 

session covering ‘‘Establishing 

Appropriate Quality Metrics’’ and the 

afternoon session directed to 

‘‘Improving the Customer Experience 

and Providing Excellent Customer 

Service.’’ When discussing the three 

pillars of the Patent Quality Initiative 

and the proposals, the USPTO intends 

to interact and listen to the public 

through both large group discussions 

and small group brainstorming sessions. 

During these discussions, the USPTO 

welcomes an in-depth, specific, and 

expansive conversation about its 

proposals, as well as any and all aspects 

of enhanced quality that the public 

would like to raise. A more detailed 

agenda follows: 

Time Topic 

DAY 1: MORNING SESSION INTRODUCTION TO THE ENHANCED QUALITY INITIATIVE AND DISCUSSION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF 

QUALITY 

8:30 to 8:40 am ........................................ Welcome. 

8:40 to 9:00 am ........................................ Opening Remarks. 

9:00 to 10:30 am ...................................... Perspectives on the Importance of Quality 

Speakers to include corporate counsel, private practitioners, academics, economists, and jurists. 

10:30 to 10:45 am .................................... Break. 

10:45 to 12:00 pm .................................... All Audience Discussion of Key Aspects of Quality 

12:00 to 1:00 pm ...................................... Break for lunch. 

DAY 1: AFTERNOON SESSION PROVIDING THE BEST POSSIBLE WORK PRODUCTS 

1:00 to 1:30 pm ........................................ Pillar 1: Overview of Currently Available Improvements. 

1:30 to 1:45 pm ........................................ Introduction of Proposals 1 and 2. 

1:45 to 2:30 pm ........................................ All Audience Discussion of Proposals 1 and 2. 

2:30 to 2:45 pm ........................................ Break. 

2:45 to 4:45 pm ........................................ Brainstorming for Pillar 1 in General and Proposals 1 and 2 

Small group break-out session to be followed by sharing of ideas with all audience. 

4:45 to 5 pm ............................................. Concluding Remarks. 

DAY 2: MORNING SESSION ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATE QUALITY METRICS 

8:30 to 8:45 am ........................................ Welcome. 

8:45 to 9:15 am ........................................ Pillars 1 and 2: Overview of Currently Available Improvements and the Quality Composite. 

9:15 to 9:30 am ........................................ Introduction of Proposals 3 and 4. 

9:30 to 10:15 am ...................................... All Audience Discussion of Proposals 3 and 4. 

10:15 to 10:30 am .................................... Break. 

10:30 to 12:30 pm .................................... Brainstorming for Pillars 1 and 2 in General and Proposals 3 and 4 

Small group break-out session to be followed by sharing of ideas with all audience. 

12:30 to 1:30 pm ...................................... Break for lunch. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6481 

Time Topic 

DAY 2: AFTERNOON SESSION IMPROVING THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND PROVIDING EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE 

1:30 to 2:00 pm ........................................ Pillar 3: Overview of Currently Available Improvements. 

2:00 to 2:15 pm ........................................ Introduction of Proposals 5 and 6. 

2:15 to 3:00 pm ........................................ All Audience Discussion of Proposals 5 and 6. 

3:00 to 3:15 pm ........................................ Break. 

3:15 to 5:15 pm ........................................ Brainstorming for Pillar 3 in General and Proposals 5 and 6 

Small group break-out session to be followed by sharing of ideas with all audience. 

5:15 to 5:30 pm ........................................ Concluding Remarks and Next Steps. 

Date: February 3, 2015. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02398 Filed 2–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0795; FRL–9922– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR65 

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory 

Definition of Volatile Organic 

Compounds—Requirements for t-Butyl 

Acetate 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the 

EPA’s regulatory definition of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The regulatory 

definition of VOCs currently excludes tbutyl acetate (also known as tertiary 

butyl acetate or TBAC; CAS NO: 540– 

88–5) for purposes of VOC emissions 

limitations or VOC content 

requirements on the basis that it makes 

a negligible contribution to tropospheric 

ozone formation. However, the current 

definition includes TBAC as a VOC for 

purposes of all recordkeeping, 

emissions reporting, photochemical 

dispersion modeling and inventory 

requirements which apply to VOCs. The 

regulatory definition requires that TBAC 

be uniquely identified in emission 

reports. TBAC is used as a solvent in 

paints, inks and adhesives, in which it 

substitutes for compounds that are 

regulated as VOCs. This proposed action 

would remove recordkeeping, emissions 

reporting, photochemical dispersion 

modeling and inventory requirements 

related to the use of TBAC as a VOC. 

The EPA has concluded that these 

requirements are not resulting in useful 

information. Furthermore, there is no 

evidence that TBAC is being used at 

levels that would cause concern for 

ozone formation. As these requirements 

are unnecessary and can be burdensome 

for states and industry, we are 

proposing to revoke these requirements 

and exclude TBAC from the regulatory 

definition of VOCs for all purposes. 

Note that the EPA is not reconsidering 

its determination that TBAC is 

‘‘negligibly reactive’’ with respect to 

ground-level ozone formation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 6, 2015. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing 

concerning the proposed regulation on 

or before March 9, 2015 we will hold a 

public hearing on March 23, 2015. If a 

public hearing is requested, it will be 

held at 10 a.m. on the EPA campus in 

Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an 

alternate site nearby. Please refer to 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on the comment 

period and the public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0795, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@

epamail.epa.gov. Include docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0795 in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail Code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0795, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0795. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0795. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov, 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS