776 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) A request for renewal is received 

no later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

(2) The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

• An explanation that the activities to 

be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

• A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

(3) Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: January 3, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00032 Filed 1–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB697] 

Pacific 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 Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Pacific Council) 

Groundfish Subcommittee of the 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) will hold an online meeting to 

review the 2021 groundfish stock 

assessment process and discuss process 

improvements for the next stock 

assessment cycle. 

DATES: The online meeting will be held 

Tuesday, January 25, 2022, from 12:30 

p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Pacific Standard Time 

(PST) or until business for the day is 

completed. 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held 

online. Specific meeting information, 

including directions on how to join the 

meeting and system requirements will 

be provided in the meeting 

announcement on the Pacific Council’s 

website (see www.pcouncil.org). You 

may send an email to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov) or contact him at (503) 820– 

2412 for technical assistance. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; 

telephone: (503) 820–2413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participants in the Pacific Council’s 

2021 groundfish stock assessment 

process will hold a meeting via webinar 

to review and evaluate the 2021 stock 

assessment review (STAR) process. The 

goal of the webinar is to solicit process 

improvements to recommend for future 

groundfish stock assessments and STAR 

panel reviews. Process 

recommendations will be provided to 

the Pacific Council at their March 2022 

meeting. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov; (503) 820–2412) at least 10 

days prior to the meeting date. 

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

Dated: January 3, 2022. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00040 Filed 1–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2021–0033] 

Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility 

Response Pilot Program 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is 

implementing a pilot program to 

evaluate the effects of permitting 

applicants to defer responding to subject 

matter eligibility (SME) rejections in 

certain patent applications. Under this 

pilot program, applicants may receive 

invitations to participate if their 

applications meet the criteria for the 

program as specified in this notice, 

including a criterion that the claims in 

the application necessitate rejections on 

SME and other patentability-related 

grounds. An applicant who accepts the 

invitation to participate in this pilot 

program must still file a reply to every 

Office action mailed in the application, 

but is permitted to defer responding to 

SME rejections until the earlier of final 

disposition of the application, or the 

withdrawal or obviation of all other 

outstanding rejections. This notice 

outlines the conditions, eligibility 

requirements, and guidelines of the 

pilot program. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 7, 2022 to ensure consideration. 

Pilot Duration: Invitations to 

participate in the Deferred Subject 

Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) 

Pilot Program will be mailed during the 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 777 

period beginning on February 1, 2022, 

and ending on July 30, 2022. The 

USPTO may extend the pilot program 

(with or without modifications) or 

terminate it depending on the workload 

and resources needed to administer the 

program, feedback from the public, and 

the effectiveness of the program. If the 

pilot program is extended or terminated, 

the USPTO will notify the public. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of Government 

efficiency, comments must be submitted 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the portal, enter docket 

number PTO–P–2021–0033 on the 

homepage and click ‘‘Search.’’ The site 

will provide a search results page listing 

all documents associated with this 

docket. Find a reference to this notice 

and click on the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. Attachments 

to electronic comments will be accepted 

in ADOBE® portable document format 

or MICROSOFT WORD® format. 

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. 

Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

website (www.regulations.gov) for 

additional instructions on providing 

comments via the portal. If electronic 

submission of comments is not feasible 

due to a lack of access to a computer 

and/or the internet, please contact the 

USPTO using the contact information 

below for special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions or comments regarding this 

pilot program in general, please contact 

Nalini Mummalaneni, Legal Advisor, 

Office of Patent Legal Administration, 

Office of the Deputy Commissioner for 

Patents, USPTO, at 571–270–1647. 

Questions regarding a specific 

application should be directed to the 

Technology Center examining the 

application. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Patent 

examiners at the USPTO customarily 

practice compact prosecution when 

examining patent applications. See 

section 2103 of the Manual of Patent 

Examining Procedure (MPEP, Ninth 

Edition, Revision 10.2019). Under the 

principles of compact prosecution, as 

described in the MPEP, an examiner 

reviews each claim for compliance with 

every requirement for patentability in 

the initial review of the application, and 

identifies all the applicable grounds of 

rejection in the first Office action. See 

MPEP 2100 for a discussion of the 

requirements for patentability, 

including the SME, utility, 

inventorship, and double patenting 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101; the 

enablement, written description, and 

definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. 

112; and the prior art-based novelty and 

non-obviousness requirements of 35 

U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, 

respectively. The applicant must then 

respond to every ground of rejection in 

the Office action in order to continue 

prosecution and avoid abandonment of 

the application. 37 CFR 1.111(b); MPEP 

714.02. 

On March 22, 2021, Senators Thom 

Tillis and Tom Cotton sent a letter to the 

Commissioner for Patents suggesting 

that the USPTO modify the compact 

prosecution process with respect to 

SME issues. This letter is available at 

https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ 

initiatives/patent-applicationinitiatives/deferred-subject-mattereligibility-response. In particular, the 

letter requested that the USPTO adopt a 

pilot program under which full 

prosecution of SME issues under 35 

U.S.C. 101 is deferred until a patent 

application satisfies the other 

patentability conditions, and that the 

USPTO also determine ‘‘whether this 

approach is more effective, and 

produces higher quality patents’’ than 

the traditional compact prosecution 

approach. 

In response to the Senators’ requests, 

the USPTO is implementing the DSMER 

Pilot Program. Under this program, an 

applicant must still file a reply to every 

Office action mailed regarding a 

participating application, but is 

permitted to defer responding to SME 

rejections until the earlier of final 

disposition of the application, or the 

withdrawal or obviation of all other 

outstanding rejections. The DSMER 

Pilot Program thus deviates from 

traditional compact prosecution, 

because participating applicants may 

defer engaging with examiners on SME 

issues until after non-SME issues have 

been addressed. 

This pilot program provides the 

USPTO with the opportunity to evaluate 

how deferred applicant responses to 

SME rejections affect examination 

efficiency and patent quality as 

compared to traditional compact 

prosecution practice. Because 

satisfaction of non-SME conditions for 

patentability (e.g., novelty, nonobviousness, adequacy of disclosure, 

and definiteness) may resolve SME 

issues as well, the pilot program may 

result in improved examination 

efficiency and increased patent quality 

as compared to compact prosecution 

practice, particularly in certain 

technology areas. 

I. Prospective Pilot Applications 

The USPTO may identify an 

application as a prospective pilot 

application if it satisfies the following 

conditions during the invitation phase: 

(1) The application is assigned to a 

participating examiner, as explained in 

section I.A.; (2) the application meets 

the procedural criteria specified in 

section I.B.; and (3) the claims meet the 

patentability-related criteria specified in 

section I.C. Such identification will be 

made in the first Office action on the 

merits, which will include a form 

paragraph identifying the application as 

a prospective pilot application, inviting 

the applicant to participate, and 

informing the applicant about how to 

accept or decline the invitation. See 

section II for more information on the 

invitation process. The USPTO will not 

accept requests to have a particular 

application identified as a prospective 

pilot application. 

A. Participating Examiners 

This pilot program is open to primary 

examiners across the patent examining 

corps. While examiner participation is 

not mandatory, the USPTO will make 

efforts to ensure that a representative 

number of primary examiners are 

participating from each applicable 

Technology Center. 

B. Procedural Criteria 

1. Application Types 

A prospective pilot application must 

be an original nonprovisional utility 

application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) 

or an international application that has 

entered the national stage under 35 

U.S.C. 371, and must not claim the 

benefit of the earlier filing date, under 

35 U.S.C. 120 or 121, of any prior 

nonprovisional application. The 

application may claim the benefit of the 

earlier filing date, under 35 U.S.C. 120, 

121, 365(c), or 386(c), of any prior 

international application or 

international design application 

designating the United States, and may 

claim priority, under 35 U.S.C. 119, 

365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), to any 

prior application filed in the United 

States or in a foreign country, including 

provisional applications, international 

applications, and international design 

applications that designate at least one 

country other than the United States. 

Plant and design applications do not 

qualify for participation in this pilot 

program because they are not governed 

by the SME requirements of 35 U.S.C. 

101. 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
778 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

2. Application Status 

Because this pilot program is being 

implemented to study how applicant 

deferrals of responses to SME rejections 

affect examination efficiency, 

applications that have been advanced 

out of turn (accorded special status) do 

not qualify for participation in this 

pilot. Thus, applications that have been 

accorded special status under 37 CFR 

1.102, or via participation in initiatives 

or pilot programs that advance 

applications out of turn and/or provide 

fast-track examination (e.g., the 

Collaborative Search Pilot Program or 

the COVID–19 Prioritized Examination 

Pilot Program), will not be invited to 

participate in this pilot program. 

Further, as a condition of entering this 

pilot program, an applicant must agree 

that they will not seek special status or 

expedited processing of a participating 

application until final disposition has 

been achieved in the application. 

Applications participating in this 

pilot program may participate in 

initiatives that expedite processing after 

final disposition, for example, the FastTrack Appeals Pilot Program. 

Applicants of participating applications 

may also request prioritized 

examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e)(2) 

in connection with the filing of a 

request for continued examination 

(RCE). Additionally, applications 

participating in this pilot program may 

take part in other USPTO initiatives or 

pilot programs that do not advance 

applications out of turn, including the 

After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 

(AFCP 2.0) Program, the Pre-Appeal 

Brief Conference Pilot Program, and the 

Quick Path Information Disclosure 

Statement (QPIDS) Program. For more 

information about after-final practice, 

please refer to section III.C below. 

C. Patentability-Related Criteria 

The claims of the prospective pilot 

application must raise both SME issues 

and non-SME issues that necessitate 

rejections, and the first Office action on 

the merits must make both SME and 

non-SME rejections. The inclusion of 

SME rejections in this action will ensure 

that the applicant has sufficient 

information on which to make an 

educated decision about whether to 

participate in the pilot program. This 

program does not require that any 

individual claim be the subject of both 

SME and non-SME rejections. For the 

purposes of this pilot program, an ‘‘SME 

rejection’’ is a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 

101 for lack of SME, and includes both 

step 1 rejections, where the claim as a 

whole does not fall within a statutory 

category, and step 2B rejections, where 

the claim as a whole is directed to a 

judicial exception without also 

including additional limitations 

amounting to significantly more than 

the exception. See MPEP 2106.07 for a 

discussion of SME rejections. 

Additional information about patent 

SME and the USPTO’s evaluation of this 

requirement is provided in MPEP 2106 

et seq., and at www.uspto.gov/ 

PatentEligibility. A ‘‘non-SME rejection’’ 

is a rejection based on any other 

condition for patentability, such as, for 

example, utility or inventorship under 

35 U.S.C. 101; enablement, written 

description, or definiteness under 35 

U.S.C. 112; novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102; 

non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103; 

or double patenting. See MPEP chapter 

2100 for more information about these 

conditions for patentability. 

II. Pilot Invitation and Election Process 

A. Pilot Invitation 

As explained in section I, 

participating examiners may invite the 

applicant of a prospective pilot 

application to participate in the pilot 

program by including a form paragraph 

in the first Office action on the merits. 

The form paragraph will identify the 

application as a prospective pilot 

application, invite the applicant to 

participate, and inform the applicant 

about how to accept or decline the 

invitation. For purposes of issuing an 

invitation to participate in this program, 

the term ‘‘first Office action on the 

merits’’ does not include actions 

containing only a requirement for 

restriction and/or election of species. A 

copy of the invitation form paragraph is 

available on the pilot program website 

at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ 

initiatives/patent-applicationinitiatives/deferred-subject-mattereligibility-response. 

B. Election by the Applicant 

An applicant receiving an invitation 

to participate in the DSMER Pilot 

Program may elect to accept the 

invitation and participate in the 

program or to decline participation. 

If an applicant wishes to participate 

in the program, they must file a properly 

completed request form PTO/SB/456 

concurrently with a timely response to 

the first Office action on the merits. The 

request form must be signed, in 

accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b), by a 

person having the authority to prosecute 

the application, and must be submitted 

via the USPTO’s patent electronic filing 

systems (EFS-Web or Patent Center). 

Use of this form will help the Office to 

quickly identify applications 

participating in this pilot program and 

improve the data generated on the 

effectiveness of the program. The form 

is available on the pilot program website 

at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ 

initiatives/patent-applicationinitiatives/deferred-subject-mattereligibility-response. If the form is 

properly completed and timely received 

in a prospective pilot application, the 

application will be entered into the pilot 

program, and further prosecution will 

proceed as detailed below in section III. 

Form PTO/SB/456 does not collect 

‘‘information’’ as defined in 5 CFR 

1320.3(h) and therefore is exempt from 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

If the applicant does not timely file a 

properly completed PTO/SB/456, the 

application will not be entered into the 

program. In this case, the application 

will undergo the normal prosecution 

process as described in MPEP chapter 

700, and the applicant must file a 

complete reply to the first Office action 

on the merits, as required by 37 CFR 

1.111(b) and as described in MPEP 

714.02. 

Once an applicant has elected to 

participate in the pilot program, there is 

no provision for them to withdraw a 

participating application. However, 

applicants may, at any time, choose not 

to avail themselves of the program’s 

benefit (the ability to defer responding 

to SME rejections in certain 

circumstances) and may voluntarily 

reply to any outstanding SME rejections. 

Such action does not remove the 

application from the pilot program or 

terminate the waiver for that 

application. 

III. Pilot Procedure 

A. Applicant Replies 

Participation in this pilot program 

provides the applicant with a limited 

waiver of 37 CFR 1.111(b) with respect 

to SME rejections in the participating 

application, as set out below. Although 

the applicant must still file a reply to 

every Office action mailed in the 

participating application, the limited 

waiver permits the applicant to defer 

presenting arguments, evidence, or 

amendments in response to the SME 

rejection(s) until the earlier of final 

disposition of the participating 

application or the withdrawal or 

obviation of all other outstanding 

rejections. Other than this permitted 

deferral of responding to the SME 

rejection(s), the applicant’s replies must 

be fully responsive to the Office action, 

as described in MPEP 714.02, and must 

be timely filed within the applicable 

period for reply, as extended under 37 

CFR 1.136(a). 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 779 

The phrase ‘‘final disposition’’ should 

be understood for a particular 

application as occurring upon the 

earliest of the: (1) Mailing of a notice of 

allowance, (2) mailing of a final Office 

action, (3) filing of a notice of appeal, (4) 

filing of an RCE, or (5) abandonment of 

the application. The phrase 

‘‘withdrawal or obviation of all other 

outstanding rejections’’ refers to the 

situation in which a second or 

subsequent non-final Office action 

containing only the SME rejection(s) is 

mailed in a participating application, 

because the applicant has overcome, or 

the examiner has withdrawn, all the 

non-SME rejections that were 

previously made. Although such actions 

are not final dispositions, they are 

effective in terminating the limited 

waiver of 37 CFR 1.111(b) for that 

participating application. This 

termination is necessary because the 

applicant is required by 35 U.S.C. 132 

and 133 to respond to Office actions in 

order to prevent abandonment of the 

application. 

Prior to termination of the waiver 

(whether by final disposition or by the 

withdrawal or obviation of all other 

outstanding rejections), the applicant 

may defer responding to any particular 

SME rejection in a participating 

application. For example, if the 

applicant accepts the invitation to 

participate in the pilot program, in 

compliance with section II.B above, for 

an application having a first Office 

action on the merits setting forth a step 

1 SME rejection, a step 2B SME 

rejection, and an anticipation rejection, 

an applicant may exercise any of the 

following options when filing a reply to 

the action: 

• Respond only to the anticipation 

rejection and remain silent on the SME 

rejections, pursuant to the limited 

waiver of 37 CFR 1.111(b); 

• Respond to the anticipation 

rejection and one of the SME rejections, 

and remain silent on the other SME 

rejection, pursuant to the limited waiver 

of 37 CFR 1.111(b); or 

• Respond to all three rejections. 

Any of these three replies will be 

considered as an adequate reply to the 

SME rejection(s) for purposes of 

evaluating whether the applicant has 

made a bona fide attempt to advance the 

application to final action. 

Upon final disposition, or the 

withdrawal or obviation of all other 

outstanding rejections (which would 

normally occur in a final Office action 

but may, in some circumstances, occur 

in a second or subsequent non-final 

Office action), the limited waiver of 37 

CFR 1.111(b) provided by this pilot 

program ends, and the applicant may no 

longer defer responding to any 

outstanding SME rejection(s). See 

section III.C below for more information 

on after-final practice. 

In the event that circumstances 

require the USPTO to remove an 

application from this pilot program, the 

limited waiver of 37 CFR 1.111(b) ends, 

and the applicant may no longer defer 

responding to any outstanding SME 

rejection(s). Such circumstances may 

occur, for instance, if the application 

must be transferred upon the retirement 

of the original examiner. In the event of 

removal, the applicant will be notified 

that the application no longer qualifies 

for the pilot program. 

B. Examiner Actions 

An examiner’s or applicant’s 

participation in this pilot program does 

not alter the normal prosecution 

process, as described in MPEP chapter 

700, except for the SME response 

deferral outlined above in section III.A. 

Thus, for example, interviews 

conducted in participating applications 

must be made of record, in accordance 

with the normal interview procedure 

(see MPEP 713), and the written 

statement of the substance of the 

interview must capture all matters 

discussed (including any SME rejectionrelated discussions) between the 

applicant and the examiner, in 

accordance with normal interview 

practice (see MPEP 713.04). 

Even though the limited waiver of 37 

CFR 1.111(b) permits the applicant to 

defer responding to an SME rejection, 

the examiner will consider whether the 

applicant’s responses to other rejections 

(e.g., amendments made in response to 

an obviousness or indefiniteness 

rejection) overcome the SME rejection(s) 

of record. In cases where the applicant’s 

reply overcomes all outstanding 

rejections, including the SME 

rejection(s) set forth in the Office action, 

and the application is otherwise in 

condition for allowance, the examiner 

will issue a Notice of Allowance. If the 

examiner believes that the record of the 

prosecution as a whole does not make 

clear their reasons for allowing a claim 

or claims, the examiner may set forth 

such reasoning in the Notice of 

Allowance, as described in MPEP 

1302.14. Issuance of a Notice of 

Allowance is a final disposition that 

concludes the limited waiver of 37 CFR 

1.111(b) for that particular application. 

In cases where the applicant’s reply 

does not overcome all outstanding 

rejections, the examiner will issue a 

subsequent Office action setting forth all 

applicable rejections, including any 

applicable SME rejection(s), and 

addressing all amendments, arguments, 

and evidence provided by the applicant. 

In accordance with normal prosecution 

practice and as explained in MPEP 

706.07(a), the subsequent action will 

typically be a final action, except in 

limited circumstances. Issuance of a 

final rejection is a final disposition that 

concludes the limited waiver of 37 CFR 

1.111(b) for that particular application. 

If the subsequent Office action is a nonfinal action, and a non-SME rejection(s) 

remains outstanding, the applicant may 

continue deferring their response to any 

outstanding SME rejection(s) set forth in 

the subsequent Office action, as 

described above in section III.A. If the 

subsequent Office action is a non-final 

action, and there are no non-SME 

rejections outstanding, the limited 

waiver is terminated, and the applicant 

must respond to the outstanding SME 

rejection(s), as described above in 

section III.A. 

C. After-Final and Appeal Practice 

As stated earlier, a final disposition of 

the application ends the limited waiver 

of 37 CFR 1.111(b) provided by this 

pilot program. Thus, the applicant may 

not defer responding to any outstanding 

SME rejection(s) after final disposition 

(e.g., after the mailing of a final Office 

action, filing of a notice of appeal, or 

filing of an RCE). If the applicant 

chooses to file an after-final response, it 

must be complete, in accordance with 

37 CFR 1.111(b), and any amendment, 

affidavit, or other evidence submitted 

after a final Office action and prior to 

appeal must comply with 37 CFR 1.116. 

If the applicant chooses to file a Notice 

of Appeal, the application will be 

treated in accordance with the normal 

appeal procedure (see MPEP chapter 

1200), and the applicant must present 

arguments with respect to each ground 

of rejection (including SME rejections) 

that is contested, pursuant to 37 CFR 

41.37(c)(1)(iv). Applicants are cautioned 

that participation in this program is not, 

in itself, a good and sufficient reason 

why an amendment or evidence was not 

earlier presented under 37 CFR 1.116 or 

41.33. See, e.g., MPEP 714.12 and MPEP 

1206 regarding amendments and other 

replies after final rejection or appeal. 

If the applicant chooses to file an 

RCE, they must submit a complete 

response to the final Office action, 

including a response to any outstanding 

SME rejection(s), with the RCE as 

required by normal rules of practice. 

Because abandonment is a final 

disposition, it also ends the limited 

waiver of 37 CFR 1.111(b) provided by 

this pilot program. Thus, if a 

participating application is abandoned, 

the applicant may not defer responding 

to any outstanding SME rejection(s) if 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 
780 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 / Notices 

the application is later revived, even if 

the application was abandoned due to 

failure to respond to a non-final Office 

action. Accordingly, a grantable petition 

for revival of a participating application 

that is abandoned must be accompanied 

by a complete reply to any outstanding 

SME rejection(s) of record, in addition 

to the other requirements of such 

petitions under 37 CFR 1.137 and Office 

practice. Due to this particular response 

requirement, a petition for revival of a 

participating application may not be 

filed as an e-Petition and instead must 

be filed by: (1) Uploading the petition 

and accompanying papers using a 

USPTO electronic filing system (EFSWeb or Patent Center); (2) physical 

delivery to the USPTO by way of the 

United States Postal Service, another 

delivery service, or by hand delivery to 

the USPTO Customer Service Window; 

or (3) facsimile. More information about 

these delivery options is available at 

www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/petitions/ 

02-where-file-petitions-requests-andrelated-inquiries-office. 

An application participating in this 

pilot program may participate in other 

USPTO initiatives after final disposition 

of the application if it satisfies the 

conditions of those other initiatives. 

Such initiatives include, for example, 

the AFCP 2.0 Program, the Fast-Track 

Appeals Pilot Program, the Fast-Track 

for COVID–19-Related Appeals Pilot 

Program, the Pre-Appeal Brief 

Conference Pilot Program, and the 

QPIDS Program. An application 

participating in this pilot program may 

also request special status or expedited 

processing in connection with the filing 

of an RCE (e.g., prioritized examination 

under 37 CFR 1.102(e)(2)). 

Andrew Hirshfeld, 

Commissioner for Patents, Performing the 

Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2021–28473 Filed 1–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: EAC Federal Financial 

Report 

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC). 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

standardized EAC Federal Financial 

Report (EAC–FFR) to be used for both 

interim and final financial reporting for 

all EAC grants. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA), the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) gives 

notice that it is requesting from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) approval for the information 

collection EAC Federal Financial Report 

(EAC–FFR). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, March 8, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: To view the proposed EAC– 

FFR format, see: https://www.eac.gov/ 

payments-and-grants/reporting. 

For information on the EAC–FFR, 

contact Kinza Ghaznavi, Office of 

Grants, Election Assistance 

Commission, Grants@eac.gov. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

directly to Grants@eac.gov. 

All requests and submissions should 

be identified by the title of the 

information collection. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EAC 

Office of Grants Management (EAC/ 

OGM) is responsible for distributing, 

monitoring, and providing technical 

assistance to states and grantees on the 

use of federal funds. EAC/OGM also 

reports on how the funds are spent, 

negotiates indirect cost rates with 

grantees, and resolves audit findings on 

the use of HAVA funds. 

The EAC–FFR is employed for all 

financial reports for grants issued under 

HAVA authority. This revised format 

builds upon that report for the various 

grant awards given by EAC. A ‘‘For 

Comment’’ version of the draft format 

for use in submission of the FFR is 

posted on the EAC website at: https:// 

www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/ 

reporting. The FFR will directly benefit 

award recipients by making it easier for 

them to administer federal grant and 

cooperative agreement programs 

through standardization of the types of 

information required in financial 

reporting—thereby reducing their 

administrative effort and costs. 

After obtaining and considering 

public comment, the EAC will prepare 

the format for final clearance. 

Comments are invited on (a) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information collected from 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (b) ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Description: The EAC proposes to 

collect financial activity data for HAVA. 

EAC will use this data to ensure 

grantees are proceeding in a satisfactory 

manner in meeting the approved goals 

and purpose of the project. 

The requirement for grantees to report 

on performance is OMB grants policy. 

Specific citations are contained in Code 

of Federal Regulations TITLE 2, PART 

200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, 

AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR 

FEDERAL AWARDS. 

Respondents: All EAC grantees and 

state governments. 

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

EAC grant Instrument Total number 

of respondents 

Total number 

of responses 

per year 

Average 

burden hours 

per response 

Annual burden 

hours 

251 .................................................... EAC–FFR ......................................... 35 2 .5 35 

101 .................................................... EAC–FFR ......................................... 20 2 .5 20 

Election Security ............................... EAC–FFR ......................................... 56 2 .5 56 

CARES .............................................. EAC–FFR ......................................... 15 2 .5 15 

Total ........................................... ........................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 126 


TKELLEY on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE