[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31763-31768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13244]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark Office

[Docket No.: PTO-P-2010-0035]


Enhanced Examination Timing Control Initiative; Notice of Public 
Meeting

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31764]]

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting to solicit public 
opinions on an initiative being considered by the United States Patent 
and Trademark Office (USPTO) to provide applicants with greater control 
over when their applications are examined and to enhance work sharing 
between intellectual property offices. Under the initiative, for 
applications filed in the USPTO that are not based on a prior foreign-
filed application (e.g., that do not claim foreign priority benefit), 
applicant would be able to: (1) Request prioritized examination (Track 
I); (2) for non-continuing applications, request a delay lasting up to 
30 months in docketing for examination (Track III); or (3) obtain 
processing under the current procedure (Track II) by not requesting 
either (1) or (2). For applications filed in the USPTO that are based 
on a prior foreign-filed application, no action would be taken by the 
USPTO until the USPTO receives a copy of the search report, if any, and 
first office action from the foreign office and an appropriate reply to 
the foreign office action as if the foreign office action was made in 
the application filed in the USPTO. Following or concurrent with the 
submission of the foreign office action and reply, applicant may 
request prioritized examination or obtain processing under the current 
procedure.
    This initiative aims both to provide applicants with the type of 
examination they need and to reduce the overall pendency of patent 
applications (which currently stands at almost three years). Overall 
pendency would be decreased in three ways: (1) Increased resources in 
Track 1 would result in increased output; (2) reuse of search and 
examination work done by other offices would result in greater 
efficiency; and (3) applicants who chose Track III because their 
applications were of lower value might ultimately decide not to pursue 
their application examination efforts that had been expended on the 
applications. As a part of the three-tracks, an applicant may request 
and pay for a supplemental search from a participating intellectual 
property granting office. Any member of the public may submit written 
comments on this initiative being considered by the USPTO.

Dates and Times: The public meeting will be held on July 20, 2010, 
beginning at 1:30 p.m.
    Persons interested in attending the meeting must register by 5 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time (EST) on July 16, 2010.
    Written comments must be submitted by August 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the USPTO, in the South 
Auditorium of Madison West, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
    Written comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the 
Internet addressed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2f1b6b0a3a1a9b1a1adafafa7acb6b182b7b1b2b6adeca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4271363023212931212d2f2f272c363102373132362d6c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments may also be 
submitted by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments-Patents, 
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, 
marked to the attention of Robert A. Clarke. Although comments may be 
submitted by mail, submission via e-mail to the above address is 
preferable.
    The written comments will be available for public inspection at the 
Office of the Commissioner for Patents, located in Madison East, Tenth 
Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and will be available 
via the USPTO Internet Web site (address: http://www.uspto.gov). 
Because comments will be made available for public inspection, 
information that is not desired to be made public, such as an address 
or phone number, should not be included.

FOR REGISTRATION TO GIVE A PRESENTATION IN THE MEETING: If you wish to 
make an oral presentation at the meeting, you must register by sending 
an e-mail to the e-mail address, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9ca8d8b989a928a9a9694949c978d8ab98c8a898d96d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1d2959380828a92828e8c8c848f9592a1949291958ecf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>, by 5 p.m. 
EST on July 13, 2010. See the registration information provided below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert A. Clarke ((571) 272-7735), 
Deputy Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, directly by 
phone, by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#55073a373027217b163934273e3015202625213a7b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c391aca1a6b1b7ed80afa2b1a8a683b6b0b3b7aceda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail addressed to: 
Mail Stop Comments-Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, 
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. For further information on supplemental 
searches, contact Mary Critharis, 571-272-8468, Senior Patent Counsel, 
External Affairs, directly by phone, or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6ebc7d4df88e5d4cfd2cec7d4cfd5e6d3d5d6d2c988c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8f5d9cac196fbcad1ccd0d9cad1cbf8cdcbc8ccd796dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces a public meeting to 
solicit public opinions on an initiative being considered by the USPTO 
to provide applicants with greater control over when their applications 
are examined and to promote greater efficiency in the patent 
examination process. For applications filed in the USPTO which are not 
based on a prior foreign-filed application (e.g., that do not claim 
foreign priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d)), an applicant 
could: (1) Request prioritized examination; (2) for non-continuing 
applications, request an applicant-controlled delay lasting up to 30 
months prior to docketing for examination; or (3) obtain processing 
under the current procedure by not requesting either (1) or (2). For 
applications filed in the USPTO that are based on a prior foreign-filed 
application, no action would be taken by the USPTO until the USPTO 
received, in the U.S. application: (1) A copy of the search report, if 
any; (2) a copy of the first office action from the foreign office 
where the application was originally filed; and (3) an appropriate 
reply to the foreign office action. Where the foreign office action 
indicated that the foreign-filed application was allowable, all that 
would be required for the appropriate reply would be notice to the 
USPTO. Where one or more rejections were made in the foreign office 
action, applicant's reply could include an amendment but would have to 
include arguments regarding why the claims in the USPTO-filed 
application were allowable over the evidence relied upon in the foreign 
office action. Following or concurrent with the submission of the 
foreign office action and reply, applicant could request prioritized 
examination or obtain processing under the current procedure. This 
proposal would increase the efficiency of the examination of these 
applications by avoiding or reducing duplication of efforts by the 
office of first filing and the USPTO. Because efficiency gains are 
anticipated in the roughly one half of all applications that are filed 
first abroad, the result should be substantial improvement in the 
USPTO's performance. By contrast, under the PTO's primary current 
mechanism for worksharing, the patent prosecution highway program, 
scaling up has been limited by the fact that it remains voluntary and 
can only be utilized in situations where the USPTO has not already 
begun its examination work. Perhaps for this reason, major patent 
filing jurisdictions like the Japanese and European patent office have 
already adopted office-driven systems in which they address first the 
applications for which they are the office of first filing.
    Since the requirement to provide a copy of the search report, first 
action and an appropriate reply is being considered to avoid or reduce 
duplication of effort, the USPTO seeks comment on whether this 
requirement should be limited to first filings at offices that have 
qualified as international searching authorities under PCT Article 16. 
In addition, in order to avoid delays in disclosure, the USPTO seeks 
comment on whether the requirement to provide a copy of the search 
report, first action, and an

[[Page 31765]]

appropriate reply (which would result in examination delay at the 
office of second filing) should be limited to applications that are 
published.
    While it is believed that most applicants will continue to file 
applications first in their national or regional office based on 
business needs or costs of translation, comment is also requested on 
whether the USPTO should anticipate a larger number of applications 
being filed at the USPTO first rather than an applicant's national 
office. Additionally, would this filing pattern change if (as proposed 
in various patent law reform bills) a foreign filing date could be used 
as a prior art date under US law?
    The idea of office-driven worksharing, or SHARE (``Strategic 
Handling of Applications for Rapid Examination'') has already been the 
subject of some public commentary.
    On October 21, 2009, the USPTO published a Notice in the Federal 
Register inviting the public to submit written comments and participate 
in a roundtable discussion on work sharing. See Request for Comments 
and Notice of Roundtable on Work Sharing for Patent Applications, 74 FR 
54028 (October 21, 2009). Many of the comments regarding SHARE raised 
the concern that delayed examination of the foreign origin applications 
may work a disadvantage to USPTO first filers with respect to the 
patent term adjustment (PTA) that may accrue. This concern could be 
addressed by giving all applicants some control on when their 
application is examined so that the applicant can best benefit from the 
patenting process. Specifically, under the current proposal, those who 
file first in a foreign office can choose subsequently to accelerate in 
the USPTO. Some were also concerned that SHARE would only work well if 
coordinated with other offices. The coordination has already started 
with some offices. For example, the USPTO and the Korean Intellectual 
Property Office (KIPO) are conducting a small-scale pilot to gather 
empirical data and test the feasibility of the SHARE concept. More 
recently, the USPTO and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office 
(UKIPO) committed to develop a plan to optimize reuse of work on patent 
applications that are jointly filed with the USPTO and UKIPO.
    Others suggested that the search or examination fees be reduced or 
delayed. The instant proposal permits deferral of certain fees if Track 
III examination is requested. Because many comments focused on 
examination delays in the office of first filing, comments to this 
notice are requested on whether PTA should be limited by a request by 
applicant for deferred examination in the office of first filing. 
Similarly, comments are also requested on whether PTA should be limited 
if the applicant does not request accelerated examination in the office 
of first filing.
    The USPTO also intends to harmonize the existing examination 
procedures for applications having been granted accelerated or 
``special'' status including: (1) Applications under the accelerated 
examination program; (2) applications under the various patent 
prosecution highway programs; (3) applications advanced under other 
programs under 37 CFR 1.102 (e.g., applicant's age or health); or (4) 
national stage applications advanced out of turn because an 
international preliminary examination report (IPER) prepared by the 
United States International Preliminary Examining Authority or a 
written opinion on the international application prepared by the United 
States International Searching Authority states that the criteria of 
novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial 
applicability, as defined in PCT Article 33(1)-(4), have been satisfied 
for all of the claims presented in the application entering the 
national stage. The USPTO is holding a public meeting and inviting 
public comments to seek views on whether this initiative should go 
forward and what changes should be considered. Further meetings may be 
announced by the USPTO, as appropriate.
    The USPTO recognizes that the traditional ``one-size fits all'' 
examination timing may not provide applicants much opportunity to 
choose the examination timing they need. Therefore, in addition to the 
current standard procedure (Track II), the USPTO is considering 
providing applicants with greater ability to seek prioritized 
examination (Track I) or, for non-continuing applications that do not 
claim the benefit of a prior foreign-filed application, the ability to 
seek an applicant controlled up to 30-month queue prior to docketing 
for examination (Track III). By allowing applicants some control over 
the timing of examination, it is anticipated that examination resources 
would be better aligned with the needs of innovators.
    Prioritized Examination (Track I): For some applicants with a 
currently financed plan to commercialize or exploit their innovation or 
a need to have more timely examination results to seek additional 
funding, more rapid examination is necessary. While some programs are 
currently available to prioritize applications (e.g., the accelerated 
examination program and the petition to make special program), some 
applicants neither want to perform the search and analysis required by 
the accelerated examination program nor can they seek special status 
based on the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.102. For such applicants, 
the USPTO is proposing optional prioritized examination upon 
applicant's request and payment of a cost recovery fee. A request for 
prioritized examination may be made in a USPTO first-filed application 
at any time and may be made in any other application only after receipt 
of a copy of the search report, if any, and first action on the merits 
from the intellectual property office in which the relied-upon 
application was filed and an appropriate reply to that action in the 
application filed in the USPTO. On granting of prioritized status, the 
application would be placed in the queue for prioritized examination.
    The fee would be set at a level to provide the resources necessary 
to increase the work output of the USPTO so that the aggregate pendency 
of non-prioritized applications would not increase due to work being 
done on the prioritized application. The fee would also be set to 
recover any other additional costs associated with processing the 
prioritized application. For example, if work output is to be increased 
by hiring new examiners, then the fee for prioritized examination would 
include the cost of hiring and training a sufficient number of new 
employees to offset the production work used to examine prioritized 
applications. Under the USPTO's current statutory authority, the USPTO 
is not permitted to discount the fee for small entity applicants. 
Should the USPTO's authority to set fees be enhanced, it is anticipated 
that the USPTO would discount this fee for small and micro entity 
applicants, given the substantial fee that would need to be charged to 
recover all of the costs associated with the contemplated service.
    The USPTO is also considering limiting the number of claims in a 
prioritized application to four independent and thirty total claims. In 
addition, the USPTO is considering requiring early publication of 
prioritized applications so that applications would be published 
shortly after a request for prioritization is granted, or eighteen 
months from the earliest filing date claimed, whichever is earlier.
    All applications prioritized on payment of a fee, or accelerated or 
advanced out-of-turn under existing programs, would be placed in a 
single queue for examination on the merits and

[[Page 31766]]

would be taken up out-of-turn relative to other new or amended 
applications. The goals for handling applications in this queue would 
be to provide a first Office action on the merits within four months 
and a final disposition within twelve months of prioritized status 
being granted. If this process is implemented, the USPTO anticipates 
that it would provide statistics on its progress in meeting these goals 
on its Internet Web site.
    To maximize the benefit of this track, applicant should consider 
one or more of the following: (1) Acquiring a good knowledge of the 
state of the prior art to be able to file the application with a clear 
specification having a complete schedule of claims from the broadest 
that the applicant believes he is entitled in view of the state of the 
prior art to the narrowest that the applicant is willing to accept; (2) 
filing replies that are completely responsive to the prior Office 
action and within the reply period (shortened) set in the Office 
action; and (3) being prepared to conduct interviews with the examiner.
    Traditional Timing (Track II): Applications for which neither 
prioritization nor an applicant-controlled up to 30-month queue prior 
to docketing for examination is requested will be processed 
traditionally, except that applicants may request prioritized 
examination at any time (e.g., on filing of a notice of appeal) and, 
for any non-continuing application, applicants may request an 
applicant-controlled up to 30-month queue prior to being placed on the 
docket for examination on the merits. An application that claims the 
benefit of a prior-filed foreign application will not be docketed for 
examination in Track II until: (1) A copy of the search report, if any, 
(2) a copy of the first action on the merits by the intellectual 
property office in which the priority application was filed, and (3) a 
reply to that action in the application filed at the USPTO has been 
received.
    An applicant-controlled up to 30-month queue prior to docketing 
(Track III): Some applicants file an application just prior to the 
statutory bar date but before a commercially viable plan for 
exploitation of the innovation has been developed or financed. To 
better provide for the timing of examination that such applicants 
desire and to provide a similar time period to that provided 
internationally, the USPTO is considering permitting any applicant in 
an application that does not claim benefit of a prior-filed foreign 
application or prior non-provisional application to select, on filing 
or in reply to a notice to file missing parts, an applicant-controlled 
up to 30-month queue prior to docketing for examination. In order to 
avoid delays in notice to the public, any application requesting Track 
III must also be published as an 18-month patent application 
publication. An application granted this status would be placed in a 
queue for applicant to request examination and pay the examination fee 
with the surcharge (if not already paid) within thirty months of the 
actual filing date of the application or any relied-upon provisional 
application (i.e., to which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)). 
Failure to request examination within the 30-month period would result 
in abandonment of the application. The request for examination and 
examination fee (and surcharge) would be due on the 30-month date but 
could be submitted early (e.g., on filing of the application) with a 
request that the application remain in the pre-examination queue for a 
period of time (e.g., up to 30 months from filing). On expiration of 
the time period, the application would be placed in the queue for 
examination.
    On receipt of the request for this queue, the USPTO would determine 
if the application was ready for publication as a patent application 
publication (except for the receipt of the examination fee) and 
determine if any request for nonpublication made on filing had been 
rescinded. If both conditions were met, the application would be placed 
in a queue to await a request for examination and payment of the 
examination fee. If the application was not ready for publication, a 
requirement to place the application in condition for publication would 
be made and, once satisfied, the application would be placed in the 30-
month queue. The request for examination and payment may be made at any 
time during the 30-month period. If no request is made within the 30-
month period, the application would be held abandoned. The examination 
fee and the surcharge may be paid within the 30-month period or may be 
submitted after a timely request for examination is filed on notice of 
non-payment by the USPTO, along with any required extension of time 
fees.
    Upon receipt of the examination request and fee, the application 
would be placed in the queue for examination, but the receipt date of 
the examination request would be used as the ``date in queue.'' Thus, 
the application will be taken up for examination as if the request date 
was the application's actual filing date. If applicants determine that 
more rapid examination is desirable, then they may request (and pay the 
required fee) for prioritized examination while the application is in 
the queue for examination.
    Currently, the USPTO is considering a rule to offset any positive 
PTA accrued in a Track III application when applicant requests that the 
application be examined after the aggregate average period to issue a 
first Office action on the merits. For example, if the aggregate 
average time to issue a first Office action is 20 months and applicant 
requests that the application be examined at month 30, the proposed PTA 
reduction would be 10 months beginning on the expiration of the 20-
month period and ending on the date on which applicant requested 
examination to begin. The overlap with the aggregate average period 
when the USPTO would not be able to have issued a first Office action 
on the merits would not be treated as an offsetting reduction.
    Similarly, for an application in any of the three tracks that 
claims foreign priority, the USPTO is considering a rule to offset 
positive PTA accrued in the application when applicant files the 
required documents (that include a copy of the search report, if any, 
and first office action from the foreign office and an appropriate 
reply to the foreign office action as if the foreign office action was 
made in the application filed at the USPTO) after the aggregate average 
period to issue a first Office action on the merits. For example, if 
the aggregate average time to issue a first Office action is 20 months 
and applicant submits the required documents 30 months after the filing 
of the application, then the proposed PTA reduction would be 10 months 
beginning on the expiration of the 20-month period and ending on the 
date of the filing of the required documents. Thus, delays by foreign 
offices beyond the aggregate average time for the USPTO to issue a 
first Office action on the merits would be an offsetting reduction 
against any positive PTA accrued by the delay in issuing a first Office 
action while the USPTO awaits the preparation of a search report and 
first action by the office of first filing.
    In Tracks I and II, if the U.S. application claims the benefit of a 
prior-filed foreign application, and the relied-upon foreign 
application is abandoned prior to an action on the merits being made 
available, applicant must notify the USPTO and request that the 
application be treated for examination queuing purposes as if the 
foreign priority claim had not been made. The USPTO is considering 
making the failure to notify the USPTO within three months of the 
abandonment in the foreign office trigger a PTA offset as the

[[Page 31767]]

USPTO would not appreciate the need to treat the application as if 
first-filed in the USPTO until such notice is given. Similarly, if the 
office of first filing has a practice of not producing actions on the 
merits, applicant would need to notify the USPTO that the application 
should be treated for examination queuing purposes as if the foreign 
priority claim had not been made.
    The USPTO is also considering negotiating with one or more 
intellectual property granting offices (IPGOs) to provide an optional 
service for applicants at the USPTO to request that the USPTO obtain 
from one or more IPGOs a supplemental search report. This supplemental 
search report will be considered in preparation of the first Office 
action on the merits by the examiner. An additional search will be 
conducted by the examiner at the USPTO. This option would be subject to 
the USPTO negotiating appropriate agreements with one or more IPGOs. 
The USPTO is also considering providing a short period for applicant to 
review and make any appropriate amendments or remarks after the 
supplemental search is transmitted prior to preparing the first action.
    Comments on one or more of the following questions would be 
helpful:
    1. Should the USPTO proceed with any efforts to enhance applicant 
control of the timing of examination?
    2. Are the three tracks above the most important tracks for 
innovators?
    3. Taking into account possible efficiency concerns associated with 
providing too many examination tracks, should more than three tracks be 
provided?
    4. Do you support the USPTO creating a single queue for examination 
of all applications accelerated or prioritized (e.g., any application 
granted special status or any prioritized application under this 
proposal)? This would place applications made special under the 
``green'' technology initiative, the accelerated examination procedure 
and this proposal in a single queue. For this question assume that a 
harmonized track would permit the USPTO to provide more refined and up-
to-date statistics on performance within this track. This would allow 
users to have a good estimate on when an application would be examined 
if the applicant requested prioritized examination.
    5. Should an applicant who requested prioritized examination of an 
application prior to filing of a request for continued examination 
(RCE) be required to request prioritized examination and pay the 
required fee again on filing of an RCE? For this question assume that 
the fee for prioritized examination would need to be increased above 
the current RCE fee to make sure that sufficient resources are 
available to avoid pendency increases of the non-prioritized 
applications.
    6. Should prioritized examination be available at any time during 
examination or appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 
(BPAI)?
    7. Should the number of claims permitted in a prioritized 
application be limited? What should the limit be?
    8. Should other requirements for use of the prioritized track be 
considered, such as limiting the use of extensions of time?
    9. Should prioritized applications be published as patent 
application publications shortly after the request for prioritization 
is granted? How often would this option be chosen?
    10. Should the USPTO provide an applicant-controlled up to 30-month 
queue prior to docketing for examination as an option for non-
continuing applications? How often would this option be chosen?
    11. Should eighteen-month patent application publication be 
required for any application in which the 30-month queue is requested?
    12. Should the patent term adjustment (PTA) offset applied to 
applicant-requested delay be limited to the delay beyond the aggregate 
USPTO pendency to a first Office action on the merits?
    13. Should the USPTO suspend prosecution of non-continuing, non-
USPTO first-filed applications to await submission of the search report 
and first action on the merits by the foreign office and reply in USPTO 
format?
    14. Should the PTA accrued during a suspension of prosecution to 
await the foreign action and reply be offset? If so, should that offset 
be linked to the period beyond average current backlogs to first Office 
action on the merits in the traditional queue?
    15. Should a reply to the office of first filing office action, 
filed in the counterpart application filed at the USPTO as if it were a 
reply to a USPTO Office action, be required prior to USPTO examination 
of the counterpart application?
    16. Should the requirement to delay USPTO examination pending the 
provision of a copy of the search report, first action from the office 
of first filing and an appropriate reply to the office of first filing 
office action be limited to where the office of first filing has 
qualified as an International Searching Authority?
    17. Should the requirement to provide a copy of the search report, 
first action from the office of first filing and an appropriate reply 
to the office of first filing office action in the USPTO application be 
limited to where the USPTO application will be published as a patent 
application publication?
    18. Should there be a concern that many applicants that currently 
file first in another office would file first at the USPTO to avoid the 
delay and requirements proposed by this notice? How often would this 
occur?
    19. How often do applicants abandon foreign filed applications 
prior to an action on the merits in the foreign filed application when 
the foreign filed application is relied upon for foreign priority in a 
U.S. application? Would applicants expect to increase that number, if 
the three track proposal is adopted?
    20. Should the national stage of an international application that 
designated more than the United States be treated as a USPTO first-
filed application or a non-USPTO first-filed application, or should it 
be treated as a continuing application?
    21. Should the USPTO offer supplemental searches by IPGOs as an 
optional service?
    22. Should the USPTO facilitate the supplemental search system by 
receiving the request for supplemental search and fee and transmitting 
the application and fee to the IPGO? Should the USPTO merely provide 
criteria for the applicant to seek supplemental searches directly from 
the IPGO?
    23. Would supplemental searches be more likely to be requested in 
certain technologies? If so, which ones and how often?
    24. Which IPGO should be expected to be in high demand for 
providing the service, and by how much? Does this depend on technology?
    25. Is there a range of fees that would be appropriate to charge 
for supplemental searches?
    26. What level of quality should be expected? Should the USPTO 
enter into agreements that would require quality assurances of the work 
performed by the other IPGO?
    27. Should the search be required to be conducted based on the U.S. 
prior art standards?
    28. Should the scope of the search be recorded and transmitted?
    29. What language should the search report be transmitted in?
    30. Should the search report be required in a short period after 
filing, e.g., within six months of filing?
    31. How best should access to the application be provided to the 
IPGO?

[[Page 31768]]

    32. How should any inequitable conduct issues be minimized in 
providing this service?
    33. Should the USPTO provide a time period for applicants to review 
and make any appropriate comments or amendments to their application 
after the supplemental search has been transmitted before preparing the 
first Office action on the merits?
    Registration Information: The USPTO plans to make the meeting 
available via Web cast. Web cast information will be available on the 
USPTO's Internet Web site before the meeting. The written comments and 
list of the meeting participants and their associations will be posted 
on the USPTO's Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov).
    When registering, please provide the following information: (1) 
Your name, title, and, if applicable, company or organization, address, 
phone number, and e-mail address; and (2) if you wish to make a 
presentation, the specific topic or issue to be addressed and the 
approximate desired length of your presentation.
    There is no fee to register for the public meeting and registration 
will be on a first-come, first-serve basis. Early registration is 
recommended because seating is limited. Registration on the day of the 
public meeting will be permitted on a space-available basis beginning 
at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on July 20, 2010.
    The USPTO will attempt to accommodate all persons who wish to make 
a presentation at the meeting. After reviewing the list of speakers, 
the USPTO will contact each speaker prior to the meeting with the 
amount of time available and the approximate time that the speaker's 
presentation is scheduled to begin. Speakers must then send the final 
electronic copies of their presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint or 
Microsoft Word to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cdfeb9bfacaea6beaea2a0a0a8a3b9be8db8bebdb9a2e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b88bcccad9dbd3cbdbd7d5d5ddd6cccbf8cdcbc8ccd796dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a> by July 16, 2010, so that 
the presentation can be displayed in the Auditorium.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
inform the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by July 
16, 2010.

    Dated: May 25, 2010.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-13244 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>