Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31763 

metal subject to AD/CVD orders, activity 

under the proposed restricted approval 

would provide REC Silicon with the full 

savings estimated in the application. 

The company has indicated that those 

savings would enhance the cost 

competitiveness of its Washington 

facility, which would help to encourage 

continued production and employment 

at the facility. 

Public comment on the preliminary 

recommendation and the bases for the 

finding is invited through July 12, 2010. 

Rebuttal comments may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period, 

until July 27, 2010. Submissions 

(original and one electronic copy) shall 

be addressed to the Board’s Executive 

Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For further information, contact 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0473. 

Dated: May 28, 2010. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13455 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 20–2009] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 29; Application for 

Subzone Authority; Dow Corning 

Corporation; Invitation for Public 

Comment on Preliminary 

Recommendation 

The FTZ Board is inviting public 

comment on its staff’s preliminary 

recommendation pertaining to the 

application by the Louisville and 

Jefferson County Riverport Authority to 

establish a subzone at the Dow Corning 

Corporation (Dow Corning) facilities in 

Carrollton, Elizabethtown and 

Shepherdsville, Kentucky (Docket 20– 

2009). The staff’s preliminary 

recommendation is for approval of the 

application with a restriction 

prohibiting admission of foreign status 

silicon metal subject to an anti-dumping 

duty (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) 

order. The bases for this finding are as 

follows: 

Analysis of the application record 

indicates that full approval of the 

request could negatively impact 

domestic silicon metal production. This 

finding is based primarily on the 

potential impact to domestic silicon 

metal prices from the volume of 

production involved and the cumulative 

impact of multiple applications 

potentially involving avoidance of AD/ 

CVD duties on silicon metal used in 

export production. 

Dow Corning is a major U.S. 

consumer of silicon metal, and access to 

the material for its export production 

without the payment of AD/CVD duties 

would decrease the average price of 

silicon metal paid by the company, 

providing a new, lower benchmark to be 

used in supply negotiations. Given the 

volume of silicon metal consumed by 

the company in the U.S., the ripple 

effect on silicon metal suppliers could 

be significant and the likely resulting 

impact would be a decline in the U.S. 

price of silicon metal. 

Currently, very little silicon metal 

subject to AD/CVD orders is imported 

into the United States. However, due to 

the size of Dow Corning’s production in 

the U.S., and the amount of silicon 

metal consumed by the company’s 

operations, the potential increase in 

supply to the U.S. market and resulting 

price effect would likely be significant. 

In part due to the AD/CVD duties in 

place, U.S. silicon metal prices have 

increased. This has led to the recent 

restarting of a shuttered silicon metal 

production facility in New York. A 

weakening of the U.S. price of silicon 

metal could threaten the viability of this 

facility as well as the continuation of 

production at other domestic facilities. 

The preliminary recommendation also 

reflects the cumulative effect on 

domestic silicon metal prices and on the 

integrity of the domestic silicon metal 

industry’s AD/CVD relief should there 

be multiple applications to avoid AD/ 

CVD duties on silicon metal for export 

production. In addition to the Dow 

Corning application, a similar 

application is pending for REC Silicon 

in Moses Lake, Washington and we have 

received indication that further requests 

are being prepared for additional 

facilities. 

Given the volume of silicon metal 

involved in the current and anticipated 

applications, even a limit on the amount 

of silicon metal subject to AD/CVD 

orders that could be used in the 

facilities for export production could 

have a significant impact on the U.S. 

price of silicon metal. The timing of that 

impact would also be occurring as 

domestic silicon metal production 

facilities are recovering and restarting, 

likely due (at least in part) to the relief 

provided through the AD/CVD orders 

that are in place. The FTZ regulations 

require that evaluations of 

manufacturing authority consider, 

‘‘whether the approval is consistent with 

trade policy and programs, and whether 

its net economic effect is positive’’ (15 

CFR 400.31(a)). In this case, given the 

potential impact on the silicon metal 

industry and based on the evidence 

currently on the record, the staff is 

unable to find that the net (national) 

economic effect of approving the use of 

silicon metal subject to AD/CVD orders 

for export production would be positive. 

While unrestricted approval could 

have a negative impact, the issues raised 

do not extend to silicon metal not 

subject to AD/CVD orders. No 

arguments or evidence have been 

presented to the FTZ Board in 

opposition to FTZ savings on silicon 

metal not subject to AD/CVD orders and 

on other imported components. Such 

savings would allow for duty deferral, 

inverted tariff, scrap and export savings 

on imported silicon metal and other 

components not subject to AD/CVD 

orders. In addition, the facilities could 

benefit from logistical savings involved 

in FTZ operations. The savings from 

restricted approval would constitute a 

significant portion of those projected in 

the application and could help 

encourage continued production and 

employment at Dow Corning’s Kentucky 

facilities. 

Public comment on the preliminary 

recommendation and the bases for the 

finding is invited through July 12, 2010. 

Rebuttal comments may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period, 

until July 27, 2010. Submissions 

(original and one electronic copy) shall 

be addressed to the Board’s Executive 

Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For further information, contact 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0473. 

Dated: May 28, 2010. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13454 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31764 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

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 threetracks, 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 

3trackscomments@uspto.gov. Comments 

may also be submitted by mail 

addressed to: Mail Stop CommentsPatents, 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 email 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, 

3trackscomments@uspto.gov, 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 email to Robert.Clarke@uspto.gov, or by 

mail addressed to: Mail Stop CommentsPatents, 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 

Mary.Critharis@uspto.gov. 

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 applicantcontrolled 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 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 smallscale 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 nonprioritized 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31766 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

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 applicantcontrolled 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 applicantcontrolled 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 nonpayment 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 priorfiled foreign application, and the reliedupon 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 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 noncontinuing 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 applicantrequested 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, nonUSPTO 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? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31768 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

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 

3trackscomments@uspto.gov 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 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List Proposed Additions 

and Deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Proposed Additions to and 

Deletions From Procurement List. 

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing 

to add to the Procurement List products 

and services to be furnished by 

nonprofit agencies employing persons 

who are blind or have other severe 

disabilities, and to delete services 

previously furnished by such agencies. 

DATES: Comments Must Be Received on 

or Before: July 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 

1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, Virginia, 22202–3259. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT

COMMENTS CONTACT: Barry S. Lineback, 

Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 

603–0655, or e-mail 

CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published pursuant to 41 

U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its 

purpose is to provide interested persons 

an opportunity to submit comments on 

the proposed actions. 

Additions 

If the Committee approves the 

proposed additions, the entities of the 

Federal Government identified in this 

notice will be required to furnish the 

products and services listed below from 

nonprofit agencies employing persons 

who are blind or have other severe 

disabilities. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. If approved, the action will not 

result in any additional reporting, 

recordkeeping or other compliance 

requirements for small entities other 

than the small organizations that will 

furnish the products and services to the 

Government. 

2. If approved, the action will result 

in authorizing small entities to furnish 

the products and services to the 

Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 

connection with the products and 

services proposed for addition to the 

Procurement List. 

Comments on this certification are 

invited. Commenters should identify the 

statement(s) underlying the certification 

on which they are providing additional 

information. 

End of Certification 

The following products and services 

are proposed for addition to 

Procurement List to be furnished by the 

nonprofit agencies listed: 

Products 

Cold Weather, Polypropylene Undershirts 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0124—Undershirt Size X 

Small Short 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0128—Undershirt Size X 

Small Regular 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0160—Undershirt Size 

Small Short 

NSN: 8415–01–538–8598—Undershirt Size 

Small Regular 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0166—Undershirt Size 

Small Long 

NSN: 8415–01–538–8614—Undershirt Size 

Medium Regular 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0305—Undershirt Size 

Medium Long 

NSN: 8415–01–538–8621—Undershirt Size 

Large Regular 

NSN: 8415–01–538–8701—Undershirt Size 

Large Long 

NSN: 8415–01–538–8705—Undershirt Size X 

Large Regular 

NSN: 8415–01–538–8711—Undershirt Size X 

Large Long 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0362—Undershirt Size X 

Large X Long 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0369—Undershirt Size 

XX Large Regular 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0370—Undershirt Size 

XX Large Long 

NSN: 8415–01–546–0374—Undershirt Size 

XX Large X Long 

NPAs: Knox County Association for Retarded 

Citizens, Inc., Vincennes, IN. 

Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., 

Lansing, MI. 

Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics 

Agency, Defense Supply Center 

Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. 

Coverage: C-list for an additional 25% of the 

requirements of the Department of 

Defense as aggregated by the Defense 

Supply Center Philadelphia. 

Services 

Service Type/Location: Custodial/Grounds 

Services, Donna Border Station, U.S. 

Highway 281 and FM 493, Donna, TX. 

NPA: Mavagi Enterprises, Inc., San Antonio, 

TX. 

Contracting Activity: Public Buildings 

Service, Building Services Team, Fort 

Worth, TX. 

Service Type/Location: Custodial Services, 

FAA ARTCC Complex, 37075 Aviation 

Lane, Hilliard, FL. 

NPA: The Right 2 Work Corporation, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES