30046 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices

abandonment. An applicant simply has

the opportunity to file a petition, but

need not take action, in response to a

‘‘Notice of Omitted Items.’’ Thus, the

timeliness of any such petition is

governed by 37 CFR 1.181(f). 37 CFR

1.181(f) provides that any petition not

filed within two months from the action

complained of may be dismissed as

untimely.

Establishing prior receipt in the PTO

of the page(s) or drawing(s) at issue or

submitting the omitted page(s) or

drawings(s) and accepting the date of

such submission as the application

filing date would result in an addition

to the papers constituting the original

disclosure of the application, and

submitting the omitted page(s) or

drawings(s) and accepting the date of

such submission as the application

filing date would result in a change in

application filing date. As a change in

either the original disclosure or filing

date of an application would interfere

with the examination of the application

for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 102, 103,

and 112, the PTO will not forward an

application in which a ‘‘Notice of

Omitted Items’’ has been mailed for

examination until it is apparent that the

applicant has not responded to the

‘‘Notice of Omitted Items.’’ Thus, a

nonprovisional application will not be

processed for examination, and the

examination of the application will be

delayed, until the expiration of two

months from the mailing date of ‘‘Notice

of Omitted Items.’’ The two-month

period set forth in 37 CFR 1.181(f) is

considered an appropriate balance

between providing an applicant

sufficient time to take action in response

to a ‘‘Notice of Omitted Items’’ and

avoiding unnecessary delays in the

examination of the application, which

would be undesirable in view of 35

U.S.C. 154 as amended by Public Law

103–465. While an applicant willing to

accept a nonprovisional application as

deposited in the PTO need not respond

to the ‘‘Notice of Omitted Items,’’ the

filing of an express communication to

that effect would permit the PTO to

proceed with the processing of the

application for examination, and, as

such, may reduce the delay in the

examination of the application.

While a ‘‘Notice of Omitted Items’’ is

not an action within the meaning of 35

U.S.C. 133, the principles regarding

nonreceipt or delayed receipt of a

‘‘Notice of Omitted Items,’’ due either to

a failure on the part of the PTO to

properly mail such notice or a failure on

the part of the U.S. Postal Service to

deliver such notice to the

correspondence address in a timely

manner, are applicable to the nonreceipt

or delayed receipt of a ‘‘Notice of

Omitted Items.’’ Applicants are directed

to the Notice entitled ‘‘Withdrawing the

Holding of Abandonment when Office

Actions Are Not Received,’’ published

in the PTO Official Gazette at 1156, Off.

Gaz. Pat. Office 53 (November 16, 1993),

for the evidence necessary to establish

nonreceipt of a ‘‘Notice of Omitted

Items,’’ and the Notice entitled

‘‘Procedures For Restarting Response

Periods,’’ published in the PTO Official

Gazette at 1160 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 14

(March 1, 1994), for the evidence

necessary to establish delayed receipt of

a ‘‘Notice of Omitted Items.’’

Comment (10): One comment

suggested that while the proposed

procedure is an improvement, it still

conflicts with 35 U.S.C. 112 and 113.

The comment specifically argues that

the sufficiency of an application is a

matter for determination by an examiner

skilled in the subject matter of the

application, in that Congress did not

intend that the sufficiency of an

application be determined by the Initial

Patent Examination Division.

Response: The adopted procedure

will accord a filing date to any

application that contains something that

can be construed as a written

description, any necessary drawing,

and, in a nonprovisional application, at

least one claim. This procedure is

consistent with the requirements for a

filing date as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 111,

112, and 113. 35 U.S.C. 113, second

sentence, contemplates that drawings

may be filed after the filing date of an

application. 35 U.S.C. 113, however,

provides that an ‘‘application shall

furnish a drawing where necessary for

the understanding of the subject matter

sought to be patented,’’ and 35 U.S.C.

111(a)(4) and 111(b)(4) each provide, in

part, that the ‘‘filing date * * * shall

be the date on which * * * any

required drawing are received in the

Patent and Trademark Office.’’ As such,

the PTO has the statutory authority, and

responsibility, to determine whether a

drawing is necessary under 35 U.S.C.

113 in an application filed without

drawings prior to according a filing date

to that application.

There is nothing in 35 U.S.C. 111,

112, or 113 that limits the authority of

the Commissioner to delegate the

determination of whether or when any

application meets the requirements for a

filing date as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 111,

112, and 113. In any event, filing date

issues are, as discussed supra,

ultimately decided by Office of the

Deputy Assistant Commissioner for

Patent Policy and Projects on the basis

of whether and when the application

meets the requirements for a filing date

as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 111, 112, and

113, and not on the basis of who made

the initial decision not to accord a filing

date to the application.

Comment (11): One comment

suggested that the proposed procedure

be adopted by rulemaking. Another

comment suggested that the proposed

procedure either be adopted by

rulemaking or clearly set forth in the

MPEP.

Response: 37 CFR 1.53(b)(1) provides

that the ‘‘filing date of an application for

patent filed under this section, except

for a provisional application, is the date

on which a specification containing a

description pursuant to § 1.71 and at

least one claim pursuant to § 1.75; and

any drawing required by § 1.81(a), are

filed in the Patent and Trademark Office

in the name of the actual inventor or

inventors as required by § 1.41.’’ 37 CFR

1.53(b)(2) provides that the ‘‘filing date

of a provisional application is the date

on which: a specification as prescribed

by 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; and

any drawing required by § 1.81(a), are

filed in the Patent and Trademark Office

in the name of the actual inventor or

inventors as required by § 1.41.’’ Thus,

no change to the rules of practice is

necessary to adopt the procedure set

forth in this notice.

It should be noted that the MPEP

608.01 sets forth the former procedure

for treating an application filed without

all of the pages of specification or filed

under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) without at least

one claim. Likewise, MPEP 608.02 sets

forth the former procedure for treating

an application filed without drawings or

all of the figures of drawings.

The next revision of the MPEP will

incorporate the change in procedure set

forth in this notice.

Dated: June 5, 1996.

Bruce A. Lehman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce and

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.

[FR Doc. 96–15049 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–M

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of a Guaranteed Access

Levels for Certain Cotton Textile

Products Produced or Manufactured in

Guatemala

June 6, 1996.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Notices 30047

1The limit has not been adjusted to account for

any imports exported after December 31, 1995.

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs increasing a

guaranteed access level.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Aldrich, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212. For information on the

quota status of these limits, refer to the

Quota Status Reports posted on the

bulletin boards of each Customs port or

call (202) 927–5850. For information on

embargoes and quota re-openings, call

(202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854); Uruguay Round Agreements

Act.

On the request of the Government of

Guatemala, the U.S. Government agreed

to increase the 1996 Guaranteed Access

Level for Categories 347/348.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 60 FR 65299,

published on December 19, 1995). Also

see 61 FR 1359, published on January

19, 1996.

The letter to the Commissioner of

Customs and the actions taken pursuant

to it are not designed to implement all

of the provisions of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, but

are designed to assist only in the

implementation of certain of their

provisions.

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

June 6, 1996.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on November 29, 1995, by the

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directive

concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and

man-made fiber textile products, produced or

manufactured in Guatemala and exported

during the twelve-month period which began

on January 1, 1996 and extends through

December 31, 1996.

Effective on June 10, 1996, you are directed

to increase the Guaranteed Access Level for

Categories 347/348 to 1,600,000 dozen 1.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 96–14947 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

Adjustment of Guaranteed Access

Levels for Certain Cotton and ManMade Fiber Textile Products Produced

or Manufactured in Jamaica

June 6, 1996.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs increasing

guaranteed access levels.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Naomi Freeman, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212. For information on the

quota status of these limits, refer to the

Quota Status Reports posted on the

bulletin boards of each Customs port or

call (202) 927–5850. For information on

embargoes and quota re-openings, call

(202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854); Uruguay Round Agreements

Act.

On the request of the Government of

Jamaica, the U.S. Government agreed to

increase the 1996 Guaranteed Access

Levels for Categories 338/339/638/639

and 352/652.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 60 FR 65299,

published on December 19, 1995). Also

see 61 FR 1359, published on January

19, 1996.

The letter to the Commissioner of

Customs and the actions taken pursuant

to it are not designed to implement all

of the provisions of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, but

are designed to assist only in the

implementation of certain of their

provisions.

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

June 6, 1996.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on January 11, 1996, by the

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directive

concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and

man-made fiber textile products, produced or

manufactured in Jamaica and exported

during the twelve-month period which began

on January 1, 1996 and extends through

December 31, 1996.

Effective on June 6, 1996, you are directed

to increase the Guaranteed Access Levels for

the following categories:

Category Guaranteed Access

Level

338/339/638/639 ...... 4,000,000 dozen.

352/652 .................... 13,000,000 dozen.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 96–14946 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain

Cotton, Wool and Man-Made Fiber

Textiles and Textile Products and Silk

Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber

Apparel Produced or Manufactured in

the Philippines

June 6, 1996.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs adjusting

limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Aldrich, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212. For information on the

quota status of these limits, refer to the

Quota Status Reports posted on the