68124 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

does not impose any additional 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act which are 

subject to further review by OMB. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Courts, Freedom of 

Information, Inventions and patents, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Small Businesses. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the interim rule amending 37 

CFR part 1 which was published at 79 

FR 12384–12386 on March 5, 2014, is 

adopted as a final rule without change. 

Dated: November 6, 2014. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27032 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2014–0003] 

RIN 0651–AC93 

Changes To Permit Delayed 

Submission of Certain Requirements 

for Prioritized Examination 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Leahy-Smith America 

Invents Act includes provisions for 

prioritized examination of patent 

applications (also referred to as ‘‘Track 

I’’), which have been implemented by 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (Office) in previous rulemakings. 

The Office published an interim rule on 

March 5, 2014 (prioritized examination 

interim rule), to simplify the Track I 

prioritized examination practice to 

reduce the number of requests for 

prioritized examination that must be 

dismissed. In order to enable rapid 

processing and examination of those 

applications, the previous rulemakings 

provided that a request for Track I 

prioritized examination requires, upon 

filing of the application, an inventor’s 

oath or declaration and all required fees, 

and that the application contain no 

more than four independent claims, 

thirty total claims, and no multiple 

dependent claims. If a request for Track 

I prioritized examination failed to meet 

these requirements on filing, then the 

request was dismissed. After operating 

under the previous rulemakings for 

some time, the Office determined that 

the time period for meeting the 

identified requirements could be 

expanded and still enable the Office to 

timely examine the patent application. 

Hence, on March 5, 2014, the Office 

published the prioritized examination 

interim rule to expand the time period 

for meeting the identified requirements. 

The Office received no comments from 

the public in response. This final rule 

adopts as final the amendments to the 

rules of practice originally set forth in 

the prioritized examination interim rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on November 14, 2014. The 

prioritized examination interim rule 

published on March 5, 2014 at 79 FR 

12386 was effective on March 5, 2014. 

Applicability Date: The changes to 37 

CFR 1.102 apply only to applications 

filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after 

September 16, 2012, in which a first 

action has not been mailed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

R. Cottingham, Director, Office of 

Petitions, at (571) 272–7079, or Michael 

T. Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, Office 

of Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 

272–7700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary: Purpose: The 

prioritized examination interim rule 

simplified prioritized examination 

(‘‘Track I’’) practice to reduce the 

number of requests for prioritized 

examination that must be dismissed and 

to improve access to prioritized 

examination. This final rule adopts as 

final the amendments to the rules of 

practice originally set forth in the 

prioritized examination interim rule. 

Summary of Major Provisions: The 

prioritized examination provisions (37 

CFR 1.102(e)) formerly required that: (1) 

The inventor’s oath or declaration be 

present on filing; (2) all fees be paid 

upon filing; and (3) the application as 

filed contain no more than four 

independent claims, no more than thirty 

total claims, and no multiple dependent 

claims. The prioritized examination 

interim rule revised 37 CFR 1.102(e) to 

provide that: (1) The filing of an 

inventor’s oath or declaration may be 

postponed in accordance with 37 CFR 

1.53(f)(3) if an application data sheet 

meeting the conditions specified in 37 

CFR 1.53(f)(3)(i) is present upon filing; 

(2) if an application contains more than 

four independent claims, more than 

thirty total claims, or any multiple 

dependent claim, the applicant is given 

a non-extendable one-month period to 

file an amendment to cancel any 

independent claims in excess of four, 

any total claims in excess of thirty, and 

any multiple dependent claim; and (3) 

any excess claims fees due under 37 

CFR 1.16(h), (i), or (j) and any 

application size fee due under 37 CFR 

1.16(s) is not required to be paid on 

filing. This final rule adopts as final the 

amendments to the rules of practice 

originally set forth in the prioritized 

examination interim rule. 

Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is 

not economically significant under 

Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). 

Background: Section 11(h) of the 

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 

provides for prioritized examination of 

an application. See Public Law 112–29, 

125 Stat. 283, 324 (2011). Section 11(h) 

of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 

also provides that the Office may by 

regulation prescribe conditions for 

acceptance of a request for prioritized 

examination. See id. 

The Office implemented the LeahySmith America Invents Act prioritized 

examination provision for applications 

upon filing, referred to as ‘‘Track I,’’ in 

a final rule published on September 23, 

2011. See Changes to Implement the 

Prioritized Examination Track (Track I) 

of the Enhanced Examination Timing 

Control Procedures under the LeahySmith America Invents Act, 76 FR 

59050 (September 23, 2011). The Office 

subsequently implemented prioritized 

examination for pending applications 

after the filing of a proper request for 

continued examination under 35 U.S.C. 

132(b) and 37 CFR 1.114. See Changes 

to Implement the Prioritized 

Examination for Requests for Continued 

Examination, 76 FR 78566 (December 

19, 2011). 

The rule implementing prioritized 

examination, 37 CFR 1.102(e), sets forth 

the requirements that must be met to 

permit a request for prioritized 

examination to be granted. These 

requirements were selected after public 

discussion with, and feedback from, 

patent practitioners and stakeholders. 

These requirements were selected in 

such a manner as to permit the Office 

to examine applications undergoing 

prioritized examination in a timely 

manner. In furtherance of timely 

examination, the Office required that 

requests for Track I prioritized 

examination conform to all of the 

requirements listed in 37 CFR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68125 

1.102(e)(1) as of the filing date of the 

application. 

Upon review of the implementation of 

the Track I program, the Office has 

found that an unexpected number of 

requests for prioritized examination 

were being dismissed for failure to meet 

the requirements of 37 CFR 1.102(e) 

upon filing. In order to improve access 

to prioritized examination, the Office 

reevaluated the necessity for each 

requirement to be met upon filing. The 

Office published the prioritized 

examination interim rule simplifying 

the Track I prioritized examination 

practice as the Office determined that 

permitting certain requirements to be 

met after the filing date of the 

application would avoid dismissal of 

bona fide attempts to request Track I 

prioritized examination and result in 

only minimal delay in the processing of 

the Track I request and the subsequent 

examination. 

Under the procedure set forth in the 

prioritized examination interim rule, the 

requirements for prioritized 

examination now permit an applicant to 

postpone submission of an inventor’s 

oath and declaration after the filing date 

of the application, so long as the 

application as filed includes an 

executed application data sheet meeting 

the conditions specified in 37 CFR 

1.53(f)(3)(i). Additionally, where a 

request for prioritized examination is 

received for an application having more 

than four independent claims, more 

than thirty total claims, or any multiple 

dependent claim, the Office notifies the 

applicant and provides a nonextendable period of one month in 

which the applicant may cancel or 

amend the claims accordingly. If the 

applicant provides the required claim 

amendment or cancellation within the 

one-month period, the Track I request is 

considered again. If the applicant fails 

to place the application in conformance 

with the above-listed claim 

requirements within that period, no 

further corrective period is given, and 

the Track I request is dismissed. 

Under the procedure set forth in the 

prioritized examination interim rule, 

any excess claims fees due under 37 

CFR 1.16(h), (i), or (j) and any 

application size fee due under 37 CFR 

1.16(s) are not required to be paid on 

filing. An application in which excess 

claims fees or the application size fee 

are outstanding is treated under the 

provisions of 37 CFR 1.53(f)(4), which 

require that those fees be paid prior to 

the expiration of the time period set for 

reply by the Office in any notice of fee 

deficiency. 

Discussion of Specific Rules 

This final rule adopts as final the 

amendments to §§ 1.102 originally set 

forth in the prioritized examination 

interim rule. The following is a 

discussion of the amendments to Title 

37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 1, in the prioritized examination 

interim rule. 

Section 1.102: The prioritized 

examination interim rule amended 

§ 1.102(e)(1) to eliminate the 

requirement that the inventor’s oath or 

declaration be submitted on the filing 

date. An application having a properly 

executed application data sheet that 

meets the requirements set forth in 

§ 1.53(f)(3)(i) is eligible for prioritized 

examination (provided that the 

conditions of § 1.102(e) as revised in the 

prioritized examination interim rule are 

met). Pursuant to § 1.41(b), such an 

application data sheet sets the 

inventorship for the application, and the 

applicant may delay submission of the 

inventor’s oath or declaration no later 

than the date on which the issue fee for 

the patent is paid. See Changes To 

Implement the Inventor’s Oath or 

Declaration Provisions of the LeahySmith America Invents Act, 77 FR 

48776, 48779–80 (Aug. 14, 2012), and 

Changes to Implement the Patent Law 

Treaty, 78 FR 62367, 62376 (Oct. 21, 

2013). Accordingly, the prioritized 

examination interim rule amended 

§ 1.102(e)(1) to provide that the 

application must include a specification 

as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 including 

at least one claim, a drawing when 

necessary, and the inventor’s oath or 

declaration on filing, except that the 

filing of an inventor’s oath or 

declaration may be postponed in 

accordance with § 1.53(f)(3) if an 

application data sheet meeting the 

conditions specified in § 1.53(f)(3)(i) is 

present upon filing. 

The prioritized examination interim 

rule also amended § 1.102(e)(1) to 

eliminate the requirements that an 

application include any excess claims 

fees due under § 1.16(h), (i), or (j) or any 

application size fee due under § 1.16(s) 

on filing. An application in which 

excess claims fees or the application 

size fee are outstanding is treated under 

the provisions of § 1.53(f)(4), which 

require that those fees be paid prior to 

the expiration of the time period set for 

reply by the Office in any notice of fee 

deficiency in order to avoid 

abandonment. 

The prioritized examination interim 

rule further amended § 1.102(e)(1) to 

eliminate the requirements that an 

application not contain more than four 

independent claims, not contain more 

than thirty total claims, and not contain 

any multiple dependent claim upon 

filing. Upon review of the Track I 

request, the Office will provide the 

applicant a non-extendable one-month 

period in which to submit an 

amendment cancelling claims, or 

removing multiple dependencies. If, 

upon expiration of that one-month 

period, the application still contains 

more than four independent claims, 

more than thirty total claims, or a 

multiple dependent claim, the request 

for prioritized examination will be 

dismissed. 

Section 1.102(e)(1) maintains the 

requirement that an application for 

which prioritized examination is 

requested must include payment of the 

basic filing fee, the search fee, and 

examination fees on filing, or the 

application will be ineligible for Track 

I. Specifically, § 1.102(e)(1) continues to 

require that if the application is a utility 

application, it must be filed via the 

Office’s electronic filing system and 

include the filing fee under § 1.16(a), 

search fee under § 1.16(k), and 

examination fee under § 1.16(o) upon 

filing. Section 1.102(e)(1) also continues 

to require that if the application is a 

plant application, it must include the 

filing fee under § 1.16(c), search fee 

under § 1.16(m), and examination fee 

under § 1.16(q) upon filing. 

Section 1.102(e) further maintains the 

requirement that an application for 

which prioritized examination is sought 

must be accompanied by the prioritized 

examination fee set forth in § 1.17(c), 

the processing fee set forth in 

§ 1.17(i)(1), and the publication fee set 

forth in § 1.18(d). The request and each 

of these fees must be present on the 

same day the application is filed, or the 

application is ineligible for Track I. 

The prioritized examination interim 

rule, while providing additional time for 

the filing of an inventor’s oath or 

declaration, for payment of any excess 

claims fees or any application size fee, 

and for filing an amendment to limit an 

application to four independent claims 

and thirty total claims without any 

multiple dependent claim, does not 

remove the requirement that those items 

be filed within the appropriate time 

period. Applicants are reminded that 

any request for an extension of time will 

cause an outstanding Track I request to 

be dismissed, or cause an application to 

lose its Track I status if previously 

conferred upon that application. See 

Changes to Implement the Prioritized 

Examination Track (Track I) of the 

Enhanced Examination Timing Control 

Procedures under the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act, 76 FR 59050, 

59051 (September 23, 2011). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

68126 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

To reduce delays in processing the 

application, the Office recommends that 

all of the requirements under 

§ 1.102(e)(1) be met upon filing. An 

applicant should not delay meeting a 

requirement merely because an 

additional time period will be supplied. 

Applicants should recognize that the 

twelve-month goal for final disposition 

of the application is measured from the 

time the Track I request is granted, not 

from the filing of the application. As an 

applicant is seeking Track I prioritized 

examination to receive rapid 

examination, any delay in meeting the 

requirements for Track I merely adds 

processing time onto the twelve-month 

goal for final disposition of the 

application. 

The changes in the prioritized 

examination interim rule apply to any 

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

on or after September 16, 2012, in 

which a first action has not been mailed. 

An applicant may have previously 

submitted a Track I request which was 

dismissed, but would have been 

granted, or the applicant would have 

been provided additional time to meet 

a requirement, if the changes to the 

interim rule had been in effect at the 

time of the dismissal. An applicant may 

file a request for reconsideration of the 

dismissal of the previous Track I request 

based upon the changes set forth in this 

interim rule if: (1) The application is 

still pending; (2) the application 

contains, or has been amended to 

contain, no more than four independent 

claims, no more than thirty total claims, 

and no multiple dependent claims; and 

(3) a first Office action has not been 

mailed in the application. Any such 

petition should be directed to the Office 

of Petitions. 

Comments: The Office received no 

comments in response to the prioritized 

examination interim rule. 

Rulemaking Considerations 

A. Administrative Procedure Act: This 

final rule simply adopts as final changes 

in the prioritized examination interim 

rule, which pertain to the procedures 

that an applicant must follow in 

requesting Track I prioritized 

examination and do not change the 

substantive criteria of patentability. 

Therefore, the changes in this 

rulemaking involve rules of agency 

practice and procedure, and/or 

interpretive rules. See JEM Broad. Co. v. 

FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) 

(‘‘[T]he critical feature of the procedural 

exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] is that 

it covers agency actions that do not 

themselves alter the rights or interests of 

parties, although [they] may alter the 

manner in which the parties present 

themselves or their viewpoints to the 

agency’’) (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 

648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see 

also Bachow Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 

F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules 

governing an application process are 

procedural under the Administrative 

Procedure Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. 

v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 

2001) (rules for handling appeals were 

procedural where they did not change 

the substantive standard for reviewing 

claims). 

In addition, the Office, pursuant to 

authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), found 

good cause to adopt the changes in the 

prioritized examination interim rule 

without prior notice and an opportunity 

for public comment, as such procedures 

would have been contrary to the public 

interest. Delay in the promulgation of 

the prioritized examination interim rule 

to provide prior notice and comment 

procedures would have caused harm to 

those applicants who filed a request for 

Track I prioritized examination in an 

application that did not contain the 

inventor’s oath or declaration, did not 

include all required fees on filing, or 

that contained more than four 

independent claims, more than thirty 

total claims, or a multiple dependent 

claim. Immediate implementation of the 

changes in the prioritized examination 

interim rule was in the public interest 

because: (1) The public did not need 

time to conform its conduct as the 

changes in the prioritized examination 

interim rule did not add any additional 

requirement for requesting prioritized 

examination of an application; and (2) 

those applicants who were ineligible for 

prioritized examination due to the 

previously stated reasons benefited from 

the changes in the prioritized 

examination interim rule. See Nat’l 

Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass’n v. 

U.S., 59 F.3d 1219, 1223–24 (Fed. Cir. 

1995). 

Accordingly, prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment were 

not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

or (c) (or any other law). See Cooper 

Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 

1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 

U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 

2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and 

comment rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative 

rules, general statements of policy, or 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice’’) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A)). In addition, pursuant to 

authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the 

changes in the prioritized examination 

interim rule were made immediately 

effective because they relieved 

restrictions in the requirements for 

requesting prioritized examination of an 

application. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior 

notice and an opportunity for public 

comment were not required pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, neither 

a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a 

certification under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is 

required. See 5 U.S.C. 603. 

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review): This rulemaking 

has been determined to be not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). 

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review): The 

Office has complied with Executive 

Order 13563. Specifically, the Office 

has, to the extent feasible and 

applicable: (1) Made a reasoned 

determination that the benefits justify 

the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule 

to impose the least burden on society 

consistent with obtaining the regulatory 

objectives; (3) selected a regulatory 

approach that maximizes net benefits; 

(4) specified performance objectives; (5) 

identified and assessed available 

alternatives; (6) involved the public in 

an open exchange of information and 

perspectives among experts in relevant 

disciplines, affected stakeholders in the 

private sector and the public as a whole, 

and provided on-line access to the 

rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to 

promote coordination, simplification, 

and harmonization across government 

agencies and identified goals designed 

to promote innovation; (8) considered 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public; and (9) ensured 

the objectivity of scientific and 

technological information and 

processes. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism): This rulemaking does not 

contain policies with federalism 

implications sufficient to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 

1999). 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation): This rulemaking will not: 

(1) Have substantial direct effects on one 

or more Indian tribes; (2) impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments; or (3) 

preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required under Executive Order 13175 

(Nov. 6, 2000). 

G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Effects): This rulemaking is not a 

significant energy action under 

Executive Order 13211 because this 

rulemaking is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68127 

required under Executive Order 13211 

(May 18, 2001). 

H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets 

applicable standards to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden as set forth in sections 

3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 

12988 (Feb. 5, 1996). 

I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection 

of Children): This rulemaking does not 

concern an environmental risk to health 

or safety that may disproportionately 

affect children under Executive Order 

13045 (Apr. 21, 1997). 

J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property): This rulemaking will 

not affect a taking of private property or 

otherwise have taking implications 

under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 

1988). 

K. Congressional Review Act: Under 

the Congressional Review Act 

provisions of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to 

issuing any final rule, the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office will 

submit a report containing the rule and 

other required information to the United 

States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the Government 

Accountability Office. The changes in 

this rulemaking are not expected to 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of 100 million dollars or more, 

a major increase in costs or prices, or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises 

in domestic and export markets. 

Therefore, this final rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995: The changes set forth in this 

rulemaking do not involve a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate that will 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or 

more in any one year, or a Federal 

private sector mandate that will result 

in the expenditure by the private sector 

of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or 

more in any one year, and will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions are 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

M. National Environmental Policy 

Act: This rulemaking will not have any 

effect on the quality of the environment 

and is thus categorically excluded from 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

N. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act: The requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not 

applicable because this rulemaking does 

not contain provisions which involve 

the use of technical standards. 

O. Paperwork Reduction Act: The 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the 

Office consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. This 

rulemaking involves information 

collection requirements which are 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3549). An applicant 

who wishes to participate in the 

prioritized examination program must 

submit a certification and request to 

participate in the prioritized 

examination program, preferably by 

using Form PTO/AIA/424. OMB has 

determined that, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h), 

Form PTO/AIA/424 does not collect 

‘‘information’’ within the meaning of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

This rule making does not impose any 

additional collection requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

which are subject to further review by 

OMB. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Courts, Freedom of 

information, Inventions and patents, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Small businesses. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the interim rule amending 37 

CFR part 1 which was published at 79 

FR 12386–12390 on March 5, 2014, is 

adopted as a final rule without change. 

Dated: November 6, 2014. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27037 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 12 

RIN 2900–AO41 

Designee for Patient Personal Property 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is amending its regulation 

that governs a competent veteran’s 

designation of a person to receive the 

veteran’s funds and personal effects in 

the event that such veteran was to die 

while in a VA field facility. We are 

eliminating reference to an obsolete VA 

form, clarifying the role of a VA 

fiduciary for an incompetent veteranpatient, as well as restructuring the 

current regulation for ease of 

readability. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 15, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin J. Cunningham, Director, 

Business Policy, Chief Business Office 

(10NB6), Veterans Health 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20420; (202) 382–2508. 

(This is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register at 78 FR 63139 (October 23, 

2013), VA proposed to amend its 

regulation concerning the disposition of 

a veteran’s funds and effects. We 

proposed several changes to 38 U.S.C. 

part 12. We proposed that, if a 

competent veteran who is receiving VA 

medical care dies in a VA field facility, 

any funds and personal effects 

belonging to the veteran must be turned 

over to the person who had been 

designated by the veteran upon 

admission to such VA field facility. VA 

requests and encourages a competent 

veteran to designate an individual and 

provide the facility with the 

individual’s information in order to 

facilitate the process of disposition of 

the veteran’s funds and personal effects 

in the event of his or her death, and to 

help alleviate some of the burden on the 

deceased veteran’s survivors. VA 

currently requests a veteran to name a 

designee during the registration process 

when VA admits a veteran for care at a 

VA field facility and the designee 

information is recorded by VA 

personnel directly into the veteran’s 

medical record. However, having a VA 

employee enter the designee into the 

veteran’s medical record without having 

a signed written designation by the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES