Source: https://inventivestep.wordpress.com/2013/02/
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 06:58:49
Document Index: 166856383

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 555', '§ 707', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 2144', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 2106', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 6']

February | 2013 | INVENTIVE STEP
What Grace Period? Another Reason to File by March 16
The deadline for the transition of the US patent system from first-to-invent to first-to-file is fast approaching. This change is significant and will result in applicants not being permitted to swear behind or prove prior invention of prior art references cited against applications filed after March 16 with claims that don’t have support in an earlier application.
There is, however, another significant reason to file by March 16. The grace period is being significantly curtailed.
In the US, applicants have typically had a year to file a patent application after first public use or sale. They could also pre-date prior art used in obviousness rejections that relied on prior art dated within a year of their application’s filing date. This is changing.
While the PTO and a number of others argue that applicants will retain the ability to publicly use or disclose their inventions or offer them for sale for a year prior to filing a patent application, until the courts (read: Federal Circuit) rule on the difference between a disclosure and a public use or sale, it would be risky for applicants to rely on the grace period. The new law seems to literally protect disclosures, but not public uses or sales. The courts (including the Supreme Court) have previously ruled that there is a difference between these activities.
Third Party Disclosures/Derivations
Perhaps just as importantly, the PTO has issued guidelines that indicate that there is no grace period for third party disclosures that pre-date an application’s filing that are obvious variants of the claimed invention. There are several implications of this issue.
First, as seems to be intended by Congress, applicants cannot file patent applications that are obvious variations of inventions on which third parties have already filed. Under current law (pre-March 16), if the applicant could prove an earlier invention date, it does not matter if the invention is obvious in light of the third party’s prior filing.
Second, this is a significant limitation of the grace period. Under the letter of the new law, applicants can still publicly disclose their inventions and then file an application within a year. Their own disclosures are not prior art. If a third party sees that disclosure, however, and files a patent application that is not exactly what was disclosed by the applicant, but is instead an obvious variation of that disclosure, there is no grace period for the third party’s filing. The applicant’s claims will be rejected as being obvious over the third party’s earlier filing.
It does not matter whether the third party “derived” the invention from the inventor or not. Derivation protection only applies for identical disclosures.
Until this situation is resolved and clarified (and perhaps even after depending on the results), applicants would do well to assume there is no longer an effective grace period in the US. They should at least file a provisional application prior to any public use, sale, or disclosure.
HT: Hal Wegner has been writing on this issue.
Posted in Patent Reform, Patent Strategies | 3 Comments »
In the case where the later-filed application claims the benefit of an earlier-filed application, but includes at least one claim that is not fully supported by an earlier application, the rules require the applicant to provide a statement to that effect. This rule applies if the application contains such an unsupported claim at any time. It does not matter if the claim is later cancelled. The rules also contain strict time frames for applicants to file such a statement. “This procedure will permit the Office to readily determine whether the nonprovisional application is subject to the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA.”
IEEE Comments on RCE Practice
In December, the PTO requested comments on RCE practice. Specifically, the PTO asked for comments on 11 questions. The Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) submitted a detailed response that includes a proposal to reduce the number of RCE filings.
A large portion of the comments relate to proposed changes to the PTO’s “count” practice of rewarding examiners for piecemeal production. Instead, the PTO should provide incentives to examiners to bring examination to a conclusion. The practice of “churning” RCEs has become quite common under the PTO’s current incentive model.
The PTO should continue efforts to ensure that examination is complete at the earliest stages of prosecution and provide incentives for second non-final office actions when warranted. Under current practice, the PTO is strongly discouraging second non-final office actions. This causes examiners to prematurely issue final office actions at times when they are not warranted.
The PTO charges applicants a higher fee when the application includes a greater number of claims, as well as a longer application with a greater number of pages. The PTO should similarly provide examiners with greater incentives when they examine applications of greater complexity. Under the current system, examiners receive similar credits whether they examine simpler applications or more complex applications.
The PTO should provide greater transparency in the process. Examiners should be required to address each claim limitation in detail when writing rejections and should be required to address every argument submitted by the applicant. Perfunctory rejection explanations and simply indicating that the applicants arguments “were not persuasive” does not meet this standard. This would provide an earlier meeting of the minds between applicants and examiners to more efficiently conclude the examination process. Similarly, the PTO should require participants in Pre-Appeal conferences to provide written explanations for rejections submitted to the Board of Appeals.
Examiners should suggest amendments and point to potentially allowable subject matter during prosecution. This would also increase examination efficiency.
A summary of the specific IEEE suggestions include:
o IEEE-USA believes that the PTO’s “count” and “production unit” metrics and compensation systems are counterproductive, as we discuss in Attachment A, § 2.2 starting at page 18.
o RCEs would decline if the examiner “count” system were modified to reward examiners for concluding examination, not extending it, as we discuss in § 2.3 starting at page 19.
o RCEs would decline if examiner counts were scaled with application complexity, as we discuss in § 2.4 starting at page 19.
o RCEs would decline if supervisor compensation metrics were recalibrated to incentivize efficiently concluding examination, as we discuss in § 2.5 starting at page 21.
o RCEs would fall if the 2009 redocketing of RCEs were rescinded, as we discuss in § 2.6 starting at page 21.
 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c) should be revised to state an unambiguous requirement that an examiner must provide a clear written explanation for every material issue, including limitation-by-limitation consideration of claim language (see § 3.1 at page 24).
 The PTO should improve compliance and enforcement of 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2), requiring precise disclosure of the examiner’s analysis of references (see § 3.2 at page 29).
 The duty to “answer all material traversed” is a near-absolute obligation set by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), not a “should” recommended practice—MPEP § 707.07(f) should be revised to clarify that duty, and that no Action may be made final if there is any failure to answer an applicant’s argument (see § 3.3 at page 29).
 The PTO should set clear and enforceable standards for completeness required for final rejection and to survive Pre-Appeal. Any omission in a purportedly-final action (omission of claim language, omission of an element of a required legal showing, etc.) should prevent final rejection, and should result in per se grant of reopen on Pre-Appeal (see § 3.4 at page 30, and Attachment C).
 RCEs would be reduced if Pre-Appeal conferees were required to provide a written explanation of all grounds referred to the Board, not a single all-or-nothing “X” (see § 3.5 starting at page 32).
 The PTO should add a fair restatement of the Federal Circuit’s definition of “new ground of rejection” to the MPEP, and enforce standards for premature final rejection (see § 3.6 at page 32 and Attachment D).
 RCE’s would be reduced if the petitions process were a reliable way to seek enforcement of the PTO’s regulations governing its own conduct. The petitions process is not reliable. One source of that unreliability would be removed if the PTO included a written statement of the scope of petitionable subject matter jurisdiction, as we recommend in § 3.7 at page 38, and in Attachment E).
 The PTO should reiterate to its employees that obligations of PTO employees stated in the MPEP are binding on and enforceable against examiners, and waiver requires formal clearance—there are no on-the-fly exceptions (see § 3.8.1 at page 39).
 RCEs would be reduced if the rejection form paragraphs were updated to provide more “handholding” (see § 3.9 starting at page 46).
 MPEP § 2144.03(C) creates unwarranted RCE’s and delay by misstating the law of intraagency Official Notice—Official Notice is adequately traversed by simply “calling for” substantial evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(d)(2) (see § 3.10 at page 46).
 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a)(2) should be returned to its pre-2004 state, allowing supplementary amendments until they would “unduly interfere” with examination (see § 3.11 at page 49).
 MPEP §§ 2106(II)(C) and 2111.04 should be corrected to accurately state the law and give ascertainable standards for certain “questionable” claim language (see § 3.12 at page 51).
 RCEs would be reduced if the PTO published its internal examination memoranda (see § 3.14 starting at page 54).
 The PTO should improve supervisory enforcement of existing guidance and regulations (see § 4 starting at page 55).
 The PTO should implement the Good Guidance Bulletin issued by the Executive Office of the President in 2007 (see § 5 starting at page 57). IEEE-USA has brought this directive to the PTO’s attention on several occasions—IEEE-USA is surprised at the PTO’s continued failure to implement a directive issued on the authority of the President, especially when the Bulletin sets procedures and policies that would advance the goals the PTO professes to seek.
 RCE’s would be reduced if the “in process review” metric were improved and made more transparent (see § 6 starting at page 58).
First-to-File Takes Effect March 16
During the next six weeks, inventors should file applications for inventions they might otherwise feel are not ready for patenting. This is good practice simply to be the magic date. This is even important if you have pending applications for which you wish to add new claims that are not supported by an earlier application (CIP), as these will be examined under the first-to-file rules.