Source: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/25/opportunity-to-reform-existing-pto-regulations-and-to-ease-patent-application-paperwork-burden/id=24378/
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 15:28:07
Document Index: 369590192

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 121', '§ 1', '§ 113', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 111', '§ 3506', '§ 3506', '§ 1320', '§ 3501', '§ 3506', 'art 1320', '§ 3506', '§ 1320', '§ 3506', '§ 1320', '§ 3502', '§ 1320', '§ 3506', '§ 1320', '§ 3506', '§ 1320', '§ 3512', '§ 1320', 'art 1']

Opportunity to Reform Existing PTO Regulations and to Ease Patent Application Paperwork Burden - IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law
Opportunity to Reform Existing PTO Regulations and to Ease Patent Application Paperwork Burden
By David Boundy
The Patent Office recently requested comment on the paperwork that applicants submit during post-filing, pre-allowance patent prosecution (Patent Processing (Updating), comment request., 77 Fed. Reg. 16813-17 (Mar. 22, 2012)). This is a highly significant opportunity to seek reform of problematic PTO regulations, one that only comes once every three years. This comment period gives the public access to an oversight officer outside the PTO whose job is to help reduce costs associated with PTO regulations or MPEP guidance that create unnecessary paperwork burden. The PTO has invited the public to challenge long-standing rules, and to seek reform.
The Paperwork Reduction Act is one of the key administrative law statutes that governs PTO rule making, along with the Administrative Procedure Act and several others. A quick tutorial on the Act is at the bottom of this article—but before we get there, let’s look at the subject matter of this comment period.
This comment period asks for comments on regulations or MPEP provisions relating to post-filing prosecutions that increase paperwork burden unnecessarily:
regulations or MPEP guidance that compel you to expend more time than required by statute, or for no observable reason
regulations or MPEP guidance that increase burden because of ambiguity
regulations or MPEP guidance that increase burden because they appear to be inconsistent with the patent statute or Administrative Procedure Act
Congress gave you this opportunity to challenge such regulations and guidance, if your concern slots into one of the kinds of avoidable paperwork that the Act covers.
The Notice itself asks the public to comment on several questions. To elaborate the questions, here are the kinds of issues that have resulted in significant changes to PTO regulations in the past:
1. Do the PTO’s regulations and guidance minimize paperwork burden? How can they be modified to do so?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are “required to minimize the burden on the public to the extent practicable.” [1] Are the current rules formatted to minimize the burden of the paperwork it requires from you? How could the regulations be improved to reduce burden, or to improve clarity or utility? For example:
Are there MPEP requirements that go above fair interpretation of the statute or 37 C.F.R.? For example, both 35 U.S.C. § 121 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.141 authorize the PTO to restrict “independent and distinct” inventions, but MPEP Chapter 800 encourages examiners to restrict inventions that are “independent or distinct.” The PTO can’t override the statute via the MPEP. When the PTO does so to impose more paperwork burden than authorized by statute, the PTO violates the Paperwork Reduction Act. (See below for the “public protection” provision, and unenforceability of regulatory content of the MPEP.)
Are there “unwritten rules” that were never validly promulgated, but that the PTO enforces anyway? Examples include memoranda of April 2007 and January 2010 on restriction and election of species that were never promulgated through valid rule making procedure, and that have been obsoleted by subsequent revisions of the MPEP, but that the PTO continues to enforce.
Is there a 37 C.F.R. regulation that either has no statutory authorization, or requires more from you than the statute does? For example, 35 U.S.C. § 113 only authorizes the PTO to require drawings “where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter.” However, 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) states “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” The PTO can’t ask more from you than the statute does.
Are there regulations that are gratuitously burdensome? 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b), until 2004, permitted you to file a supplementary amendment up until the time it would “unduly interfere with an Office action being prepared.” [2] In 2004, the Office amended § 111 to cap your right to amend at the six month statutory deadline [3], no matter whether it affected PTO efficiency or not. The PTO’s stated reasons violate the Paperwork Reduction Act—agencies cannot regulate in their self-interest.
2. Burden estimates
Are the PTO’s burden estimates for various tasks reasonably correct? The estimate must account for all time spent on a task, including reviewing instructions, gathering information, thinking and planning, and filling out a paper, and filing it. If you are skeptical of either the PTO’s numbers or estimation methodology, you are invited to comment. Among the PTO’s current estimates are the following:
For a statutory disclaimer or terminal disclaimer, all legal research, investigating facts, evaluating options, consulting with the client, making the decision, filling out the form, and filing it takes (on average) 12 minutes.
Evaluating a final Office Action to decide whether to appeal or RCE, starting down one path and changing your mind, preparing the form, and filing it, takes (on average) 12 minutes.
Preparing an IDS, on average, takes 10 hours.
The PTO is not permitted to rely on speculation, guesswork, or hope for its estimates. The PTO is required to have “objective support” for its estimates, including a duty to “consult with the public” before publishing these estimates. [4] “The USPTO estimates…” is not a legally-sufficient basis for estimation of burden.
Scope of the request for comment
This comment period covers essentially everything that you file in a patent prosecution after the initial filing of an application and recording of an assignment, and before appeal or allowance:
replies to restriction requirements and election of species requirements
replies to Office Actions on the merits
most petitions (a few exceptions are noted below)
notices of appeal and pre-appeals
Information Disclosure Statements and prior art search
This comment period does not cover the following phases of prosecution, which are broken out in separate Paperwork categories:
initial filings of applications, declarations, and the like [5]
sequence listings [6] and biological deposits [7]
Power of Attorney [8]
PCT international stage [9]
reexamination filings [10]
The Paperwork Reduction Act, in overview
The Paperwork Reduction Act [11], and regulations [12] issued by the Executive Office of the President for “controlling paperwork burdens on the public,” bar the PTO from requiring applicants to submit information that:
is unnecessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency;[13]
is “unnecessarily duplicative” of “information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency”; [14]
has poor or no “practical utility”—that is, an agency may only collect information that has “actual, not merely the theoretical or potential, usefulness … to or for an agency, taking into account its accuracy, validity, adequacy, and reliability, and the agency’s ability to process the information it collects … in a useful and timely fashion;” [15]
is of poor quality or clarity; [16]
is more burdensome than necessary on those who are to respond—the PTO must “[take] every reasonable step to ensure that the proposed collection of information . . . is the least burdensome necessary.”[17]
regulations must be “written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology.” [18]
The Paperwork Reduction Act is administered by the Office of Management and Budget within the Executive Office of the President. Each agency must seek OMB clearance of any regulation that imposes paperwork burden; if OMB denies clearance, the agency cannot enforce the regulation. [19, 20]
Note that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not control statutes or information required to be submitted by courts—if Congress says you have to submit information to the PTO, or the Federal Circuit’s inequitable conduct law requires submission of information of limited relevance, then the Paperwork Reduction Act provides no relief from those requirements. However, if the PTO imposes regulations for form of the information to be submitted to agencies, and those regulations violate any of the bullet points above, then the Paperwork Reduction Act gives you a right to request amendment to the regulation.
The PTO has to obtain re-approval for these items every three years. Thus, this review gives the public an opportunity to draw the PTO’s attention to proposed ways to reduce the burden and to violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and to request amendment to the regulations that would bring the PTO into compliance with the Act. Indeed, the PTO’s Federal Register Notice specifically asks you to comment on “ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information,” either by revising the regulation or by revising procedures for submission (e.g. electronic filing), and you should take the PTO up on its invitation.
How and where you should send your comments
There is no set form for a comment to the PTO; an email or letter works just fine. You can find examples on OMB’s web page [21] for the 2008 Appeal Rules. Comments should be submitted to the PTO by May 21, 2012 (though a couple days delay is usually tolerated, especially if you send an email by May 21 to indicate that your comments will follow in a few days), to:
By email to InformationCollection@uspto.gov with “0651–0031 comment” in the subject line of the message
By fax to 571–273–0112, marked to the attention of Susan K. Fawcett
By mail to Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450
If you have any questions, please phone me at 212-294-7848 or email me at DBoundy [at] Cantor [dotcom].
[1] Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 32 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1990).
[2] See http://web.archive.org/web/20041101225636/http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_111.htm.
[3] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Changes To Support Implementation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 21st Century Strategic Plan; Final Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 56481, 56516-17, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-09-21/pdf/04-20936.pdf (Sept. 21, 2004).
[4] 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(2)(A) and § 3506(c)(1)(A)(iv); 5 C.F.R. § 1320.8(a)(4) and (d)(1).
[5] http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=0651-0031
[6] http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=0651-0024
[7] http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=0651-0022
[8] http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=0651-0035
[9] http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=0651-0021
[10] http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=0651-0064
[11] 44 U.S.C. § 3501 to 3519, especially §§ 3506, 3507, and 3512, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/paperwork-reduction/
[12] Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public, 5 C.F.R. Part 1320, http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/1320 or http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title05/5cfr1320_main_02.tpl
[13] 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(3)(A) and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(1)(i) (“To obtain OMB approval of a collection of information, an agency shall demonstrate that it has taken every reasonable step to ensure that the proposed collection of information: (i) Is the least burdensome necessary for the proper performance of the agency’s functions. . .”).
[14] 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(3)(B) and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(1)(ii).
[15] 44 U.S.C. § 3502(11) and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.3(l)
[16] Information “quality” is defined in OMB’s information quality guidelines, 67 Fed.Reg. 8451-60, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_final_information_quality_guidelines (Feb. 22, 2002), and PTO’s information quality guidelines, 67 Fed.Reg. 22052, http://www.uspto.gov/products/cis/infoqualityguide.jsp (May 2, 2002).
[17] 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(2)(A)(iv) and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(1)(i).
[18] 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(3)(D) and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.9(d).
[19] 44 U.S.C. § 3512 and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.6.
[20] http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?documentID=44055&version=2 (In January 2008, “At the direction of OMB” the PTO removed the Continuations, Claims, and IDS rules from its requests for clearance at OMB. At the time, the Tafas case was in briefing for summary judgment. Somehow, the PTOs legal staff “forgot” to tell either Judge Cacheris in the Eastern District of Virginia, or the Federal Circuit, or the parties, that the case was effectively dead as of late January 2008. Instead the PTO allowed Tafas to grind on for another 18 months before this information was made public.
[21] http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=200809-0651-003 . The 2008 appeal rules were stayed on the day they were to go into effect in December 2008, because those letters convinced OMB to withhold approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
David Boundy is a partner at Cambridge Technology Law. Mr. Boundy practices at the intersection of patent and administrative law, and consults with other firms on court and administrative agency proceedings, including PTAB trials and appeals. In 2007–09, Mr. Boundy led teams that successfully urged the Office of Management and Budget to withhold approval of the USPTO’s continuations, 5/25 claims, information disclosure statements, and appeal regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked Mr. Boundy to lead a panel of eminent academics and the President’s chief regulatory oversight officer in a program at the court’s Judicial Conference on administrative law issues. Judge Plager recommended Mr. Boundy’s papers published in ABA LANDSLIDE, The PTAB is Not an Article III Court, Part 1, to the patent bar.
For more information or to contact Mr. Boundy, please email him at DBoundy@CambridgeTechLaw.com.
Tags:Administrative Procedure Act, apa, david boundy, mpep, paperwork reduction act, patent office, rulemaking, USPTO
American Cowboy April 25, 2012 3:41 pm
I’d leave a comment, but the topic requires a response of several hundred pages and I just ain’t up to it.
Blind Dogma April 25, 2012 6:30 pm
Thank you Mr. Boundy
Anon April 26, 2012 11:49 am
OT, but it is not often I can find something at Patently-O that is worth re-posting here, and I know Gene had a great guest series on the topic (with free trial use of a tool) for gauging examiner impact.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1939508
From the story at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/04/guest-post-by-dr-shine-tu-luckunluck-of-the-draw-an-emprical-study-of-examiner-allowance-rates.html
Stan E. Delo April 26, 2012 1:57 pm
Thanks for letting us all know about this David. It is an especially important issue for independents and small entities that are operating on a tight budget.
Stan E. Delo April 26, 2012 8:13 pm
In a continuation in part, the demand for an Invention Disclosure Statement seems to be a very onerous burden for applicants in my humble opinion. Why can’t the USPTO manage to figure out what they don’t know on their own? It’s bad enough that I might not see a patent issued for another 2 years about 3 years after I have filed my application. Dudas and et al actually had the temerity to try to require the further insult to injury of an Examination Support Document (Express Suicide Document) which would probably have cost me about $5000 per application, and could very possibly cost my practitioner to lose his/her license and/or career due to Inequitable Conduct charges.
An ESD seems to basically require the attorney or agent to make their best attempt to undermine their clients’ best interests, which is directly in opposition to their pledge to protect and respect the interests of their clients, much like the Hippocratic oath that every medical doctor is required to agree to. (First do no harm)
Agents might dodge the issue because they are not attorneys, but I have met very few that didn’t have their clients’ best interests in mind, and they cannot afford to lose their jobs due to some bozo at the patent office deciding that they might have been trying to hide something. Why would they try to hide anything? If they did, and they are clever enough to become a licensed practitioner, they will certainly understand that it will come back to haunt them some day, or jeopardize their client’s patent rights, probably permanently.
Top Ways to Strengthen your IP Position
February 25 @ 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST
Archives Select Month February 2020 (50) January 2020 (87) December 2019 (67) November 2019 (65) October 2019 (73) September 2019 (67) August 2019 (69) July 2019 (60) June 2019 (63) May 2019 (77) April 2019 (64) March 2019 (70) February 2019 (67) January 2019 (72) December 2018 (62) November 2018 (68) October 2018 (85) September 2018 (72) August 2018 (69) July 2018 (68) June 2018 (69) May 2018 (102) April 2018 (93) March 2018 (99) February 2018 (101) January 2018 (104) December 2017 (79) November 2017 (91) October 2017 (103) September 2017 (107) August 2017 (111) July 2017 (90) June 2017 (116) May 2017 (102) April 2017 (102) March 2017 (104) February 2017 (99) January 2017 (120) December 2016 (96) November 2016 (80) October 2016 (99) September 2016 (84) August 2016 (87) July 2016 (82) June 2016 (94) May 2016 (83) April 2016 (81) March 2016 (88) February 2016 (73) January 2016 (83) December 2015 (73) November 2015 (71) October 2015 (66) September 2015 (67) August 2015 (73) July 2015 (58) June 2015 (56) May 2015 (51) April 2015 (64) March 2015 (73) February 2015 (63) January 2015 (61) December 2014 (63) November 2014 (46) October 2014 (53) September 2014 (48) August 2014 (42) July 2014 (46) June 2014 (46) May 2014 (52) April 2014 (52) March 2014 (55) February 2014 (41) January 2014 (48) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (38) October 2013 (40) September 2013 (40) August 2013 (34) July 2013 (46) June 2013 (62) May 2013 (46) April 2013 (52) March 2013 (60) February 2013 (58) January 2013 (76) December 2012 (56) November 2012 (53) October 2012 (56) September 2012 (36) August 2012 (42) July 2012 (49) June 2012 (44) May 2012 (36) April 2012 (38) March 2012 (44) February 2012 (33) January 2012 (34) December 2011 (28) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (36) September 2011 (39) August 2011 (30) July 2011 (33) June 2011 (36) May 2011 (41) April 2011 (45) March 2011 (40) February 2011 (40) January 2011 (42) December 2010 (31) November 2010 (41) October 2010 (35) September 2010 (33) August 2010 (34) July 2010 (34) June 2010 (38) May 2010 (31) April 2010 (31) March 2010 (40) February 2010 (34) January 2010 (29) December 2009 (43) November 2009 (33) October 2009 (44) September 2009 (37) August 2009 (35) July 2009 (37) June 2009 (35) May 2009 (34) April 2009 (34) March 2009 (32) February 2009 (22) January 2009 (34) December 2008 (26) November 2008 (25) October 2008 (8) September 2008 (14) August 2008 (6) July 2008 (3) June 2008 (5) May 2008 (5) April 2008 (12) March 2008 (4) February 2008 (14) January 2008 (11) December 2007 (4)
European Commission Proposes Strategies for Data and AI
Bayh-Dole 40: Celebrating the Past, Protecting the Future
Booking.com Case Heats Up at Supreme Court