37 CFR Part 1, Subpart H - Inter Partes Reexamination of Patents That Issued From an Original Application Filed in the United States on or After November 29, 1999

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is amending the rules of practice to implement certain amendments made to the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that will take effect on July 1, 2017, concerning the transmittal by a Receiving Office to an International Searching Authority of documents relating to an earlier search or classification.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or PTO) is proposing revisions to the materiality standard for the duty to disclose information in patent applications and reexamination proceedings (duty of disclosure) in light of a 2011 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). The Office previously issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 21, 2011, and due to the passage of time since the comment period closed in 2011, the Office considers it appropriate to seek additional comments from our stakeholders before issuing a final rulemaking. In the current notice of proposed rulemaking, the Office is seeking public comments on the rules of practice, as revised in response to the comments received from our stakeholders.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes to set or adjust patent fees as authorized by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Act or AIA). The USPTO is a business-like operation where external factors affect the productivity of the workforce and the demand for patent products and services. The proposed fee adjustments are needed to provide the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its aggregate cost of patent operations (based on current projections), while maintaining momentum towards achieving strategic goals. This rulemaking represents the second iteration of patent fee rulemaking by the USPTO to set fees under the authority of the AIA; the first AIA patent fee setting rule was published in January 2013. This current rulemaking is a result of the USPTO assessing its costs and fees, as is consistent with federal fee setting standards. Following a biennial review of fees, costs, and revenues that began in 2015, the Office concluded that further targeted fee adjustments were necessary to continue funding patent operations, enhance patent quality, and continue to work toward patent pendency goals, strengthen the Office's information technology (IT) capability and infrastructure, and achieve operating reserve targets. Further, in several instances, the fee change proposals offered during the biennial fee review process were enhanced by the availability of cost and workload data ( e.g., the number of requests for a service) that was not available in 2013. As a result, the 205 proposed fee adjustments outlined in this proposed rule align directly with the Office's strategic goals and four key fee setting policy factors, discussed in detail in Part V.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (July 2015 Update) to provide further guidance to examiners in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The USPTO announced the July 2015 Update in the Federal Register, and sought public comment on the July 2015 Update. The USPTO has since issued a memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps titled “Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant's Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection” in response to those public comments, which is available to the public on the USPTO's Internet Web site. The memorandum seeks to improve examiner correspondence with regard to subject matter eligibility rejections. Further, additional life science examples to assist examiners in making eligibility determinations have been published and are available on the USPTO's Internet Web site. The USPTO is now seeking public comment on subject matter eligibility on an on-going basis.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is initiating a new pilot program as part of its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative. Currently, the USPTO performs reviews of applications on target issues for internal quality purposes, referred to as “case studies.” The USPTO now seeks to leverage the experience of its stakeholders to expand the use of case studies to additional quality-related topics. Beginning immediately, stakeholders are invited to submit patent quality-related topics that they believe should be the subject of a case study. After considering the submitted topics, the USPTO will identify which topics will be the subject of upcoming case studies. The USPTO anticipates that the results of these case studies will help it to understand better the quality of its work products and, where appropriate, to take action to remediate quality issues or to formulate best practices to further enhance quality. Such public engagement is sought not only to broaden the scope of quality issues currently studied by the USPTO, but also to continue stakeholder involvement in the quality review process and to maintain a transparent quality enhancement process.

The electronic sharing of information and documents between intellectual property (IP) offices is critical for increasing the efficiency and quality of patent examination worldwide. Current examples of this sharing include the priority document exchange (PDX) program and the program by which U.S. search results are delivered to the European Patent Office (EPO). In support of electronic file sharing, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising its rules of practice to include a specific provision by which an applicant can authorize the Office to give a foreign IP office that is a party to an agreement with the Office access to all or part of the file contents of an unpublished U.S. patent application in order to satisfy a requirement for information imposed on a counterpart application filed with the foreign IP office. Previously, for unpublished U.S. patent applications, applicants followed one regulatory provision to provide the Office with authorization for a foreign IP office to access an application-as-filed and followed another regulatory provision to provide the Office with authorization to share the file contents with a foreign IP office. The final rule changes consolidate the specific provisions of the regulations by which applicants give the Office authority to provide a foreign IP office with access to an application in order to satisfy a requirement for information of the foreign IP office. The Office is also revising the rules of practice to indicate there is no fee for providing a foreign IP office with an electronic copy of an application-as-filed or an electronic copy of file contents pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement. Additionally, along with changes to the application data sheet (ADS) form, the final rule changes simplify the process for how applicants provide the Office with the required authorization, thereby reducing the resources applicants must expend to comply with these foreign IP office requirements, and enhance the quality of patent examination.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared interim guidance (2014 Interim Patent Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility in view of then-recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court). The USPTO published the 2014 Interim Patent Eligibility Guidance in the Federal Register, and sought public comment on the 2014 Interim Patent Eligibility Guidance. The USPTO has since produced an update pertaining to patent subject matter eligibility titled July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, which is available to the public on the USPTO's Internet Web site, in response to the public comment on the 2014 Interim Patent Eligibility Guidance. The July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility includes a new set of examples and discussion of various issues raised by the public comments, and is intended to assist examiners in applying the 2014 Interim Patent Eligibility Guidance during the patent examination process. The USPTO is now seeking public comment on the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.

Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (“PLTIA”) amends the United States patent laws to implement the provisions of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, July 2, 1999, (hereinafter “Hague Agreement”) and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. Under the Hague Agreement, qualified applicants may apply for design protection in the Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement by filing a single, standardized international design application in a single language. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is revising the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking public input and guidance to direct its continued efforts towards enhancing patent quality. These efforts focus on improving patent operations and procedures to provide the best possible work products, to enhance the customer experience, and to improve existing quality metrics. In pursuit of these goals, the USPTO is launching a comprehensive and enhanced quality initiative. This initiative begins with a request for public comments on the set of proposals outlined in this document and will continue with a two-day “Quality Summit” with the public to discuss the outlined proposals. The conversation with the public held at this Quality Summit, complemented by written comments to these proposals, is the first of many steps toward developing a new paradigm of patent quality at the USPTO. Through an active and long-term partnership with the public, the USPTO seeks to ensure the issuance of the best quality patents and provide the best customer service possible.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice pertaining to patent term adjustment in view of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Novartis AG v. Lee. The Federal Circuit confirmed in Novartis that any time consumed by continued examination is subtracted in determining the extent to which the period of application pendency exceeds three years, regardless of when the continued examination was initiated. The Federal Circuit, however, decided that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. Accordingly, the Office is revising the rules of practice to provide that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the applicant files a request for continued examination after such allowance. The Office also is revising the rules of practice to provide that the submission of a request for continued examination after any notice of allowance has been mailed will constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application and thus result in a reduction of any period of patent term adjustment. The Office is providing an exception to this patent term adjustment reduction provision for a request for continued examination filed solely to submit information cited in a patent office communication in a counterpart application that is submitted to the Office within thirty days of receipt of the patent office communication. Additionally, the Office is clarifying what papers may be submitted after a notice of allowance without the applicant being considered to have failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of the application.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) has prepared interim guidance (2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, called “Interim Eligibility Guidance”) for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court). This Interim Eligibility Guidance supplements the June 25, 2014, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. (June 2014 Preliminary Instructions) and supersedes the March 4, 2014, Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products (March 2014 Procedure) issued in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Myriad and Mayo. The USPTO is seeking public comment on this Interim Eligibility Guidance along with additional suggestions on claim examples for explanatory example sets.

The United States Patent and Trademark (Office) is revising the rules of practice to change the phrase Express Mail or EXPRESS MAIL® to Priority Mail Express® due to the United States Postal Service (USPS) renaming Express Mail® to Priority Mail Express® on July 28, 2013, and to make other changes to conform the nomenclature used in the rules of practice to the current nomenclature used by the USPS.

The electronic sharing of information and documents between intellectual property (IP) offices is critical for increasing the efficiency and quality of patent examination worldwide. Current examples of this sharing include the priority document exchange (PDX) program and the program by which U.S. search results are delivered to the European Patent Office (EPO). In support of electronic file sharing, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to amend its rules of practice to include a specific provision by which an applicant can authorize the Office to give a foreign IP office access to all or part of the file contents of an unpublished U.S. patent application in order to satisfy a requirement for information imposed on a counterpart application filed with the foreign intellectual property office. Currently, for unpublished U.S. patent applications, applicants follow one regulatory provision to provide the Office with authorization for a foreign IP office to access an application-as-filed via a PDX program and follow another regulatory provision to provide the Office with authorization to share the file contents with a foreign IP office. The proposed changes to the rules will consolidate the specific provisions of the regulations by which applicants give the Office authority to provide a foreign IP office with access to an application in order to satisfy a requirement for information of the foreign IP office. Additionally, along with changes to the application data sheet (ADS) form, the proposed rule changes will simplify the process for how applicants provide the Office with the required authorization, thereby reducing the resources applicants must expend to comply with these foreign IP office requirements, and enhance the quality of patent examination.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing changes to the rules of practice pertaining to the patent term adjustment provisions in view of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Novartis AG v. Lee. The Federal Circuit confirmed in Novartis that any time consumed by continued examination is subtracted in determining the extent to which the period of application pendency exceeds three years, regardless when the continued examination was initiated. The Federal Circuit, however, decided that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. The Office is proposing changes to the rules of practice to provide that the time consumed by continued examination does not include the time after a notice of allowance, unless the Office actually resumes examination of the application after allowance. The Office also is proposing changes to the rules of practice to provide that the submission of a request for continued examination after a notice of allowance has been mailed will constitute a failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of an application and thus result in a reduction of any period of patent term adjustment.

Section 1(h) of the Act to correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code (AIA Technical Corrections Act) revised the patent law provisions pertaining to patent term adjustment. Section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act revised the date from which the fourteen-month patent term adjustment period is measured, and clarified the date from which the three-year patent term adjustment period is measured, with respect to international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Under section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act, the fourteen-month patent term adjustment period and the three-year patent term adjustment period is measured from the same date: the date on which an application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111; or the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an international application. Section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act also revised the provisions for notifying applicants of patent term adjustment determinations and revised the time period for requesting reconsideration and judicial review of the Office's patent term adjustment determinations and decisions. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published an interim rule on April 1, 2013 (patent term adjustment interim rule), amending the rules of practice to implement the changes to the patent term adjustment provisions in section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act. This final rule adopts as final the amendments to the rules of practice originally set forth in the patent term adjustment interim rule. The Office is further providing an optional procedure for requesting a recalculation of patent term adjustment, as an alternative to the petition and fee otherwise required to request reconsideration of a patent term adjustment determination, for patents issued between January 14, 2013 (the date of enactment of the AIA Technical Corrections Act) and May 20, 2014 (patents issued on or after this date will have patent term adjustment determinations consistent with the AIA Technical Corrections Act) that resulted directly from international applications. The Office is providing this optional procedure for requesting a recalculation of patent term adjustment because the Office has experienced a significant delay in modifying the computer program used to calculate patent term adjustment with respect to the changes resulting from the AIA Technical Corrections Act.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published a notice on January 24, 2014, proposing changes to the rules of practice to require that the attributable owner, including the ultimate parent entity, be identified during the pendency of a patent application and at specified times during the life of a patent, and seeking written comments on the proposed changes. This initiative is one of a number of executive actions issued by the Administration that are designed to ensure issuance of the highest-quality patents, enhance competition by providing the public with more complete information about the competitive environment in which innovators operate, improve market efficiency for patent rights by making patent ownership information more readily and easily available, reduce abusive patent litigation by helping the public defend itself against frivolous litigation, and level the playing field for innovators. The Office published a notice on February 20, 2014 indicating that it was conducting two public hearings to introduce the proposed changes and directly receive feedback from the public. The notice published on February 20, 2014 also extended the period for comment on the proposed rules until April 24, 2014. The Office is now extending the deadline for requesting to testify at either public hearing until March 12, 2014.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published a notice on January 24, 2014, proposing changes to the rules of practice to require that the attributable owner, including the ultimate parent entity, be identified during the pendency of a patent application and at specified times during the life of a patent, and seeking written comments on the proposed changes. This initiative is one of a number of executive actions issued by the Administration that are designed to ensure issuance of the highest-quality patents, enhance competition by providing the public with more complete information about the competitive environment in which innovators operate, improve market efficiency for patent rights by making patent ownership information more readily and easily available, reduce abusive patent litigation by helping the public defend itself against frivolous litigation, and level the playing field for innovators. The Office is conducting two public hearings to discuss these proposed changes. The public hearings are an additional way for the Office to introduce the proposed changes and directly receive feedback from the public. The Office also is extending the period for public comment on the proposed changes until April 24, 2014, to provide interested members of the public with additional time to submit written comments.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing changes to the rules of practice to facilitate the examination of patent applications and to provide greater transparency concerning the ownership of patent applications and patents. This initiative is one of a number of executive actions issued by the Administration that are designed to ensure the highest-quality patents, enhance competition by providing the public with more complete information about the competitive environment in which innovators operate, enhance technology transfer and reduce the costs of transactions for patent rights by making patent ownership information more readily and easily available, reduce abusive patent litigation by helping the public defend itself against frivolous litigation, and level the playing field for innovators. The Office is proposing in this document to require that the attributable owner, including the ultimate parent entity, be identified during the pendency of a patent application and at specified times during the life of a patent. The Office is specifically proposing that the attributable owner be identified on filing of an application (or shortly thereafter), when there is a change in the attributable owner during the pendency of an application, at the time of issue fee and maintenance fee payments, and when a patent is involved in supplemental examination, ex parte reexamination, or a trial proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Office is also seeking comments on whether the Office should enable patent applicants and owners to voluntarily report licensing offers and related information to the Office, which the Office will then make available to the public in an accessible online format.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Office”) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the rules of practice to implement Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (“PLTIA”). Title I of the PLTIA amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement and is to take effect on the entry in force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. On January 14, 2014, the Office conducted a public forum at the Alexandria, Virginia headquarters to discuss the proposed rules. The USPTO is extending the comment period in order to provide interested members of the public with additional time to submit written comments to the USPTO.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Office”) is convening a forum to discuss implementation of title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (“PLTIA”). The PLTIA amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (“Hague Agreement”) and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. On November 29, 2013, the Office published a proposed rule in the Federal Register proposing changes to the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA and seeking written comments on the proposals. The forum is an additional way for the public to learn about the Office's proposals in advance of the written comment deadline.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2013, a final rule revising the rules of practice in patent cases for consistency with the changes in the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) and provisions of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) that implement the PLT (PLT Final Rule). The PLT Final Rule as published in the Federal Register inadvertently omits the small and micro entity fee amounts for certain petitions and contains a cross-reference to a section that has been removed. This document corrects the omission and removes the cross-reference in the PLT Final Rule as published in the Federal Register .

Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (“PLTIA”) amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (“Hague Agreement”) and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. The Hague Agreement provides that an applicant is entitled to apply for design protection in Hague Agreement member countries and with intergovernmental organizations by filing a single, standardized international design application in a single language. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) proposes changes to the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA.

The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague Agreement) in title I, and the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) in title II. The PLT harmonizes and streamlines formal procedures pertaining to the filing and processing of patent applications. This final rule revises the rules of practice for consistency with the changes in the PLT and title II of the PLTIA. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is implementing the Hague Agreement and title I of the PLTIA in a separate rulemaking. The notable changes in the PLT and title II of the PLTIA pertain to: The filing date requirements for a patent application; the restoration of patent rights via the revival of abandoned applications and acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments; and the restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in a subsequent application filed within two months of the expiration of the twelve-month period (six-month period for design applications) for filing such a subsequent application. This final rule also revises the patent term adjustment provisions to provide for a reduction of any patent term adjustment if an application is not in condition for examination within eight months of its filing date or date of commencement of national stage in an international application, and contains miscellaneous changes pertaining to the supplemental examination, inventor's oath or declaration, and first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).

The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague Agreement) in title I, and the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) in title II. The PLT harmonizes and streamlines formal procedures pertaining to the filing and processing of patent applications. This notice proposes changes to the rules of practice for consistency with the changes in the PLT and title II of the PLTIA. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is implementing the Hague Agreement and title I of the PLTIA in a separate rulemaking. The notable changes in the PLT and title II of the PLTIA pertain to: (1) The filing date requirements for a patent application; (2) the restoration of patent rights via the revival of abandoned applications and acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments; and (3) the restoration of the right of priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application via the permitting of a claim to priority to a foreign application or the benefit of a provisional application in a subsequent application filed within two months of the expiration of the twelve-month period (six-month period for design applications) for filing such a subsequent application.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is adopting the new USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct (USPTO Rules), which are based on the American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct (ABA Model Rules), which were published in 1983, substantially revised in 2003 and updated through 2012. The Office has also revised the existing procedural rules governing disciplinary investigations and proceedings. These changes will enable the Office to better protect the public while also providing practitioners with substantially uniform disciplinary rules across multiple jurisdictions.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice to implement the changes to the patent term adjustment provisions in section 1(h) of the Act to correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code (AIA Technical Corrections Act). Section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act revises the date from which the fourteen-month patent term adjustment period is measured, and clarifies the date from which the three-year patent term adjustment period is measured, with respect to international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Under section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act, the fourteen-month patent term adjustment period and the three-year patent term adjustment period will be measured from the same date: the date on which an application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111; or the date of commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an international application. Section 1(h) of the AIA Technical Corrections Act also revises the provisions for notifying applicants of patent term adjustment determinations and for requesting reconsideration and judicial review of the Office's patent term adjustment determinations and decisions.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is correcting final regulations that were published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2013 (78 FR 4212) (“Fee Setting final rule”) to set and adjust patent fees as authorized by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). The Fee Setting rule became effective on March 19, 2013 (except that certain regulations relating to international applications become effective on January 1, 2014). This rulemaking corrects those final regulations to revise minor inconsistencies within the Fee Setting final rule or arising from other recent rulemakings under the AIA. It also corrects minor inconsistencies with a few of the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and typographical errors.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published in the Federal Register of February 14, 2013, a final rule revising the rules of practice in patent cases for consistency with, and to address the examination issues raised by, the changes in the first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) (First Inventor to File Final Rule). Due to a technical issue, the First Inventor to File Final Rule as published in the Federal Register is missing text in the provisions pertaining to claims for priority to a foreign application in an application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This document corrects the omission in the First Inventor to File Final Rule as published in the Federal Register .

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) sets or adjusts patent fees in this rulemaking as authorized by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Act or AIA). The fees will provide the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its aggregate cost of patent operations, while helping the Office implement a sustainable funding model, reduce the current patent application backlog, decrease patent application pendency, improve patent quality, and upgrade the Office's patent business information technology (IT) capability and infrastructure. The fees also will further key policy considerations. The Office also reduces fees for micro entities under section 10(b) of the Act by 75 percent in this rulemaking and extends the existing fee discount of 50 percent for small entities to additional fees in this rulemaking.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice in patent cases to implement the micro entity provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Certain patent fees set or adjusted under the fee setting authority in the AIA will be reduced by seventy-five percent for micro entities. The Office is revising the rules of practice to set out the procedures pertaining to claiming micro entity status, paying patent fees as a micro entity, notification of loss of micro entity status, and correction of payments of patent fees paid erroneously in the micro entity amount. In a separate rulemaking, the Office is in the process of proposing to set or adjust patent fees under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, including setting fees for micro entities with a seventy-five percent reduction. The Office has sought to address the concerns of its stakeholders as expressed in the public comment, and plans to seek additional public comment on the micro entity provisions after the Office and the public have gained experience with the micro entity procedures in operation. The Office will pursue further improvements to the micro entity procedures in light of the public comment and its experience with the micro entity procedures.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes to align the USPTO's professional responsibility rules with those of most other U.S. jurisdictions by replacing the current Patent and Trademark Office Code of Professional Responsibility, adopted in 1985, based on the 1980 version of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association (“ABA”), with new USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, which are based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the ABA, which were published in 1983, substantially revised in 2003 and updated through 2011. Changes approved by the ABA House of Delegates in August 2012 have not been incorporated in these proposed rules. The Office also proposes to revise the existing procedural rules governing disciplinary investigations and proceedings.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of proposed examination guidelines to implement the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The USPTO also conducted a roundtable to obtain public input from organizations and individuals on issues relating to the USPTO's proposed implementation of the FITF provisions of the AIA. The Office has received several requests for additional time to submit comments on the USPTO's implementation of the FITF provisions of the AIA. The USPTO is reopening the comment period to provide interested members of the public with an additional opportunity to submit comments to the USPTO.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes to set or adjust patent fees as authorized by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Act or AIA). The proposed fees will provide the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its aggregate cost of patent operations, while helping the Office implement a sustainable funding model, reduce the current patent application backlog, decrease patent pendency, improve patent quality, and upgrade the Office's patent business information technology (IT) capability and infrastructure. The Office also proposes to reduce fees for micro entities under section 10(b) of the Act (75 percent discount). The proposed fees also will further key policy considerations. For example, the proposal includes multipart and staged fees for requests for continued examination and appeals, both of which aim to increase patent prosecution options for applicants.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is adjusting certain patent fee amounts for fiscal year 2013 to reflect fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The patent statute provides for the annual CPI adjustment of patent fees set by statute to recover the higher costs associated with doing business as reflected by the CPI.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the patent term adjustment provisions of the rules of practice in patent cases to better reflect the period of appellate review. The patent term adjustment provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) provide for patent term adjustment if, inter alia, the issuance of the patent was delayed due to appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) or by a Federal court, and the patent was issued under a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability. The Office is specifically revising the rules of practice to indicate that the period of appellate review under the patent term adjustment provisions of the AIPA begins when jurisdiction over the application passes to the Board rather than the date on which a notice of appeal to the Board is filed.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) expands the scope of information that any party may cite in a patent file to include written statements of a patent owner filed in a proceeding before a Federal court or the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) regarding the scope of any claim of the patent, and provides for how such information may be considered in ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, and post grant review. The AIA also provides for an estoppel that may attach with respect to the filing of an ex parte reexamination request subsequent to a final written decision in an inter partes review or post grant review proceeding. The Office is revising the rules of practice to implement these post-patent provisions, as well as other miscellaneous provisions, of the AIA.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of patent practice to implement the preissuance submissions by third parties provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). This provision provides a mechanism for third parties to contribute to the quality of issued patents by submitting to the Office, for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of the application. A preissuance submission may be made in any non-provisional utility, design, and plant application, as well as in any continuing application. A third-party preissuance submission must include a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted, and must be submitted within a certain statutorily specified time period. The third party must submit a fee as prescribed by the Director, and a statement that the submission complies with the statutory provision. The Office has also revised the rules of patent practice to make related aspects of the existing protest rule more consistent with the new rule implementing the preissuance submissions by third parties provision. Further, the Office is eliminating the provision providing for public use proceedings.