Feb 1, 2023, is the new deadline for providing comments to the USPTO on this RFC.
Topics:The USPTO invites written responses to the following questions and requests. Commenters are welcome to respond to any or all of the questions.
1. Identify any specific sources of prior art not currently available through the Patents End-to-End Search system that you believe examiners should be searching. How should the USPTO facilitate an applicant’s submission of prior art that is not accessible in the Patents End-to-End Search system ( e.g., “on sale” or prior public use)?
2. How, if at all, should the USPTO change claim support and/or continuation practice to achieve the aims of fostering innovation, competition, and access to information through robust and reliable patents? Specifically, should the USPTO:
a. require applicants to explain or identify the corresponding support in the written description for each claim, or claim limitation, upon the original presentation of the claim(s), and/or upon any subsequent amendment to the claim(s) (including requiring a showing of express or inherent support in the written description for negative claim limitations)?
b. require applicants to explain or identify the corresponding support for each claim, or claim limitation, in the written description of every prior-filed application for which the benefit of an earlier filing date is sought, under, e.g.,35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365?
c. require applicants to explain or identify the corresponding support for each claim, or claim limitation, in the written description of every prior-filed application for which the benefit of an earlier filing date is sought, under, e.g.,35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 (including requiring such support whenever a benefit or priority claim is presented, including upon the filing of a petition for a delayed benefit or priority claim and upon the filing of a request for a certificate of correction to add a benefit or priority claim)?
d. make clear that claims must find clear support and antecedent basis in the written description by replacing the “or” in 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) with an “and” as follows: “The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification, and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or and antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description?”
e. require applicants to provide detailed analysis showing support for genus or Markush claims, and require applicants to identify each claim limitation that is a genus, and explain or identify the corresponding support in the written description for each species encompassed in the claimed genus?
f. require applicants to describe what subject matter is new in continuing applications ( e.g., continuation, continuation-in-part, and divisional applications) to explain or identify subject matter that has been added, deleted, or changed in the disclosure of the application, as compared to the parent application(s)?
3. How, if at all, should the USPTO change RCE practice to achieve the aims of fostering innovation, competition, and access to information through robust and reliable patents? Specifically, should the USPTO implement internal process changes once the number of RCEs filed in an application reaches a certain threshold, such as transferring the application to a new examiner or increasing the scrutiny given in the examination of the application?
4. How, if at all, should the USPTO limit or change restriction, divisional, rejoinder, and/or non-statutory double patenting practice to achieve the aims of fostering innovation, competition, and access to information through robust and reliable patents? Specifically, should the USPTO:
a. allow for the examination of two or more distinct inventions in the same proceeding in a manner similar to the practice authorized by 37 CFR 1.129(b), and, if so, consider an offset to patent term adjustment in such cases?
b. revise the burden requirement before the examiner to impose a restriction, and if so, how?
c. adjust the method by which an examiner appropriately establishes burden for imposing a restriction requirement?
d. authorize applicants, in the case of a Markush group, to suggest how the scope of the claim searched should be expanded if the elected species is not found in an effort to present closely related inventions for consideration together?
e. adopt a unity of invention requirement in place of the restriction requirement?
f. revise the current practice of authorizing the filing of divisional applications in a series to require all divisional applications to be filed within a set period of time after the restriction requirement is made final and after any petition for review has been resolved?
g. make changes to the rejoinder practice after a final rejection has been made, such as giving applicants a certain time period after final rejection to provide appropriate claims for rejoinder?
h. limit or change non-statutory double patenting practice, including requiring applicants seeking patents on obvious variations to prior claims to stipulate that the claims are not patentably distinct from the previously considered claims as a condition of filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection; rejecting such claims as not differing substantially from each other or as unduly multiplied under 37 CFR 1.75; and/or requiring a common applicant or assignee to include all patentably indistinct claims in a single application or to explain a good and sufficient reason for retaining patentably indistinct claims in two or more applications? See 37 CFR 1.78(f).
5. Please provide any other input on any of the proposals listed under initiatives 2(a)-2(i) of the USPTO Letter, or any other suggestions to achieve the aims of fostering innovation, competition, and access to information through robust and reliable patents.
The USPTO also invites public input on the following questions, which are presented verbatim (except for minor changes to internal citation format) as they appeared in the June 8 letter from Members of Congress. Any comments relating to fee setting will be taken into consideration when the USPTO takes up fee setting more broadly.
6. Terminal disclaimers, allowed under 37 CFR 1.321(d), allow applicants to receive patents that are obvious variations of each other as long as the expiration dates match. How would eliminating terminal disclaimers, thus prohibiting patents that are obvious variations of each other, affect patent prosecution strategies and patent quality overall?
7. Currently, patents tied together with a terminal disclaimer after an obviousness-type double patent rejection must be separately challenged on validity grounds. However, if these patents are obvious variations of each other, should the filing of a terminal disclaimer be an admission of obviousness? And if so, would these patents, when their validity is challenged after issuance, stand and fall together?
8. Should the USPTO require a second look, by a team of patent quality specialists, before issuing a continuation patent on a first office action, with special emphasis on whether the claims satisfy the written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, and whether the claims do not cover the same invention as a related application?
9. Should there be heightened examination requirements for continuation patents, to ensure that minor modifications do not receive second or subsequent patents?
10. The Patent Act requires the USPTO Director to set a “time during the pendency of the [original] application” in which continuation status may be filed. Currently there is no time limit relative to the original application. Can the USPTO implement a rule change that requires any continuation application to be filed within a set timeframe of the ultimate parent application? What is the appropriate timeframe after the applicant files an application before the applicant should know what types of inventions the patent will actually cover? Would a benchmark ( e.g., within six months of the first office action on the earliest application in a family) be preferable to a specific deadline ( e.g., one year after the earliest application in a family)?
11. The USPTO has fee-setting authority and has set [fees] for filing, search, and examination of applications below the actual costs of carrying out these activities, while maintenance fees for issued patents are above the actual cost. If the up-front fees reflected the actual cost of obtaining a patent, would this increase patent quality by discouraging filing of patents unlikely to succeed? Similarly, if fees for continuation applications were increased above the initial filing fees, would examination be more thorough and would applicants be less likely to use continuations to cover, for example, inventions that are obvious variations of each other?