80 FR 79277 - Request for Submission of Topics for USPTO Quality Case Studies
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 244 (December 21, 2015)
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 244 (December 21, 2015)
| Page Range | 79277-79279 | |
| FR Document | 2015-31897 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 79277-79279] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-31897] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 1 [Docket No.: PTO-P-2015-0074] Request for Submission of Topics for USPTO Quality Case Studies AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Initiation of Pilot Program and Request for Program Topics. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. [[Page 79278]] DATES: Submissions deadline date: To be ensured of consideration, written topic submissions must be received on or before February 12, 2016. ADDRESSES: Written submissions should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to: TopicSubmissionForCaseStudies@uspto.gov. Submissions may also be submitted by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313- 1450, marked to the attention of Michael Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. Although submissions may be sent by postal mail, the USPTO prefers to receive submissions by electronic mail message over the Internet because sharing submissions with the public is more easily accomplished. Electronic submissions are preferred to be formatted in plain text, but also may be submitted in ADOBE[supreg] portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD[supreg] format. Submissions not sent electronically should be on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE[supreg] portable document format. Timely filed submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, currently located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Submissions also will be available for viewing via the USPTO's Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Patent-Quality-Initiative.jsp). Because submissions will be made available for public inspection, information that the submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included. It would be helpful to the USPTO if written submissions included information about: (1) The name and affiliation of the individual responding; and (2) an indication of whether submissions offered represent views of the respondent's organization or are the respondent's personal views. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-7700; Maria Nuzzolillo, Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-8150; or Jeffrey R. West, Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-2226. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. The Enhanced Quality Initiative On February 5, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched an enhanced quality initiative to improve the quality of patents issued by the USPTO. This initiative began with a request for public comments on a set of six proposals outlined in a document in the Federal Register, Request for Comments on Enhancing Patent Quality, 80 FR 6475 (Feb. 5, 2015). The USPTO also held a two-day ``Quality Summit'' on March 25 and 26, 2015, at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, to discuss the quality concerns of patent stakeholders and to receive feedback on the USPTO's proposals. Following the Quality Summit, the USPTO has continued its engagement with the public through numerous roadshows, events, and stakeholder meetings to further refine the steps that may be taken to improve quality. The enhanced patent quality initiative targets three pillars of patent quality: (1) Excellence in work products; (2) excellence in measuring patent quality; and (3) excellence in customer service. As part of the first pillar, the USPTO is focusing on the quality of the work products provided at every stage of the patent process, including the actions taken by the USPTO during application processing, examination, and issuance processes, as well as the quality of issued patents. The USPTO originally proposed creating a mechanism by which the public could flag particular applications to the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) for review. After considering the comments from both our internal and external stakeholders, the USPTO decided to revise its original proposal. The USPTO is, instead, implementing a pilot program in which stakeholders are invited to submit patent quality-related topics, not particular applications, they believe should be the subject of a case study. II. Case Studies at the USPTO The USPTO performs case studies to investigate specific quality- related issues in addition to reviews of individual examiner work products, such as its review of a sampling of first Office actions on the merits. The USPTO designs, and performs, these case studies to investigate whether the quality-related issues that are the subject of these studies exist. If the result of a case study reveals that action is needed, the USPTO takes the necessary action. For example, if the result of the case study reveals that additional training is needed, the USPTO develops and implements the training. Unlike the USPTO's review of specific Office actions in an individual application, case studies allow the USPTO to investigate how a particular issue is being treated or addressed across hundreds or thousands of applications. The USPTO historically has performed case studies for internal quality purposes. III. Topic Submission for Case Studies Pilot Program This new pilot program invites the public to submit topics for case studies. Submissions may concern any topic affecting the USPTO's ability to effectively issue high-quality patents. A submission should be more than a mere statement of an issue or problem encountered by the submitter. A submission should propose a specific correlation or trend for study, and where possible, suggest a methodology for its investigation. A helpful submission would also explain how the results of that case study could be used to improve patent quality. The submission may refer to concrete examples to support the proposed correlation or trend, but any such examples should not contain information sufficient to identify any particular application, any particular examiner, or any particular art unit. A submission may specify certain data subsets for analysis, e.g., primary vs. junior examiners, or data broken out for each Technology Center. Finally, the submission should identify any relevant dates of concern that pertain to the issue presented, e.g., dates of a particular court opinion or USPTO guidance document. The following restrictions are placed on submissions. First, each separate topic must be presented in a separate submission to ensure consideration, although there is no limit placed upon the number of submissions from a person or entity. Second, each submission should be titled, such as in an email's ``subject'' line, to reflect the topic contained therein. Third, submissions should not contain information associated with any particular patent application or patent, any particular examiner, or any particular art unit; any such submission will not be part of the study. Fourth, topics should focus on patent quality issues; topics relating to other issues such as management concerns or statutory changes are outside the scope of these case studies. Fifth, the submission should concisely explain the nature and purpose of the proposed study to aid the USPTO in selecting the best topic(s) for this pilot program; the submission should not include lengthy supporting documentation or arguments. The USPTO will consider these suggestions and identify potential areas [[Page 79279]] for quality case studies in addition to those already being conducted by OPQA. The USPTO will use the results of the studies to improve its understanding of 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. For example, if a case study reveals a training issue, the USPTO will develop and deliver the appropriate training. This pilot program will help the USPTO determine the usefulness of this manner of public submission for case study topics as compared to currently-existing methods, such as public fora and external quality surveys. In addition, this pilot program will allow the USPTO to communicate to the public the case studies determined to be useful and the results of those studies. IV. Example of a Topic Submission The following example is provided to assist the public in providing high-quality submissions that best communicate a focused case study topic for consideration: Title: ``Pre-first action interviews and quality of the resulting patent prosecution.'' Proposal for study: ``Pre-first action interviews result in a shorter time-to-issuance in such applications that are issued as patents.'' Explanation: In my experience as a patent practitioner, interviews with examiners lead to better understanding of the claimed invention by both parties. In particular, interviews can reveal that the parties are operating under differing understandings of the scope of the claims, the meaning of a claim term, or interpretation of a teaching of the prior art. When performed early in prosecution, these can provide the opportunity to resolve such differences before the mutual misunderstanding or miscommunication results in extended prosecution. This permits more efficient examination as reflected by a shorter prosecution time for those applications that eventually mature into patents. These efficiency gains are most noticeable after April 1, 2011, when the Full First Action Interview Pilot Program went into effect. The USPTO should study what effect an interview before the first action on the merits in a new application has on time-to- allowance in applications that are eventually issued as patents, and if there are any particular features of the interview that strongly correlate with the time-to-allowance. Discovery of such correlations could lead to USPTO process changes or changes in applicants' approach to prosecution that could improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of patent prosecution. Dated: December 15, 2015. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 2015-31897 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 79277
we will follow the requirement in • Evidence of support from published in the Federal Register by
section 492(b)(1) of the HEA that the individuals or groups within the using the article search feature at:
individuals selected must have constituency that the nominee will www.federalregister.gov. Specifically,
demonstrated expertise or experience in represent. through the advanced search feature at
the relevant topics proposed for • The nominee’s commitment that he this site, you can limit your search to
negotiations. We will also select or she will actively participate in good documents published by the
individual negotiators who reflect the faith in the development of the Department.
diversity among program participants, proposed regulations. Delegation of Authority: The Secretary
in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of • The nominee’s contact information, of Education has delegated authority to
the HEA. Our goal is to establish a including address, phone number, and Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under
committee that will allow significantly email address. Secretary, to perform the functions and
affected parties to be represented while For a better understanding of the duties of the Assistant Secretary for
keeping the committee size manageable. negotiated rulemaking process, Postsecondary Education.
We generally select a primary and nominees should review The Negotiated Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a.
alternate negotiator for each Rulemaking Process for Title IV
constituency represented on the Dated: December 16, 2015.
Regulations, Frequently Asked
committee. The primary negotiator Jamienne S. Studley,
Questions at www2.ed.gov/policy/
participates for the purpose of highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg- Deputy Under Secretary.
determining consensus. The alternate reg-faq.html prior to committing to [FR Doc. 2015–32007 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am]
participates for the purpose of serve as a negotiator. BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
determining consensus in the absence of Nominees will be notified whether or
the primary. Either the primary or the not they have been selected as
alternate may speak during the negotiators as soon as the Department’s DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
negotiations. review process is completed.
The committee may create subgroups Patent and Trademark Office
on particular topics that may involve Schedule for Negotiations
individuals who are not members of the The committee will meet for three 37 CFR Part 1
committee. Individuals who are not sessions on the following dates: [Docket No.: PTO–P–2015–0074]
selected as members of the committee
Session 1: January 12–14, 2016
will be able to observe the committee Request for Submission of Topics for
Session 2: February 17–19, 2016
meetings, will have access to the USPTO Quality Case Studies
Session 3: March 16–18, 2016
individuals representing their
constituencies, and may be able to Sessions will run from 9 a.m. to 5 AGENCY: United States Patent and
participate in informal working groups p.m. Trademark Office, Commerce.
on various issues between the meetings. The January and February committee ACTION: Initiation of Pilot Program and
The goal of the committee is to meetings will be held at the U.S. Request for Program Topics.
develop proposed regulations that Department of Education at: 1990 K
reflect a final consensus of the Street NW., Eighth Floor Conference SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
committee. Consensus means that there Center, Washington, DC 20006. Trademark Office (USPTO) is initiating
is no dissent by any member of the The March committee meetings will a new pilot program as part of its
negotiating committee, including the be held at: Union Center Plaza (UCP) Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative.
committee member representing the Learning Center, 830 First Street NE., Currently, the USPTO performs reviews
Department. An individual selected as a Lobby Level, Washington, DC 20002. of applications on target issues for
negotiator will be expected to represent The meetings are open to the public. internal quality purposes, referred to as
the interests of his or her organization Accessible Format: Individuals with ‘‘case studies.’’ The USPTO now seeks
or group and participate in the disabilities can obtain this document in to leverage the experience of its
negotiations in a manner consistent an accessible format (e.g., braille, large stakeholders to expand the use of case
with the goal of developing proposed print, audiotape, or compact disc) by studies to additional quality-related
regulations on which the committee will contacting Wendy Macias, U.S. topics. Beginning immediately,
reach consensus. If consensus is Department of Education, 1990 K Street stakeholders are invited to submit
reached, all members of the organization NW., Room 8013, Washington, DC patent quality-related topics that they
or group represented by a negotiator are 20006. Telephone: (202) 502–7526 or by believe should be the subject of a case
bound by the consensus and are email: Wendy.Macias@ed.gov. study. After considering the submitted
prohibited from commenting negatively Electronic Access to This Document: topics, the USPTO will identify which
on the resulting proposed regulations. The official version of this document is topics will be the subject of upcoming
The Department will not consider any the document published in the Federal case studies. The USPTO anticipates
such negative comments on the Register. Free Internet access to the that the results of these case studies will
proposed regulations that are submitted official edition of the Federal Register help it to understand better the quality
by members of such an organization or and the Code of Federal Regulations is of its work products and, where
group. available via the Federal Digital System appropriate, to take action to remediate
Nominations: Nominations should at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you quality issues or to formulate best
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
include: can view this document, as well as all practices to further enhance quality.
• The name of the nominee, the other documents of this Department Such public engagement is sought not
organization or group the nominee published in the Federal Register, in only to broaden the scope of quality
represents, and a description of the text or Adobe Portable Document issues currently studied by the USPTO,
interests that the nominee represents. Format (PDF). To use PDF you must but also to continue stakeholder
• Evidence of the nominee’s expertise have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is involvement in the quality review
or experience in the topics proposed for available free at the site. You may also process and to maintain a transparent
negotiations. access documents of the Department quality enhancement process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Dec 18, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM 21DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_79521/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 79279
for quality case studies in addition to could improve the overall efficiency and disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
those already being conducted by effectiveness of patent prosecution. not submit any information
OPQA. The USPTO will use the results Dated: December 15, 2015. electronically that is considered CBI or
of the studies to improve its Michelle K. Lee,
any other information whose disclosure
understanding of the quality of its work is restricted by statute. The
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
products and, where appropriate, to take www.regulations.gov Web site is an
Property and Director of the United States
action to remediate quality issues or to Patent and Trademark Office. ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
formulate best practices to further means the EPA will not know one’s
[FR Doc. 2015–31897 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am]
enhance quality. For example, if a case identity or contact information unless it
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
study reveals a training issue, the is provided in the body of a comment.
USPTO will develop and deliver the If a comment is emailed directly to the
appropriate training. EPA without going through
This pilot program will help the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.regulations.gov, then the sender’s
USPTO determine the usefulness of this AGENCY email address will automatically be
manner of public submission for case captured and included as part of the
study topics as compared to currently- 40 CFR Part 52
public docket comment and made
existing methods, such as public fora [EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0497; FRL–9940–17– available on the Internet. If a comment
and external quality surveys. In Region 6] is submitted electronically, then the
addition, this pilot program will allow EPA recommends that one’s name and
the USPTO to communicate to the Approval and Promulgation of
other contact information be included in
public the case studies determined to be Implementation Plans; Texas; Control
the body of the comment, and with any
useful and the results of those studies. of Air Pollution From Nitrogen
disk or CD–ROM submitted. If the EPA
Compounds State Implementation Plan
IV. Example of a Topic Submission cannot read a particular comment due to
AGENCY: The Environmental Protection technical difficulties and is unable to
The following example is provided to
Agency (EPA). contact for clarification, the EPA may
assist the public in providing high-
ACTION: Proposed rule. not be able to consider the comment.
quality submissions that best
Electronic files should avoid the use of
communicate a focused case study topic SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection special characters, any form of
for consideration: Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
Title: ‘‘Pre-first action interviews and encryption, and be free of any defects or
revisions to the State Implementation viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio,
quality of the resulting patent
Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
prosecution.’’
Proposal for study: ‘‘Pre-first action Texas through the Texas Commission on written comment. The written comment
interviews result in a shorter time-to- Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on July will be considered the official comment
issuance in such applications that are 10, 2015. The Texas SIP submission with multimedia submissions and
issued as patents.’’ revises 30 Texas Administrative Code should include all discussion points
Explanation: In my experience as a (TAC) Chapter 117 rules for control of desired. The EPA will generally not
patent practitioner, interviews with nitrogen compounds to assist the Dallas- consider a comment or its contents
examiners lead to better understanding Fort Worth (DFW) moderate submitted outside of the primary
of the claimed invention by both parties. nonattainment area (NAA) in attaining submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or
In particular, interviews can reveal that the 2008 eight-hour ozone (O3) National other file sharing system). For
the parties are operating under differing Ambient Air Quality Standards additional information on submitting
understandings of the scope of the (NAAQS). comments, please visit http://
claims, the meaning of a claim term, or DATES: Written comments must be www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-
interpretation of a teaching of the prior received on or before January 20, 2016. epa-dockets.
art. When performed early in ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
Docket: The index to the docket for
prosecution, these can provide the identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– this action is available electronically at
opportunity to resolve such differences OAR–2015–0497, by one of the www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
before the mutual misunderstanding or following methods: at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
miscommunication results in extended • www.regulations.gov. Follow the Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
prosecution. This permits more efficient online instructions. documents in the docket are listed in
examination as reflected by a shorter • Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at the index, some information may be
prosecution time for those applications donaldson.guy@epa.gov. publicly available only at the hard copy
that eventually mature into patents. • Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
These efficiency gains are most Donaldson, Chief, Air Branch (6MM– some may not be publicly available at
noticeable after April 1, 2011, when the AA), Environmental Protection Agency, either location (e.g., CBI).
Full First Action Interview Pilot 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Program went into effect. The USPTO Texas 75202–2733. James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745;
should study what effect an interview Instructions: Direct comments to grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the
before the first action on the merits in Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0497. hard copy materials, please schedule an
a new application has on time-to- The EPA’s policy is that all comments appointment with Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
allowance in applications that are received will be included in the public Deese at (214) 665–7253.
eventually issued as patents, and if docket without change and made SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
there are any particular features of the available online at www.regulations.gov. Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
interview that strongly correlate with The EPA includes any personal or ‘‘our’’ means ‘‘the EPA.’’
the time-to-allowance. Discovery of information provided, unless a
such correlations could lead to USPTO comment includes information claimed Table of Contents
process changes or changes in to be Confidential Business Information I. Background on DFW 2008 Eight-Hour O3
applicants’ approach to prosecution that (CBI) or other information whose NAA Designation and Classification
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Dec 18, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM 21DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_79521/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-19 02:57:32
Document Modified: 2015-12-19 02:57:32
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Initiation of Pilot Program and Request for Program Topics. | |
| Contact | Michael T. Cygan, Senior Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-7700; Maria Nuzzolillo, Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-8150; or Jeffrey R. West, Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-2226. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 79277 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR