81 FR 54564 - Changes in Accelerated Examination Practice
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 158 (August 16, 2016)
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 158 (August 16, 2016)
| Page Range | 54564-54567 | |
| FR Document | 2016-19527 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 54564-54567] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-19527] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2016-0024] Changes in Accelerated Examination Practice AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) introduced the accelerated examination program to permit an application to be advanced out of turn if the applicant files a grantable petition under the program. Since its institution, the patent landscape has witnessed numerous legal changes such as the America Invents Act (AIA), the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) implementing the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), and the USPTO's adoption of the Cooperative Patent Classification system (CPC) along with changes to USPTO systems. Accordingly, the Office is updating the accelerated examination program to reflect these changes in the law and examination practice. DATES: Effective on August 16, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pinchus M. Laufer, Senior Legal Advisor ((571) 272 7726) or Matthew Sked, Legal Advisor ((571) 272- 7627), Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of [[Page 54565]] the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose of the Notice The USPTO published a notice in June 2006 (2006 AE Notice) to implement the accelerated examination program under which an application will be advanced out of turn for examination if the applicant files a petition to make special with the appropriate showing. See Changes in Practice for Petitions in Patent Applications To Make Special and for Accelerated Examination, 71 FR 36323 (June 26, 2006). This showing requires the applicant to meet several conditions, including conducting a pre-examination search, providing an accelerated examination support document (AESD), and requiring the application be complete under 37 CFR 1.51 at the time of filing. In light of recent changes in the law such as the America Invents Act (AIA), Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act (PLTIA) to implement the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) and the conversion to the Cooperative Patent Classification system (CPC), some of the requirements and practices of the program reflected in the 2006 AE Notice are no longer appropriate. Therefore, the program is being updated to account for these changes. The full updated accelerated examination guidelines may be found on the accelerated examination Web page (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/accelerated-examination) and in a forthcoming update to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). In particular, the changes are explained beginning at Section I.A of this notice. Subsequent to the implementation of the AE program in 2006, the Office implemented the prioritized examination program (referred to as ``Track I'') provided for in the AIA in a final rule published on September 23, 2011. See Changes to Implement the Prioritized Examination Track (Track I) of the Enhanced Examination Timing Control Procedures under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 76 FR 59050 (September 23, 2011). Since implementation of Track I in 2011, the USPTO has received fewer than 200 AE requests annually. In view of the relatively low usage of the AE program, the USPTO plans to publish a request for comments in the Federal Register to seek public input on whether there is value in retaining the AE program in view of the more popular Track I program. A. Pre-Examination Search The 2006 AE Notice requires that the pre-examination search include a classification search of the United States Patent Classification system (USPC) by class and subclass. 71 FR at 36324. However, the USPTO has since harmonized its classification system for utility applications with Europe to create a common classification scheme known as the CPC. Therefore, a classified search of U.S. patents and published patent applications would need to include the relevant group(s)/subgroup(s) of the CPC rather than the class(es)/subclass(es) of the USPC. Applicants should consult with the USPTO's classification resources to determine the relevant group(s)/subgroup(s) of the CPC to consider. The classification resources may be found in Chapter 900 of the MPEP (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0900.htm) and the Office of Patent Classification Home Page (http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-search/classification-standards-and-development). It is noted that a pre-examination search regarding a design application should continue to use the USPC because the CPC only applies to utility applications. B. Accelerated Examination Support Document The accelerated examination support document (AESD) was previously required to contain an indication of whether any cited references may be disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Pub. L. 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)). 71 FR at 36325. In 2011, the AIA was enacted, which amended 35 U.S.C. 103 to remove subsection (c). Instead, applicants enjoy a common ownership and obligation of assignment exception to prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). Therefore, an application that is subject to examination under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 would need to, instead, include an indication in the AESD whether any of the cited prior art may be disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). Applications that are subject to examination under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 would need to continue to indicate whether any of the cited references are disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). Applicants should consult MPEP 2159 in ascertaining whether the application is subject to examination under pre-AIA or AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. Applicants are reminded, that if the application is filed on or after March 16, 2013, and claims the benefit of or priority to an application where the filing date of a foreign, U.S. provisional, U.S. nonprovisional, or international application is prior to March 16, 2013, it is necessary for the applicant to specify whether pre-AIA or AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 applies. It is noted that further minor changes have been made to the 2006 AE Notice to reflect changes made by the AIA such as the citation change of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (f) and the appeal board's designation as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). C. Reply by Applicant The 2006 AE Notice provides shortened statutory periods of one month or thirty days, whichever is longer, without extensions under 37 CFR 1.136(a). 71 FR at 36325, 36327. This provision of the 2006 AE Notice was updated in 2013, when the Office issued a final rule to implement the PLT stating: ``The Office is revising the Accelerated Examination program to provide that Office actions (other than a notice of allowance) will set a shortened statutory period for reply of at least two months. In addition, extensions of this shortened statutory period under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be permitted, but filing a petition for an extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the Accelerated Examination program.'' Changes To Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368, 62373 (Oct. 21, 2013). D. Complete Application Upon Filing In listing the conditions that must be met at the time of filing, the 2006 AE Notice states that no petition under 37 CFR 1.47 for a non- signing inventor may be present. 71 FR at 36327. However, in implementing the AIA, 37 CFR 1.47 was removed and 37 CFR 1.46 was amended to allow an assignee, an obligated assignee, or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter to make an application for patent. Included among the amendments to 37 CFR 1.46 is a provision in 37 CFR 1.46(b)(2) that requires a petition in order to designate a person with sufficient proprietary interest as the applicant. Thus, the conditions for participation in the AE are hereby revised to preclude any petition under 37 CFR 1.46(b)(2) to designate a person with sufficient proprietary interest as the applicant. In fact, applicant should refrain from filing any petition that would delay the processing of the application including a petition under 37 CFR 1.78 to accept a delayed benefit claim. [[Page 54566]] Additionally, the 2006 AE Notice states that a foreign priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) should be identified in the executed oath or declaration or an application data sheet (if applicable). 71 FR at 36326. Further, the 2006 AE notice also states that any domestic benefit claim must be in the first sentence of the specification or in an application data sheet. 71 FR at 36326. However, after the AIA, current rules require all domestic benefit and foreign priority claims to be made in the application data sheet (except for foreign priority claim in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371) (see 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78). Therefore, any priority claim would need to be made in an application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76. Finally, the 2006 AE Notice requires the applicant to file using the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS) or EFS-Web. The USPTO's original electronic filing system (EFS) was discontinued. Therefore, applicants will need to file their accelerated examination applications through EFS-Web. It is noted that an executed oath or declaration is no longer a condition for examination after the AIA. However, it is a requirement under 37 CFR 1.51 and will need to be present upon filing for entry in the program. A missing oath or declaration will not result in a notice to file missing parts when the application is reviewed by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). Nonetheless, the presence of the oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or substitute statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.64 will subsequently be reviewed in the Technology Centers by the Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) office. Failure to have a compliant oath, declaration, or substitute statement upon filing will prevent the application from being accorded special status. II. Changes to the 2006 AE Notice As detailed above, the 2006 AE Notice has been modified to reflect changes in law and examination practice. The changes are set out below as paragraphs that replace paragraphs in the original notice. The changes in Part I are as follows: 71 FR at 36324, col. 2, fifth paragraph (``(3) . . .'') is replaced with the following: (3) The application, petition, and required fees must be filed electronically using the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS-Web). If the USPTO's EFS-Web is not available to the public during the normal business hours for the system at the time of filing the application, applicant may file the application, other papers, and fees by mail accompanied by a statement that EFS-Web was not available during the normal business hours, but the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application. See Part VIII (subsection The Twelve-Month Goal) for more information. 71 FR at 36324, col. 3, fourth paragraph (``(8) . . .'') is replaced with the following: (8) At the time of filing, applicant must provide a statement that a preexamination search was conducted, including an identification of the field of search (i.e., group/subgroup of the CPC for utility applications and class/subclass of the USPC for design applications) and the date of the search, where applicable, and for database searches, the search logic or chemical structure or sequence used as a query, the name of the file or files searched and the database service, and the date of the search. 71 FR at 36325, col. 1-2, ninth paragraph (``(E) . . .'') is replaced with the following: (E) The accelerated examination support document must include a showing of where each limitation of the claims finds support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the written description of the specification. If applicable, the showing must also identify: (1) Each means- (or step-) plus-function claim element that invokes consideration under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); and (2) the structure, material, or acts in the specification that correspond to each means- (or step-) plus-function claim element that invokes consideration under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). If the application claims the benefit of one or more applications under title 35, United States Code, the showing must also include where each limitation of the claims finds support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in each such application in which such support exists. 71 FR at 36325, col. 2, first paragraph (``(F) . . .'') is replaced with the following: (F)(1) For an application that is subject to examination under the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103: The accelerated examination support document must identify any cited references that may be disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Pub. L. 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596 (2004)). (F)(2) For an application that is subject to examination under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103: The accelerated examination support document must identify any cited references that may be disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). The changes in Part III are as follows: 71 FR at 36325, col. 3, second paragraph (``If an . . .'') is replaced with the following: If an Office action other than a notice of allowance is mailed, the Office action will set a shortened statutory period of two (2) months. Extensions of time under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be permitted, but will result in the application being taken out of the program. Failure to timely file a reply will result in abandonment of the application. See Parts V and VI for more information on post- allowance and after-final procedures. The changes in Part VI are as follows: 71 FR at 36326, col. 1-2, third paragraph (``After-Final and Appeal Procedures'') is replaced with the following: After-Final and Appeal Procedures: The mailing of a final Office action or the filing of a notice of appeal, whichever is earlier, is the final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the program. Prior to the mailing of a final Office action, the USPTO will conduct a conference to review the rejections set forth in the final Office action (i.e., the type of conference conducted in an application on appeal when the applicant requests a pre-appeal brief conference). In order for the application to be expeditiously forwarded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for a decision, applicant must: (1) Promptly file the notice of appeal, appeal brief, and appeal fees; and (2) not request a pre-appeal brief conference. A pre-appeal brief conference would not be of value in an application under a final Office action because the examiner will have already conducted such a conference prior to mailing the final Office action. During the appeal process, the application will be treated in accordance with the normal appeal procedures. The USPTO will continue to treat the application special under the accelerated examination program after the decision by the PTAB. The changes in Part VIII are as follows: 71 FR at 36326, col. 3, ninth paragraph (``(G) . . .'') is replaced with the following: (G) Electronic submissions of sequence listings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.821(c) or (e), large tables, or computer listings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.96, submitted via the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS-Web) in ASCII text as part of an associated file (if applicable); [[Page 54567]] 71 FR at 36326, col. 3, tenth paragraph (``(H) . . .'') is replaced with the following: (H) Foreign priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) identified in the application data sheet (if applicable); 71 FR at 36326-27, col. 3, eleventh paragraph (``(I) . . .'') is replaced with the following: (I) Domestic benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., the specific reference to the prior application must be submitted in an application data sheet, and for any benefit claim to a non-English language provisional application, the application must include a statement that: (a) An English language translation, and (b) a statement that the translation is accurate, have been filed in the provisional application) (if applicable); 71 FR at 36327, col. 1, third paragraph (``(L) . . .'') is replaced with the following: (L) No petition under 37 CFR 1.46(b)(2) to designate a person with sufficient proprietary interest as the applicant. 71 FR at 36327, col. 1, fifth paragraph (``Applicant should . . .'') is replaced with the following: Applicant should also provide a suggested classification (i.e., group/subgroup of the Cooperative Patent Classification for utility applications or class/subclass of the U.S. Patent Classification for design applications) for the application on the transmittal letter, petition, or an application data sheet as set forth in 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3) so that the application can be expeditiously processed. 71 FR at 36327, col. 1, sixth paragraph (``The petition . . .'') is replaced with the following: The petition to make special will be dismissed if the application omits an item or includes a paper that causes the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) to mail a notice during the formality review (e.g., a notice of incomplete application, notice to file missing parts, notice to file corrected application papers, notice of omitted items, or notice of informal application). The opportunity to perfect a petition (Part II) does not apply to applications that are not in condition for examination on filing. 71 FR at 36327, col. 1, seventh paragraph (``Reply Not . . .'') is replaced with following: Reply Not Fully Responsive: If a reply to a non-final Office action is not fully responsive, but a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action, the examiner may provide two (2) months for applicant to supply the omission or a fully responsive reply. Extensions of time under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) are permitted, but will result in the application being taken out of the program. Failure to timely file the omission or a fully responsive reply will result in abandonment of the application. If the reply is not a bona fide attempt, no additional time period will be given. The time period set forth in the previous Office action will continue to run. Dated: August 10, 2016. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 2016-19527 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
![54564 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices
Pacific Stock Assessment Review The Coordinating Committee, in MSA section 302(g)(1)(E). Many of these
process is publicly available at: http:// consultation with the WPSAR Steering other peer review processes are used in
www.npfmc.org/wp-content/ Committee, identifies and selects expert connection with transboundary and/or
PDFdocuments/resources/SAFE/ panel members. The selected panel internationally-managed species under
AFSCsafeReviewProcess.pdf. reviews the products in accordance with legal authorities other than the MSA.
the associated terms of reference. A Examples include Atlantic tuna and
(5) Western Pacific Stock Assessment
standing member of the Council’s SSC tuna-like species managed pursuant to
Review (WPSAR)
will chair each WPSAR Tier 2 Review the International Convention for the
(i) Scope and objective. The Western Panel and provide a summary report. Conservation of Atlantic Tuna; tropical
Pacific Stock Assessment Review Each individual reviewer produces and Pacific tuna managed by the Inter-
(WPSAR) process has been jointly provides a report regarding their unique American Tropical Tuna Commission;
established by the NMFS Pacific Islands findings. Atlantic and Pacific salmon and Pacific
Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), NMFS (iii) Terms of reference. The terms of hake/whiting, all managed in
Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries Office reference are developed before each conjunction with Canada. Lack of
(PIRO), and Western Pacific Fishery review, and identify the specific inclusion on the list of MSA
Management Council (WPFMC) to assessment parameters to be addressed § 302(g)(1)(E) peer review processes
conduct the peer review of scientific during that review. does not in any way diminish the
information used for fishery (iv) Compliance with National integrity of those peer review processes
management in the Pacific Islands Standard 2. The WPSAR process for or NMFS’ confidence in and reliance on
Region. conducting peer review of scientific them for review of scientific
(ii) Background. The WPSAR process information for fishery management is information.
was established to improve the quality fully compliant with the NS2
and reliability of stock assessments for guidelines. Dated: August 10, 2016.
fishery resources in the Pacific Islands Tier 1 reviews will be conducted by Ned Cyr,
region. The process provides for the CIE, in accordance with CIE Director, Office of Science and Technology,
rigorous and independent scientific protocols (http://ciereviews.org/). For National Marine Fisheries Service.
review of stock assessments, and Tier 2 reviews, the panel will consist of [FR Doc. 2016–19522 Filed 8–15–16; 8:45 am]
encourages constituent/stakeholder three to five experts, the exact size BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
participation in stock assessment determined by the WPSAR Coordinators
reviews. A five-year planning horizon is and approved by the Steering
adopted to facilitate the timely Committee. The Tier 2 Review’s Chair DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
execution of critical data collection will be a standing member of the
activities, population dynamics model Council’s SSC, and appointed by the Patent and Trademark Office
development, and stock evaluation Steering Committee. In addition, all
exercises. The WPFMC, PIFSC and PIRO reviewers must meet qualifications [Docket No.: PTO–P–2016–0024]
share the fiscal and logistical required for the peer review. The
responsibilities of the WPSAR process. independent reviewers can come from Changes in Accelerated Examination
The WPFMC sponsors the review the CIE, academia, or be nominated by Practice
process, and PIFSC, PIRO and WPFMC the public. Reviewers will be selected in
AGENCY: United States Patent and
staff coordinate and facilitate the review accordance with NS2 peer reviewer
Trademark Office, Commerce.
process in the Coordinating Committee. selection guidelines (50 CFR
Specifically, the Coordinating 600.315(b)(2) and (c)(2)), and in ACTION: Notice.
Committee consults with the WPSAR accordance NOAA’s Conflict of Interest SUMMARY: In 2006, the United States
Steering Committee, which is comprised Policy. Like a Tier 2 panel, Tier 3 panels Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or
of WPFMC, PIFSC, PIRO leadership, to will consist of three to five experts, the Office) introduced the accelerated
develop the WPSAR schedule, prepare exact size determined by the WPSAR examination program to permit an
terms of reference, convene the review Coordinators and approved by the application to be advanced out of turn
panels, and any other duties deemed Steering Committee. Under Tier 3 only, if the applicant files a grantable petition
pertinent by the Steering Committee. the Steering Committee may under the program. Since its institution,
The WPSAR process adopts a three tier unanimously agree to a WPRFMC SSC/ the patent landscape has witnessed
approach for the review and acceptance PIFSC-only review. numerous legal changes such as the
of stock assessment research products. (v) Transparency. All meetings are
The tiers differ in form, timing, scope, America Invents Act (AIA), the Patent
open to the public, and will be
and panel membership, commensurate Law Treaties Implementation Act
announced in the Federal Register with
with the novelty and complexity of the (PLTIA) implementing the provisions of
a minimum of 14 days before a review.
information under review. Under Tier 1, the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), and the
More detailed information for the
CIE reviewers conduct independent USPTO’s adoption of the Cooperative
WPSAR process is publicly available at
peer reviews of new stock assessment Patent Classification system (CPC) along
http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/peer_
methodologies and, in special with changes to USPTO systems.
reviews/wpsar/index.php.
circumstances, international stock Other peer review processes. In Accordingly, the Office is updating the
assessments in accordance with the addition to the peer review processes accelerated examination program to
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
specified terms of reference. The described above, NMFS uses other reflect these changes in the law and
application of new methodologies and important peer review processes to examination practice.
benchmark assessments fall under Tier ensure the use of the BSIA for fishery DATES: Effective on August 16, 2016.
2 which utilizes panel independent management decisions. While these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
subject matter experts. Tier 3 is used for processes provide critical peer review of Pinchus M. Laufer, Senior Legal Advisor
assessment updates, where only new scientific information, NMFS is not ((571) 272 7726) or Matthew Sked, Legal
data are added to an existing and identifying them as jointly established Advisor ((571) 272–7627), Office of
approved assessment. peer review processes for purposes of Patent Legal Administration, Office of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54722/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2016 / Notices 54567
71 FR at 36326, col. 3, tenth omission or a fully responsive reply. Public Participation: The meeting is
paragraph (‘‘(H) . . .’’) is replaced with Extensions of time under the provisions open to the public. Individuals who
the following: of 37 CFR 1.136(a) are permitted, but would like to attend must RSVP to
(H) Foreign priority claim under 35 will result in the application being Karen Gibson no later than 5:00 p.m. on
U.S.C. 119(a)–(d) identified in the taken out of the program. Failure to Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at seab@
application data sheet (if applicable); timely file the omission or a fully hq.doe.gov. Please provide your name,
71 FR at 36326–27, col. 3, eleventh responsive reply will result in organization, citizenship, and contact
paragraph (‘‘(I) . . .’’) is replaced with abandonment of the application. information. Anyone attending the
the following: If the reply is not a bona fide attempt,
(I) Domestic benefit claims under 35 meeting will be required to present
no additional time period will be given. government issued identification. Please
U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) The time period set forth in the previous
in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 (e.g., note that the Department of Homeland
Office action will continue to run.
the specific reference to the prior Security (DHS) has determined that
Dated: August 10, 2016. regular driver’s licenses (and ID cards)
application must be submitted in an
Michelle K. Lee, from the following jurisdictions are not
application data sheet, and for any
benefit claim to a non-English language Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual acceptable: Alaska, American Samoa,
Property and Director of the United States Arizona, Louisiana, Maine,
provisional application, the application
Patent and Trademark Office.
must include a statement that: (a) An Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,
[FR Doc. 2016–19527 Filed 8–15–16; 8:45 am] Oklahoma, and Washington. Acceptable
English language translation, and (b) a
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P alternate forms of Photo-ID include:
statement that the translation is
accurate, have been filed in the
• U.S. Passport or Passport Card
provisional application) (if applicable);
71 FR at 36327, col. 1, third paragraph DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY • An Enhanced Driver’s License or
(‘‘(L) . . .’’) is replaced with the Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states
following: Secretary of Energy Advisory Board of Minnesota, New York or
(L) No petition under 37 CFR AGENCY: Department of Energy. Washington (Enhanced licenses
1.46(b)(2) to designate a person with ACTION: Notice of open meeting. issued by these states are clearly
sufficient proprietary interest as the marked Enhanced or Enhanced
applicant. SUMMARY: This notice announces an Driver’s License)
71 FR at 36327, col. 1, fifth paragraph open meeting of the Secretary of Energy
(‘‘Applicant should . . .’’) is replaced • A military ID or other government
Advisory Board (SEAB). SEAB was
with the following: issued Photo-ID card
reestablished pursuant to the Federal
Applicant should also provide a Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Individuals and representatives of
suggested classification (i.e., group/ 463, 86 Stat. 770) (the Act). This notice organizations who would like to offer
subgroup of the Cooperative Patent is provided in accordance with the Act. comments and suggestions may do so
Classification for utility applications or DATES: September 22, 2016, 8:30 a.m.– during the meeting. Approximately 30
class/subclass of the U.S. Patent 12:30 p.m. minutes will be reserved for public
Classification for design applications) ADDRESSES: Department of Energy, 1000 comments. Time allotted per speaker
for the application on the transmittal Independence Avenue SW., Room 1E– will depend on the number who wish to
letter, petition, or an application data 245, Washington, DC 20585. speak but will not exceed 5 minutes.
sheet as set forth in 37 CFR 1.76(b)(3) so
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer is
that the application can be
expeditiously processed. Karen Gibson, Designated Federal empowered to conduct the meeting in a
71 FR at 36327, col. 1, sixth paragraph Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, fashion that will facilitate the orderly
(‘‘The petition . . .’’) is replaced with 1000 Independence Avenue SW., conduct of business. Those wishing to
the following: Washington, DC 20585; seab@ speak should register to do so beginning
The petition to make special will be hq.doe.gov. at 8:15 a.m. on September 22nd.
dismissed if the application omits an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Those not able to attend the meeting
item or includes a paper that causes the Background: The Board was or who have insufficient time to address
Office of Patent Application Processing established to provide advice and the committee are invited to send a
(OPAP) to mail a notice during the recommendations to the Secretary on written statement to Karen Gibson, U.S.
formality review (e.g., a notice of the Department’s basic and applied Department of Energy, 1000
incomplete application, notice to file research, economic and national Independence Avenue SW.,
missing parts, notice to file corrected security policy, educational issues, Washington, DC 20585, email to seab@
application papers, notice of omitted operational issues, and other activities hq.doe.gov.
items, or notice of informal application). as directed by the Secretary.
The opportunity to perfect a petition Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting Minutes: The minutes of the meeting
(Part II) does not apply to applications is the quarterly meeting of the Board. will be available on the SEAB Web site
that are not in condition for Tentative Agenda: The meeting will or by contacting Ms. Gibson. She may be
examination on filing. start at 8:30 a.m. on September 22nd. reached at the postal address or email
71 FR at 36327, col. 1, seventh The tentative meeting agenda includes: address above, or by visiting SEAB’s
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
paragraph (‘‘Reply Not . . .’’) is Updates from SEAB’s task forces, Web site at www.energy.gov/seab.
replaced with following: approval of SEAB reports, informational Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10,
Reply Not Fully Responsive: If a reply briefings, and an opportunity for 2016.
to a non-final Office action is not fully comments from the public. The meeting
LaTanya R. Butler,
responsive, but a bona fide attempt to will conclude at 12:30 p.m. Agenda
advance the application to final action, updates will be posted on the SEAB Deputy Committee Management Officer.
the examiner may provide two (2) Web site prior to the meeting: [FR Doc. 2016–19495 Filed 8–15–16; 8:45 am]
months for applicant to supply the www.energy.gov/seab. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Aug 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM 16AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_54722/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-08-16 03:20:27
Document Modified: 2016-08-16 03:20:27
| 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 | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Dates | Effective on August 16, 2016. | |
| Contact | Pinchus M. Laufer, Senior Legal Advisor ((571) 272 7726) or Matthew Sked, Legal Advisor ((571) 272- 7627), Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 54564 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR