[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41267-41271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14668]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2022-0008]
RIN 0651-AD60
Standardization of the Patent Term Adjustment Statement Regarding
Information Disclosure Statements
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or
Office) proposes to revise the rules of practice pertaining to patent
term adjustment to require that the patent term adjustment statement
regarding information disclosure statements be submitted on an Office
form. Use of the Office form will streamline certain aspects of
prosecution by more accurately capturing and accounting for the patent
term adjustment without unnecessary back-and-forth between the USPTO
and applicant. It will also save resources by eliminating the need for
a manual review of the patent term adjustment statement.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 12, 2022 to ensure
consideration.
ADDRESSES: For reasons of government efficiency, comments must be
submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the portal, enter docket
number PTO-P-2022-0008 on the
[[Page 41268]]
homepage and click ``Search.'' The site will provide a search results
page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a
reference to this document and click on the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Adobe[supreg]
portable document format or Microsoft Word[supreg] format. Because
comments 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 in the comments.
Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal for additional instructions on
providing comments via the portal. If electronic submission of comments
is not feasible due to a lack of access to a computer and/or the
internet, please contact the USPTO using the contact information below
(at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) for special instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kery Fries, Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration, at 571-272-7757. You can also
send inquiries by email to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rulemaking pertains to the patent term
adjustment regulations establishing the circumstances that will, or
will not, be considered a failure of an applicant to engage in
reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination)
of an application and any resulting reduction of patent term adjustment
(37 CFR 1.704).
Regulations establishing the circumstances that constitute a
failure of an applicant to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude
processing or examination of an application and the resulting reduction
of any patent term adjustment are set forth in 37 CFR 1.704(c)(1)
through (14).
Additionally, 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) provides a safe harbor by setting
forth the circumstances that will not be considered a failure to engage
in reasonable efforts to conclude processing or examination of the
application. Specifically, 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) provides that a paper
containing only an information disclosure statement in compliance with
Sec. Sec. 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in
reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination)
of the application under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (8), (9), or (10) if it is
accompanied by the required statement. The provision at 37 CFR
1.704(d)(1) also provides that a request for continued examination in
compliance with Sec. 1.114 with no submission other than an
information disclosure statement in compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.97 and
1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts
to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) of the application
under 37 CFR 1.704(c)(12) if it is accompanied by the required
statement. The statement required to accompany the paper or request for
continued examination must state that each item of information
contained in the information disclosure statement (1) was first cited
in any communication from a patent office in a counterpart foreign or
international application or from the Office, and this communication
was not received by any individual designated in Sec. 1.56(c) more
than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure
statement; or (2) is a communication that was issued by a patent office
in a counterpart foreign or international application or by the Office,
and this communication was not received by any individual designated in
Sec. 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the
information disclosure statement.
This rulemaking proposes amending 37 CFR 1.704(d) to include new
paragraph (d)(3) requiring that filers submit the patent term
adjustment statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) on the Office form (PTO/
SB/133) to derive benefit under 37 CFR 1.704(d). The changes proposed
in this rulemaking facilitate the current patent term adjustment
statement requirement through the use of an existing Office form.
Form PTO/SB/133 includes the patent term adjustment statement
required by 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1). Specifically, the form includes the
statement that ``[e]ach item of information contained in the
information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication
from a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international
application or from the Office, and this communication was not received
by any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than thirty days
prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement.'' The form
also includes the alternative statement that ``[e]ach item of
information contained in the information disclosure statement is a
communication that was issued by a patent office in a counterpart
foreign or international application or by the Office, and this
communication was not received by any individual designated in 37 CFR
1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information
disclosure statement.'' The filer of the form could select one or both
of these statements.
Use of form PTO/SB/133 aims to: (1) ensure the accurate capture of
the presence of a patent term adjustment statement under 37 CFR
1.704(d)(1) by the USPTO's IT system, and (2) eliminate the need to
manually review an applicant's patent term adjustment statement to
determine whether it is proper under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1). Furthermore,
as a result of using the form, the USPTO's automated process for
calculating patent term adjustment will be more likely to account for
the patent term adjustment statement, thereby eliminating the need to
file a request for reconsideration of patent term adjustment under 37
CFR 1.705(b). Form PTO/SB/133 is available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0133.pdf. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h), form PTO/SB/133 does
not collect ``information'' within the meaning of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
Filers who submit a 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) patent term adjustment
statement without using Office form PTO/SB/133 and filers who submit
Office form PTO/SB/133 with any modification to the patent term
adjustment statement (that is, modifications to either or both of the
statements indicated on the form) will not receive the benefit of the
safe harbor under 37 CFR 1.704(d). Under such circumstances, the
concurrently filed paper containing only an information disclosure
statement, in compliance with Sec. Sec. 1.97 and 1.98, or the
concurrently filed paper containing a request for continued
examination, in compliance with Sec. 1.114, with no submission other
than an information disclosure statement, in compliance with Sec. Sec.
1.97 and 1.98, will be treated as not accompanied by a patent term
adjustment statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1).
Additionally, the USPTO's patent term adjustment algorithm is being
modified to detect when a patent term adjustment statement under 37 CFR
1.704(d)(1) is filed using the Office form. The Office has created a
particular document code for the filing of this patent term adjustment
statement form under 37 CFR 1.704(d). Once modified, the patent term
adjustment algorithm will recognize that the Office form (PTO/SB/133)
has been filed concurrently with (i.e., on the same date as) the
information disclosure statement and, accordingly, will not assess a
reduction in patent term adjustment under the applicable applicant
delay sections of 37 CFR 1.704(c) for the patent.
[[Page 41269]]
The Office reviewed a sampling of patent term adjustment statements
that were independently submitted without the use of Office form PTO/
SB/133 and found that a portion of those statements were deficient by
failing to meet the required language of 37 CFR 1.704(d). Requiring the
use of the form will eliminate these types of deficiencies, and use of
Office form PTO/SB/133 will thus ensure legal compliance, so long as
the patent term adjustment statement is not modified. Because the
USPTO's patent term adjustment algorithm will now automatically
determine that a reduction in patent term should not be assessed in
view of a submitted form PTO/SB/133, the Office will also not need to
expend resources to manually review the provided patent term adjustment
statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d). The Office will rely on the
presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or
later advocating) of this form, whether by a practitioner or non-
practitioner, as a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b) that the
existing text and any certification statements on the form have not
been altered.
The submission of a patent term adjustment statement under 37 CFR
1.704(d) does not require a fee. However, in certain cases, a fee is
required. Specifically, the Office has provided a procedure for
applicants to seek a waiver under 37 CFR 1.183 to allow for a late-
filed patent term adjustment statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d). Section
1.183 provides for an applicant to petition for suspension of rules and
requires the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(f). If accompanied by a petition
under 37 CFR 1.183, an applicant may submit the patent term adjustment
statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d) after the timely filing of the
information disclosure statement. Applicants have additionally
submitted such a patent term adjustment statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d)
accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 along with the filing of a
request for reconsideration of the patent term adjustment indicated on
the patent (37 CFR 1.705(b)) in order to receive the benefit of the
safe harbor under 37 CFR 1.704(d). The Office has generally granted
such 37 CFR 1.183 petitions.
Once the USPTO's patent term adjustment algorithm is modified to
automatically detect when a patent term adjustment statement form under
37 CFR 1.704(d) is filed, the Office may consider eliminating the
procedure of generally granting such 37 CFR 1.183 petitions.
Additionally, applicants should keep in mind that a petition under 37
CFR 1.183 may only be used to request acceptance of the late-filed
patent term adjustment statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1). Under no
circumstances may the information disclosure statement be filed more
than 30 days from the applicable communication under 37 CFR
1.704(d)(1)(i) or (ii), the 30-day period being non-extendable per 37
CFR 1.704(d)(2).
Discussion of Specific Rules
The following is a discussion of the proposed amendments to 37 CFR
part 1.
Section 1.704: Section 1.704(d) is proposed to be amended to
include new paragraph (d)(3) requiring that the statement under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section be submitted on a form provided by the
Office (PTO/SB/133). Absent the patent term adjustment statement under
37 CFR 1.704(d) provided on the Office form, submitted concurrently
with the information disclosure statement, an applicant will be
assessed a reduction of the period of patent term adjustment under the
appropriate provision in Sec. 1.704. Newly proposed Sec. 1.704(d)(3)
also includes language, mirroring that in existing Sec. 1.4(d)(5),
regarding the prohibition of changing an existing form's text and
patent term adjustment statements.
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: The changes proposed by this
rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or
interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199,
1204 (2015) (Interpretive rules ``advise the public of the agency's
construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.''
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Org. of
Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is
interpretive); Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C.
Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an application process are procedural under
the Administrative Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala,
244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were
procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for
reviewing claims.). Specifically, this rulemaking proposes to revise
Office rules to require the use of the provided Office form for filing
statements under 37 CFR 1.704(d).
The proposed revision creates paragraph 37 CFR 1.704(d)(3)
requiring that the ``statement under paragraph (d)(1) of this section
must be submitted on the Office form (PTO/SB/133) provided for such a
patent term adjustment statement.''
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for
the changes proposed by this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206
(Notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency
``issue[s] an initial interpretive rule'' nor ``when it amends or
repeals that interpretive rule.''); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536
F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and
thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice-and-comment rulemaking
for ``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice'' (quoting 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A))). However, the Office has chosen to seek public comment
before implementing the rule to benefit from the public's input.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the reasons set forth herein,
the Senior Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Office of
General Law, of the USPTO has certified to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that changes in this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This rulemaking does not propose to impose any additional fees on
applicants. This rulemaking specifically proposes to revise Office
rules to require the use of an Office form for statements under 37 CFR
1.704(d)(1) through the creation of paragraph 37 CFR 1.704(d)(3). This
new requirement only seeks to facilitate the current statement
requirement, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) and set forth in the Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure 2732, through the use of an existing
Office form containing the required statement language.
For the foregoing reasons, the changes in this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review): The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18,
2011). Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and
applicable: (1) made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify
the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the proposed rule to impose the
least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory
objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that
[[Page 41270]]
maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5)
identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public
in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in
relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and
the public as a whole, and provided online access to the rulemaking
docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and
harmonization across Government agencies and identified goals designed
to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens
and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9)
ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and
processes.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking does not
contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132
(Aug. 4, 1999).
F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking
will not: (1) have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6,
2000).
G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this
rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001).
H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking
meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity,
and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking
does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr.
21, 1997).
J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This
rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
K. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the USPTO will submit a report containing any
final rule resulting from this rulemaking and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The
changes in this rulemaking are not expected to result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in
costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this rulemaking
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in
this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that
will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in any one
year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the
expenditure by the private sector of $100 million (as adjusted) or more
in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
M. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: This rulemaking will
not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995: The
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because
this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of
technical standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the Office consider the
impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on
the public. The rules of practice pertaining to patent term adjustment
and extension have been reviewed and approved by the OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) under OMB
control number 0651-0020. Although this action proposes a requirement
to use Office form PTO/SB/133 when making a statement under 37 CFR
1.704(d), OMB has determined that, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h), form PTO/SB/
133 does not collect ``information'' within the meaning of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Because the changes proposed in this
rulemaking would not affect the information collection requirements or
fees associated with the information collections approved under OMB
control number 0651-0020 or any other information collection, the
Office is not resubmitting an information collection package to OMB for
its review and approval.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
P. E-Government Act Compliance: The USPTO is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom
of information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, USPTO proposes to amend
37 CFR part 1 as follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
0
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.704 is amended by adding new paragraph (d)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.704 Reduction of period of adjustment of patent term.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) The statement under paragraph (d)(1) of this section must be
submitted on the Office form (PTO/SB/133) provided for such a patent
term adjustment statement. Otherwise, the paper or request for
continued examination will be treated as not accompanied by a statement
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. No changes to statements on
this Office form may be made. The presentation to
[[Page 41271]]
the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later
advocating) of this form, whether by a practitioner or non-
practitioner, constitutes a certification under Sec. 11.18(b) of this
chapter that the existing text and any certification statements on this
form have not been altered.
* * * * *
Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-14668 Filed 7-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P