Advertisement

May 24, 2013

USPTO Institutes “QUICK PATH” IDS Pilot Program

The USPTO has announced the implementation of a pilot program, effective from May 16th until September 30th, to permit applicants to file IDS statements after payment of the issue fee in utility and reissue applications, without the need to continue prosecution by filing a “working” RCE with the IDS. The goal of the program is clearly to reduce the number of pending RCE’s, which now make up the majority of the docket of many Examiners. A link to the USPTO’s press release can be found at the end of this post.

The program is not without “catches.” Applicant must electronically file a request form (no new fee), the IDS, and still file an RCE and the Petition to Withdraw, with the usual fees. If the Examiner finds no reason to reopen prosecution, he/she will issue a supplemental notice of allowability and amended notice of allowance, and will not activate the RCE. Applicant will receive a refund of the RCE fees.  Otherwise the RCE will be activated, and prosecution will be reopened.

The main catch I see is that a timeliness statement is still required under 37 CFR 1.97(e). In other words, the attorney must certify that the art arose from recent foreign prosecution three months prior to filing the IDS or was unknown to anyone associated with the prosecution of the application—e.g., became known to the inventor within three months of filing the IDS (not within three months of the attorney learning about the inventor’s discovery of the art). Since many last minute RCE’s are filed because of “slow” foreign associates and because it can be very difficult to make a representation that no one in the professor’s group or in an industry R&D group was ever previously aware of the art in question, this program may not have the impact that the PTO certainly hopes it will have. But Director Kappos deserves credit for yet another try at reducing the backlog of pending applications, of which RCE’s are an ever-increasing part.

USPTO’s news release can be found here.

© 2013 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Shareholder

Warren Woessner is a registered patent attorney and a founding shareholder of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner. His practice focuses on chemical patent law, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical treatments, diagnostics, and biofuels and agricultural chemistry, including related opinion and licensing matters.

612-373-6900

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.