May 25, 2012

USPTO Introduces Program that Allows Deferral of Patent Application Filing Fees

Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) introduced a pilot program that allows applicants the ability to defer some of the fees associated with having a nonprovisional patent application that claims the benefit of an earlier provisional patent application examined at the USPTO. As stated by the USPTO, this program is intended to benefit applicants by providing additional time to determine if patent protection should be sought and to permit applicants to focus efforts on commercializing the invention. The program is intended to benefit the USPTO by removing from the USPTO’s workload applications that applicants later decide to abandon. 

The pilot program, titled, Pilot Program for Extended Time Period to Reply to a Notice to File Missing Parts of Nonprovisional Application, gives an applicant up to 12 months from filing an application to decide whether to pay the search fee, the examination fee, any excess claim fees, and the surcharge for the late submission of these fees. Therefore, an applicant could use the 12 month time period to decide whether to pay the search and examination fees ($760 total) plus any excess claim fees and the $130 surcharge for late submission of these fees and to further asses the value of patent protection.[1] The applicant would still need to submit the basic filing fee ($330) on filing the application, along with an executed oath or declaration from the inventors. If an executed oath or declaration is not available at filing, the applicant will receive another missing parts notice and have two months (extendable) to reply with an executed oath or declaration.

In order to participate in the pilot program the applicant must satisfy the following requirements: 

  1. the applicant must submit a request to participate in this program using USPTO Form PTO/SB/421;
     
  2. the application must be an original nonprovisional utility or plant application;
     
  3. the nonprovisional application must directly claim the benefit of a prior provisional application filed within the previous twelve months; and
     
  4. the applicant must not have filed a nonpublication request.
  5.  

Therefore, an applicant must use the delay provided by a provisional application before using the additional delay provided by this pilot program. Also, this program is only available for original applications and not continuation or divisional applications. Applicants should also keep in mind that this pilot program does not extend the 12 month period for filing a nonprovisional application claiming priority to a provisional application. Rather, an applicant’s disclosure and claims should be complete upon filing the nonprovisional application. However, should the applicant decide to abandon the application during the 12 month period provided by the pilot program, the applicant does not need to pay the search fee, examination fee, and missing parts surcharge ($870 total), plus any excess claim fees. 

The USPTO states that if an applicant chooses to pay the required fees within the 12 month period provided by this program, the application will then go into the examination queue based on the actual filing date of the application. Alternatively stated, the application will not be examined until the fees are paid, but the application will be chosen for examination based on its actual filing date. However, the delay in paying the required fees past three months will reduce the amount of patent term adjustment the application may receive based on USPTO delays.



[1] All fee amounts are the regular or large entity fee amounts. Fee amounts for a small entity would be reduced by one-half. 

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Partner

Richard Kaiser is a partner in our Intellectual Property Practice Group, focusing on patent prosecution for the mechanical arts and having extensive experience with both utility and design patents. Mr. Kaiser works closely with clients to provide meaningful and practical guidance on both U.S. and foreign patent strategies. He is proficient with all steps of the patenting process, from initial patentability searching and analysis, to patent application drafting, and finally with the nuances of prosecuting the pending patent applications before the various patent offices. Mr. Kaiser also...

262-956-6576

About the Author

Attorney

Alan Cheslock is an attorney in the Milwaukee office and a member of the Intellectual Property Practice Group. 

414-225-2741

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.