Bayramoglu Law Offices has recently successfully appealed a case to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The case application number is 11/963,796. The Appeal number is 2011-008945. The application was rejected by the Examiner. PTAB reversed the Examiner on all grounds therefore allowing the patent grant for the application. Considering the reversal rate of Examiners at PTAB is about 30.1%, this is a great example of how we at Bayramoglu Law Offices are able to use our knowledge and passion to help our clients.
The USPTO is extending a popular program that allows patent applicants to submit minor amendments for consideration after final rejection. Launched in May 2013, the USPTO’s After Final Consideration Pilot is designed to reduce patent application pendency and help applicants avoid the time and cost associated with Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) after final rejection.
To take advantage of the program, applicants must submit a request and certification for consideration in the program, an amendment to at least one claim, and any fees that may be due. The amendment may not broaden the scope of the claims.
The Examiner will review the amendment and decide whether to accept it for additional consideration. Factors in the Examiner’s decision include whether the Examiner’s review of the amendment will only require a limited amount of additional consideration and search. If the response does not place the application in condition for allowance, the Examiner will schedule an interview with the applicant.
The After Final Consideration Pilot was originally scheduled to end on September 30, 2013. The USPTO’s announcement extends the program to include requests that are filed through December 14, 2013.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
The Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) pilot program is part of the USPTO’s on-going efforts towards compact prosecution and pendency reduction.
In particular, the QPIDS pilot program eliminates the requirement for processing of a request for continued examination (RCE) with an information disclosure statement (IDS) filed after payment of the issue fee in order for the IDS to be considered by the examiner. Where the examiner determines that no item of information in the IDS necessitates reopening prosecution, the USPTO will issue a corrected notice of allowability.
The QPIDS pilot program has been extended to run through December 14, 2013. All compliant requests for consideration of an information disclosure statement under the QPIDS pilot program filed on or before December 14, 2013, will be considered.
USPTO After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0
Like AFCP, AFCP 2.0 authorizes additional time for examiners to search and/or consider responses after final rejection. Under AFCP 2.0, examiners will also use the additional time to schedule and conduct an interview to discuss the results of their search and/or consideration with you, if your response does not place the application in condition for allowance. In this way, you will benefit from the additional search and consideration afforded by the pilot, even when the results do not lead to allowance.
In addition, the procedure for obtaining consideration under AFCP 2.0 has been revised. The revised procedure focuses the pilot on review of proposed claim amendments and allows the USPTO to better evaluate the pilot.
To be eligible for consideration under AFCP 2.0, you must file a response under 37 CFR §1.116, which includes a request for consideration under the pilot (Form PTO/SB/434) and an amendment to at least one independent claim that does not broaden the scope of the independent claim in any aspect. Please see the notice published in the Federal Register at 78 Fed. Reg. 29117 for a complete description of how to request consideration under AFCP 2.0. As was the case with the AFCP, examiners will continue to use their professional judgment to decide whether the response can be fully considered under AFCP 2.0. This will include determining whether any additional search is required and can be completed within the allotted time, in order to determine whether the application can be allowed.
As always, the option to request an interview with the examiner, consistent with MPEP 713, is available to you irrespective of whether the submission was considered under AFCP 2.0.
If you are considering filing a response to a final rejection under 37 CFR 1.116 that you believe will lead to allowance of your application with only limited further searching and/or consideration by the examiner, you should consider requesting consideration of the response under AFCP 2.0.
Click here for the guidelines related to the consideration of responses under AFCP 2.0.
Dr. Bayramoglu was interviewed by China’s CCTV on 29 October 2011. The video can be viewed at the link below:
The US Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous ruling (Scalia joined the majority for most of the decision), has held that a piece of DNA that occurs naturally is not eligible for patenting. This means that any sequences that are normally present in the human genome—or that of any other organism—cannot be the subject of patent infringement.
You can find the complete article at the following address: