It will be recalled (see my blog article of December 14, 2017) that most USPTO patent fees will increase, some substantially, on Tuesday, January 16, 2018. This presents an opportunity to save money. If there is some fee that you were considering paying on or after January 16, maybe you should pay it earlier, for example on Monday, January 15.
Tuesday, January 9 there will be a webinar about sequence listings. The webinar is free of charge. This webinar will be presented by two experienced practitioners, Suzannah K. Sundby and Carl Oppedahl.
As of right now, the number of people who have signed up for this webinar is less than the number of people in the world. This might mean that you have not signed up for this webinar. Which then raises the question:
Why have you not signed up for this webinar?
For more information, or to register for this free webinar about sequence listings, click here.
If you know someone who might want to attend this free webinar about sequence listings, you will probably be doing them a favor if you pass this information on to them.
If your patent application contains nucleotide or amino acid sequences, to comply with US and PCT rules you need to provide the sequences to the patent office as computer-readable sequence listings. This webinar, which is CLE accredited and is free of charge, explains how to prepare and e-file such sequence listings.
From time to time an Examiner in the USPTO recites this objection:
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR §§ 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
An Examiner made such an objection a couple of days ago in one of our cases. We will be able to force the Examiner to withdraw the objection. Continue reading
The USPTO did a bad thing the other day. It told its customers, falsely, that the only way to do time-based one-time passwords is to use Oracle’s app. USPTO says “you must have the Oracle Mobile Authenticator app on your mobile device” to do one-time passwords. This is flatly false and it wrongly favors a particular company. Hopefully the USPTO will remedy its mistake immediately. I’ll explain this. Continue reading
A year ago or so, the USPTO started a beta-test of its system in which docx files play an important role. In the best-test system, an applicant was permitted to file a patent application in docx format rather than PDF format. Likewise, the applicant had the opportunity to receive some documents from the USPTO in docx format in addition to PDF format. Our firm was among the beta-testers of this docx system.
Now, as of September 10, 2017, these features have been made available to all USPTO customers (not merely the beta-test users). This offers a new Best Practice for reporting to clients.
It will be recalled (see blog post of November 3, 2017) that the search fee to be paid by a US filer selecting ISA/RU was scheduled for a fee increase today, December 6, 2017.
The fee increase, from $482 to $698, has indeed taken place.
You do not need to worry about accidentally paying the incorrect fee amount, because EFS-Web and ePCT have both been updated to reflect this new fee amount.
As of today the various searching authorities available to those who file in RO/US, ranked by the amount of the search fee, are:
- EP – $2238
- US – $2080
- AU – $1688
- SG – $1552
- JP – $1372
- KR – $1114
- US – $1040 (small entity)
- IL – $963
- RU – $698
- US – $520 (micro entity)
There are many factors in addition to price which a filer might wish to take into account when selecting an International Searching Authority.
A blog reader posted this comment recently:
I’m less interested in how long it takes to get PPH decisions, and more interested in how long it takes to get a first Office Action when using PPH. It doesn’t help my client to be able to say that an application is on the PPH track. It helps my client to have an issued patent. Do you know of any data regarding this? I don’t see anything useful at https://www.uspto.gov/corda/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml
This reader is correct that the USPTO dashboard is silent on this particular delay, namely how long it takes, after the grant of a PPH petition, to receive a first Office Action.
We’ve tracked such pendency over many hundreds of PPH cases on our docket. I’ll try to answer the reader’s question and offer some practice tips.
Part 3. Follow-on filings.
- Best Practice for doing a 92bis change as an Action.
- Best Practice for doing an Article 19 Amendment as an Action.
- Best Practice for filing a Demand.
For more information or to register, click here.