RCE Backlog Sample: New case inventories at the end of each fiscal quarter from the fourth quarter of 2009 through August 8, 2012. Output: The total number.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.

Advertisements

Monetary Denials Was it a back to back claim? Claim type is 3 and claim date is the ICD Claim type is 1 and claim date is the ICD What is a back to back.

RCE Backlog Sample: New case inventories at the end of each fiscal quarter from the fourth quarter of 2009 through August 8, Output: The total number.

Bicoastal Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Meeting RCE Progress Update Daniel Sullivan Director, TC1600 September 17, 2014.

1 Certification of Compliance with New Meal Pattern Requirements.

1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.

1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association RCE Practice: Pilot Programs and Delays in Examination Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Modifications to the USPTO Count System Sponsored by the Chartered Institute of Patent.

July 8, Enhanced Examination Timing Control Robert A. Clarke Deputy Director Office of Patent Legal Administration

Sampling distributions. Example Take random sample of students. Ask “how many courses did you study for this past weekend?” Calculate a statistic, say,

INPATIENT PROPOSAL INPATIENT PROPOSAL 4 MONTH CERTIFICATION SCHEDULE.

Application Filings and Examiner Production. UPR Applications Filed

Assuming normally distributed data! Naïve Bayes Classifier.

Additional HW Exercise 9.1 (a) A state government official is interested in the prevalence of color blindness among drivers in the state. In a random sample.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall Statistics for Business and Economics 8 th Edition Chapter 9 Hypothesis Testing: Single.

Information Disclosure Statements

MELAHN - IDS1 The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Is found in ~every patent file history, usually near the beginning See Fontirroche '594.

Hypothesis Testing A hypothesis is a conjecture about a population. Typically, these hypotheses will be stated in terms of a parameter such as  (mean)

When estimating the mean, how large a sample must be used in order to assure a given level of confidence? Use the formula:

1 Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership June 1, 2010 Valencia Martin-Wallace – Director, Technology Center 2400.

1 Objective Compare of two matched-paired means using two samples from each population. Hypothesis Tests and Confidence Intervals of two dependent means.

What is variability in data? Measuring how much the group as a whole deviates from the center. Gives you an indication of what is the spread of the data.

After Final Practice Linda M. Saltiel June 2, 2015.

Chapter 6 USING PROBABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT DATA.

Claims and Continuations Final Rule Overview Briefing for Examiners 1.

One-Sample Tests of Hypothesis. Hypothesis and Hypothesis Testing HYPOTHESIS A statement about the value of a population parameter developed for the purpose.

Patent Prosecution May PCT- RCE Zombie 371 National Stage PCT Applications –Not Allowed to file an RCE until signed inventor oath/declaration is.

Ticket to Work Program All EN Payments Call Part I Tuesday, June 25, 2013.

QualityDefinition.PPACMeeting AdlerDraft 1 1 Improving the Quality of Patents Marc Adler PPAC meeting June 18, 2009.

1 Objective Compare of two population variances using two samples from each population. Hypothesis Tests and Confidence Intervals of two variances use.

Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.

Prosecution Luncheon Patent October PDF’s Now Available on USPTO Website.

Patent Fee Proposal Patent Public Advisory Committee Hearing November 19, 2015.

Claims Proposed Rulemaking Main Purposes É Applicant Assistance to Improve Focus of Examination n Narrow scope of initial examination so the examiner is.

On average how many phones have you had since your first phone? Jesus Guerrero Period

Comparing and Ordering Fractions

Comparing and Ordering & Equivalent Fractions Third Quarter.

1 PPAC Patents Operations Update Peggy Focarino Deputy Commissioner for Patents July 8, 2010.

1 Section 8.4 Testing a claim about a mean (σ known) Objective For a population with mean µ (with σ known), use a sample (with a sample mean) to test a.

US Patent Application Drafting Center Presentation ppt Patent Stats That Can Help Your Practice Electronic & Computer Law Committee Manny Schecter.

Methods of Presenting and Interpreting Information Class 9.

Comparing Counts Chi Square Tests Independence.

USPTO Rule Changes to Focus the Patent Process in the 21st Century

CHAPTER 8 Estimating with Confidence

One-Sample Tests of Hypothesis

PATENT OFFICE PROSECUTION

What can patent litigation tell us about patent examination?

Introduction to Sampling Distributions

Pre-Issuance (Third-Party) Submissions

Claims and Continuations Final Rule

Inferences Based on a Single Sample

Examination Time and the Production System

USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules

One-Sample Tests of Hypothesis

Document Custodian of the Drop Safe Log

Sampling Distribution of the Sample Mean

SWBAT: Review sampling distributions of sample proportions and means

Comparing two Rates Farrokh Alemi Ph.D.

Analysis and Interpretation of Experimental Findings

Warm Up A recent study found that 79% of U.S. teens from years old use Snapchat. Suppose samples of 100 U.S. teens from years old are taken.

APC Marie Stark (MT), Chair

One-Sample Tests of Hypothesis

Multiple Regression – Split Sample Validation

Steps in Using the and R Chart

FTE Recalibration Kendra Jahnke June 2018.

Reading prompts.

Last Update 12th May 2011 SESSION 41 & 42 Hypothesis Testing.

Introduction to Sampling Distributions

The National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP)

Hypothesis Test for Proportions

Presentation transcript:

RCE Backlog Sample: New case inventories at the end of each fiscal quarter from the fourth quarter of 2009 through August 8, 2012. Output: The total number of RCE filings awaiting an Office action. Finding: The inventory of RCE applications awaiting action has increased more than 4.5-fold since 2009.

RCE Disposals Over Time Sample: All application disposals for the indicated fiscal year. Output: The fraction of total application disposals that were for entry of an RCE. Finding: RCE disposals as a fraction of total application disposals has not increased over the period that has seen the increase in RCE inventory.

RCE Filings per Application Sample: Applications with final disposals from June 2008 through May 2009 or June 2011 through May 2012. Output: The fraction of applications in the entire sample containing the indicated number of RCE filings. Finding: A substantial majority of disposals within the sampled time period did not include an RCE. The distribution has not significantly changed since fiscal year 2009.

RCE Frequency and Number of Claims Sample: Allowance disposals from June 2011 through May 2012. Output: Applications containing the indicated number of claims and at least one RCE as a fraction of the total number of applications containing the indicated number of claims. Finding: Applications having more than 20 allowed claims are substantially more likely to include at least one RCE than applications having fewer than 20 claims.

RCE by Technology Sample: Application final disposals from June 2011 through May 2012 Output: The fraction of applications classified in the indicated technology disciplines containing the indicated number of RCE filings. Finding: The fraction of applications containing RCE filings is generally the same across technology disciplines.

Condition of Application Prior to RCE Filing Sample: RCEs filed Fiscal Year 2012 through September 20th. Output: RCE filings as a function of the action that immediately preceded the RCE filing. Finding: Two-thirds of RCEs filed were not prompted by action after final rejection.

Next Action Following After-final Amendment Sample: Responses to after-final filed Fiscal Year 2012 through September 20th. Output: First response to an after-final amendment. Findings: Nearly one-third of after-final submissions resulted in allowance or reopening of prosecution.

RCE with no Submission After-Final Method: The file history of a random sample of RCEs filed in fiscal year 2011 where no submission was filed under Rule 1.116 prior to the RCE filing was reviewed. Findings: 27% of applications in which no response was filed after final were allowed in the first action after RCE. (Compare with 29% allowance rate after final.) Assuming 25% of RCEs in this sample could have been allowed after final, more than 20,000 RCEs might have been avoided with after-final submissions.

Sampling of RCEs Filed After Allowance Method: The file history of a random sample of applications having IDSs filed in fiscal year 2011 after allowance but prior to submission of the issue fee with or without an RCE was reviewed. Findings 19% of RCEs filed after allowance included only an IDS and also included certification under 1.97(e). These submissions could have been made in the allowed application. On average, a substantially larger number of references were cited in IDSs filed with an RCE (11 references) than without an RCE (3 references). A substantially larger proportion of RCE filings (27%) included IDSs citing more than 20 references than without an RCE (4%).