Michael D. Stein Principal Stein IP LLC 1400 Eye Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 216-9505 Patent Prosecution.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Supplementary International Search (SIS) (PCT Rule 45bis)
Advertisements

Commission on Teacher Credentialing Inspire, Educate, and Protect the Students of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Special Education 2012.
Speeding It Up at the USPTO
Advanced Piloting Cruise Plot.
1 Practical Impact of Recent PCT Changes on US Practice Maria Eliseeva Houston Eliseeva LLP American Intellectual Property Law Association October 15,
Protection of Intellectual Property Resulting from STCU Projects STCU/NATO Workshop From Science to Business Kiev, Ukraine October 11, 2006 Judson R. Hightower.
WIPO Recentdv03-1 Changes to the PCT Regulations which came into effect on 1 January 2004.
Key Decision Points in the PCT System
PCT Supplementary International Search Service (PCT Rule 45bis applicable from January 1, 2009)
For Improvement of IP Infrastructure For Improvement of IP Infrastructure Japan Patent Office.
The IP Experts 1 BY P. KANDIAH KASS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD SHAPING BUSINESS STRATEGY THROUGH COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCE STRATEGIC USE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
PCT – Statistics Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Sixth Session Geneva, May 21 to 24, 2013.
United States Patent and Trademark Office – IP5 Foundation Projects: why are they necessary for work sharing and what challenges are IP5.
WIPO Patent Information Services
Global Business Solutions for Patent Prosecution Niclas Morey Geneva, 22 September 2011 Director International Organisations, Trilateral and IP5 European.
Eugen Stohr Director International Legal Affairs, PCT
1 Community Right to Know Electronic Reporting Bruce Boyd Tina Gutierrez & Latoshia Parker Office of Pollution Prevention and Right to Know.
August 6, To Understand: Budget Requirements Budget Template Budget Approval Process, Notifications and Timeframe To walk through the completion.
Determine Eligibility Chapter 4. Determine Eligibility 4-2 Objectives Search for Customer on database Enter application signed date and eligibility determination.
P ROFESSOR R UTH O KEDIJI First to File Patent Systems How the New U.S. System Compares to other Systems Around the World.
PCT REFORM: Why It Is Needed and What Lies Ahead Charles A. Pearson Director Office of PCT Legal Administration.
AIA Final Rules Submission of Certified Foreign Priority Documents and Translations Under the AIA March 20, 2013.
Patents e-Filing Update Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership November 15, 2001.
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
PCT – Statistics Meeting of International Authorities Twenty-First Session Tel Aviv, February 11 to 13, 2014.
Incorporation by Reference
Webinar: Request for Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings Before the PTAB July 29, Scott Boalick, Vice Chief Judge (Acting) Patent Trial and Appeal.
Revision of WIPO Standard ST.14 Committee on WIPO Standards, third session Geneva 15 – 19 April 2013 Anna Graschenkova Standards Section.
PIC Investments Performance Update Year ended 30 September 2014 APPENDIX Advisor Use Only.
Reevaluation Exceptional Children Division 1. Reevaluation NC Policies , , and
June 8, 2006 PATENTS: WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW Steven R. Ludwig, Ph.D., Esq.
Accelerating Patent Prosecution Thursday, October 18, 2012.
Implementing First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the AIA By: Scott D. Malpede, Seth Boeshore and Chitra Kalyanaraman USPTO Rules Effective March 16, 2013.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
International Worksharing and its Perspective Inhong YEO International Cooperation Division.
July 8, Enhanced Examination Timing Control Robert A. Clarke Deputy Director Office of Patent Legal Administration
United States Patent and Trademark Office – 1 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) United States Patent and Trademark Office.
AIPLA PPH Users Meeting May, 2010 Report on Patent Prosecution Highway Manny Schecter Chief Patent Counsel
Worksharing Robert A. Clarke Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Ashok K. Mannava Mannava & Kang, P.C. Expedited Examination Programs from the PTO February 12, 2012.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Updates regarding: Global/IP5 PPH pilot program at the USPTO and Patent Law Treaty (PLT)
1 Worksharing: A Cooperative Approach to Patent Workload Management Charles Eloshway Patent Attorney, Office of External Affairs USPTO.
Dr. Michael Berger, European Patent Attorney © Michael Berger Intellectual Property (IP): Patents for Inventions.
Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
Patent Cooperation Treaty and Application Conference September 24, 2012 Neal L. Slifkin 99 Garnsey Road Pittsford, NY (585)
Patents- Practical Aspects of International Patent Procurement/Prosecution June 2015 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Practice Overview.
The Patent Prosecution Highway: Strategic Considerations in Accelerating U.S. and Foreign Patent Prosecution ACC Quick Hits June 13, 2012 Dr. John K. McDonald.
1 USPTO Experiences with the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Paolo Trevisan Patent Attorney Office of Policy and International Affairs United States Patent.
PPH Introduction to the Patent Prosecution Highway JAPAN PATENT OFFICE.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update regarding PCT and PPH at the USPTO Yuichi Watanabe Joint Meeting of AIPLA and.
PPH from the JPO Point of View Yutaka Niidome Deputy Director Japan Patent Office AIPLA PPH Users Meeting May 19, 2010.
1 IP Infrastructure for Promotion of Work Sharing - Japan’s Perspective - Koichi MINAMI Deputy Commissioner Japan Patent Office WIPO Global Symposium of.
1 Patent Prosecution Highway -Mottainai Takaki Nishijima Nakamura & Partners January, 2012 AIPLA.
1 Overview of USPTO Work-Sharing December 8, 2010 Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Meeting Bruce Kisliuk - Assistant Deputy Commissioner.
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.
1 IP issues from the viewpoint of the JPO Ken-Ichi MOROOKA The Japan Patent Office Fordham IP Conference April 29, 2011.
PCT PATENT COOPERATION TREATY By: Nico Reyes & Keziah Tan.
Accelerated Patent Examination: Green Technology A Summary of Global Initiatives, with specific discussion of the US Speaker: Matt Prater Preparation help.
1 The Patent Prosecution Highway A Brief History and Current Status Mark R. Powell Director, TC 2600 USPTO.
NA, Yanghee International Application Team Korean Intellectual Property Office National Phase of PCT international applications April 26,
2 Jesus J. Hernandez Patent Attorney Office of Policy and International Affairs The INPI-USPTO Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program Seminario Sobre.
Patent Cooperation Treaty Improvements Past, Present & Future
PCT-FILING SYSTEM.
Speed of prosecution at the EPO Andy Harding – October 20th, 2017
Accelerating your Patent Prosecution in Mexico
PATENT LAW TREATY Gena Jones Senior Legal Advisor
PPH at the Israel Patent Office
IP issues from the viewpoint of the JPO
Patent Prosecution Highway(PPH)
Presentation transcript:

Michael D. Stein Principal Stein IP LLC 1400 Eye Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC (202) Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) The Requirements and Strategies for Use June 2013

Table of Contents 2 Overview of Patent Prosecution Highway Overview of PCT – PPH …………………… Countries and Patent Offices Participating Revised Requirements for the Patent Prosecution Highway … Example Situations to Apply PPH

Overview of Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) 3 Under the Patent Prosecution Highway: Applicant receiving a ruling from the Office of First Filing (OFF) that at least one claim in an application filed in the OFF is patentable may request that the Office of Second Filing (OSF) fast track examination of corresponding claims in corresponding applications filed in the OSF. Expedites examination process for corresponding applications filed in participating countries by allowing examiners to reuse search and examination results. All claims in the OSF application must sufficiently correspond to the allowable claims in the OFF application.

Overview of Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) 4 PPH Benefits: Examination within two or three months from the grant of the PPH request provided the application has completed all its pre-exam processing and is ready for examination. More than 90% of PPH cases are allowed. For non-PPH cases, the allowance rate is less than 50%. PPH cases have fewer actions per disposal when compared to non-PPH cases on average, saving both applicants and Patent Offices time and expense. PPH enables applications filed in multiple jurisdictions to be fast tracked based on another Offices work product Petition Fee was eliminated in May 2010, making PPH even more cost effective. Potential for less prosecution history estoppel as a result of fewer office actions and responses.

Overview of PCT-PPH 5 The PPH program has been expanded to permit eligibility for national and regional phase applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on the basis of positive results in the PCT international phase. In this program, an applicant receiving a favorable Written Opinion or International Preliminary Report on Patentability from one of the participating Offices acting as an International Authority may request that a corresponding national phase entry or a national application filed at the USPTO receive fast- track examination.

Countries and Patent Offices Participating 6

Revised Requirements for the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Program to Implement PPH 2.0 with the Korean Intellectual Property Office 7 I. Background Since July 15, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and seven other offices (i.e., IP Australia (IPAU), Canada (CIPO), Finland (NBPR), Japan (JPO), Russia (ROSPATENT), Spain (SPTO) and United Kingdom (UKIPO)) have participated in an enhanced PPH pilot program called MOTTAINAI. Under MOTTAINAI, participation in the PPH may be requested on the basis of search and examination results from any patent family application from any participating office, regardless of whether the participating office was the office of first filing. To implement the MOTTAINAI pilot, the USPTO revised its PPH requirements. See, for example, the notice available at On January 29, 2012, the USPTO implemented PPH 2.0 with respect to the seven MOTTAINAI participating offices and the European Patent Office (EPO) to further enhance the PPH program and to encourage greater usage The revised requirements for PPH 2.0 commenced with respect to the KIPO on January 29, 2013, and will terminate on January 28, The revised requirements will apply to PPH requests filed at the USPTO on or after January 29, 2013, based on claims that have been determined allowable in a corresponding application filed in the KIPO. and supersede the PPH notices to implement the prior PPH program between the USPTO and the KIPO. The USPTO and KIPO will evaluate the results to determine whether to continue the program, although it may be terminated early under certain conditions. As of January 29, 2013, the PPH 2.0 participating offices are IPAU, CIPO, EPO, NBPR, JPO, ROSPATENT, SPTO, UKIPO, the Portugal National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI-PT), and KIPO with respect to applications filed in the USPTO.

Revised Requirements for Requesting Participation in the PPH 2.0 Program in the USPTO 8 In order to be eligible to participate in the PPH 2.0 program at the USPTO, the following conditions must be met: 1) At least one claim was determined by the PPH 2.0 participating office to be allowable/patentable. No longer need to submit a copy of the allowed claims from the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office or any English translation thereof. 2) The U.S. application and the corresponding application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office (with the allowable/patentable claim(s)) must have the same priority/filing date. In particular, the U.S. application (including national stage entry of a PCT application and a so-called bypass application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) which validly claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to a PCT application): Case I – is an application that validly claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) and 37 CFR 1.55 to one or more applications filed with the PPH 2.0 participating office (examples are provided in the ANNEX, Figures A, B, C and D), or Case II – is an application which is the basis of a valid priority claim under the Paris Convention for the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office (examples are provided in the ANNEX, Figures E, F and G), or Case III – is an application which shares a common priority document with the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office (examples are provided in the ANNEX, Figures H, I, J, K, L, M and N), or Case IV – and the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office are derived from/related to a PCT application having no priority claim (example is provided in the ANNEX, Figure O). Provisional applications, plant applications, design applications, reissue applications, reexamination proceedings, and applications subject to a secrecy order are excluded and not subject to participation in the PPH 2.0 program.

Revised Requirements for Requesting Participation in the PPH 2.0 Program in the USPTO 9 3) All claims on file, as originally filed or as amended, for examination under the PPH 2.0 program in the U.S. application must sufficiently correspond to one or more of those claims indicated as allowable in the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office. "Sufficiently corresponds" means, where, accounting for differences due to translations and claim format, the claim in the U.S. application is of the same or similar scope as a claim indicated as allowable in the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office. A claim in U.S. application narrower in scope than the claims indicated as allowable in the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office will also sufficiently correspond if presented as a claim dependent upon a claim which is of the same or similar scope as a claim indicated as allowable in the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office. The additional limitation that makes the claim in the U.S. application narrower in scope than the allowable or patentable claims in the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office must have support in written description of the U.S. application. A claim in the U.S. application which introduces a new or different category of claims to those claims indicated as allowable in the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office is not considered to sufficiently correspond. For example, if the only allowable or patentable claims in the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office are claims to a process of manufacturing a product, then any product claims in the U.S. application are not considered to sufficiently correspond, even if the product claims are dependent on process claims which sufficiently correspond to allowable or patentable claims in the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office. A claims correspondence table in English must be submitted which indicates how all the claims in the U.S. application correspond to the allowable or patentable claims in the application(s) filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office. Any dependent claims with additional limitations must be clearly identified in the claims correspondence table.

Revised Requirements for Requesting Participation in the PPH 2.0 Program in the USPTO 10 4) Substantive examination of the U.S. application for which participation in the PPH 2.0 program is requested cannot have begun. 5) The applicant must file a request for participation in the PPH 2.0 program and a request that the U.S. application be advanced out of turn for examination by order of the Director to expedite the business of the Office under 37 CFR 1.102(a). Examples of forms to use are (for Korea) and (for Japan). Once the PPH is filed, the PPH request is generally decided within 2 months from filing the request. If granted, the examiner will generally examine the application within 2 or 3 months from grant of request, provided application has completed all pre-exam processing and is ready for examination.

Revised Requirements for Requesting Participation in the PPH 2.0 Program in the USPTO 11 6) Need to submit copy of office action issued just prior to the Decision to Grant a Patent (e.g., the latest Notification of Reasons for Refusal) from each of the application(s) filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office containing the allowable or patentable claims that form the basis for the request, along with an English translation (may be a machine translation) thereof. The applicant no longer needs to provide a statement that the English translation is accurate. Not necessary to submit a copy of the Decision to Grant a Patent and an English translation thereof. If the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office is a first action allowance, the applicant should indicate on the request form that no office action from the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office is submitted since the application was a first action allowance. If the copy of the office action (along with an English translation thereof – machine translation permitted) from the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office is available via the dossier access system, the applicant may request that the USPTO obtain such a copy of the office action (along with the English translation) via the dossier access system. If the USPTO is not able to obtain a copy of the office action (along with the English translation) via the dossier access system, the applicant will be notified and given an opportunity to submit a copy of the office action (along with the English translation) from the application filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office. If the USPTO finds the machine translation (submitted by the applicant or obtained by the USPTO via the dossier access system) is of such poor quality that it is difficult to understand, applicant may be required by the USPTO to submit a manual translation into the English language of the office action. The applicant must submit copies of any office actions (which are relevant to patentability) from the application(s) filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office issued after the grant of the request for participation in the PPH 2.0 program in the USPTO (especially where the PPH 2.0 participating office might have reversed a prior holding of allowability).

Revised Requirements for Requesting Participation in the PPH 2.0 Program in the USPTO 12 7) The applicant must submit an information disclosure statement (IDS) listing the documents cited in the office action of the PPH 2.0 participating office (unless such an IDS has already been filed in the U.S. application). The applicant must submit copies of all the documents cited in the office action of the PPH 2.0 participating office (unless the copies have already been filed in the U.S. application) except U.S. patents or U.S. patent application publications. The request for participation in the PPH 2.0 program and all the supporting documents must be submitted to the USPTO via EFS-Web. Where the request for participation in the PPH 2.0 program and special status are granted, the applicant will be notified and the U.S. application will be advanced out of turn for examination. If the request is not granted, the applicant will be given one opportunity to perfect the request in a renewed request for participation 8) Request for participation in the PPH 2.0 program and special status granted in a parent application will not carry over to a continuing application. Once the request for participation in the PPH 2.0 program and special status have been granted to the U.S. application, the U.S. application will be taken up for examination before all other categories of applications except those clearly in condition for allowance, those with set time limits, such as examiners answers, and those that have been granted special status for accelerated examination. Any claims amended or added after the grant of the request for participation in the PPH 2.0 program must sufficiently correspond to one or more allowable or patentable claims in the application(s) filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office. The applicant is required to submit, along with the amendment, a statement certifying that the amended or newly added claims sufficiently correspond to the allowable or patentable claims in the application(s) filed in the PPH 2.0 participating office. If the certification statement is omitted, the amendment will not be entered and will be treated as a non-responsive reply.

Special Examining Procedures 13

Special Examining Procedures 14

Special Examining Procedures 15

Special Examining Procedures 16

Special Examining Procedures 17

Special Examining Procedures 18

Special Examining Procedures 19

Special Examining Procedures 20

Special Examining Procedures 21

Special Examining Procedures 22

Special Examining Procedures 23

Special Examining Procedures 24

Special Examining Procedures 25

Special Examining Procedures 26

Special Examining Procedures 27