A Practical Guide For Prosecutors Patent Prosecution Under The AIA William R. Childs, Ph.D., J.D. August 22, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Disclaimer: The information provided by the USPTO is meant as an educational resource only and should not be construed as legal advice or written law.
Advertisements

MELISSA ASFAHANI Patent Attorney El Paso, TX
William Boshnick Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
AIA Final Rules AIA Transition Applications March 20, 2013.
Michael Neas Supervisor Office of PCT Legal Administration
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION OFFICE OF PATENT COUNSEL March 16, 2001.
Patent Strategy Under the AIA Washington in the West January 29, 2013.
Accelerating Patent Prosecution Thursday, October 18, 2012.
Joint Meeting of PIPLA and NJIPLA February 7, 2012 Kenneth N. Nigon RatnerPrestia 1.
April 24, 2012 Benoît Castel Young & Thompson U.S. Patent Law Reform Summary of H.R. 1249, “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act”
Update on USPTO Activities November 18, 2014 Drew Hirshfeld Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy 1.
PATENT REFORM University of Rochester KATHRYN DOYLE, Ph.D., J.D. RIVERSIDE LAW, LLP.
Implementing First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the AIA By: Scott D. Malpede, Seth Boeshore and Chitra Kalyanaraman USPTO Rules Effective March 16, 2013.
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
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.
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
September 14, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December.
The America Invents Act: Approaching the Finish Line January 29, 2013 Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:
U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ENGINEERING CENTER (ARDEC) Presented to: Federal Laboratory Consortium Northeast Region 25 Feb 2014 Mr. Tim.
BIPC.COM STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF POST ISSUANCE PATENTABILITY REVIEW: THE NEW, OLD, AND NO LONGER Presented By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. B UCHANAN, I NGERSOLL.
America Invents Act (AIA) Changes in Patent Law That Impact Companies May Mowzoon: Mowzoon Law Office, PLLC 1.
Filing Compliant Reexam Requests Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit June, 2010.
Preissuance Submissions Under the America Invents Act Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:
Prosecution Group Luncheon Patents August Proposed First-To-File Rules Add definitions in AIA to Rules Declarations for removing references based.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association David Albagli AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting.
Patent Term Adjustment (Bio/Chem. Partnership) Kery Fries, Sr. Legal Advisor Phone: (571)
USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act Teresa Stanek Rea Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the.
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
The U.S. Patent System is Changing – A Summary of the New Patent Reform Law.
AIA Strategies.
July 18, Changes to Patent Fees Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818/P.L ) Topic: Patent Fees Office of Patent Legal.
The America Invents Act: Eighteen Months Post-Enactment Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator March 27, 2013.
Information Disclosure Statements
December 8, Changes to Patent Fees Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818)(upon enactment) and 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by.
0 Charles R. Macedo, Esq. Partner. 1 Brief Overview of Priority Under AIA Implications for Public Disclosures and Private Disclosures Role of Provisional.
Anthony Venturino MILANO 10 February 2012 SELECTED PROVISIONS OF THE LEAHY Smith AMERICA INVENTS ACT OF 2011 AIPPI - AIPLA 1 © AIPLA
Contents of US Patent Applications & Filing Requirements
Remy Yucel Director, CRU (571) Central Reexamination Unit and the AIA.
1 John Calvert Supervisory Patent Examiner
Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
2011 US Patent Law Reform & A Global Prosecution Strategy by Lowe Hauptman Ham & Berner LLP Suite Diagonal St Alexandria VA Tel. (703)
The America Invents Act Patent Reform in 2011 Presented by Justin Leonard.
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.
July 18, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December 10,
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Patent.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on AIA Implementation Especially post grant processes Alan J. Kasper AIPLA/JPO.
Claims and Continuations Final Rule Overview Briefing for Examiners 1.
3 rd Party Participation Bennett Celsa TC 1600 QAS.
Claims and Continuations Final Rule 1 Joni Y. Chang Senior Legal Advisor Office of Patent Legal Administration (571) ,
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Imminent Changes to the US Patent Law Pre-Grant Patent Practice Under the AIA Alan J.
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.
James Toupin – General Counsel February 1, Summary of Proposed Rule Changes to Continuations, Double Patenting, and Claims.
Prosecution Group Luncheon Patent October PTO News Backlog of applications continues to decrease –623,000 now, decreasing about 5,000/ month –Expected.
Prosecution Group Luncheon September, America Invents Act Passed House and Senate (HR 1249) Presidential Signature expected Friday Most provisions.
Andrew B. Freistein Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P. Learning the ABC’s of Patent Term Adjustment 1 © AIPLA 2015.
January 25, Notice of Proposed Rule Making Proposed Changes to Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice,
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
The Impact of Patent Reform on Independent Inventors and Start-up Companies Mark Nowotarski (Patent Agent)
PATENT OFFICE PROSECUTION
Claims and Continuations Final Rule
USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules
PATENT LAW TREATY Gena Jones Senior Legal Advisor
Third Party Pre-Issuance Submissions Under AIA
Filing of a U.S. Patent Application
Jonathan D’Silva MMI Intellectual Property 900 State Street, Suite 301
Presentation transcript:

A Practical Guide For Prosecutors Patent Prosecution Under The AIA William R. Childs, Ph.D., J.D. August 22, 2013

DISCLAIMER  These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law and practice. These materials reflect only the personal views of the speaker and cannot be considered legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and the speaker cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and the speaker. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 2

First-To-File (or Disclose): Keep Your Eyes On The Prize  What has changed under the AIA “first-to-file” provisions? – Whether to make a “transition statement” when filing an Application. – Whether or not references qualify as prior art.  Context: – Need to file an application or prepare a Response to an Office Action. – Limited budget and short time frame. 3

Three Steps To Determine What Is Prior Art  Step 1: Determine Which Law Applies  Step 2: Determine The “Effective Filing Date”  Step 3: Determine If a Disclosure Is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)1 or § 102(a)2 4

To Check or Not To Check?  Step 1: Determine whether an Application is Pre-AIA, Post-AIA, or a Transition Application. – The real question: which law applies to this application? 5

Step 1A: Determine The Chain of Priority  Step 1A: Determine the Filing Date and Claim of Priority of the specific Application that you are working on. – Look to the Filing Receipt in Public PAIR. 6

Establishing A Time Line 7 JP ‘153 12/02/04 PCT ‘591 12/01/ Nat. Stage ‘828 04/29/08 Con. ‘195 01/04/11 AIA 3/16/13

Step 1B: Two Easy Cases  Was The Filing Date of the present Application Before March 16, 2013? – Note: if 371 National Stage, use the PCT filing date. – If yes, AIA does not apply. Use Pre-AIA law.  Was The Filing Date of the present Application on or after 3/16/13 and does not claim priority to a Pre-3/16/13 Effective Filing Date? – If yes, AIA applies. See, 35 U.S.C. § 100(i). 8

Two Easy Cases: Non-Transition Applications  Pre-AIA Application: the application was filed before March 16,  Post-AIA Application: the application does not claim priority to an application filed before March 16, JP 4/27/14 PCT 4/25/ Nat. Stage 12/31/16 Div. 7/14/17 AIA 3/16/13 JP 12/02/04 PCT 12/01/ Nat. Stage 04/29/08 Con. 01/04/11 AIA 3/16/13

The Third Case: The Transition Application  If the Filing Date of the present Application was filed On or After 3/16/13 and claims priority to a Pre-3/16/13 Effective Filing Date, then the Application is a Transition Application.  Next Question: Is the Application a Hybrid Application? 10 JP 12/02/04 PCT 12/01/ Nat. Stage 04/29/08 Con. 01/04/15 AIA 3/16/13

Step 1C: Is the Transition Application Pre-AIA or a Hybrid?  Determine if the Application is a “Hybrid Application.” – Was there any New Subject Matter in any claim between The Filing Date of the Present Application and March 16, 2013? (includes intervening apps.) > If New Subject Matter, then Hybrid Application, and both Post-AIA § 102 and old § 102(g) (first to invent) apply. > If No New Subject Matter, then Pre-AIA. 11 JP 12/02/04 PCT 12/01/ Nat. Stage 04/29/08 Con. 01/04/115 AIA 3/16/13

Transition Statement Summary: To Check or Not to Check?  Four Types of Application: – Pre-AIA: all filing dates before 3/16/13 >> don’t check. – Post-AIA: all priority dates after 3/16/13 >> don’t check. – Non-Hybrid Transition Application: Filed After 3/16/13, but claims priority before 3/16/13, and no New Subject Matter on day of filing >> don’t check. – Hybrid Transition Application: Filed After 3/16/13, but claims priority before 3/16/13, and has New Subject Matter on day of filing >> must check the box. 12

New Subject Matter vs. New Matter  Avoid Having To Make A Transition Statement: – Claim amendments after the filing date can introduce “New Matter.” > Results in § 132 objection and/or § 112 rejection, but no loss of priority. – Claim amendments on the day of filing can introduce “New Subject Matter.” > Results in loss of priority, but no objection. – Avoid Hybrid Applications by filing the claims of a Pre-AIA Application verbatim or only deleting claims. > Amend the next day to avoid introducing New Subject Matter. 13

Determining Prior Art for Office Actions  If Starting with an Office Action, Choice of Law is even easier to determine. 14

Step 2: Determine The “Effective Filing Date”  “Effective Filing Date” is the earliest filing date for which the application has claim of priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, or 121 and a claim has § 112 support. – Claim-by-claim basis. – What is the earliest Foreign Priority, U.S. Provisional, PCT Application, or U.S. Application to which you have priority? 15

Step 3A: Determine If A Disclosure Is Prior Art Under § 102(a)(1)  Step 3A: Was the disclosure patented, published, on sale, in public use, or otherwise publically available any where in the world, more than one year prior to the Effective Filing Date of a claim? – If so, the entire disclosure Is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). > See, § 102(a)(1) and (b)(1). 16

Step 3B: Determine If A Disclosure Is Prior Art Under § 102(a)(1)  Step 3B: Was the disclosure patented, published, on sale, publically used, or otherwise publically available any where in the world one year or less prior to the Effective Filing Date of a claim? – If yes, proceed as if the disclosure is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). – Inquire about disclosures by the inventor or co-inventor. 17

The Uncertainty of “Disclosure”  Even if an exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) applies: a “Disclosure” is interpreted narrowly.  The Subject Matter removed only applies to the parts of a Disclosure that are identical. > Can differ by mode. (e.g., poster vs. paper) > Can be non-verbatim. > Can be a more general description of what is claimed. (e.g., genus is not art against species) 18

Step 3C: Determine If A Disclosure Is Prior Art Under § 102(a)(2)  Step 3C: Was the cited Disclosure a U.S. Patent, U.S. Patent Publication, or PCT Publication designating the U.S., having non-identical inventorship, and has a filing date before the Effective Filing Date of a claim? – If no, not prior art under § 102(a)(2). – If yes and common assignee as of the Effective Filing Date, then § 102(b)(3) exception applies. – If yes, and no common assignee as above, proceed as if prior art under § 102(a)(2). 19

Step 3D: Not Prior Art  Step 3D: Was the disclosure publically available and had an effective filing date after the Effective Filing Date of a claim? – If yes, then the Disclosure is not prior art. – The Disclosure cannot be cited as prior art for anticipation or obviousness rejection. 20

Prioritized Examination (a.k.a. “Track One” or “Fast-Track”)  Petition to have an application considered out of turn. – For regular examination > Avg months until a first Office Action. > Avg months total pendency. – For Track One, > Avg. 1.6 months until a first Office Action. > Ave. 4.7 months from petition grant to allowance. 21

Prioritized Examination Requirements  The Application must be a Utility or Plant Application AND – Continuing Application (By-pass PCT, Divisional, Continuation, Continuation-in-Part (CIP), or Request for Continued Examination (RCE x 1)). Cannot be a § 371 national stage application.  To Prioritize, file a petition with the application. – No more than 4 independent claims, no more than 30 total claims, no multiple dependent claims – Electronically filed – Fee of $4,000 (unless small or micro entity) – Complete under 37 C.F.R. § 1.51(b) (oath and dec.) 22

How To Lose Priority Status: In One Easy Step!  An Prioritized Application Generally Remains Prioritized Until a Final Office Action or Notice of Allowance is Received.  Unless: – File a Petition for Extension of Time. – Amend to more than 4 independent claims. – Amend to more than 30 total claims. – Amend a claim into multiple dependent format. 23

Pre-Issuance Submission of Prior Art in Applications  Allows a Third-Party to file prior art in an application with a “concise description of relevance.” – Timing: Later of 6 months after publication or before first rejection (i.e., first Office Action), and before allowance – Any pending non-provisional Application. – Must provide copies and English translations 24

Concise Description of Relevance  Factual description of relevance for each document to each claim.  No arguments, only descriptions. 25 ClaimPublication XPatent Y A composition comprising A + B + C. “A mixture of A + B” See, ¶ [0024] of X. “Adding C improves a property.” Col. 2, lines 1-3 of Y.

Supplemental Examination  Allows for patent owners to submit documents for reexamination of the patent. – Provides a way to avoid inequitable conduct by cleaning up the file wrapper. > Failure to submit material references in IDS > Erroneous statements > Lack of Statement of Substance of the Interview > What about payment of incorrect fees? 26

Supplemental Examination: How to Use It  Can only be filed by all Patent Owner(s).  Any time during enforceability, but will not help for if law suits is already filed (or notice sent)  Must raise a “substantial new question of patentability”.  Up to 12 “items” per Supplemental Examination  $5,140 for request and $16,120, if granted.  If granted, then Ex Parte Reexamination.  Non-patent owners cannot intervene. 27

Micro Entity Status  If qualify, can reduce many PTO fees by 75%  There are two paths to Micro Entity Status: – The Higher Education path requires: > 1. The applicant's employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant's income, is a institution of higher education (U.S. or protectorate) OR > 2. The applicant has assigned, licensed, etc… or is under obligation to assign interest to such a institution of higher education. –See, 77 Fed. Reg

Micro Entity Status: the Narrow Path  The Small Entity Path requires: – qualifies as a small entity (i.e., individual, business with less than 500 employees, or non-profit); – Not been named as an inventor on more than 4 previously filed patent applications; – No gross annual income exceeding three times the median household income ($150,162 in 2011); and – Not assigned, licensed, etc. to a party with gross income of more than three times the median household income. > See, 77 Fed. Reg and 37 CFR §

Oaths and Declarations  For Applications filed on or after September 16, 2013, follow AIA Declaration, Assignment, and Power of Attorney rules. 30

Best Mode: It Just Won’t Die  “[F]ailure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable.” – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)(3)(A)  “A practitioner shall disclose to the Office information necessary to comply with applicable duty of disclosure provisions.” – 37 C.F.R. § (c) 31

32 Thank You CALIFORNIA | DELAWARE | ILLINOIS | NEW JERSEY NEW YORK | PENNSYLVANIA | WASHINGTON DC | WISCONSIN © 2011 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | All rights reserved. A Delaware limited liability partnership 1500 K Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC (202) (202) fax William R. Childs, Ph.D.