1 Restriction Petition Survey; A Few Helpful Hints Julie Burke TC1600 Special Program Examiner 571-272-0512.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan and Unity of Invention Study Bruce Kisliuk Group Director, TC1600 United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Advertisements

USPTO Restriction Training Materials and Chapter 800 Revisions
More on Restriction Practice Jim Housel SPE, Art Unit 1648 (703)
Notice of Proposed Rule Making Affecting Claims That Recite Alternatives 1 John LeGuyader Director TC1600 Ph:
Double Patenting Simplified
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
Julie Burke TC1600 QAS REJOINDER PRACTICE Julie Burke TC1600 QAS
September 14, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December.
1 Principles in Restriction Practice TC 1600 Anthony Caputa TC Practice Specialist (571)
TC1600 Appeals Practice Jean Witz, Appeals Specialist.
Accelerated Examination Bennett Celsa (TC 1600: QAS)
Determination of Obviousness Practice Under the Genus-Species Guidelines and In re Ochiai; In re Brouwer Sreeni Padmanabhan & James Wilson Supervisory.
Restriction Practice for Nucleic Acid Molecules Julie Burke QAS/PM
Restriction Practice for Genus Claims Species Claims Linking Claims and Markush Claims Julie Burke QAS/PM TC1600.
Green Technology Petition Pilot Robert W. Bahr. 2 Green Tech: Discussion Points 1. Authority and Overview: resources / overview 2.Petition Requirement:
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
Patent Applications Overlapping the Biotechnology and Mechanical Arts THOMAS BARRETT
® ® From Invention to Start-Up Seminar Series University of Washington The Legal Side of Things Invention Protection Gary S. Kindness Christensen O’Connor.
1 Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples TC1600 Special Program Examiner Julie Burke (571)
RESTRICTING BETWEEN PRODUCT and PROCESS INVENTIONS Bruce Campell Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit
Current and Future USPTO Practice RESTRICTION PRACTICES AT THE USPTO 1 © AIPLA 2015.
John Doll Commissioner for Patents. 2 USPTO Request for Public Input: Strategic Planning  Agency developing new strategic plan  Part of budget process.
July 18, Changes to Patent Fees Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818/P.L ) Topic: Patent Fees Office of Patent Legal.
1 United States Patent and Trademark Office Revised PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines Biotech/ChemPharm Customer Partnership.
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.
The New USPTO Rules and their Impact on Biomedical Patent Prosecution Mojdeh Bahar, J.D.,M.A. Technology Licensing Specialist Office of Technology Transfer.
Tax Update for Alumni Classes Rachel L. Williamson, CPA Joined Dartmouth College in June.
35 USC 101 Update Business Methods Partnership Meeting, Spring 2008 by Robert Weinhardt Business Practice Specialist, Technology Center 3600
1 AIPLA Biotech Committee Meeting Washington D.C., October 14, 2004 Anthony Caputa, Ph.D. Technology Center Practice Specialist TC 1600.
Notice of Proposed Rule Making Affecting Claims That Recite Alternatives 1 Robert Clarke, Director Office of Patent Legal Administration (571)
1 AIPLA Biotech Committee Meeting Washington D.C., October 14, 2004 Jasemine C. Chambers, Ph.D., J.D. Director Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
Restriction & Double Patenting Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A., CLP Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes of Health U.S. Department.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
Cost Effective Patent Prosecution at the EPO Dick Waddington Member of the International Liaison Committee (Non-European) Supporting logos to go in this.
Harnisch, Unity of Invention, and 76 Fed. Reg AIPLA Biotechnology Committee Presentation March 17, 2011 Brian Lathrop, Ph.D., Esq.
To Restrict or Not To Restrict That Is The Question? Divided We Stand! Or Undivided We Stand!! By Joseph K. McKane SPE, Art Unit 1626.
1 Restriction Practice Updates Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
3/2/091 PCT Unity of Invention with Pharmaceutical and Chemical Examples Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
July 18, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December 10,
Election of Species Joseph K. McKane SPE, Art Unit 1626 April 27, 2004.
Biotech Customer Partnership August 3, 2004 Jasemine C. Chambers, Ph.D., J.D. Director Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
Securing Innovation Michael D. Stein Stein, McEwen & Bui LLP 1400 Eye Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC (202)
1 When is it NOT Appropriate to Restrict? Julie Burke TC1600 QAS
Claims and Continuations Final Rule Overview Briefing for Examiners 1.
Revisions to Japanese Patent Law Before the law was revised, a Divisional Applications could not be filed after a Notice of Allowance 2.
Claims and Continuations Final Rule 1 Joni Y. Chang Senior Legal Advisor Office of Patent Legal Administration (571) ,
FY09 Restriction Petition Update; Comparison of US and National Stage Restriction Practice Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
Restriction Practice for Combinations and Subcombinations
James Toupin – General Counsel February 1, Summary of Proposed Rule Changes to Continuations, Double Patenting, and Claims.
USPTOUSPTO 1 Image File Wrapper (IFW) Processing Paula Hutzell Practice Specialist, TC 1600 (571)
Claims Proposed Rulemaking Main Purposes É Applicant Assistance to Improve Focus of Examination n Narrow scope of initial examination so the examiner is.
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
1 Biotech/Chem/Pharm Customer Partnership Meeting June 15, 2005 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform and Update on TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan.
June 13, Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership USPTO Study on Restriction Reform and TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan.
Bruce Kisliuk Group Director, Technology Center 1600.
1 Drivers for Implementation of TC 1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan: Public comments from bar groups, and customer partnerships starting before the.
1 FY08 Restriction Petition Update and Burden Julie Burke Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
NA, Yanghee International Application Team Korean Intellectual Property Office National Phase of PCT international applications April 26,
10/13/081 PARK - SPEC SAME IN APP & PAT The Specification: Application v. Issued Patent Why is the specification in the application almost exactly identical.
PS Research Methods I with Kimberly Maring Unit 9 – Experimental Research Chapter 6 of our text: Zechmeister, J. S., Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy,
PATENT OFFICE PROSECUTION
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
What is the status from Ccavanue team
Tim Saulsbury -- Continuations in Part
Claims and Continuations Final Rule
PATENT LAW TREATY Gena Jones Senior Legal Advisor
Best practices in the PCT international phase Session 1
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
Presentation transcript:

1 Restriction Petition Survey; A Few Helpful Hints Julie Burke TC1600 Special Program Examiner

2 TC 1600 Filings and Restrictions  TC1600 mails out about 28,000 first actions on the merits each year and about 12,000 restriction requirements  Of about 12,000 restriction requirements mailed per year, only about 75 are petitioned  21% of TC1600 cases are filed under 35 U. S. C. 371 (i.e., the national stage of a PCT application), yet 371 applications account for about 30% of the petitions  on average, a 91 day turnaround time to mail decision for a restriction petition

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Concerned about a Restriction Requirement? File an election with traverse Follow up with the o Examiner, then o SPE, then o SPRE or QAS, then o Group Director File a petition Tips: File the petition as a separate paper Clearly label the first page of the petition

13 Petitions should be decided BEFORE the next action on the merits is mailed.

14 Petitions do not stop the clock! Please file required response within the time period indicated in the last Office action.

15 Prematurely filed petitions may be dismissed Tip: Avoid dismissals by filing petitions AFTER the restriction requirement is  repeated or  made final.

16 Do US restriction requirement or PCT unity of invention rules apply? Examiner must use correct rules when formulating a restriction requirement or a lack of unity If the application is filed under 35 USC 111(a), then US rules apply. See chapter 800. If the application is a “371” national stage filing of a PCT under 35 USC 371, then PCT unity of invention rules apply. See chapter Note: Divisionals, continuations and continuation-in-parts of PCTs or 371s are subject to US rules. Tip for traversal: Point out instances in which the wrong rules are used.

17 Current Form Paragraphs should be used when formulating restriction requirements Tip for Traversal: Point out instances when out-dated or altered form paragraphs are included in restriction requirements. Note-This alone will not necessarily result in the petition being granted.

18 Incomplete Restriction Requirements All claims should be accounted for either in groups or in the linking claim form paragraphs. The groupings should not result in loss of scope of claimed subject matter. Tip for traversal: Point out any inventions missing from the groupings.

19 Groups cannot overlap in scope Where the claims of an application define the same essential characteristics of a single disclosed embodiment of an invention, restriction there between should never be required…. See Tip for Traversal: Point out instances when the same disclosed embodiment can be placed in two separate groups. Example: Group I: Tropical fruit. Group II: Citrus fruit. Yet specification discloses an “orange” which is encompassed by both groups.

20 Species must be mutually exclusive … Claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first….See (f) Tip for Traversal: Point out instances when two or more “species” overlap in scope. An example of “species” which overlap in scope: rodent, mouse and transgenic mouse. These “species” are genus, subgenus and species

21 Inventions as claimed are independent if there is no disclosed relationship between the inventions, that is, they are unconnected in design, operation, and effect Tip for traversal: Identify pairs of “independent inventions” that are disclosed as useable together or connected in one of design, operation or effect. Such pairs of inventions are related and should be considered for distinction under MPEP Independent Inventions are unrelated

22 Burden must be shown for all restriction requirements, including Tip for Traversal: If the examiner has not addressed burden, the restriction requirement is incomplete. Restriction between independent or distinct inventions and Provisional election of species requirements. See 803(I)

23 Status Inquiries and Contact Information Check public PAIR to see if petition has been received Questions? Call TC1600 SPRE Petition Leads Bill Dixon Marianne Seidel If petition is decided outside the TC, contact Office of Initial Patent Examination Office of Petitions Office of Publication- Image Assistance Center