Download:
pdf |
pdfSUPPORTING STATEMENT
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Actions (formerly Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences (BPAI) Actions)
OMB CONTROL NO. 0651-0063
(February 7, 2014)
A.
JUSTIFICATION
1.
Necessity of Information Collection
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) is established by statute under 35
U.S.C. § 6. This statute directs that PTAB “shall on written appeal of an applicant,
review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patent and shall determine
priority and patentability of invention in interferences.” PTAB has the authority, under
pre-AIA sections of the Patent Act, i.e., 35 U.S.C §§ 134, 135, 306, and 315, to decide
ex parte and inter partes appeals and interferences. In addition, 35 U.S.C. § 6
establishes the membership of PTAB as the Director, the Deputy Director, the
Commissioner for Patents, the Commissioner for Trademarks, and the Administrative
Patent Judges. Each appeal and interference is decided by a merits panel of at least
three members of the Board.
Two of the Board’s responsibilities under the statute include the review of ex parte
appeals from adverse decisions of examiners in those situations where a written appeal
is taken by a dissatisfied applicant, and the administration of interferences to “determine
priority” (or decide who is the first inventor) whenever an applicant claims the same
patentable invention that is already claimed by another applicant or patentee. In inter
partes reexamination appeals, PTAB reviews examiner’s decisions adverse to a patent
owner or a third-party requestor.
2.
Needs and Uses
The information in this collection can be submitted by mail, hand delivery, or facsimile
when an applicant files a brief, petition, amendment, or request. These papers can also
be filed as attachments through EFS-Web.
There are no forms associated with these items. However, they are governed by rules
in Part 41. Failure to comply with the appropriate rule may result in dismissal of the
appeal or denial of entry of the paper.
Ex parte appeals from adverse decisions by patent examiners in applications for patents
and in reexamination proceedings filed pursuant to Chapter 30 of 35 U.S.C. are
provided for by 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 306. The rules governing ex parte appeals are
found at 37 CFR 41.1 through 41.54. Chapter 1200 of The Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure sets forth the current procedures for appellants and patent examiners to
follow in ex parte appeals. Sections 2273 through 2279 of The Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure sets forth additional procedures for appellants and patent
examiners to follow in ex parte appeals in a reexamination proceeding.
The PTAB disseminates certain information that it collects through various publications
and databases. This information includes opinions, binding precedent, final decisions,
and judgments in interference cases.
Opinions authored by the PTAB have varying degrees of authority attached to them.
There are precedential opinions, which when published, are binding and provide the
criteria and authority that the PTAB will use to decide all other factually similar cases
(until the opinion is overruled or changed by statute). There are informative opinions
which are non-precedential. Informative opinions illustrate norms of PTAB decisionmaking for the public. The final type of PTAB opinion is the routine opinion. A routine
opinion is also non-precedential. Routine opinions are all publicly available opinions
which are not designated as precedential or informative. Since public policy favors a
widespread publication of opinions, the PTAB publishes all publicly available opinions,
even if the opinions are not binding precedent upon the PTAB.
An opinion of the PTAB made precedential by the procedures contained in this or earlier
versions of the Standard Operating Procedure 2 is considered to be binding precedent.
Other PTAB opinions that are published or otherwise disseminated are not considered
binding precedent of the PTAB.
The Information Quality Guidelines from Section 515 of Public Law 106-554, Treasury
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, apply to this
information collection, and this information collection and its supporting statement
comply with all applicable information quality guidelines, i.e., OMB and specific
operating unit guidelines.
Table 1 lists the specific statutes and regulations authorizing the USPTO to collect this
information and outlines how this information is used by the public and by the USPTO:
Table 1: Information Requirements and Needs and Uses of Information Collected
Item
#
1
Requirement
Amendment
Statute
Rule
Form #
35 U.S.C. § 134
37 CFR 41.33
No Form
Associated
Needs and Uses
2
Appeal Brief
35 U.S.C. § 134
37 CFR 41.37
No Form
Associated
2
Used by the applicant to cancel
pending, rejected claims that
applicant does not wish to be
considered on appeal by the PTAB.
Used by the PTAB to determine
which claims are on appeal.
Used by the applicant to set forth
the claims, issues, and arguments
on appeal to the PTAB.
Used by the PTAB to aid in
rendering a decision on the claims,
issues, and arguments submitted by
the applicant.
Item
#
3
Requirement
Reply Brief
Statute
Rule
Form #
35 U.S.C. § 134
37 CFR 41.41
No Form
Associated
Needs and Uses
4
5
3.
Request for
Rehearing Before
the PTAB
35 U.S.C. § 134
Petitions to the
Chief
Administrative
Patent Judge
Under 37 CFR 41.3
35 U.S.C. § 134
37 CFR 41.52
No Form
Associated
37 CFR 41.3
No Form
Associated
Used by the applicant to respond to
the examiner’s answer.
Used by the PTAB to aid in
rendering a decision on the claims,
issues, and arguments submitted by
the applicant.
Used by the applicant to request
reconsideration of a PTAB decision.
Used by the PTAB to decide
whether to grant or deny a request
for reconsideration of a decision.
Permits parties to petition the Chief
Administrative Patent Judge on
matters pending bfore the PTAB.
Used by the PTAB to determine
whether the necessary information
has been provided to grant the
petition.
Use of Information Technology
The USPTO does not collect the amendments, the briefs, the requests, and the
petitions through automated or mechanical means. The USPTO does not, at this time,
offer electronic forms for the items in this collection. Parties may, however, file this
information as attachments through EFS-Web.
EFS-Web allows customers to file applications and associated documents through their
standard web browser and does not require any significant client-side components.
Although there are no forms offered for the items in this collection through EFS-Web,
parties may create these documents using the tools and processes that they already
use and then convert those documents into standard portable document file (PDF)
format and submit them through EFS-Web. EFS-Web provides immediate notification
that the submission was received, automated processing of requests, and avoidance of
postage or other paper delivery costs.
Correspondence officially submitted via EFS-Web is accorded a “receipt date,” which is
the date the correspondence was received by the USPTO. After a successful
submission, an acknowledgement receipt containing the receipt date, the time the
correspondence was received at the USPTO, and a full listing of the correspondence
submitted, can be obtained from EFS-Web.
As PTAB gains more experience with the number, types, and complexities of the appeal
papers filed as attachments through EFS-Web, PTAB will continue to review the results
and any feedback to determine whether full electronic filing, offering PDF forms that can
be completed and submitted online, will be beneficial. If it is found that full electronic
filing is beneficial and PTAB decides to deploy a production system, the electronic
forms, with their associated burdens, will be submitted to OMB for review and approval.
3
The PTAB uses the Appeals Case Tracking System (ACTS) to track the status of the
patent appeal cases. ACTS allows the PTAB to track the status of the patent appeal
cases and also provides relevant information pertaining to these cases. This is an
internal system that manages the workflow throughout PTAB. ACTS is not designed to
disseminate information or to provide status updates to the public.
PTAB’s opinions and decisions for publicly available files are published on the USPTO’s
website. Precedential opinions in ex parte appeals are published on PTAB’s home
page through the USPTO’s website. In late 1997, PTAB started disseminating opinions
in support of PTAB’s final decisions appearing in issued patents, reissue applications,
and reexamination proceedings through the USPTO’s electronic Freedom of Information
Act (e-FOIA) website. Beginning in 2001, with the implementation of eighteen-month
publication of applications under the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, the
PTAB also began posting final decisions for published applications through the e-FOIA
wesite.
4.
Efforts to Identify Duplication
This information is collected only when an applicant (or a patent owner) submits
information for an ex parte appeal before the PTAB. This information is not collected
elsewhere. Previously, this collection did contain some duplication in that certain copies
of evidence previously submitted as part of the patent examination process were
required to be resubmitted with the appeal brief. However, new rules have eliminated
this requirement (the submission of certain appendices with the brief containing
information already available at the USPTO). Therefore, this collection does not create
a duplication of effort or collection of data.
5.
Minimizing Burden to Small Entities
The same information is required from every applicant, and this information is not
available from any other source. This information collection involves items which
require the payment of fees by customers who may qualify as small entities or micro
entities. The actual fee burden for the items in this collection is covered by collection
0651-0072, however an explanation of the small entity burden of fees is provided here.
Pursuant to section 10(b) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), the USPTO
provides a 50% reduction in the fees for certain filings by small entity applicants, such
as independent inventors, small businesses, and nonprofit organizations who meet the
definition of a small entity provided at 37 CFR 1.27. Also pursuant to section 10(b) of
the AIA, the USPTO provides a 75% reduction in the fees set or adjusted under section
10(a) of the Act for certain filings by applicants who meet the definition of a micro entity
provided at 35 U.S.C. § 123 and 37 CFR 1.29.
The reduced filing fees for small and micro entity filers of appeal briefs are listed at 37
CFR 41.20. No significant burden is placed on small or micro entities, in that small
entities must only identify themselves as such in order to obtain these benefits, and
4
micro entities must only provide a certification of micro entity status. No formal
statement is required. An assertion or certification of small or micro entity status,
respectively, only needs to be filed once in an application or patent (although a fee may
be paid in the micro entity amount only if the applicant or patentee is still entitled to
micro entity status on the date the fee is paid).
6.
Consequences of Less Frequent Collection
This information is collected only when an applicant (or patent owner) files an
amendment, an appeal brief, a reply brief, a request for rehearing before the PTAB, or a
petition to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge. This information is not collected
elsewhere. Therefore, this collection of information could not be conducted less
frequently. If this information was not collected, the PTAB could not ensure that an
applicant (or patent owner) has submitted all of the information (and the applicable fees)
necessary to initiate an appeal or to determine whether a request or a petition should be
granted. If this information was not collected, the USPTO could not comply with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 134 and 37 CFR Part 41.
7.
Special Circumstances in the Conduct of Information Collection
There are no special circumstances associated with this collection of information.
8.
Consultation Outside the Agency
The 60-Day Federal Register Notice was published on November 14, 2013 (78 Fed
Reg. 68422). The public comment period ended on January 13, 2014. No public
comments were received.
In addition, the USPTO has long-standing relationships with groups from whom patent
application data is collected, such as the American Intellectual Property Law
Association (AIPLA), as well as patent bar associations, independent inventor groups,
and users of our public facilities. Views expressed by these groups are considered in
developing proposals for information collection requirements.
9.
Payment or Gifts to Respondents
This information collection does not involve a payment or gift to any respondent.
Response to this information collection is necessary to initiate appeal proceedings, to
prepare the briefs, to request a rehearing before PTAB, and to petition the Chief
Administrative Patent Judges.
10.
Assurance of Confidentiality
Confidentiality of records involved in appeal proceedings is governed by statute (35
U.S.C. § 122) and regulation (37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14). The PTAB publishes certain
opinions and decisions concerning decided cases. Public availability to records
5
involved in terminated and pending cases varies, depending upon statute and
regulation.
To further define the boundaries of the confidentiality of patent applications in light of
the eighteen-month publication of patent applications introduced under the American
Inventors Protection Act of 1999, the USPTO amended 37 CFR 1.14 to maintain the
confidentiality of applications that have not been published as a U.S. patent application.
As amended, 37 CFR 1.14 provides that the public can obtain status information about
the application, such as whether the application is pending, abandoned, or patented,
whether the application has been published under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b), and the
application “numerical identifier.” This information can be supplied to the public under
certain conditions. The public can also receive copies of an application-as-filed and the
file wrapper, as long as it meets certain criteria. PTAB decisions relating to such
applications can be published.
Applications filed through EFS-Web are maintained in confidence as required by 35
U.S.C. §122(a) until the application is published or a patent is issued.
The
confidentiality, security, integrity, authenticity, and non-repudiation of patent applications
submitted electronically through EFS-Web are maintained using PKI technology and
digital certificates for registered users.
Applications electronically-filed by nonregistered users are protected using TLS or SSL protocols. The USPTO posts issued
patents and application publications on its Web site. The information covered under this
collection will not be released to the public unless it is part of an issued patent or
application publication. Patent applicants and/or their designated representatives can
view the current status of their patent application through the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Access to patent applications that are maintained
in confidence under 35 U.S.C. §122(a) is restricted to the patent applicant and/or their
designated representatives by the use of digital certificates, which maintain the
confidentiality and integrity of the information transmitted over the Internet. The public
can view the status and history information for published applications and granted
patents via PAIR.
11.
Justification for Sensitive Questions
None of the required information in this collection is considered to be of a sensitive
nature.
12.
Estimate of Hour and Cost Burden to Respondents
Table 2 calculates the burden hours and costs of this information collection to the
public, based on the following factors:
Respondent Calculation Factors
The USPTO projects that it will receive 34,537 responses per year. The USPTO
estimates that approximately 25% (8,634) of these responses will be from small entities.
The USPTO also estimates that approximately 93% (32,119) of the responses will be
filed electronically.
6
These estimates are based on the Agency’s long-standing institutional knowledge of and
experience with the type of information collected by these items.
Burden Hour Calculation Factors
The USPTO estimates that it takes the public approximately 2 to 32 hours to complete
the briefs, amendments, requests, and petitions in this collection, depending on the
complexity of the request. This includes the time to gather the necessary information,
prepare the brief, petition, and other papers, and submit the completed request to the
USPTO. The USPTO assumes that, on balance, it takes the same amount of time to
gather the necessary information, prepare the brief, petition, and other papers, and
submit it to the USPTO, whether the applicant submits it in paper form or electronically.
These estimates are based on the Agency’s long-standing institutional knowledge of and
experience with the type of information collected and the length of time necessary to
complete responses containing similar or like information.
Cost Burden Calculation Factors
The USPTO expects that all of the information in this collection will be prepared by an
attorney. The USPTO uses a professional rate of $389 per hour for respondent cost
burden calculations, which is the mean rate for attorneys in private firms as shown in the
2013 Report of the Economic Survey, published by the Committee on Economics of
Legal Practice of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA).
Based on the Agency’s long-standing institutional knowledge of and experience with the
type of information collected, the Agency estimates $389 is an accurate estimate of the
cost per hour to collect this information.
Table 2: Burden Hour/Burden Cost to Respondents
Item
Hours
(a)
Responses
(yr)
(b)
Burden
(hrs/yr)
(c)
(a) x (b)
Rate
($/hr)
(d)
Total Cost
($/hr)
(e)
(c) x (d)
1
Amendment
2.0
19
38
$389.00
$14,782.00
1
Electronic Amendment
2.0
248
496
$389.00
$192,944.00
2
Appeal Brief
32.0
1,781
56,992
$389.00
$22,169,888.00
2
Electronic Appeal Brief
32.0
23,662
757,184
$389.00
$294,544,576.00
3
Reply Brief
5.0
578
2,890
$389.00
$1,124,210.00
3
Electronic Reply Brief
5.0
7,672
38,360
$389.00
$14,922,040.00
4
Request for Rehearing Before the PTAB
5.0
29
145
$389.00
$56,405.00
4
Electronic Request for Rehearing Before the
PTAB
5.0
386
1,930
$389.00
$750,770.00
5
Petitions to the Chief Administrative Patent
Judge Under 37 CFR 41.3
4.0
11
44
$389.00
$17,116.00
5
Electronic Petitions to the Chief
Administrative Patent Judge Under 37 CFR
41.3
4.0
151
604
$389.00
$234,956.00
Total
- - -
34,537
858,683
- - - -
$334,027,687.00
7
13.
Total Annual (Non-hour) Cost Burden
The total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection is calculated in Table 3 below.
The postage costs are included in this information collection request. There are also
filing fees for the appeal briefs and the petitions to the chief administrative patent judge,
but these fees are not included in the annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection.
These fees are covered instead under 0651-0072 America Invents Act Section 10
Patent Fee Adjustments.
This collection has no maintenance, operation, capital start-up, or recordkeeping costs.
Postage
The briefs, petitions, amendments, and requests may be submitted by mail through the
United States Postal Service. The USPTO expects the items in this collection to be
mailed by Express Mail using the flat rate envelope, which can accommodate both the
varying submission weights of these submissions and the various postal zones. Using
the Express Mail flat rate cost for mailing envelopes, the USPTO estimates that the
average cost for sending these submissions by Express Mail will be $19.99 and that
approximately 2,418 papers may be mailed to the USPTO.
Fees
The fee burden associated with the items in this collection is estimated and covered by
information collection 0651-0072 America Invents Act Section 10 Patent Fee
Adjustments. That collection was approved by OMB in January 2013 in conjunction
with the USPTO rulemaking “Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees” (RIN 0651-AC54).
Table 3: Annual (Non-hour) Costs to Respondents
Type of Cost
Estimated
annual
responses
Amount
Totals
EXPRESS MAILING POSTAGE COSTS
1
Amendment Postage Costs
19
$19.99
$380.00
2
Appeal Brief Postage Costs
1,781
$19.99
$35,602.00
3
Reply Brief Postage Costs
578
$19.99
$11,554.00
4
Request for Rehearing Before the PTAB Postage Costs
29
$19.99
$580.00
5
Petitions to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge Under 37 CFR
41.3 Postage Costs
11
$19.99
$220.00
Total Postage Costs
----------------
--------------
$48,336.00
Total annual (non-hour) Costs
----------------
--------------
$48,336.00
8
14.
Annual Cost to Federal Government
The USPTO expects that the amendments, reply briefs, and requests for rehearing
before the PTAB will be processed by a GS-11, step 5 staff member. In the case of the
appeal briefs, the USPTO expects that they will be processed by patent appeal
specialists and a paralegal specialist in the GS-9, step 5 and GS-11, step 5 grades,
respectively. For the petitions to the chief administrative patent judge under 37 CFR
41.3, the USPTO expects that they will be processed by a GS-5, step 1 staff member.
The USPTO estimates that it takes a GS-11, step 5 staff member approximately 6
minutes (0.10 hours) to process the amendments, reply briefs, and requests for
rehearing before the PTAB at an estimated cost of $44.54 per hour (GS-11/5 hourly rate
of $34.26 with 30% ($10.28) added for benefits and overhead).
The USPTO estimates that it takes a GS-9, step 5 (patent appeal specialist) and a GS11, step 5 (paralegal specialist) approximately 18 minutes (0.30 hours) to process the
appeal brief at an estimated cost of $36.82 per hour (GS-9/5 hourly rate of $28.32 with
30% ($8.50) added for benefits and overhead) and $44.54 per hour (GS-11/5 hourly
rate of $34.26 with 30% ($10.28) added for benefits and overhead) respectively.
The USPTO estimates that it takes a GS-5, step 1 staff member approximately 30
minutes (0.50 hours) to process the petitions to the chief administrative patent judge
under 37 CFR 41.3 at an estimated cost of $21.44 per hour (GS-5/1 hourly rate of
$16.49 with 30% ($4.95) added for benefits and overhead).
Table 4 calculates the burden hours and costs to the Federal Government for
processing this information collection:
Table 4: Burden Hour/Cost to the Federal Government
Item
Hours
(a)
Responses
(yr)
(b)
Burden
(hrs/yr)
(c)
(a) x (b)
Rate
($/hr)
(d)
Total Cost
($/hr)
(e)
(c) x (d)
1
Amendment
0.10
19
2
$44.54
$89.00
1
Electronic Amendment
0.10
248
25
$44.54
$1,114.00
2
Appeal Brief
Patent Appeal Specialist
Paralegal Specialist
0.30
0.30
1,781
534
534
$36.82
$44.54
$19,662.00
$23,784.00
Electronic Appeal Brief
Patent Appeal Specialist
Paralegal Specialist
0.30
0.30
23,662
7,099
7,099
$36.82
$44.54
$261,385.00
$316,189.00
3
Reply Brief
0.10
578
58
$44.54
$2,583.00
3
Electronic Reply Brief
0.10
7,672
767
$44.54
$34,162.00
4
Request for Rehearing Before the PTAB
0.10
29
3
$44.54
$134.00
4
Electronic Request for Rehearing Before the PTAB
0.10
386
39
$44.54
$1,737.00.00
2
9
Item
Hours
(a)
Responses
(yr)
(b)
Burden
(hrs/yr)
(c)
(a) x (b)
Rate
($/hr)
(d)
Total Cost
($/hr)
(e)
(c) x (d)
5
Petitions to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge
Under 37 CFR 41.3
0.50
11
6
$21.44
$129.00
5
Electronic Petitions to the Chief Administrative
Patent Judge Under 37 CFR 41.3
0.50
151
76
$21.44
$1,629.00
34,537
16,242
Total
15.
- - - - -
- - - -
$662,597.00
Reasons for Changes in Burden from the Current Inventory
The USPTO is submitting the following changes for this renewal:
Adjusting the estimated annual responses and burden hours.
Adding the petitions to the chief administrative patent judge under 37 CFR 41.3 to
the collection.
Adjusting the postage costs to reflect changes in the estimated number of mailed
submissions and the postage rate. The postage cost adjustments also reflect the
addition of the petitions to the chief administrative patent judge under 37 CFR 41.3
to the collection.
This collection has also been updated with two rulemaking submissions and two
requests for nonsubstantive change since this collection was approved by OMB as a
new collection in December 2009:
January 2011: Pre-approval of the submission related to the notice of proposed
rulemaking “Rules of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
in Ex Parte Appeals” (RIN 0651-AC37). In connection with the rulemaking,
amendments were added to the collection and the burden estimates for the appeal
briefs were updated. In addition, other burden hour and cost estimates that were not
associated with the rulemaking were updated as well, such as the postage rates, the
number of applications estimated to be filed in paper versus filed electronically, the
projected responses for the appeal briefs, and adjusted filings for some of the other
items in the collection.
November 2011: Activation of the pre-approval and approval of the final rule
submission for “Rules of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals” (RIN 0651-AC37).
December 2011: Three non-substantive changes to the burden were made to the
collection between the proposed rule stage and the final rule stage. As a result of
the final rule, the burden estimates for the appeal briefs were updated due to an
adjustment to the estimated completion time for the appeal briefs. The other two
changes were not associated with the final rule – one updated the hourly rate for the
10
attorneys and the other updated the filing fees for the appeal briefs to reflect a new
15% surcharge to the fees.
October 2013: Removal of the AIA-related fees accounted for in collection 06510072, America Invents Act Section 10 Patent Fee Adjustments (approved by OMB in
January 2013) from the collection.
This information collection is currently approved with a total of 35,044 responses,
896,426 burden hours, and $44,891 in annual (non-hour) costs.
Changes in Burden Estimates Since the 60-Day Federal Register Notice
In the 60-Day Federal Register Notice published on November 14, 2013, the USPTO
estimated that the total annual non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection
would be $48,239. This cost was calculated using the Express Mail flat rate cost for
mailing envelopes of $19.95. As of January 26, 2014, this rate is increasing to $19.99.
Accordingly, the USPTO has adjusted its estimate for the total annual non-hour
respondent cost burden to reflect this new postage rate. The USPTO now estimates
the total annual non-hour respondent cost burden to be $48,336.
Changes in Responses and Burden Hours from the Current Inventory
The USPTO estimates total annual responses of 34,537 and total annual burden hours
of 858,683, which is a decrease of 507 responses and 37,743 burden hours from the
currently approved burden for this collection.
These changes are due to administrative adjustments from estimated decreases in the
number of appeal briefs filed with the USPTO which results in an overall reduction in the
estimated burden hours for this collection. This reduction offsets a slight increase in
responses for the other items in the collection. It also offsets a program change for the
addition of the petitions to the chief administrative patent judge under 37 CFR 41.3.
Table 5a: Changes in Responses from the Current Inventory
Item
#
Item
1
Amendment
1
Electronic Amendment
2
Appeal Brief
2
Electronic Appeal Brief
3
Reply Brief
3
Electronic Reply Brief
4
Request for Rehearing Before the PTAB
4
Electronic Request for Rehearing Before the
PTAB
Currently
approved
responses
Updated
responses
Total
change in
responses
Change in
responses
(program)
Change in
responses
(admin.)
19
19
0
0
0
248
248
0
0
0
1,872
1,781
(91)
0
(91)
24,869
23,662
(1,207)
0
(1,207)
536
578
42
0
42
7,122
7,672
550
0
550
26
29
3
0
3
352
386
34
0
34
11
Item
#
Item
Currently
approved
responses
Updated
responses
Total
change in
responses
Change in
responses
(program)
Change in
responses
(admin.)
5
Petitions to the Chief Administrative Patent
Judge Under 37 CFR 41.3
0
11
11
11
0
5
Electronic Petitions to the Chief
Administrative Patent Judge Under 37 CFR
41.3
0
151
151
151
0
35,044
34,537
(507)
162
(669)
Change in
hours
(program)
Change in
hours
(admin.)
Totals
Table 5b: Changes in Burden Hours from the Current Inventory
Item
#
Item
1
Amendment
1
Electronic Amendment
2
Appeal Brief
2
Electronic Appeal Brief
3
Reply Brief
3
Electronic Reply Brief
4
Request for Rehearing Before the PTAB
4
Electronic Request for Rehearing Before the
PTAB
5
5
Currently
approved
hours
Updated
hours
Total
change in
hours
38
38
0
0
0
496
496
0
0
0
59,904
56,992
(2,912)
0
(2,912)
795,808
757,184
(38,624)
0
(38,624)
2,680
2,890
210
0
210
35,610
38,360
2,750
0
2,750
130
145
15
0
15
1,760
1,930
170
0
170
Petitions to the Chief Administrative Patent
Judge Under 37 CFR 41.3
0
44
44
44
0
Electronic Petitions to the Chief Administrative
Patent Judge Under 37 CFR 41.3
0
604
604
604
0
896,426
858,683
(37,743)
648
(38,391)
Totals
Changes in Annual (Non-Hour) Costs from the Current Inventory
The total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this renewal submission of $48,336 is an
increase of $3,445 from the currently approved total of $44,891. This increase in
annual costs is due to both program changes and administrative adjustments.
Program changes
Postage: Added the petitions to the chief administrative patent judge under 37 CFR
41.3 to the collection. The petitions that are filed in paper are mailed to the USPTO
by Express Mail.
12
Administrative Adjustments
Postage: Increase due to an increase in the postage rate for the Express flat rate
mailing envelopes from $18.30 to $19.99. Increase also due to a slight increase in
the number of mailed submissions.
Table 5c: Changes in Annual (Non-hour) Costs from the Current Inventory
Cost
Currently approved
annual cost burden
Program
changes
Administrative
adjustments
Total change in
costs
Updated annual
cost burden
Postage
$44,891.00
$220.00
$3,225.00
$3,445.00
$48,336.00
Totals
$44,891.00
$220.00
$3,225.00
$3,445.00
$48,336.00
16.
Project Schedule
There is no plan to publish this information for statistical use.
17.
Display of Expiration Date of OMB Approval
The forms in this information collection will display the OMB Control Number and the
OMB expiration date.
18.
Exception to the Certificate Statement
This collection of information does not include any exceptions to the certificate
statement.
B.
COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
This collection of information does not employ statistical methods.
13
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | 0651-0063 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Actions |
| Author | USPTO |
| File Modified | 2014-02-24 |
| File Created | 2014-02-24 |