Changes To Facilitate Applicant’s Authorization of Access to Unpublished U.S. Patent Applications by Foreign Intellectual Property Offices

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recording requirements,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

2. Add § 100.35T01–0407 to read as
follows:

■

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

§ 100.35T01–0407 Special Local
Regulation; Great Race On The Sea,
Powerboat Race, Atlantic Ocean, Long
Beach, NY.

(a) Regulated Areas. All coordinates
are North American Datum 1983 (NAD
83).
(1) ‘‘Race Course Area’’: All navigable
waters of the Atlantic Ocean off Long
Beach, NY within the following
boundaries: Beginning at point ‘‘A’’ at
position 40°34′15.84″ N, 073°36′03.82″
W, then west to point ‘‘B″ at position
40°34′06.68″ N, 073°40′09.27″ W, then
north to point ‘‘C’’ at position
40°34′48.56″ N, 073°40′08.70″ W, then
east to point ‘‘D″ at position
40°34′53.33″ N, 073°36′14.93″ W, then
south to the point of origin, point ‘‘A’’.
(2) ‘‘No Entry Area’’: A buffer zone
comprising all navigable waters of the
Atlantic Ocean surrounding the ‘‘Race
Course Area’’ and extending from the
south border 700 feet outwards, from
the east and west borders 1000 feet
outwards and from the north border
extending to the shoreline.
(3) ‘‘Spectator Viewing Area’’: All
navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean
off Long Beach, NY within the following
boundaries: Beginning at point ‘‘A’’ at
position 40°34′00.59″ N, 073°35′53.34″
W, then west to point ‘‘B’’ at position
40°33′54.27″ N, 073°38′33.75″ W, then
north to point ‘‘C’’ at position
40°34′03.29″ N, 073°38′34.11″ W, then
east to point ‘‘D’’ at position
40°34′09.15″ N, 073°35′56.24″ W, then
south to the point of origin, point ‘‘A’’.
(b) Special Local Regulations.
(1) In accordance with the general
regulations found in section 100.35 of
this part, entering into, transiting
through, anchoring or remaining within
the regulated areas is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Sector Long Island Sound, or
designated representative.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:55 Jul 10, 2014

Jkt 232001

(2) The following persons and vessels
are authorized by the COTP Sector Long
Island Sound to enter areas of this
special local regulation:
(i) ‘‘Race Course Area’’: Registered
event participants, safety, support, and
official vessels.
(ii) ‘‘No Entry Area’’:
(A) Registered regatta participants,
safety, support, and official vessels may
transit to or from the ‘‘Race Course
Area’’ at a speed of 25 knots or less
when racing is halted.
(B) Swimmers may utilize all
shoreline waters up to 100 feet from
shore (i.e. end of the jetties).
(iii) ‘‘Spectator Viewing Area’’:
Spectator vessels engaged in viewing
the powerboat race.
(3) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the
COTP Sector Long Island Sound or
designated representative. These
designated representatives are
comprised of commissioned, warrant,
and petty officers of the Coast Guard.
Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing
lights, or other means the operator of a
vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) Persons and vessels desiring to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated areas must
contact the COTP Sector Long Island
Sound by telephone at (203) 468–4401,
or designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the regulated areas is granted by
the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or
designated representative, all persons
and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of
the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or
designated representative.
(5) The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the regulated areas prior to the
event through appropriate means, which
may include but is not limited to, the
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
(c) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section:
(1) Designated Representative. A
‘‘designated representative’’ is any
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Long Island Sound to act on his
or her behalf. The designated
representative may be on an official
patrol vessel or may be on shore and
will communicate with vessels via
VHF–FM radio or loudhailer. In
addition, members of the Coast Guard
Auxiliary may be present to inform
vessel operators of this regulation.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40035

(2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official
patrol vessels may consist of any Coast
Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or
local law enforcement vessels assigned
or approved by the COTP Sector Long
Island Sound.
(3) Spectators. All persons and vessels
not registered with the event sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels.
(d) Enforcement Period: This section
will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until
3:30 p.m. on August 23, 2014 and from
8:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 24,
2014.
Dated: June 30, 2014.
H.L. Morrison,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Captain of the Port, Sector Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2014–16158 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No.: PTO–P–2014–0012]
RIN 0651–AC95

Changes To Facilitate Applicant’s
Authorization of Access to
Unpublished U.S. Patent Applications
by Foreign Intellectual Property Offices
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

The electronic sharing of
information and documents between
intellectual property (IP) offices is
critical for increasing the efficiency and
quality of patent examination
worldwide. Current examples of this
sharing include the priority document
exchange (PDX) program and the
program by which U.S. search results
are delivered to the European Patent
Office (EPO). In support of electronic
file sharing, the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (Office) is
proposing to amend its rules of practice
to include a specific provision by which
an applicant can authorize the Office to
give a foreign IP office access to all or
part of the file contents of an
unpublished U.S. patent application in
order to satisfy a requirement for
information imposed on a counterpart
application filed with the foreign
intellectual property office. Currently,
for unpublished U.S. patent
applications, applicants follow one
regulatory provision to provide the
Office with authorization for a foreign IP
office to access an application-as-filed
via a PDX program and follow another

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM

11JYP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

40036

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules

regulatory provision to provide the
Office with authorization to share the
file contents with a foreign IP office.
The proposed changes to the rules will
consolidate the specific provisions of
the regulations by which applicants give
the Office authority to provide a foreign
IP office with access to an application
in order to satisfy a requirement for
information of the foreign IP office.
Additionally, along with changes to the
application data sheet (ADS) form, the
proposed rule changes will simplify the
process for how applicants provide the
Office with the required authorization,
thereby reducing the resources
applicants must expend to comply with
these foreign IP office requirements, and
enhance the quality of patent
examination.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 9,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
by electronic mail message over the
Internet addressed to: AC95.comments@
uspto.gov. Comments also may be
submitted by postal mail addressed to:
Mail Stop Comments—Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450,
marked to the attention of either Susy
Tsang-Foster, Senior Legal Advisor, or
Joseph F. Weiss, Jr., Senior Legal
Advisor, Office of Patent Legal
Administration, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy.
Comments further may be sent by
electronic mail message over the
Internet via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking
Portal Web site (http://
www.regulations.gov) for additional
instructions on providing comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Although comments may be
submitted by postal mail, the Office
prefers to receive comments by
electronic mail message over the
Internet because sharing comments with
the public is more easily accomplished.
Electronic comments are preferred to be
submitted in plain text, but also may be
submitted in ADOBE® portable
document format or MICROSOFT
WORD® format. Comments not
submitted electronically should be
submitted on paper in a format that
facilitates convenient digital scanning
into ADOBE® portable document
format.
The comments will be available for
public inspection at the Office of the
Commissioner for Patents, currently
located in Madison East, Tenth Floor,
600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
Comments also will be available for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:55 Jul 10, 2014

Jkt 232001

viewing via the Office’s Internet Web
site (http://www.uspto.gov). Because
comments will be made available for
public inspection, information that the
submitter does not desire to make
public, such as an address or phone
number, should not be included in the
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susy Tsang-Foster, Senior Legal Advisor
((571) 272–7711), or Joseph F. Weiss, Jr.,
Senior Legal Advisor ((571) 272–2259),
Office of Patent Legal Administration,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner for
Patent Examination Policy.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
electronic sharing of information and
documents between IP offices is critical
for increasing the efficiency and quality
of patent examination worldwide. The
electronic sharing of documents
between IP offices also benefits
applicants by reducing the cost of
ordering documents from one IP office
and then filing them in another IP office
where a counterpart application has
been filed.
Due to the confidential nature of
unpublished U.S. patent applications,
set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122, an applicant
must provide the Office with written
authority in accordance with 37 CFR
1.14 to grant a foreign IP office access
to an unpublished U.S. patent
application. With this grant of authority,
the Office may electronically provide
the U.S. patent application-as-filed or
the requested file contents, such as
information and documents, from the
U.S. patent application to the foreign IP
office on behalf of the applicant.
Currently, applicants comply with 37
CFR 1.14(h) when authorizing the Office
to give a foreign IP office participating
in a bilateral or multilateral priority
document exchange agreement access to
an unpublished U.S. priority
application-as-filed. 37 CFR 1.14(h),
however, does not provide a specific
provision by which an applicant can
authorize the Office to provide a foreign
IP office access to an unpublished U.S.
patent application’s file contents
including documents and other
information in order to satisfy a
requirement for information imposed on
a counterpart application from a U.S.
applicant by the foreign IP office. As a
result, U.S. applicants, unprompted by
the rules, must provide written
authority for access by a foreign IP office
to an unpublished application’s
contents in accordance with 37 CFR
1.14(c).
The Office is proposing to amend 37
CFR 1.14(h) to include a specific
provision by which an applicant can
authorize the Office to give a foreign IP

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

office access to all or part of the file
contents (as opposed to a copy of the
application-as-filed) of an unpublished
patent application, including search
results, to satisfy a foreign IP office
requirement for information on a
counterpart application filed by an U.S.
applicant. The proposed changes to 37
CFR 1.14(h) would consolidate the
provisions by which applicants
authorize the Office to give access to an
unpublished application-as-filed or its
file contents to a foreign IP office, while
also clarifying for applicants the
provision of 37 CFR 1.14 under which
such access authorization can be
provided. The proposed rule change
will further serve as a reminder of the
opportunity for applicants to grant the
Office with the authority to provide a
foreign IP office with access to file
contents of an unpublished U.S. patent
application.
Any information concerning an
unpublished application or documents
from an unpublished application will
only be shared in accordance with the
authority provided by applicant and in
accordance with the terms of any
agreement between the Office and
respective foreign IP offices. The Office
is not proposing any fee for this service.
In addition, sharing of information and
documents would be limited to those
foreign IP offices where applicant has
filed a counterpart application and
provided written authority to give a
foreign IP office access to all or part of
the file contents of an unpublished U.S.
application.
The proposed changes to 37 CFR
1.14(h) emphasize the Office’s
continued support of work sharing
efforts between IP offices to increase the
quality of issued patents, as well as its
commitment to assist in reducing the
expenditure of resources of its
applicants when complying with the
requirements of a foreign IP office for a
counterpart application.
Revision to Application Data Sheet
Form: In addition to the proposed rule
changes, the Office is planning to revise
the application data sheet (ADS) form,
PTO/AIA/14 (ADS form). The revised
ADS form would include separate
access authorizations for the PDX
program and certain work sharing
initiatives for which the Office has an
agreement with one or more foreign IP
offices.
The submission of a properly signed
revised ADS form with the appropriate
authorization language would be a
specific act authorizing access. After a
revised ADS form including the
authorization language for access by
foreign IP office(s) and signed in
accordance with 37 CFR 1.14(c) and

E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM

11JYP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
1.33(b) has been submitted and placed
in the application file, the Office would
give the foreign IP office(s) access to the
contents in accordance with the specific
authorization language upon request of
the foreign IP office.
In contrast to the current ADS form,
the revised ADS form would include an
‘‘opt-out’’ check box for each access
authorization and not an ‘‘opt-in’’ check
box. Therefore, when an ‘‘opt-out’’
check box for a specific authorization to
access is selected, the Office would not
provide access to the contents of the
application associated with that check
box. The revised ADS form will make it
easier for applicants to give the
statutorily required authorization for
access to specific file contents, as well
as afford an applicant the opportunity to
inform the Office that the required
authority to allow a foreign IP office
specific access to an application has not
been given. Appropriate authorization
language for access in any ADS
generated by applicant must mirror the
authorization language provided in the
Office’s revised ADS form. Where an
applicant-generated ADS does not
include the required authorization
language for access by a foreign IP
office, the ADS will be interpreted as
not providing the authorization
necessary to give a foreign IP office
access.
The changes to the Office’s ADS form
should reduce those instances where an
applicant inadvertently fails to provide
authorization necessary to participate in
PDX (by not selecting the opt-in check
box for priority document exchange
authorization on the current ADS form)
and, as a result, must expend resources
to obtain and file a copy of a U.S.
priority document with a foreign IP
office. Similarly, this approach will help
eliminate those instances where an
applicant inadvertently fails to give the
Office authority (by filing form PTO/SB/
69) to provide the EPO with the search
results from an unpublished U.S.
priority application and, as a
consequence, must expend resources to
file the results with the EPO.
The Office will not deliver an
unpublished priority document, file
contents of an unpublished application,
including information about an
unpublished application, to a foreign IP
office, even where a counterpart
application has been filed, if applicant
does not provide proper written
authority for access. As discussed
above, the revised ADS form would
need to be executed in accordance with
37 CFR 1.33(b), and if there is written
authority for any access by a foreign IP
office, the revised ADS form also must
be executed in accordance with 37 CFR

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:55 Jul 10, 2014

Jkt 232001

1.14(c). Applicants should be aware of
the differences in signature
requirements under 37 CFR 1.33(b) and
under 37 CFR 1.14(c). For example,
under 37 CFR 1.33(b) in applications
filed on or after September 16, 2012, the
following individuals can sign:
• A patent practitioner of record;
• A patent practitioner not of record
who acts in a representative capacity
under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.34; or
• The applicant under 37 CFR 1.42.
Unless otherwise specified, all papers
submitted on behalf of a juristic entity
must be signed by a patent practitioner.
By contrast, under 37 CFR 1.14(c) in
applications filed on or after September
16, 2012, the following individuals can
sign:
• The applicant;
• A patent practitioner of record;
• The assignee or an assignee of an
undivided part interest;
• The inventor or a joint inventor; or
• A registered attorney or agent
named in the papers accompanying the
application papers filed under 37 CFR
1.53 or the national stage under 37 CFR
1.495, if a power of attorney has not
been appointed under 37 CFR 1.32.
Where forms PTO/SB/39 for PDX
authorization and PTO/SB/69 for search
results authorization are used instead of
the revised ADS form, these forms must
still be executed in accordance with 37
CFR 1.14(c) even though written
authority is provided for under
proposed 37 CFR 1.14(h). If the revised
ADS form is not signed in accordance
with the relevant rules, then applicant
has not provided written authority for
access by a foreign IP office to an
application.
The transaction of sharing documents
and information from a U.S. application
with a foreign IP office has several built
in safeguards to ensure that only
authorized sharing occurs. For example,
in order for a foreign IP office to receive
information about a U.S. application,
the Office requires that the foreign IP
office expressly identify the U.S.
application serial number, along with
other elements of bibliographic data for
each U.S. application in its request, to
ensure that only the correct U.S.
application’s information will be given
to the foreign IP office. Once the
application is properly identified, the
Office will then determine whether the
requisite authorization for access exists
in the U.S. application. The Office will
only share information or other file
content from a U.S. application with a
foreign IP office when both the correct
application is identified and the
existence of proper authorization is
confirmed. If an unpublished
application, which has not been foreign

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40037

filed, includes an unintended access
authorization pursuant to proposed 37
CFR 1.14(h), a foreign IP office would
not obtain access because it would not
have the information necessary to
request access to that specific U.S.
application. Further, the U.S.
application’s filing receipt will indicate
whether applicant has provided written
authority for access pursuant to
proposed 37 CFR 1.14(h). Applicants
should inspect the application filing
receipt and request a corrected filing
receipt if authorization for access under
proposed 37 CFR 1.14(h) was
incorrectly captured from the revised
ADS form or applicant-generated ADS.
If authorization for access was
inadvertently given, a request for
rescission of the authorization can be
made, and the Office should be
informed of such rescission as early as
possible so the Office has time to
recognize the request for rescission and
act upon it.
To avoid inconsistent means of
authorization for access and to avoid
duplicative processing, the Office also is
considering removal of the opt-in check
box and associated authorization
language for the PDX program from the
inventor’s oath or declaration form
(PTO/SB/01 for applications filed before
September 16, 2012 and PTO/AIA/08
for applications filed on or after
September 16, 2012). Form PTO/SB/39
for the priority document exchange
authorization and Form PTO/SB/69 for
the search results authorization will
remain available for applicants that do
not use an ADS form or have selected
the check boxes for opting out of
specific authorizations for access by a
foreign IP office on the revised ADS
form, but later decide to give a foreign
IP office access to the application.
Discussion of Specific Rules: The
following is a discussion of the
amendments to title 37 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 1, which are
being proposed in this document.
Section 1.14: Section 1.14(h)(1) is
proposed to retain the first sentence of
current § 1.14(h)(1) and include the
provisions from current § 1.14(h)(3).
Proposed § 1.14(h)(1) also would be
amended to include that the date of
filing of the written authority for
priority document exchange may be
provided to the respective participating
foreign IP office, which codifies the
practice set forth in the Official Gazette
of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (1328 OG 90 (March
11, 2008)). In proposed § 1.14(h)(1), the
text added from current § 1.14(h)(3) has
been amended to delete the language
‘‘indicated in the written authority.’’
This deleted language is not necessary

E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM

11JYP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

40038

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules

as written authority for access under
current § 1.14(h) and proposed § 1.14(h)
will result in access being granted to all
PDX and WIPO Digital Access Service
(DAS) participating foreign IP offices in
which a subsequently filed application
claims benefit of the earlier filed U.S.
application. Within the WIPO DAS
system, however, there is an option
where an applicant may decide which
WIPO DAS foreign IP office(s) are
granted or not granted access.
Proposed § 1.14(h)(1)(i) and (ii) also
are amended to include the term
‘‘bibliographic data’’ to reflect that
‘‘bibliographic data’’ is used to ensure
the correct application-as-filed is being
provided to the participating foreign IP
office requesting access in any access to
the application-as-filed transaction. The
term bibliographic data as used in
proposed § 1.14(h)(1) covers certain
bibliographic data set forth in WIPO
standard ST.9 for bibliographic data.
The bibliographic data used to confirm
that the correct application-as-filed is
being provided may include the patent
document identification, filing data,
priority data, publication data, data
concerning technical information such
as patent classification (international or
domestic), and title of the invention.
Proposed § 1.14(h)(2) would permit an
applicant to authorize the Office to grant
a foreign IP office access to the file
contents of an application where a
counterpart application has been filed
with a foreign IP office and the
counterpart application is subject to a
requirement for information from the
application filed with the Office. The
Office would only provide access to the
relevant portion or portions of an
unpublished U.S. application’s file
contents necessary to satisfy any
requirement for information by the
foreign IP office, triggered by the U.S.
applicant filing a counterpart
application with the foreign IP office.
The Office and the foreign IP office
would need to have a bilateral or
multilateral agreement that provides for
the secure transmission and receipt of
any shared information. Proposed
§ 1.14(h)(2)(i) includes the term
‘‘bibliographic data’’ to reflect that
‘‘bibliographic data’’ is used to ensure
the information is from the correct
application for which access has been
requested by the foreign IP office in any
access to the application. The term
bibliographic data as used in § 1.14(h)(2)
includes the same types of bibliographic
data set discussed above with respect to
§ 1.14(h)(1).
Current § 1.14(h)(2) has been moved
to proposed § 1.14(h)(3).
Section 1.14(h)(3) as proposed
indicates that written authority

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:55 Jul 10, 2014

Jkt 232001

provided under proposed §§ 1.14(h)(1)
and (h)(2) should be submitted before
the filing of any subsequent foreign
application in which priority is claimed
to the application. Section 1.14(h)(3) as
proposed also indicates that the written
authority under §§ 1.14(h)(1) and (2)
must include the title of the invention
(§ 1.72(a)), comply with the
requirements of § 1.14(c), and must be
submitted on an application data sheet
(§ 1.76) or on a separate document
(§ 1.4(c)).
Section 1.19: Section 1.19(b)(1)(iv) is
proposed to be amended to indicate
there is no fee for providing a foreign IP
office with a copy of either an
application-as-filed or patent related file
wrapper and contents pursuant to a
bilateral or multilateral agreement (see
§ 1.14(h)).
Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: This
rulemaking amends the rules of practice
to include a specific provision by which
an applicant can authorize the Office to
give a foreign IP office access to all or
part of the file contents of an
application, and thus pertains solely to
the process for an applicant to provide
a limited waiver of confidentiality
under 35 U.S.C. 122(a) to allow a
counterpart IP office access to all or part
of the file contents of an application.
Therefore, the changes proposed in this
rulemaking involve rules of agency
practice and procedure and/or
interpretive rules. See Bachow
Commc’ns Inc. v. F.C.C., 237 F.3d 683,
690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an
application process are procedural
under the Administrative Procedure
Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala,
244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules
for handling appeals were procedural
where they did not change the
substantive standard for reviewing
claims).
Accordingly, prior notice and
opportunity for public comment are not
required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or
(c) (or any other law). See Cooper Techs.
Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–37
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C.
553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does
not require notice and comment
rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative rules,
general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or
practice’’) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)).
The Office, however, is publishing these
proposed changes for comment as it
seeks the benefit of the public’s views
on the Office’s proposed changes to
provide the Office with authority to give
a foreign IP office access to all or part
of the file contents of an application.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the
reasons set forth herein, the Deputy
General Counsel for General Law of the
United States Patent and Trademark
Office has certified to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that changes proposed
in this document will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. See
5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This rulemaking amends the rules of
practice to include a specific provision
by which an applicant can authorize the
Office to give a foreign IP office access
to all or part of the file contents of an
application. This rulemaking
consolidates and clarifies in one place—
37 CFR 1.14(h)—existing procedures in
both 37 CFR 1.14(c) and (h) relevant to
authorizing the Office to provide a
foreign IP office access to all or part of
the file contents of an application or to
an application-as-filed. The changes in
this rulemaking do not require any
applicant to provide the Office with this
authority. There is no fee for this
service. Therefore, the changes
proposed in this document will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review): This rulemaking
has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review): The
Office has complied with Executive
Order 13563. Specifically, the Office
has, to the extent feasible and
applicable: (1) Made a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify
the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule
to impose the least burden on society
consistent with obtaining the regulatory
objectives; (3) selected a regulatory
approach that maximizes net benefits;
(4) specified performance objectives; (5)
identified and assessed available
alternatives; (6) involved the public in
an open exchange of information and
perspectives among experts in relevant
disciplines, affected stakeholders in the
private sector, and the public as a
whole, and provided on-line access to
the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to
promote coordination, simplification,
and harmonization across government
agencies and identified goals designed
to promote innovation; (8) considered
approaches that reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public; and (9) ensured
the objectivity of scientific and
technological information and
processes.
E. Executive Order 13132
(Federalism): This rulemaking does not

E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM

11JYP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment
under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4,
1999).
F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation): This rulemaking will not:
(1) Have substantial direct effects on one
or more Indian tribes; (2) impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments; or (3)
preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not
required under Executive Order 13175
(Nov. 6, 2000).
G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under
Executive Order 13211 because this
rulemaking is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore,
a Statement of Energy Effects is not
required under Executive Order 13211
(May 18, 2001).
H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets
applicable standards to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden as set forth in sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children): This rulemaking does not
concern an environmental risk to health
or safety that may disproportionately
affect children under Executive Order
13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property): This rulemaking will
not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications
under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15,
1988).
K. Congressional Review Act: Under
the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to
issuing any final rule, the United States
Patent and Trademark Office will
submit a report containing the final rule
and other required information to the
United States Senate, the United States
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the Government
Accountability Office. The changes in
this proposed rule are not expected to
result in an annual effect on the
economy of 100 million dollars or more,
a major increase in costs or prices, or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, this proposed rule is not

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:55 Jul 10, 2014

Jkt 232001

expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995: The changes set forth in this
proposed rule do not involve a Federal
intergovernmental mandate that will
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or
more in any one year, or a Federal
private sector mandate that will result
in the expenditure by the private sector
of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or
more in any one year, and will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions are
necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
M. National Environmental Policy
Act: This rulemaking will not have any
effect on the quality of the environment
and is thus categorically excluded from
review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
N. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act: The requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not
applicable because this rulemaking does
not contain provisions which involve
the use of technical standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the
Office consider the impact of paperwork
and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. This
rulemaking involves information
collection requirements which are
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3549). The collection of
information involved in this rulemaking
has been reviewed and previously
approved by OMB under OMB Control
Numbers 0651–0031 and 0651–0032.
The Office is not resubmitting an
information collection package to OMB
for its review and approval because the
changes in this rulemaking do not
change patent fees or change the
information collection requirements (the
estimated number of respondents, time
per response, total annual respondent
burden hours, or total annual
respondent cost burden) associated with
the information collections approved
under OMB Control Numbers 0651–
0031 and 0651–0032.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

40039

Reduction Act, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Inventions and patents,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
PATENT CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR
part 1 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).

2. Section 1.14 is amended by revising
paragraph (h) to read as follows:

■

§ 1.14 Patent applications preserved in
confidence.

*

*
*
*
*
(h) Access by a Foreign Intellectual
Property Office. (1) Access to an
application-as-filed may be provided to
any foreign intellectual property office
participating with the Office in a
bilateral or multilateral priority
document exchange agreement
(participating foreign intellectual
property office), if the application
contains written authority granting such
access. Written authority provided
under this paragraph (h)(1) will be
treated as authorizing the Office to
provide to all participating foreign
intellectual property offices in
accordance with their respective
agreements with the Office:
(i) A copy of the application-as-filed
and its related bibliographic data;
(ii) A copy of the application-as-filed
of any application the filing date of
which is claimed by the application in
which written authority under this
paragraph (h)(1) is filed and its related
bibliographic data; and
(iii) The date of filing of the written
authorization under this paragraph
(h)(1).
(2) Access to the file contents of an
application may be provided to a foreign
intellectual property office if a
counterpart application filed with the
foreign intellectual property office is
subject to a requirement for information
from the application filed with the
Office, the application contains written
authority granting the foreign
intellectual property office access to the
required information, and the Office and
the foreign intellectual property office
have a bilateral or multilateral
agreement to provide the required
information. Written authority provided

E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM

11JYP1

40040

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules

under this paragraph (h)(2) will be
treated as authorizing the Office to
provide to all foreign intellectual
property offices indicated in the written
authority in accordance with their
respective agreements with the Office:
(i) Bibliographic data regarding the
application; and
(ii) Any content of the application file
necessary to satisfy the foreign
intellectual property office requirement
for information indicated in the
respective agreement.
(3) Written authority provided under
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this
section must include the title of the
invention (§ 1.72(a)), comply with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section, and be submitted on an
application data sheet (§ 1.76) or on a
separate document (§ 1.4(c)). The
written authority provided under these
paragraphs should be submitted before
filing any subsequent foreign
application in which priority is claimed
to the application.
■ 3. Section 1.19 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
§ 1.19

Document supply fees.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) If provided to a foreign
intellectual property office pursuant to
a bilateral or multilateral agreement (see
§ 1.14(h)): $0.00.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: July 2, 2014.
Michelle K. Lee,
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office.
[FR Doc. 2014–16062 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

pesticide products and devices that are
intended solely for export must meet the
Agency’s labeling requirements by
attaching a label to the immediate
product container or by providing
collateral labeling that is either attached
to the immediate product being
exported or that accompanies the
shipping container of the product being
exported at all times when it is shipped
or held for shipment in the United
States. Collateral labeling will ensure
the availability of the required labeling
information, while allowing pesticide
products and devices that are intended
solely for export to be labeled for use in
and consistent with the applicable
requirements of the importing country.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 11, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0607, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at http://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting
or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is
available at http://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 168
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0607; FRL–9913–19]
RIN 2070–AJ53

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Labeling of Pesticide Products and
Devices for Export; Clarification of
Requirements

I. Executive Summary
A. Does this action affect me?

Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

EPA is proposing to amend
the regulations that pertain to the
labeling of pesticide products and
devices that are intended solely for
export. These amendments clarify that

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:55 Jul 10, 2014

Jkt 232001

Kathryn Boyle, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (703) 305–6304;
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

You may be potentially affected by
this action if you export a pesticide
product, a pesticide device, or an active
ingredient used in producing a
pesticide. The following list of North
American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes is not intended
to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to: Pesticide
and other agricultural chemical
manufacturing (NAICS code 325320),
e.g., Pesticides manufacturing,
Insecticides manufacturing, Herbicides
manufacturing, Fungicides
manufacturing, etc.
B. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
This action is issued under the
authority of section 25(a) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a), to carry
out the provisions of FIFRA section
17(a), 7 U.S.C. 136o(a).
C. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is proposing to amend the
regulations that pertain to the labeling
of pesticide products and devices that
are intended solely for export. These
amendments clarify that pesticide
products and devices that are intended
solely for export must meet the
Agency’s labeling requirements by
attaching a label to the immediate
product container or by providing
collateral labeling that is either attached
to the immediate product being
exported or that accompanies the
shipping container of the product being
exported at all times when it is shipped
or held for shipment in the United
States. Collateral labeling will ensure
the availability of the required labeling
information, while allowing pesticide
products and devices that are intended
solely for export to be labeled for use in
and consistent with the applicable
requirements of the importing country.
D. What are the impacts of this action?
There are no costs associated with
this action, and the benefits provided
are related to avoiding potential costs.
Without these labeling provisions,
registrants would be required to place
export-related labeling on the
immediate package of each individual
pesticide product in a shipping
container that is intended solely for
export. According to stakeholders, the
inability to use the labeling method
allowed under the previous regulations
could significantly increase their costs
and create trade barriers.
II. Background
A. The April 30, 2014 Direct Final Rule
Industry stakeholders subsequently
brought to the Agency’s attention their
concern that removing the term
‘‘supplemental labeling’’ resulted in the
removal of a provision stating that such
supplemental labeling can be attached
to a shipping container holding export

E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM

11JYP1